63) The Committee recalled that its last session had returned the Proposed Draft Recommendations for redrafting by a Working Group coordinated by Canada in order to combine the different labelling options proposed in the comments and during the discussion.
64) The Chair of the Working Group (Mr Gerry Reasbeck, Canada) informed the Committee that a smaller Drafting Group had met twice to facilitate the revision of the text and expressed his thanks to India and Brazil for hosting these meetings between the sessions. As a result of extensive discussion, the Working Group had revised the text in the form of Guidelines which allowed different labelling options, including comprehensive labelling, and provided guidance on labelling requirements in each case. The Guidelines presented in CX/FL 01/7 also included an explanation of the changes made in Annex 2 and a discussion paper on a number of issues which had been raised at the last session of the CCFL (Attachment A).
65) The Committee expressed its appreciation to Mr Reasbeck and to the Working Group for their considerable efforts and constructive approach to address these complex issues, in order to facilitate the work of the Committee.
General comments
66) The Delegation of Argentina expressed a general reservation on the entire document in principle due to its likely implications in international trade, recalling the basic objectives of Codex and the Statements of Principle on the Role of Science and the Extent to which Other Factors are Taken into Account. The Delegation emphasized that labelling of food according to the process of production had been object of negative decisions in the framework of WTO. It recalled that the Committee on General Principles at its last session, had agreed that reference to «other factors» beyond science should be based on recommendations from other multilateral fora. It requested, accordingly, that no further work should be undertaken on this document. The Delegation of the United States also referred to rights and obligations previously agreed in the WTO. The Secretariat recalled that the CCGP had discussed the role of science and other factors in relation to risk analysis and proposed several Criteria for the Consideration of Other Factors in relation to the Statements of Principle but there had been no agreement on the reference to the «recommendations of relevant multilateral intergovernmental organizations» and the relevant text (in square brackets) was forwarded to the Commission for consideration (ALINORM 01/33A, paras. 92-98). The Secretariat also recalled that the development of labelling provisions for different types of foods, including those produced through biotechnology was in conformity with the terms of reference of the CCFL and the mandate of Codex.
67) Some delegations questioned the development of Guidelines which would provide different options according to the regulatory approach taken in member countries since this was not the usual approach in Codex and it was not clear how this would apply in case of trade disputes. These delegations indicated that Codex should rather give general recommendations that could be applied in all countries as a basis for international harmonization.
Purpose
68) The Committee agreed that the purpose was “to provide guidelines to ensure” that labelling provided the required information and amended the text accordingly.
69) The Committee noted proposals to replace “obtained through” with “derived from” certain techniques and to replace “certain techniques” with “techniques” in the purpose and the Title. After an exchange of views, the Committee however agreed to retain the wording used in the Definitions which had been finalized earlier (see para 64 above).
70) Some delegations proposed to refer to “verifiable” information, as there was no guarantee against misleading labelling and claims if the information could not be verified. Other delegations objected to this inclusion as it would restrict the information provided to consumers.
71) Several delegations proposed to delete the reference to “facilitating consumer choice” as it was not necessary and it was clear that information was provided “to consumers”. Other delegations stressed that the overall objective of food labelling was to facilitate consumer choice and it was retained in the Purpose.
72) The Delegation of Argentina, supported by several delegations proposed that the information should be “relevant for consumer health protection and the promotion of fair practices in foods trade”, as indicated in the second Statement of Principles on the Role of Science and the Extent to which Other Factors are Taken into Account. Some delegations indicated that such a reference was not relevant, as the purpose of labelling was to ensure consumer information irrespective of health concerns. As a compromise, the Committee agreed that reference should also be made to the third Statement of Principle concerning labelling, as proposed by the Observer from Consumers International.
73) The Committee agreed that the revised text of the first paragraph including the above amendments should be placed in square brackets for further consideration (see Appendix V). The Delegation of India proposed that the second paragraph should be deleted. The Committee did not discuss specifically the second paragraph and it was not amended.
Scope
74) The Delegation of Argentina proposed to include a statement to the effect that Codex standards should not affect other obligations of member countries at the international level, as recommended by the Committee on General Principles (see also para. 66).
75) The Delegation of India proposed to refer to “genetically modified foods and food ingredients and products derived therefrom” which are “not equivalent” as it was more easily understood by consumers, and to retain only “and” between the different cases described in section 1.1 to reflect that the Guidelines applied in all cases.
76) The Committee agreed to replace “corresponding existing food and ingredients” with “conventional counterpart”[11] to be consistent with the term used in the Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology and the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Safety Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods of Plant Origin.
77) The Delegation of Italy proposed that labelling should not be limited to foods intended for the final consumer but should apply throughout the food chain. The Committee noted that further discussion would be required on this question, since the purpose of the Guidelines currently referred to providing information to consumers.
78) The Committee agreed with the proposal of the Delegation of Norway to separate section 1.1 into three sub-sections (1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3) to make it clear that the three options presented were open for further consideration and “and/or” was retained between these options. The Delegations of Canada and the United States proposed to retain the current section 1.1.2 in square brackets until a decision was made on labelling to indicate the method of production. The Delegation of Australia pointed out that there was no agreement on methodology or criteria for determining compliance/enforcement of the Proposed Draft Guidelines. The Committee did not consider this section further at this stage.
Status of the Proposed Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering (Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Labelling of Foods and Food Ingredients Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering)
79) The Committee was not able to proceed further with the consideration of the Guidelines due to time constraints and agreed that the current text, as amended at the current session should be returned to Step 3 for further comments (see Appendix V). It was also agreed that the existing Working Group, extended to all interested member countries and international organizations and coordinated by Canada would work by electronic mail to consider the comments received in order to prepare a revised text for consideration by the next session.
Other matters
80) The Committee could not discuss the proposal from the Delegations of Australia and South Africa concerning Negative Claims (CRD 1) and agreed that it would be considered at the next session in conjunction with the Proposed Draft Guidelines.
