AMENDMENTS TO THE PROCEDURAL MANUAL (Agenda Item 3)^[3]

Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure

Proposed Amendments concerning the enlargement of the Executive Committee, the functions of the Executive Committee and matters related to budget and expenses

Proposed Amendments to Rules VIII.5 - Observers

9. As the quorum specified in Rule V.6 of the Rules of Procedure was not constituted, the Commission was unable to adopt the proposed amendments and agreed that their consideration should be deferred to its next session.

Proposals to Amend Other Sections of the Procedural Manual

Amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts

10. The Delegation of India, referring to its written comments, proposed some amendments to take into account more specifically the needs of developing countries. Under Part 2. Critical Review, the Delegation also proposed to take the decision to entrust work to a Committee other than the one to which it had been originally entrusted “on the basis of the recommendation of the said Committee”; and to delete the requirement to ensure that draft standards “are technically and legally sound” (paragraph 7) as technical aspects should be addressed by the Committee concerned. The Delegation also proposed that monitoring should apply only to the progress in developing standards; and that the critical review should not be applied at Steps 5 and 8, but only to new work. The Delegation of Singapore proposed to amend paragraph 2 to reflect that the Commission should take its decision “taking into account” the critical review. These proposals were supported by several other delegations.

11. The Delegation of India proposed to refer to consensus instead of a two-third majority throughout the text. Other delegations supported the current text and pointed out that there was no definition of consensus in the framework of Codex. The Commission also noted that the requirement for a two-third majority already existed in the current Elaboration Procedure and that such a major change would require consideration in the Committee on General Principles.

12. Some delegations proposed to return the text for further consideration by the Committee on General Principles as a number of significant changes had been proposed. Several other delegations stressed the need to adopt the amendment to the Elaboration Procedure concerning the Critical Review as this was the essential to allow the Executive Committee to carry out its standard management functions, following the decision of the 26^th Session of the Commission in this respect.

13. After some discussion, the Commission agreed to amend paragraph 2 of the Critical Review to refer to “taking into account” a critical review; and paragraph 7 to delete the requirement for ensuring that draft standards are “technically and legally sound”. With this amendment, the Commission adopted the amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts as proposed (see Appendix II to this report). The Commission also agreed to refer to the Committee on General Principles the other comments made by India.

Draft Criteria for the appointment of Chairpersons

Draft Guidelines to Host Governments of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces

Draft Guidelines on the Conduct of Meetings of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces

Draft Guidelines to Chairpersons of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces

14. The Commission adopted the texts as proposed by the Committee on General Principles (see Appendix II to this report).

Matters related to Methods of Analysis and Sampling

General Criteria for the Selection of Single Laboratory Validated Methods of Analysis Principle

Amendments to the Analytical terminology for Codex Use

15. The Commission adopted the texts as proposed by the Committee on General Principles (see Appendix II to this report).

Definitions of Risk Analysis Terms related to Food Safety

16. The Commission adopted the definitions on an interim basis, for inclusion in the Procedural Manual (see Appendix II to this report), on the understanding that the Committee on General Principles would reconsider these definitions if required in the light of the advice of the Committee on Pesticide Residues, the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, the Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, the Committee on Meat Hygiene, and the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems.

Definition of Traceability/Product Tracing

17. The Delegation of India, supported by other delegations, questioned the definition as it did not specify how the stages of production, processing and distribution would be specified and the current text might result in potential barriers to trade, and therefore proposed to add, at the end of the definition, the phrase “as far as possible”.

18. Several delegations supported the current text of the definition as it resulted from substantial discussion in the Committee on General Principles and was necessary to further work on traceability/product tracing in Codex.

19. The Delegation of Mexico, while supporting the adoption of the definition, expressed the view that its application should be deferred until the principles under development in the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) had been finalized. This position was supported by several delegations from the Region of Latin America and the Caribbean.

20. The Commission adopted the definition as proposed by the Committee on General Principles (see Appendix II to this report) and requested the CCFICS to present a proposal for new work on principles for the application of traceability/product tracing as a matter of priority. The Delegations of Mexico, Argentina, Chile and India maintained the view that the application of the definition should be deferred until the principles under development had been finalized.