21. The results of the Commission’s consideration of the Draft Standards and Related Texts submitted by its subsidiary bodies at Step 8 are presented in tabular form in Appendix III of the present report. The following paragraphs provide additional information on the comments made and the decisions taken on certain items.
22. The Commission noted that no requests had been received to change the status of the standard and therefore agreed to continue to hold the draft standard at Step 8.
23. The Commission agreed to make a final decision regarding the draft Code when considering the text forwarded by the 5th Session of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Animal Feeding (see the paragraph below).
24. The Commission adopted the entire draft Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding, including the outstanding issues that were returned to the Task Force for finalization[8], with an amendment in the Spanish version of paragraph 12 to refer to “efectos adversos posibles” instead of “riesgos posibles”. The Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Animal Feeding, hosted by Denmark, expressed the view that the term “other substances” in the footnote of the definition of feed additives did not include antibiotics.
25. In noting that the two texts had not been endorsed by the 20th Session of the Committee on General Principles[11] (CCGP), the Commission deferred their consideration until its next session pending endorsement by CCGP.
26. The Commission adopted the draft Food Category Systems of the General Standard at Step 8 with amendments to the descriptors of food categories 01.3 “Condensed milk and analogues (plain)”, 01.3.2 “Beverage whiteners”, 01.5.2 “Milk and cream powder analogues” and 02.3 “Fat emulsions of type oil-in-water, including mixed and/or flavoured products based on fat emulsions” to take account of relevant decisions of the 6th Session of the Committee on Milk and Milk Products (CCMMP) regarding the name of milk products with vegetable fat[13]. It also noted that the descriptor of food category 14.1.2.1 “Fruit juice” would be amended according to the clarification of the 4th Session of the Task Force on Fruit and Vegetable Juices on the inclusion of coconut water.
27. The Commission adopted the Draft and Proposed Draft Revision to Table 1 of the General Standard on Food Additives at Step 8 and Steps 5/8 as proposed. With regard to benzoates in food category 14.1.4, the Commission adopted the maximum level on an interim basis with the understanding that a review be conducted by CCFAC within 3 years and that comprehensive information on the levels of use of benzoates in different types of foods and in different parts of the world and the results of intake studies, particularly in children, and other relevant data should be provided to JECFA to facilitate its further assessment.
28. In addition to the decision above, following the proposal by the Delegation of Chile, supported by other delegations, the Commission agreed to request the Committee on General Principles to clarify the interpretation of the “adoption on an interim basis”.
29. The Commission noted the concern of the Delegation of the European Community about the proposed level of 600 mg/kg for benzoates in water-based flavoured drinks (food category 14.1.4) given the potential to exceed the ADI, particularly in children and that due regard be given to the technological need. The Delegation of Mexico expressed its reservation on the above level for benzoates in food category 14.1.4 as the level applied in its national legislation was 1000 mg/kg.
30. The Commission adopted the above draft and proposed draft texts at Step 8 and Steps 5/8 as proposed by the Committee.
31. In reply to a question concerning the existence of two maximum levels of histamine, the Commission noted that the level of 10 mg/kg was an indicator of decomposition (quality factor) while the level of 20 mg/kg was related to food safety and included in the Food Hygiene Section, that had been endorsed by the Committee on Food Hygiene. The existence of these two maximum levels of histamine was also consistent with other Codex standards on fish and fishery products.
32. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard as proposed.
33. The Commission noted that Section 5.2.7 Lot Identifier/Date Code referred to “traceability of the product in the event of public health investigations”. The Delegation of Thailand proposed to replace the term “traceability” with “recall”, given that the principles concerning traceability were still under consideration in the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems.
34. The Commission agreed to add a reference to product tracing to ensure consistency with the definition adopted at the current session and the terminology used throughout Codex. With this amendment the Commission adopted the Draft Model Certificate for Fish and Fishery Product (Sanitary Certificate) as proposed.
35. The Delegation of China proposed to include the freshwater crayfish in the Standard. The Delegation of South Africa proposed to develop a specific standard for freshwater crayfish in view of the specificity of freshwater species.
36. The Commission recalled that the purpose of the Draft Amendment was to include only certain species in the Standard and that the scope could not be amended at this stage. The Commission agreed that the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products might consider the development of provisions applicable to freshwater crayfish.
37. The Commission adopted the Draft Amendment to the Standard for Quick Frozen Lobsters as proposed by the Committee.
38. The Delegation of Thailand, supported by the Delegation of India, expressed the view that the section on Aquaculture should not be adopted at Step 5/8 and required further consideration in view of its importance and possible impact on aquaculture production. The Delegation also proposed to delete the reference to the OIE Codes of Practice in the Preamble.
39. The Delegation of Norway, speaking as the host country for the Committee on Fish and Fishery products, recalled that the section on aquaculture had been developed by consensus in the Committee and that the reference to OIE Codes already existed in other Codex texts.
40. The Delegation of Malaysia proposed to replace the word “fodder” with “formulated feed” in the definition of “Fish Feed” for consistency with the terminology used in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
41. Some delegations proposed to review the provisions on “product tracing” in order to ensure consistency throughout Codex and in the light of the discussions held at the current session.
42. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Section on Aquaculture at Step 5.
43. The Commission adopted the section on Quick Frozen Coated Fish Products at Step 5/8 for inclusion in the Code of Practice on Fish and Fishery Products and agreed that it would replace the provisions on fish products in the Code of Practice for Frozen Battered and/or Breaded Fishery Products (CAC/RCP 35-1985), while the provisions of the Code for other fishery products remained unchanged.
44. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard for Oranges at Step 8 as proposed by the Committee.
45. The Commission agreed to add the following text to the end of footnote 9 of Appendix II of the draft Code: “The use of the lactoperoxidase system for milk and milk products in international trade will be re-examined by the Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) after completion of an expert review by FAO and WHO of available data and considering the FAO Lactoperoxidase Expert Group report about potential risks and benefits of lactoperoxidase system. CCFH will then review the issue in 2006”.
46. With this amendment, the Commission adopted the draft Code at Step 8 as proposed and agreed to revoke the Code of Hygienic Practice for Dried Milk (CAC/RCP 31-1983).
47. The Commission amended the proposed draft Principles and Guidelines at Step 5/8 as follows: i) in paragraph 10 the term “a large geographical area” was changed to “a given geographical region”; ii) in paragraph 17 (a) “any” was added to “assumptions”; and, iii) in paragraph 22 “whenever possible” was added after “initial notification of the food safety problem including”. With these amendments and some editorial changes to the Spanish version, the Commission adopted the proposed draft General Principles and Guidelines at Steps 5 and 8.
48. The Delegation of Malaysia expressed the view that the Draft Guidelines should not be adopted at this stage since the criteria for the scientific basis of health claims, currently under consideration in the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, had not been finalized.
49. The Delegation of South Africa objected to the adoption of the Draft Guidelines as the Preamble referred to Section 3.4 of the General Guidelines on Claims prohibiting “claims as to the suitability of a food for use in the prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of disease”, which was not consistent with current scientific evidence. The Delegation therefore proposed to delete this reference and to initiate the revision of the General Guidelines on Claims.
50. Many delegations supported the adoption of the text as proposed as it resulted from extensive detailed discussion in the Committee.
51. The Commission adopted the Draft Guidelines as proposed and noted that the Committee on Food Labelling could review the Guidelines in the light of the criteria for the scientific basis of health claims being developed by the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses at a later stage.
52. The Delegation of South Africa expressed its reservation on this decision.
53. The Delegation of South Africa, while not objecting to the amendment, expressed its concern with the methodology for the determination of fish content since no nitrogen conversion factors were defined for several species commonly used in fish sticks, and Good Manufacturing Practices were not defined. The Delegation pointed out that trade problems might arise from different interpretations of the current provisions.
54. The Delegation of Thailand proposed several amendments for clarification purposes and expressed the view that the list of fish species in Table 2 should be revised to include other species of importance in international trade, when additional data became available. The Commission corrected the reference to the routine method AOAC 996.15.
55. The Committee adopted the Draft Amendment with the understanding that further consideration could be given to the methodology and that Table 2 (nitrogen factors) could be amended as required in the light of additional data on other fish species.
56. The Commission agreed to amend Table 2: Preparations of Neem to clarify that the need recognized by the certification body or authority applied to “commercial preparations/products” and to clarify the conditions of use for Extract from Mushrooms (Shiitake fungus) with the addition of “need recognized by the certification body or authority”, as proposed by the Delegation of India. The Delegation also proposed to delete the entry for “Tobacco tea” as it was excluded from “Natural plant preparations”.
57. The Commission agreed to amend Table 1 to refer to “sorted composted or fermented home refuse” as proposed by the Delegation of Tunisia. The Delegation also proposed to add olive and date palm by-products to the entry for by-products from oil palm, coconut and cocoa. The Commission agreed that these proposals should be put forward in the Committee on Food Labelling.
58. The Commission noted that minor amendments could be made for clarification purposes but proposals for addition or deletion of substances in the lists should be considered by the Committee on Food Labelling.
59. The Commission adopted the Draft Revised Annex 2: Tables 1 and 2 with the adopted amendments mentioned above.
60. The Commission adopted the Draft General Guidelines as proposed and agreed that the editorial comments from Brazil[29] should be included in the final version. The Commission agreed that the General Guidelines replaced the current Sampling Plans for Prepackaged Foods (AQL 6.5) (CODEX STAN 233-1969).
61. The Commission agreed to insert a reference to validated methods in the Introduction, as an alternative to collaboratively tested methods that were not always available, as proposed by the Delegation of Brazil.
62. The Delegation of New Zealand, while not objecting to the adoption of the Draft Guidelines, expressed the view that it was not clear how the information on measurement uncertainty would be used, and that barriers to trade might result from misuse or misunderstanding. The Delegation referred to the ongoing discussion in the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) on the use of analytical results, and pointed out that matters relating to measurement uncertainty should be considered in relation with other relevant Codex texts. This position was supported by other delegations.
63. The Commission adopted the Draft Guidelines with the above amendment. The Commission noted that matters related to measurement uncertainty and the use of analytical results required further consideration in the CCMAS and that the Guidelines on Measurement Uncertainty might be reviewed as a result of further work in this area.
64. The Commission adopted the methods of analysis as proposed, and noted that the adoption of the method for the determination of saccharin in beverages would be considered when provisions for saccharin in beverages had been finalized.
65. The Commission adopted the methods of analysis as proposed by the Committee.
66. The Commission noted that the MRL for carbaryl (08) for sorghum forage (dry) should be 50 mg/kg instead of 5 mg/kg and that the MRL for fenaminphos (85) for banana should be marked with an asterisk to indicate that this MRL is at or about the limit of determination. With these amendments, the Commission adopted the draft MRLs and proposed draft MRLs at Step 8 and Step 5/8 as proposed.
|
[4] ALINORM 04/27/6; ALINORM
04/27/6A; LIM.4 (Comments of Cuba, Malaysia and South Africa); LIM.18 (Comments
of Consumer International); LIM.20 (Comments of the European Community); LIM.22
(Comments of Indonesia); LIM.27 (Comments of Thailand). [5] ALINORM 95/31, Appendix II; ALINORM 97/37, paras 64-69; ALINORM 03/41, para. 34. [6] ALINORM 03/38A, Appendix II; ALINORM 03/41, para. 41. [7] ALINORM 04/27/38, Appendix II. [8] ALINORM 04/31, para. 41. [9] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix II. [10] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XIV. [11] ALINORM 04/27/33A, paras 27 and 29. [12] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix V. [13] ALINORM 04/27/11, paras 23-46. [14] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix VI. [15] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XV. [16] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XVI. [17] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XI. [18] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XII. [19] ALINORM 04/27/18, Appendices II, III, IV and V. [20] ALINORM 04/27/18, Appendix II. [21] ALINORM 04/27/18, Appendix III; LIM.27 (Comments from Thailand). [22] ALINORM 04/27/18, Appendix IV. [23] ALINORM 04/27/18, Appendix V; LIM.27 (Comments from Thailand). [24] ALINORM 04/35, Appendix II and ALINORM 04/27/6A (Comments from Brazil). [25] ALINORM 04/27/13, Appendix III; LIM 4 (Comments from Cuba). [26] ALINORM 04/27/30, Appendix II. [27] ALINORM 04/27/22, Appendices II, III and IV; LIM.27 (Comments from Thailand) [28] ALINORM 04/27/23, Appendices II, III and VI; ALINORM 04/27/6A. [29] ALINORM 04/27/6A [30] ALINORM 04/27/24, Appendices II and III. |
