67. The results of the Commission’s consideration of the Proposed Draft Standards and Related Texts submitted by its subsidiary bodies at Step 5 are presented in tabular form in Appendix IV of the present report. The following paragraphs provide additional information on the comments made and the decisions taken on certain items.
68. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for cadmium at Step 5 and advanced them to Step 6 as proposed, with the exception of the proposed draft maximum level for cadmium in polished rice, which was returned to Step 3 for further consideration by the CCFAC, due to the concern that the maximum level proposed could result in intakes exceeding the PTWI in certain populations. In noting that cadmium was scheduled for evaluation by JECFA in February 2005, the Commission requested CCFAC to take careful account of the results of this evaluation and encouraged countries to provide information and data to JECFA to facilitate its assessment.
69. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Code of Practice at Step 5 and advanced it to Step 6 as proposed. It noted that the comments of the Delegation of Brazil regarding the inclusion of a section to address the particular aspects of Brazil nuts which were not grown on a farm base but collected in the forest would be referred to and further considered by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants at its next session.
70. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Code of Practice at Step 5 and advanced it to Step 6 as proposed.
71. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Guideline Levels at Step 5 and advanced them to Step 6 as proposed. The Commission noted the reservation of the delegations of Singapore and Malaysia concerning the levels proposed for individual radionuclides that might result in the safe level of 1 mSv being exceeded in the case of nuclear accident thus questioning the scientific assumption used for establishing these levels. In this regard, the Representative of IAEA indicated that these concerns together with the reservation of the European Community concerning the deletion of a category for “infant foods”, expressed at the last Session of the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants[36], would be addressed in its written comments on the revised guideline levels.
72. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendment at Step 5 as proposed.
73. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Standard for Tomatoes at Step 5 and advanced it to Step 6 as proposed by the Committee. In taking this decision, the Commission agreed that technical comments submitted at Step 5 should be referred to the Committee for consideration at its next Session.
74. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendment at Step 5 and noted that the comments from Brazil could be addressed at Step 7 by the Committee.
75. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Standards at Step 5 and advanced them to Step 6 as proposed. In noting that some parts of the texts, in particular on sections on scope, composition and labelling needed further work, the Commission invited the delegations to submit their comments to the Committee. In relation to the above, the Delegation of Malaysia proposed that the Committee on Milk and Milk Products reconsider products for further processing in scope and the use of the word “filled” in labelling. The Delegation of Costa Rica, supported by some delegations, expressed its concern on the Sections regarding “Description” and “Name of the Food” and their relation with the titles of the Proposed Draft Standards.
76. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Revised Standards at Step 5 and advanced them to Step 6 as proposed. The Commission noted the reservation of the Delegation of Switzerland as to the use of antibiotic pimaricin/natamycin as food additive in the production of whey cheeses. The Commission further noted that technical comments would be referred to and considered by the Committee. The Delegation of the European Community mentioned that attention should be paid to horizontal issues having impact on several individual cheese standards.
77. The Delegation of India and some other delegations opposed lowering minimum levels of vitamins and minerals in the supplements to 15% of the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) and urged that minimum levels should be 33% of the RDA.
78. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Guidelines at Step 5 with the understanding that comments and concerns of technical nature would be considered by the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses.
79. Some delegations proposed that Section 1.1 of the Proposed Draft Revised Standard should include references to the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and subsequent WHA Resolutions which support and promote exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life.
80. The Delegation of India suggested the addition of the words “when it is not possible to exclusively breastfeed the infant for the first six months of life” in Section 1.1. The Delegation further suggested that paragraphs 1.2 and 2.1.1 of the Proposed Draft Standard clarify that the term “first six months” refers to first six months of life.
81. The Representative of WHO recommended that the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses take into account, in further elaboration of the Standard for Infant Formula, the fact that the Global Strategy for infant and young children feeding adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2002 and related WHA Resolution 55.25 on infant and young child nutrition requested the Codex to be consistent with the WHO policy in the area of infant and young child feeding.
82. The Commission agreed with the current approach taken in the revision of the standard, i.e. to have a single Standard with two sections: Section A covering formula for healthy infants and Section B covering formula for special medical purposes.
83. The Commission adopted the Section A of the Standard at Step 5 as proposed by the Committee and requested the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses to take into account written comments submitted to the Commission. It also agreed that the WHO Global Strategy and the related WHA Resolution 55.25 on infant and young child nutrition should be taken into account in further revision of the Standard. The Delegation of China expressed its reservation to the adoption at Step 5 as too many controversial issues remained unsolved.
84. The Delegation of India, supported by the Delegation of Egypt, stated that given the fact that the title of the Proposed Draft Revised Standard referred to “cereal-based foods”, cereals should constitute at least 50% of final mixture instead of 25%.
85. The Commission adopted the proposed draft revised Standard at Step 5 as proposed by the Committee with the understanding that the written comments submitted to the Commission would be considered by the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses.
86. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft MRLs at Step 5 as proposed.
|
[31] ALINORM 04/27/7; ALINORM
04/27/7A; LIM.5 (Comments of Argentina, Malaysia and Singapore); LIM.18
(Comments of Consumer International); LIM.22 (Comments of Indonesia). [32] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XXIII. [33] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XX. [34] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XXI. [35] ALINORM 04/27/12, Appendix XXII. [36] ALINORM 04/27/12, para. 203. [37] ALINORM 04/27/18, Appendix VI [38] ALINORM 04/35, Appendix IV and ALINORM 04/27/7A (Comments from Brazil). [39] ALINORM 04/27/23, Appendix V [40] ALINORM 04/27/11, Appendix III. [41] ALINORM 04/27/11, Appendix IV. [42] ALINORM 04/27/11, Appendix V. [43] ALINORM 04/27/11, Appendix VI. [44] ALINORM 04/27/11, Appendix VII. [45] ALINORM 04/27/11, Appendix XXII. [46] ALINORM 04/27/26, Appendix IV; ALINORM 04/27/7A (Comments from Argentina, China, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland and National Health Federation. [47] ALINORM 04/27/26, Appendix V; ALINORM 04/27/7A (Comments from Argentina, Australia, China, Czech Republic, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, European Network of Childbirth Associations, International Dairy Federation and International Special Dietary Food Industries). [48] ALINORM 04/27/26, Appendix VI; ALINORM 04/27/7A (Comments from Argentina, China, Czech Republic, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, International Special Dietary Food Industries and International Wheat Gluten Association); LIM.18 (Comments from Consumers International). [49] ALINORM 04/27/24, Appendix IV. |
