137. The Commission agreed to amend the Recommended International Code of Practice for Packaging and Transport of Tropical Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995) by deleting the word “tropical” throughout the Code in order to make it applicable to the packaging and transport of all fresh fruits and vegetables.[75]
138. The Commission endorsed the recommendations of the 54th Session of the Executive Committee concerning the amendments to the GSFA and GSCTF and the relation between the GSCTF and Codex Standards proposed by the CCFAC[76]. It requested the Codex Secretariat to prepare a list of maximum levels for contaminants and toxins contained in Codex commodity standards, which are inconsistent with the GSCTF, so that they could be formally revoked by the Commission.
139. The Commission agreed to discuss this matter under Agenda Item 16 (see paras 210-219).
140. Following the request from the CCFH to clarify the appropriateness of their approach in the area of risk analysis, the Commission endorsed the view of the 54th Session of the Executive Committee[79] that the past and ongoing work by the Committee on Food Hygiene on the Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Assessment (CAC/GL-30, 1999) and the proposed draft Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Management addressing issues relevant to both member governments and to the Codex was consistent with the Commission’s expectations.
141. The Commission noted that the decisions of the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems, Committee on Meat Hygiene, Committee on Pesticide Residues, Committee on General Principles, and Committee on Milk and Milk Products regarding the need for developing specific guidelines on risk analysis.
OTHER MATTERS
142. The Commission noted that the new work of the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems on the development of Appendices to the Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of sanitary Measures associated with Food Inspection (see paragraph 98) would contain information to enable the implementation of the Guidelines to facilitate the control of food in trade.
143. The Commission noted that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) considered that the peroxide value (PV) for instant noodles was not a question of safety and therefore was not included in the priority list for JECFA evaluation. The CCFAC noted that there were no data proving a positive correlation between peroxide values of foods and food toxicological parameters. The Commission noted that the draft Standard for Instant Noodles, adopted at Step 5 by its 26th Session, had been circulated for comments at Step 6. A revised text was under preparation to take account of the comments received; the revised draft Standard would be circulated for additional comments and consideration for advancement to Step 8 by the Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes while the list of food additives was to be completed and endorsed by CCFAC
144. The Delegation of Japan expressed its concern that the CCFAC reply was not based on a risk assessment and reiterated its proposal to include PV in the draft Standard for Instant Noodles.
145. The Commission agreed that the elaboration of the draft Standard should proceed without further delay, with the understanding that the inclusion of a peroxide value could be decided by CCFAC in the future in the light of relevant data to be submitted by the Government of Japan to the CCFAC for consideration.
146. The Commission noted the clarification provided by the Legal Offices of FAO and WHO in reply to the two questions asked by the 6th Session of the Committee on Milk and Milk Products (CCMMP). It noted the legal advice shown in document LIM.15[83]. It also noted that the TRIPS Secretariat had also been consulted on aspects of intellectual property protection.[84]
147. The views of the delegations which intervened were split among those against and those in favour of the development of a new Standard on Parmesan cheese.
148. Arguments put forward by delegations opposing included, among others: the need for Codex to work on consensus; the protection of geographical indications and designation of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs under EC legislation; non-generic nature of the product name; risk of misleading consumers; Objective 3 of the Codex Strategic Framework 2003-2007 “Promoting linkages between Codex and other multilateral regulatory instruments and conventions”; the need to protect traditional and local culture, including geographic and regional products; the need to give priority to the work related to consumer protection in view of the budget constraint of Codex; the need to give priority to horizontal standards encompassing different products; ongoing work on Geographical Indication (GI) in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Some delegations suggested considering the revision of the Codex Standard on Extra Hard Grating Cheese (CODEX STAN C35-1978) as a compromise solution.
149. Arguments put forward by delegations in favour of the new standard included, among others: the importance for Codex to base work on agreed rules; the compliance of the proposal to develop a Standard on Parmesan with both Codex Criteria for Establishing New Work Priorities and CCMMP criteria for revision of standards; the generic nature of the product name in question; the international practice in which many products with denomination of origin were covered by internationally recognised standards; the fact that intellectual property rights are territorial and therefore the provisions in the EC are not binding for third countries; that Codex had no mandate on intellectual property issues; that labelling adequately allowed the consumers to make informed choices; that national/regional legislation should not set precedence over Codex work; and that from a legal point of view there was no impediment to the development of the Standard.
150. The majority of delegations who spoke were against the development of a new standard but a large number of delegations were in favour of such development. In view of the lack of consensus and considering that the 7th Session of the CCMMP was tentatively scheduled in April 2006, the Commission agreed to defer its decision on the development of a Standard on Parmesan cheese until its 28th Session. Due to its late availability only in English, it was agreed to attach LIM.15 “Opinion of the Legal Offices of FAO and WHO” as an Appendix to the report of the Session (see Appendix X to this report) in order to allow all Members of the Commission to consider this document in detail.
151. The Commission endorsed the view of the 54th Session of the Executive Committee that a five-year timeframe should be maintained as a general rule, while the standards development process should be monitored on a case-by-case basis[86].
152. The Commission recalled that the Committee on General Principles had sought the advice of the Commission to clarify the need to revise the Code of Ethics and its intended scope, particularly with regard to whether it should focus solely on ethical aspects.
153. The Delegation of Brazil noted that it would be difficult to achieve consensus if the Code was to focus only on ethical issues, and recalled that the priority of Codex was the development of science based standards. The Delegation expressed the view that such a Code could lead to disguised forms of barriers to international trade and that many provisions in the Code were covered by other Codex texts or multilateral agreements and therefore questioned the need for further work on the Code.
154. Several delegations supported this position and proposed to discontinue work on the revision of the Code as there were more urgent priorities in the Committee on General Principles and in the framework of Codex.
155. Several delegations and the Observer from Consumers International supported the revision of the Code and stressed its importance, especially for developing countries, in order to prevent the export of food that was unsafe and/or did not meet the food safety requirements of the exporting countries and to protect consumers from health risks and unfair practices. These delegations therefore supported the revision of the Code and its exclusive focus on ethical issues, as other aspects related to international trade were already covered in other Codex texts or the WTO Agreements.
156. Some delegations pointed out that the existing Code of Ethics adequately covered aspects of ethics in international trade, and that its revision should be discontinued.
157. The Delegation of Canada proposed to seek clarification from the Committee on General Principles on the need and purpose of the Code, its relationship with other Codex texts and multilateral bodies and the extent to which it addresses, in particular, the interests of developing countries. Some delegations supported this proposal as it would facilitate further discussion, while other delegations stated that the questions forwarded by the Committee on General Principles should not be referred back to that Committee without being answered by the Commission.
158. In reply to a question from the Delegation of Morocco on the status of the Code of Ethics under the WTO, the Representative of WTO indicated that all Codex texts could be equally relevant under the SPS Agreement and how a particular text would be interpreted by a WTO panel could be determined only in the framework of a specific trade dispute.
159. After some further discussion, the Commission agreed to address the following questions to the Committee on General Principles:
- Whether there is a clear need for a Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food;
- If so, whether the primary problem to be addressed by such a Code is the subsequent export of food, whether imported or produced domestically, that had been found to be unsafe or otherwise does not meet the safety standards of the exporting country;
- Whether the Code has other objectives;
- To what extent other Codex texts, developed since the last revision of the Code in 1985, have addressed the objective(s) of the existing Code. Of particular relevance are the texts developed by the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems;
- Whether the texts developed by other multilateral bodies (e.g. FAO, WHO, WTO) have contributed to addressing the problems the Code is meant to resolve; and
- Given the existence of these Codex and other texts, what, if any, aspects of the problem remain unaddressed and whether these aspects were within the mandate of the Committee.
160. The Commission recalled that the Proposed Draft Revised Code had been returned to Step 3 by the Committee on General Principles but had not been circulated for comments pending advice of the Commission. The Commission agreed that it should not be circulated at Step 3, pending further discussion in the Committee, and that instead, a Circular Letter would be issued to request comments on these questions, for consideration by the Committee on General Principles at its next regular session.
161. The Commission recognized the importance of this issue for developing countries and noted that the Regional Coordinating Committees could discuss this matter.
162. The Commission noted the view of the Delegation of Chile that the Committee on General Principles should consider whether a Code of Ethics was necessary in relation to the standard-setting procedures of the Commission.
163. The Commission noted that this matter had been covered under Agenda item 12 as part of the Review of the Regional Coordinating Committees (see paras 135-136)
164. The Commission recalled that the Committee on Food Labelling had sought the guidance of the Commission as consensus could not be reached on the need to undertake new work on country of origin labelling.
165. Many delegations and observers supported new work on country of origin labelling in response to increased consumer demand for such information and pointed out that the current provisions in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods might result in misleading labelling and required clarification. These delegations therefore supported the revision of the current provisions, including consideration of ingredients labelling and a clarification of the meaning of “country of origin” for processed foods.
166. Many other delegations opposed further work on this issue for the following reasons: the current provisions were adequate to provide clear information to consumers; additional information on the origin of ingredients was likely to create confusion for consumers; it would entail huge costs and liability questions for producers and manufacturers; and enforcement of such provisions would create a considerable burden for national authorities, especially in developing countries.
167. Several delegations and Observers stated that country of origin labelling would not provide any benefit to consumers in terms of food safety since it was the responsibility of food safety authorities to ensure that all food placed on the market were safe. Other delegations and Observers pointed out that such information addressed consumer demand for clear information to make informed choices, and could aid in food control by official authorities, especially as regards traceability/product tracing. Some delegations stressed the importance of country of origin information for importing countries.
168. Several delegations proposed a compromise solution limiting the scope of new work on country of origin labelling to misleading claims and to unprocessed foods, in view of the difficulties associated with ingredient labelling for processed foods. The Chairperson of the Committee on Labelling, hosted by Canada, proposed to ask some questions to member countries to clarify if and why the current provisions were inadequate for member countries, and whether there was a problem of interpretation of the current requirements.
169. The Commission considered a proposal to add the following additional question “if these provisions are considered to be inadequate, would additional guidance restricted to prepackaged unprocessed food be the solution”. However, some delegations did not support this proposal, given that the definition of “unprocessed foods” did not exist in Codex as noted by the Delegation of Brazil and would require detailed consideration.
170. After further discussion, the Commission recognized that no conclusion could be reached at this stage on whether or not to undertake new work on country of origin labelling. The Commission agreed to forward the following questions for consideration by the Committee on Food Labelling:
a) whether the current provisions in sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 for Country of Origin Labelling contained in the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods were adequate to address Members’ needs with respect to country of origin labelling
b) whether countries have encountered difficulties with the interpretation of those provisions.
171. The Commission endorsed the recommendations of the 54th Session of the Executive Committee that a Circular Letter be prepared to request the views of governments on the areas where future work would be desirable so that the Commission at its next Session could determine whether additional work should be required by Codex on animal feeding and if so what mechanisms would be most appropriate. The Commission noted the Denmark had indicated that it would be willing to host the Task Force if it was established.[90]
172. The Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Executive Committee that, in order to proceed with the revision of the Code, Option (b) provided in working document LIM.6 would be most appropriate. The Commission accepted the offer of the United States of America, as host government of the Committees on Food Hygiene and on Processed Fruits and Vegetables, to coordinate the work by correspondence on the quality provisions of the Code until preliminary adoption at Step 5 and finalization as per hygienic/safety provisions by the Committee on Food Hygiene for final adoption at Step 8 by the Commission. A Joint Meeting of the Committee on Food Hygiene and/or the relevant Commodity Committees might be convened to finalize the hygienic provisions as well as those unsolved quality provisions for which it was not possible to reach consensus during the work by correspondence.
|
[73] ALINORM 04/27/10D;
ALINORM 04/27/10D-Add.1; ALINORM 04/27/4 paras 57-88; LIM.6; LIM.13 (Comments of
Japan). [74] ALINORM 04/27/10D, para. 1. [75] ALINORM 04/27/4, para. 58; ALINORM 04/27/35, para. 54 [76] ALINORM 04/27/4, paras 59-62. [77] ALINORM 04/27/30, para. 159 [78] ALINORM 04/27/13, paras 70-71. [79] ALINORM 04/27/4, para. 63. [80] ALINORM 04/27/30, para. 90 [81] ALINORM 04/27/12, para. 209; ALINORM 04/31, para. 121 and Appendix VI; CL 2003/32-CPL [82] ALINORM 04/27/11, paras 120-121; ALINORM 04/27/4 paras 74-78; LIM.15 (Opinion of the Legal Offices of FAO and WHO); LIM.20 (Comments of the European Community); LIM.28 (Comments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America). [83] According to this legal opinion, "the fact that Parmigiano-Reggiano is registered as a Protected Designation of Origin by the European Community would not preclude a majority of the Members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission from deciding to elaborate a Codex standard on Parmesan cheese, if applicable criteria for acceptance of new work have been met" and "there are no requirements to the effect that aspects of intellectual property protection e.g. trademarks, certification marks, geographical indications (GI’s) or PDO’s be considered as criteria to be taken into consideration by Codex when deciding on acceptance of new work or adopting standards" (LIM.15, paras 13 and 19). [84] LIM.15, para. 17. [85] ALINORM 04/27/11, para. 12. [86] ALINORM 04/27/4 para. 79. [87] ALINORM 04/27/33A paras 77-78 [88] ALINORM 04/27/22, paras 110-116 [89] ALINORM 04/27/38, paras 35-36. [90] ALINORM 04/27/04, para. 85. [91] LIM 6; ALINORM 04/27/4, para. 88. |
