INTRODUCTION

2. The Session was opened by Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General, WHO and by Mr. Hartwig de Haen, Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Department, FAO respectively.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (Agenda Item1)[ALINORM 01/1]

ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION AND APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL COORDINATORS (Agenda Item 2)

5. In accordance with Rule II.4 (a) and (b) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the following Members of the Commission were appointed as Regional Coordinators:
 

Africa:	Uganda
Asia:	Malaysia
Latin America and the Caribbean:	Dominican Republic
Europe:	Slovak Republic
Near East:	Egypt
North America and South-West Pacific:	Canada

REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON ON THE FORTY-SEVENTH AND FORTY-EIGHTH SESSIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Agenda Item 3)

7. The 47^th Session of the Executive Committee welcomed the decision of the World Health Assembly concerning increased involvement and support of WHO in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its committees. The Commission was informed that many of the recommendations of the FAO Conference on World Food Trade Beyond 2000:Science-based Decisions, Harmonization, Equivalence and Mutual Recognition had been incorporated into the draft Medium-Term Plan; prepared by a small group consisting of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons convened at the request of the Executive Committee.

8. The Commission noted that the 48^th Session of the Executive Committee had had an extensive discussion on the Financial Situation of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme for 2000/01 and 2002/03. It also noted that the Executive Committee had modified the Draft Strategic Framework based on comments received and agreed to submit the Revised Draft Strategic Framework [ ALINORM 01/4, Appendix II] to the Commission for adoption.

9. The Commission endorsed reactivation of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene and agreed that the mandate of the Committee should be extended to include poultry. It agreed to amend the Committee’s terms of reference accordingly, and renamed the Committee the Codex Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene.

REPORT OF THE FINANCIAL SITUATION OF THE JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME FOR 2000/01 AND 2002/2003 (Agenda Item 4) [ALINORM 01/5]

11. The Secretariat noted that for the biennium 1998/99 there had been an under-expenditure of US$75,000 (2%) in the Joint Budget, which was carried forward into the current biennium. A surplus of US$56,000 in the FAO-only Budget in the same biennium was returned to FAO. The Secretariat further noted that there had been a major re-alignment of the proposed budget for 2002/03. The FAO-only budget had been abolished and the additional FAO-only contribution covering additional documentation expenses would now be made directly to the Joint Budget. As a consequence, the level of the FAO-only budget had been reduced and the funding for expert consultations and direct country support had been transferred from the Codex Budget to the FAO Regular Programme which in itself had been substantially increased. Likewise the WHO Food Safety Programme Regular budget support for expert consultations and regional work had been increased significantly in 2000/01, an increase which will be continued in 2002/03. The overall level of the budget for the operations of the Secretariat in 2002-03 was at the same level as the current biennium.

12. The Commission noted the extrabudgetary support provided to the Secretariat through the FAO Associate Expert Programme and the support of the Governments of Japan, France and the Republic of Korea for the funding of additional professional staff, also through the WHO Food Safety Programme.

13. Several of the Delegations of Members where English was not the official language drew attention to the problems in the quality and timeliness of the translation of Codex documents and believed that due to these problems many countries were unable to meet the requested deadlines or to participate effectively at Codex meetings. It was recommended that specific provisions should be made within the budget to ensure the timely and accurate provisions of working documents in the languages of the Commission and that the Secretariat should assume responsibility for the quality of translations provided by host government translators.

14. The Arabic-speaking Delegations at the Session welcomed the use of the Arabic language in the Commission for the first time, but requested that documentation in Arabic be made available on an equivalent basis with the other official languages, including in the Codex Committees. The Delegation of China expressed the wish that many more documents for the Commission would in future be available in Chinese.

15. Many delegations while supporting the current and proposed Codex budgets noted the vulnerability of the process due to the increased workload on the limited Codex Secretariat and stated that an increase in the permanent professional Codex staff was necessary. It was noted that the Executive Committee had previously called upon the FAO and WHO to give consideration to increasing the number of permanent professional staff to carry out its duties. [ALINORM 01/3, para. 16] The joint nature of the Programme was also noted and several delegations were of the view that the contributions of the parent organizations should be more balanced.

16. Both FAO and WHO acknowledged the need for continued support to the Codex Secretariat and Codex work in general. The budgetary constraints of the parent organizations were mentioned, and the need for new thinking in the general functioning of the Codex system and ways to support the Secretariat further was stressed.

17. The Commission endorsed the views of the Executive Committee that the opportunity existed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Codex, and also endorsed the request to the Secretariat to prepare a detailed budget for its existing programmes, identify changes in resources that were implied in the Strategic Framework, the draft Medium-Term Plan and the Chairperson's Action Plan, and to take such detailed programming into account in the preparation of future budgetary planning.

18. The Commission expressed its appreciation to FAO and WHO for the significant shifts in resources in their respective budgets towards the areas of food safety and consumer protection, in particular the support to the scientific expert bodies that advise Codex and the strengthening of Codex and food control-related activities in developing countries. It also expressed its appreciation to the Codex Secretariat for its professional and dedicated work.

REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (Agenda Item 5A) [ALINORM 01/8-Part I, CAC/LIM 2 (comments from the European Community)]

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): International Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

20. The representative of the UNECE Secretariat stressed the need to avoid any duplication of work between the UN/ECE Specialized Section on Standardization of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables and the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. He supported the proposal to circulate UN/ECE standards for comments at Step 3 of the Codex procedure when the Committee decided to elaborate a Codex Standard for which there was already an UN/ECE Standard.

21. The Delegation of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Community, stated that the Terms of Reference of the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables clearly established measures to avoid overlapping or duplication of work between the two bodies concerned, but that recent developments in the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables indicated that the Committee had not been making proper use of these measures. The Delegation called for a wider debate on these issues, with a view to progressing towards a satisfactory and consensual solution on the basis of the recommendation of the 48^th session of the Executive Committee to take account of the experience and expertise of specialized bodies working in this field and ensure that the countries most concerned in individual standards were fully involved in their preparation [ALINORM 01/4 para. 14] . This view was supported by several other delegations who also referred to the participation of countries beyond the region of Europe in the work of the UN/ECE and stressed the need to rationalize resources by using the experience and expertise of the UN/ECE.

22. The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by many delegations [Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay and the United States of America], expressed its concern about the conclusions of the informal meeting especially in regard to the direct circulation of UN/ECE standards at Step 3 and the amendment of footnote 17 to the Terms of Reference of the Committee. It was noted that UN/ECE standards could be used as a reference for Codex standards when like products were being considered and suggested that fresh produce standards developed by other recognized organizations could be also used as a starting point. However, the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables remained the lead body in elaborating worldwide grade standards for fresh fruits and vegetables. Many of these Delegations also expressed their disagreement with the introduction of trial periods for recommendations in the work of the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables or other Codex committees stating that the Codex procedure allowed for the standards to be exhaustively discussed and it adequately provided for their revisions when necessary. It was also stated that this practice might lead to confusion in international trade.

23. The Commission noted that there was no consensus on the conclusions of the informal meeting and therefore, no change would be made to the Terms of Reference of the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. It also agreed that this issue need not be included on the agenda of the next session of the Committee since it had been already discussed widely at different sessions of the Commission (including the present Session) and at the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. The Commission endorsed the view of the Executive Committee concerning the status of the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables as the international body responsible for drafting grade standards for these products. It also emphasized the need to draw upon and develop the experience and expertise of specialized bodies working in this field and ensure that the countries most concerned in individual standards were fully involved in their preparation. It also noted that in the final analysis the responsibility for the development and adoption of standards for these products rested with the Commission itself. 

United Nations Environment Programme: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

25. Although the Commission welcomed the linkages with the Secretariat of the CBD, it did not endorse the Executive Committee’s recommendation that coherence between Codex and texts arising from the Cartagena Protocol dealing with such matters as traceability, labelling and identification of Living Modified Organisms used as food should be ensured. [ALINORM 01/4 para. 17] 

International Institute of Refrigeration (IIR)

Office International des Epizoöties (OIE)

28. Dr Vallat recommended that a comparison of existing OIE/Codex standards on the same subjects should be conducted to review and harmonize future and existing standards, including consistency of terminology and principles, improving transparency, and enhancing the exchange of information on subjects of mutual interest. He also noted that the existing agreements with the FAO and the WHO predated the establishment of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and that it would be appropriate to consider new arrangements reflecting current needs for cooperation and collaboration.

Office International du Vin et de la Vigne (OIV)

30. Some Delegations, referring to the agreement between FAO and the OIV of 1948 mentioned by the Representative, stated that it had been impossible to obtain a certified copy of the agreement and questioned the exclusion of provisions concerning food additives in wine and related products from the mandate of the Commission and its Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants. The Commission requested clarification of this issue and confirmed that the establishment of limits and levels of use of food additives in food, including beverages, fell within its own mandate.

Guidelines for Cooperation with other International Intergovernmental Organizations

REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION AND INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (Agenda Item 5B)
[ALINORM 01/8 Part II and Addendum I]

33. The Commission welcomed the preparation of the report as it contributed to the transparency and openness of the process and agreed that it should be presented to the Commission on a regular basis. It was noted that the complete list of Observers was available on the Codex website. It welcomed the proposal to provide additional information on observer organizations and that this information was being collected by the Secretariat by means of a circular letter. [CL 2001/09]

34. The Commission, recalling its earlier decision that meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies should be held in public, noted the importance of facilitating such participation in practice. 

CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS ARISING FROM FAO AND WHO CONFERENCES AND GOVERNING BODIES (Agenda Item 6) [ALINORM 01/7]

Matters arising from FAO

36. The Commission noted with interest the decision of FAO to hold a Pan-European Conference on Food Safety and Quality in February 2002 in Budapest in cooperation with WHO. The Conference had been proposed by the FAO Regional Conference for Europe, Porto, 24-28 July 2000.

37. The Commission also noted with interest the decision of FAO and WHO to convene a Global Forum of Food Safety Regulators in Marrakesh, Morocco, in October 2001, in response to the G-8 request for such meetings.

38. The Delegations of Australia and Canada made reference to the FAO Council deliberation which noted the desirability for WHO to meet its relative share of expenses for Codex of 75 percent FAO and 25 percent WHO and asked for clarification on what measures were being taken by WHO to honour its share. Other delegations asked WHO about an increase of its financial participation in view of its increased involvement.

Matters arising from WHO

40. The Commission thanked FAO and WHO for their various activities in support of food quality and safety and welcomed the direction to apply preventative approaches.

41. The Representative of WHO, in response to a question posed by Côte d’Ivoire on the relative share of contributions, indicated that the contributions by WHO had been increased to strengthen its Regional arrangements in food safety and its commitments to the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultations in the areas of microbiological risk assessments and foods derived from biotechnology. He noted the need to obtain more data on foodborne disease from developing countries and industrialized countries. It was noted that the development of a trust fund was in process to support the participation of developing countries in the work of the Codex. 

FAO Conference on International Trade Beyond the Year 2000: Science-based Decisions, Harmonization, Equivalence and Mutual Recognition

• Recommendation 12: exchange of information about potentially hazardous foodstuffs moving in international trade;
• Recommendation 13: urgency of Codex guidance on the judgement of equivalence;
• Recommendation 14: consideration of the special needs of developing countries;
• Recommendation 16: standards development for food composition, sensory quality and safety;
• Recommendation 17: standards not to be over-prescriptive or unnecessarily stringent;
• Recommendation 18: promote and extend the General Principles of Food Hygiene and HACCP to the whole food chain;
• Recommendation 21: effectiveness of the use of written comments.

43. Several delegations expressed their reservation on para 19 of the document which stated that "the Executive Committee had recognized the need to develop guidelines for determining equivalence of food control systems, covering not only safety but also quality and conformity". They expressed the opinion that only "essential quality factors" should be addressed and not "quality", as Codex should refrain from applying overly prescriptive approaches.

44. The Commission noted the importance to "make the largest possible use of information from developing countries in risk assessment for international standard-setting" as stated in the World Health Assembly Resolution and the recommendations of the Melbourne Conference.

45. The Delegation of Mexico expressed its reservation concerning Recommendation 20 of the Conference (holding of Codex Committee meetings in developing countries) since, when such meetings were held in different regions of the world, they offered the opportunity for increased participation of these regions and affected the participation of developing countries from other regions. The Delegation of Mexico referring to Recommendation 21 emphasized the importance of written comments and stated that there were examples where such written comments had not been properly considered by Codex Committees.

CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK, PROPOSED DRAFT MEDIUM PLAN 2003-2007 AND THE CHAIRPERSON’S ACTION PLAN (Agenda Item 7) [ALINORM 01/6, ALINORM 01/6-Add. 1 and 3, CAC/LIM 1 and ALINORM 01/4]

Revised Draft Strategic Framework/Vision Statement

48. In regard to the Strategic Vision Statement, the Delegation of Malaysia supported by India and several other delegations, proposed that wthe words "highest attainable levels of consumer protection, including food safety and quality" be amended to read "an appropriate level of protection including food safety and essential quality".

49. In regard to Objective 3 - Promoting Seamless Linkages/Interface between Codex and Other Multilateral Regulatory Instruments and Conventions, many delegations were of the opinion that in view of specific references to the work of the Commission in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the Commission should be encouraged to take due account of international regulatory initiatives and developments, but should not be compelled to ensure that its outputs were consistent with relevant international conventions and agreements. It was noted that the broad membership of the Commission ensured the widest possible consideration of food quality and safety issues related to food standardization and in this regard, suggested the deletion of specific references to other international bodies under this Objective.

50. Other delegations were of the opinion that ensuring consistency with other relevant international conventions and agreements was important and drew attention to Article 1 of the Statutes which stated, inter alia, that the Commission was responsible for "promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations". These delegations noted that consistency with other relevant international conventions and agreements was necessary in order to maintain the credibility of the international system in general.

51. The Commission agreed that its work should take due account of international regulatory initiatives and developments. However, in view of the reasons cited above, it deleted the phrase from Objective 3 that it should "ensure that its outputs are consistent with relevant international conventions and agreements". The Commission also agreed that in order to avoid limiting the relevant organizations with which it should collaborate, the specific listing of organizations in Objective 3 should be removed. The Title of the Objective was amended to reflect this.

52. The Delegation of Uruguay, supported by other delegations proposed that a specific reference be included in Objective 6 - Promoting Maximum Application of Codex Standards to indicate that it was the responsibility of governments to apply Codex standards and therefore promote harmonization.

53. The drafting group proposed minor amendments to take into account the special needs of developing countries; risk communication; and to encourage greater participation at the national and international level. It also proposed amendments to align the text with the Statutes of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The revised text resulting from these changes was submitted to the Commission for adoption (see para. 68 below).

Chairperson’s Action Plan

Improved Efficiency and Speed of the Codex Process and Consensus Building

56. In relation to the proposed conversion of most Commodity Committees to ad hoc Task Forces, the Commission agreed that the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities, if properly applied, were sufficient to assist in the adjournment or abolition of Codex committees and noted that the Criteria gave preference to the establishment of Task Forces when new work was required.

57. In regard to the Chairperson’s Coordination and Advisory Group to facilitate more efficient consideration and finalization of draft standards, the Commission noted that Chairpersons of Codex Committees and Task Forces had been meeting on an informal basis in the margins of some Codex meetings. The Commission agreed that this group should continue to meet, as required, on an informal basis to provide a coordinating role but without the power to take decisions or make recommendations to the Commission.

Further Strengthened Scientific Support and Science-Based Decision-Making

59. The Commission welcomed these developments and a planning meeting in November 2001 which would examine, among other issues, increased coordination between the JECFA, JMPR, and the other expert groups devoted to microbiological contamination and biotechnology on matters including selection and establishment of a roster of experts for such bodies, including increased transparency in the process.

60. Several delegations, including The Netherlands speaking as the Member responsible for appointing the Chairperson of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, and observers expressed their concerns that current working arrangements for expert bodies, developed decades ago, increasingly did not meet the requirements of the Commission. They stressed that these structures needed to be reviewed urgently to keep pace with the needs and the expectations of Member countries, the Commission and the public.

61. The Commission requested FAO and WHO to circulate a letter of information on the improvements already made. It requested FAO and WHO to convene a consultation to review the status and procedures of the expert bodies and to develop recommendations for consideration by the Directors-General on additional ways to improve the quality, quantity and timeliness of scientific advice to the Commission. It was recommended that such a consultation include the Chairpersons of the relevant Codex Committees and appropriate outside experts drawn from the scientific community and all interested groups including those representing industry and consumers.

62. The Delegation of Egypt requested FAO and WHO to ensure that there would be adequate regional representation of experts and temporary advisors with a view to encouraging Member countries in all regions to adopt decisions developed on a scientific basis.

Increased Participation of Developing Countries

64. It was noted that the concept of a vice-chairmanship position for developing country members should not result in an obligation, nor result in permanently relegating such countries to vice-chair positions. Several developing countries expressed concern that the proposal to establish a system of vice-chairs would create a second class status for developing countries and it had not been specified specifically what would be the advantage for developing countries. However, the proposal to convene meetings in developing countries was welcomed.

FAO/WHO Trust Fund

66. It was suggested that the proposed FAO/WHO Joint Trust Fund might also be used for the financing of representative consumer organizations in Codex meetings, especially those of developing countries, and this proposal received some support. Some delegations expressed concern that the representation of developing countries was being placed on the same level as that of international nongovernmental organizations. They also expressed their desire that the trust fund be managed effectively to ensure that there would be no discrimination among developing countries. It was agreed that capacity-building in developing countries for their effective participation in the work of Codex should receive the highest priority, considering also the other capacity-building initiatives provided through the FAO Global Facility on Food and Agricultural Safety and Quality.

Increased Support from WHO and FAO

Status of the Draft Medium-Term Plan 2003-2007, Draft Strategic Statement and Chairperson’s Action Plan

69. It agreed that the draft Medium-Term Plan should be revised by the Secretariat in the light of the Strategic Framework, the present discussion and the written comments received, and should incorporate the elements of the Chairperson’s Action Plan agreed to by the Commission. It agreed that the activities envisaged in the MTP should include cost estimates to determine whether the objectives could be achieved within available resources. The revised draft Medium-Term Plan would then be circulated for the input of Codex Coordinating Committees, other Codex Committees, Member governments and international organizations for further consideration and finalization at the 25^th Session of the Commission.

70. The Delegation of Bolivia and other delegations stated that priority should be given to the implementation of points 2 and 4 of the Chairperson’s Action Plan.

RISK ANALYSIS POLICIES OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION (Agenda Item 8) [ ALINORM 01/9, CAC/LIM 1 (comments of Consumers International), CAC/LIM 11 (comments of Argentina)]

72. The Delegation of India recalled that its paper concerning uniform application of risk analysis in the elaboration of standards had been discussed in the Committee on General Principles and should be considered further in relation to the working principles by all Codex Committees. [CX/FAC 01/4; ALINORM 01/33A, paras. 76-83]

73. Several delegations proposed that the initial mandate of the Committee to develop risk analysis principles within Codex should be adhered to, as the extension of the Scope to cover guidance to governments had created some problems and prevented further progress, especially as regards the application of precaution. Several other delegations expressed the view that the mandate of the Commission was to provide advice to governments concerning risk analysis and that this advice was especially important for developing countries.

74. Reference was made to the Medium Term Plan 1998-2002 which stated that "Specific guidance on the application of risk analysis principles should be provided to Codex Committees on one hand and to Member Governments on the other: the former guidance to be included in the Procedural Manual, the latter in the Codex Alimentarius itself" [ALINORM 99/37, Appendix II].

75. The Commission confirmed its initial mandate to the Committee on General Principles to complete the principles for risk analysis within Codex as a high priority, with a view to their adoption in 2003. It also agreed that the Committee should develop guidance to governments subsequently or in parallel, as appropriate in view of its programme of work.

76. The Commission recommended that a Working Group should be organized by the host country (France) well in advance of the meeting, in order to facilitate discussion of a revised draft of the working principles at its 17^th Session. The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by some other delegations expressed the view that the Working Group as well as the electronic consultation held prior to the Committee’s 16^th Session had not proved to be very effective. They also expressed some reservations concerning the holding of a working group meeting well in advance of the Committee’s next session in view of the difficulty for developing countries to attend. The Delegation of France stated that it would wish to have assurances that there would be a possibility for such a working group to make progress.

77. The Commission discussed whether the Commission should elaborate standards or related texts when evidence of a risk to human health existed and scientific data were insufficient. In this regard, the Commission recalled that the FAO Conference on International Food Trade beyond 2000 (Melbourne, 1999) had called upon all parties to recognize that precaution has been and should remain an essential element of risk analysis in the formulation of national and international standards, and had agreed that the Codex Alimentarius Commission was the most appropriate forum to discuss this issue.

78. Several delegations expressed the view that the "precautionary principle" was not a principle of international law and should not be mentioned as such in the framework of Codex.

79. Referring to the recommendations of the Melbourne Conference, several delegations supported consideration of precaution in Codex in order to provide guidance and to governments and to prevent its mis-use as an unjustified barrier to trade.

80. In the view of several delegations, the Commission should not elaborate "standards and related texts" when data were insufficient, as Codex recommendations represented a reference at the international level and should be based on adequate scientific evidence. The situation was different at the national level, as governments had the possibility to take provisional measures to protect their population, as recognized under the SPS Agreement. Several other delegations indicated that precaution was already applied in Codex work, and that the Commission had adopted codes of practice and other recommendations when scientific data did not allow the establishment of a standard. In the view of these delegations, Codex should therefore make every effort to develop recommendations to protect consumers’ health even when scientific evidence was insufficient.

81. In view of the above discussion, the Chairperson proposed that the Commission should take the following position:

"When there is evidence that a risk to human health exists but scientific data are insufficient or incomplete, the Commission should not proceed to elaborate a standard but should consider elaborating a related text, such as a code of practice, provided that such a text would be supported by the available scientific evidence."

82. Many delegations supported this text as a compromise reflecting the need for a scientific basis while allowing for flexibility in the elaboration of "related texts". Other delegations expressed the view that this position would prevent Codex reacting efficiently in addressing risks to human health.

83. The Chairperson indicated that there was no consensus but a majority of member countries had expressed themselves in favour of this proposal. On this basis the Commission adopted the above position and noted the reservations of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland.

84. The Delegation of the United Kingdom expressed its disagreement with the manner in which the decision was made as it was essential to take decisions by consensus at the level of the Commission.

85. The Commission also recommended that relevant Codex Committees should continue to develop and document the application of risk analysis in their work. It was agreed that the risk analysis policies developed by the Committees would be presented in a single document to the next session of the Commission.

CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PROCEDURAL MANUAL OF THE CODEX ACAC/LIMENTARIUS COMMISSION (Agenda Item 9)[ALINORM 01/10, ALINORM 01/10-Add. 1 (comments of Sweden); ALINORM 01/10-Add.2; (CAC/LIM 12 additional proposals concerning EC membership), CAC/LIM 10 (Information note from the EC); CAC/LIM 6 (Comments of Malaysia)]

Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure (Rule VI.4 Voting and Procedures)

Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure - Membership of Regional Integration Organizations

88. As the quorum was not constituted, the Commission decided to defer the discussion of the proposed amendments until the next session and to request the Committee on General Principles to consider them thoroughly in order to clarify relevant issues and facilitate the debate at the next session. 

Other Sections

Principles for the Establishment of Codex Methods of Analysis

90. The Commission also considered the proposal for a new section on Guidelines and Working Instructions to Aid the Implementation of the Criteria Approach. The Delegation of Sweden, referring to its written comments and supported by some delegations, proposed to simplify the text to make it more suitable for inclusion in the Procedural Manual. Other delegations indicated that in view of the highly technical nature of the document, more time was required to consider the amendments proposed and the specialized Committee should review them further. The Commission agreed that the revised text should be referred back to Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling for further consideration.

Relations between Commodity Committees and General Committees

Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene

Statements of Principle on the Role of Science in the Codex Decision-Making Process and the Extent to which Other Factors are Taken into Account: Criteria

94. The Commission discussed whether paragraph 7 referring to the recommendations of other international organizations should be retained. Many delegations and some observers proposed to delete this reference and stressed that the work of the Commission should be carried out according to its own mandate and objectives. Although coordination with other organizations was necessary, Codex was the recognized reference under WTO as regards food safety and should not therefore depend on the decisions of other organizations which might have different mandates and membership. It was also pointed out that consistency between the decisions taken in different international organizations was the responsibility of member countries through coordination at the national level.

95. Other delegations and the observer from the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations supported the inclusion of this paragraph as Codex texts should be consistent with the agreements of other international organizations, especially in view of their status as a reference in international trade; this was essential to ensure the credibility of international organizations and consumer confidence.

96. Recognizing that there was no consensus on the inclusion of a reference to other organizations, the Commission agreed to delete paragraph 7.

97. The Commission discussed the need for a reference to the World Trade Organization and the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements in paragraph 9 concerning barriers to trade and agreed that the relevant text should be retained as a footnote.

98. The Commission adopted the other paragraphs without change and noted that the amended Criteria would be included in the Appendix to the Procedural Manual after the Statements of Principle.

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS
(Agenda Item 10)

General Considerations

Draft Standards and Related Texts at Step 8 or at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure, or at Steps 5/8 of the Normal Procedure

FOOD HYGIENE

Draft Code of Practice for Bottled/Packaged Drinking Waters (Other Than Natural Mineral Waters) [ALINORM 01/13, Appendix II; CAC/LIM 3 (Comments of USA)]

Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Transport of Food in Bulk and Semi-Packaged Food [ALINORM 01/13A, Appendix III; ALINORM 01/21, Part 1-Add. 2 (Comments of India, Malaysia); CAC/LIM 3 (Comments of USA)]

SUGARS AND HONEY

Draft Revised Standard for Honey [ALINORM 01/25, Appendix II; ALINORM 01/21, Part 1 Add.2 (Comments of Italy, Poland, Spain); CAC/LIM 4 (Comments of Uganda); CAC/LIM 6 (Comments of China); CAC/LIM 9 (Comments of India); CAC/LIM 11 (Comments of APIMONDIA); CRD 1 (Comments of Switzerland)]

Proposed Draft Amendment for the Standard on Sugars [ALINORM 01/25, Appendix III, ALINORM 01/21, Part 1-Add.2 (Comments of Czech Republic, Poland, Comité Européen des Fabricants du Sucre (CEFS); CAC/LIM 13 (Comments of the European Community)]

104. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Amendments at Steps 5 and 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7 as proposed. The Commission requested the Committee on Sugars to examine whether the change in method of analysis for determination of colour may require a change in the specification of colour especially in plantation or mill white sugar.

105. The Delegation of India supported by several delegations was of the view that the revision of colour specifications was not necessary. The Delegation of Mexico requested that it be noted that there had been a lack of consideration of its written comments by the Committee.

MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS

Draft Group Standard for Unripened Cheese Including Fresh Cheese [ALINORM 01/11, Appendix II; ALINORM 01/21, Part I–Add.2 (Comments of Cuba)]

107. The Commission adopted the Draft Group Standard with pimaricin temporarily endorsed for surface/rind treatments only. The delegations of Switzerland, Spain, Germany and Egypt expressed their reservation on retaining pimaricin in the standard.

Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Edible Casein Products [ALINORM 01/11, Appendix III]

Proposed Draft Amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese (Description) [ALINORM 01/11, Appendix IV]

Proposed Draft Amendment to the Codex Group Standard for Cheeses in Brine (Sampling) [ALINORM 01/11, Appendix V]

FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS

Codex General Standard for Food Additives: Draft Guidelines for the Development of Maximum Levels for the Use of Additives with Numerical Acceptable Daily Intakes (Annex A) [ALINORM 01/12, Appendix II; ALINORM 01/21, Part I–Add. 3 (comments of Canada)]

Codex General Standard for Food Additives: Proposed Draft and Draft Food Additive Provisions in Table 1 [ALINORM 01/12, Appendix III and ALINORM 01/12A Appendix II; ALINORM 01/21, Part I-Add. 3 (comments of Spain), CAC/LIM 3 (comments of EC), CAC/LIM 4 (comments of Brazil), CAC/LIM 11 (comments of Indonesia)]

113. The Commission adopted the provisions for the use of EDTAs in category 14.2 (alcoholic beverages, including alcohol-free and low-alcoholic counterparts). It noted the views of those countries that had recommended the deletion of these provisions in order to align the standard with the standards of the OIV wine, but noted that the use of EDTAs was based on a thorough safety evaluation and was used in other countries not members of the OIV. The Commission proposed that these provisions be discussed further by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.

114. The Commission noted that the use of Pimaricin in Category 1.6 (Cheese) at a level of 40 mg/kg was based on the qualification that it was used for surface treatment only and was equivalent to 2 mg/dm² surface application to a maximum depth of 5 mm. However, as the provisions for the use of Pimaricin in sliced, cut shredded and grated products in the Draft Group Standard for Unripened Cheese, including Fresh Cheese were only temporarily endorsed by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants pending reevaluation by the JECFA, the Commission agreed that the provision in the Codex General Standard for Food Additives should remain as temporarily endorsed.

115. The Commission adopted the other provisions as proposed at Step 8, with the omission of Steps 6 and 7 for some proposals as recommended by the Committee.

Draft Maximum Level for Patulin in Apple Juice and Apple Juice Ingredients in Other Beverages [ALINORM 01/12, Appendix X; ALINORM 01/21, Part I-Add. 2 (comments of EC), Part I-Add. 3 (comments of Canada and France), CAC/LIM 1 (comments of Consumers International)]

117. Many other delegations supported the adoption of the draft maximum level as the JECFA had determined that the level was protective of both adults and children, and in the interest of setting limits for a contaminant which was a serious health concern. These delegations supported the recommendation of the Chairperson of the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants that, after adoption, the level should be reviewed further by the JECFA and the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants in light of new data that would be made available and reconsidered at the next session of the Commission. It was also noted that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants was in the process of elaborating a Code of Practice for the prevention of contamination by patulin that would help to address the reduction of contamination in apple juice through preventative measures at the production level.

118. As a consensus could not be reached, the Commission returned the draft maximum level to Step 6 for further consideration by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants. The delegations of Mexico and the United States objected to this decision, observing that the proposed level was responsive to public health needs.

Draft Maximum Levels for Lead [ALINORM 01/12, Appendix XI; ALINORM 01/21, Part 1-Add. 2 (comments of Australia), Part 1-Add. 3 (comments of Canada and Malaysia), CAC/LIM 11 (comments of India and Indonesia)]

120. The Commission adopted the remaining levels for Lead at Step 8 as proposed by the Committee.

121. Several delegations felt that the level of 0.02 mg/kg for Lead in milk was too low, and that the footnote indicating "that for dairy products, an appropriate concentration factor should apply" did not support the elaboration of a level of 0.1 mg/kg for milk fat. Other delegations felt that lower levels were necessary to protect sensitive individuals, and especially children, from a contaminant with severe public health implications. The Commission adopted the levels for lead in milk (0.02 mg/kg) and milk fat (0.1 mg/kg) as proposed, and requested the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants to re-evaluate the levels.

122. The Delegation of India expressed its reservation at the fixing of these levels on the grounds that: (a) thare was no JECFA evaluation; and (b) there was no IDF standard which was claimed to be the basis on which the level had been recommended. Similarly the Delegation stated that the level of Lead adopted for fruits was more stringent than the level evaluated as safe by the JECFA, and that the level was not based on global data.

123. The Representative of the OIV requested that special consideration be given to levels of Lead in wines that had been stored for long periods of time.

124. The Commission agreed that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants should develop a Code of Practice on the prevention and reduction of lead contamiantion in food and recommended that the FAO guidelines on lead-soldered cans could be useful in this regard. [Guidelines for Can Manufacturers and Food Canners: FAO Food and Nutrition Paper No. 36, FAO, Rome, 1986.]

125. The Commission noted the request of Thailand to the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants for the Committee to give priority to the development of principles for exposure assessment of contaminants and toxins so as to provide advice to the JECFA.

Draft Amendments to the Codex International Numbering System for Food Additives [ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix IX]

Draft Maximum Level for Aflatoxin M₁ in Milk [ALINORM 01/12, Appendix X; ALINORM 01/21, Part 1-Add. 2 (comments of EC), Part 1-Add. 3 (comments of Malaysia), CAC/LIM 1 (comments of Consumers International), CAC/LIM 4 (comments of Brazil and Uganda), CAC/LIM 9 (comments of ICGMA), CAC/LIM 11 (comments of Indonesia)]

128. The Commission could not reach a consensus on this issue.

129. In view of the importance of establishing a level for the health protection of consumers, and in consideration that the higher level provided an adequate level of protection as determined by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, the Commission adopted the maximum level of 0.5 µg/kg in milk. It was agreed that data supporting the lower level, if and when available, could be examined by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants at a future meeting if necessary. The member states of the EU, as well as the delegations of Cyprus, Estonia, Ghana, Hungary, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Swaziland and Switzerland expressed their reservations on this decision. The Representative of Consumers International also expressed the concern of that organization at the decision taken.

Draft Code of Practice for Source Directed Measures to Reduce Contamination of Food With Chemicals 
[ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix XIII, CAC/LIM 4 (comments of Brazil)]

131. The delegations of Malaysia, Thailand, Peru and The Philippines objected to the statement at the end of paragraph 4 that "When fishing waters or agricultural land become heavily polluted due to local emissions, it may to necessary to blacklist the areas concerned ….". However, the Commission noted that this recommendation was under the control of local or national authorities only, and retained the sentence as proposed. 

Draft Maximum Level for Lead in Fruit Juices [ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix XIV]

Draft Guideline Level for Cadmium in Cereals, Pulses and Legumes [ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix XV, CAC/LIM 3 (comments of Australia)]

Draft Revision of the Codex Standard for Food Grade Salt: Packaging, Transportation and Storage [ALINORM 01/12 A, Appendix XVII]

Proposed Draft Amendments to the Codex General Standard for Food Additives: Annex to Table 3 (Food Categories or Individual Food Items Excluded from the General Conditions of Table 3) [ ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix VI; CAC/LIM 4 (comments of Japan); CAC/LIM 11 (Comments of Indonesia).]

136. The Commission recalled that the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants should actively continue the work begun at its 33^rd Session (March, 2001) on the linkages between the General Standard for Food Additives and the Codex Commodity standards including the adaptation of the food categorization system in the General Standard.

Proposed Draft Codex Advisory Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives [ALINORM 01/12, Appendix IX and ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix VIII; ALINORM 01/21, Part 1-Add. 3 (comments from Canada)]

Proposed Draft Revised Sampling Plan for Peanuts Intended for Further Processing [ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix XI; CAC/LIM-11 (comments from India)]

Proposed Draft Revisions to the Codex International Numbering System for Food Additives [ALINORM 01/12, Appendix VII]

Codex General Standard for Food Additives: Proposed Draft Amendments to Table 3 (Additives with an Acceptable Daily Intake of "Not Specified") [ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix V]

RESIDUES OF VETERINARY DRUGS IN FOODS

Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs [ALINORM 01/31, Appendix II]

Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits and Proposed Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs [ALINORM 01/31, Appendix III, ALINORM 01/21, Part 1-Add. 2 (comments of Thailand)]

FOOD IMPORT AND EXPORT INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS 

Draft Guidelines for Generic Official Certificate Formats and the Production and Issuance of Certificates [ALINORM 01/30A, Appendix II]

PESTICIDE RESIDUES

Draft and Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides [ ALINORM 01/24, Appendix II; ALINORM 01/24A, Appendix II; CAC/LIM 1 (Comments of Consumers International)]

Extraneous Maximum Residue Limit for DDT

Proposed Draft and Proposed Draft Residue Limits for Pesticides [ALINORM 01/24, Appendix III, ALINORM 01/24A, Appendix III; ALINORM 01/21, Part I-Add.3 (Comments of Germany); CAC/LIM 1 (Comments of Consumers International)]

Proposed Draft Amendments to the Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds [ALINORM 01/24A, Appendix IV, CAC/LIM 13 (Comments of Argentina)]

Other matters

149. The Commisison also noted that the 2000 JMPR had recommended a range of enhanced transparency measures on which WHO was taking action and that the Organization had already introduced revised procedures for declaration of interest.

FOOD LABELLING [ALINORM 01/22, Appendix II ; ALINORM 01/22A, Appendix II; CAC/LIM 1 (comments of Consumers International); CAC/LIM 6 (comments of China, United States); CAC/LIM 9 (ICGMA)]

Draft Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods: 1)Livestock and Livestock Products and 
2) Beekeeping and Additives

151. The Delegation of China pointed out that the section on veterinary drugs for livestock required further clarification as to the substances which were actually allowed in an organic production system and the definition of relevant limits. The Commission noted that this could be addressed as part of the regular review of the Guidelines.

Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Section 4.2.2 Labelling of Foods obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering (Declaration of Allergens)

Draft Amendment to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods/Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering: Definitions

154. Some delegations and observers expressed the view that the reference to "modern biotechnology" should be deleted as it was not accepted by consumers. Several delegations and the Observer from Consumers International indicated that although they did not support its use for labelling purposes, they could accept its inclusion in the definitions following the compromise reached in the Committee.

155. The Observer from the Biotechnology Industry Association proposed to delete the definition of "genetically modified/engineered" which was not scientifically based and to retain only the definition of "modern biotechnology" as it was consistent with the Cartagena Protocol and the definitions under consideration by the ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology.

156. Some delegations pointed out that the definitions should not be advanced further as the recommendations concerning labelling were still at Step 3 and a number of controversial issues remained to be solved. It was also noted that the definition of genetically modified foods currently used in the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods was different.

157. The Commission agreed to return the Draft Amendment to Step 6 for further comments and consideration by the Committee on Food Labelling.

Proposed Draft Amendment to the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods (Table 1:Substances Used in Soil Fertilizing and Conditioning)

FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS [ALINORM 01/18, ALINORM 01/21 Part I-Add.2 (comments of Spain)]

Draft Standard for Crackers from Marine and Freshwater Fish, Crustacean and Molluscan Shellfish

160. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard as proposed by the Committee.

Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Sardine and Sardine Type Products

162. The Delegation of Chile stressed that the procedure for the inclusion of species had been followed and that its results should be recognized; no new element had been brought forward in the last session of the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products and there was no justification for further delaying the adoption of the amendment until a new procedure was developed. The Delegation pointed out that Clupea bentincki was generally recognized as a sardine type product, including in the FAO classification and that objections raised to its inclusion were not based on scientific data and created unjustified barriers to trade related to economic interests; all this provided credibility for the objectives of the Commission and its standards-setting procedures.

163. The Delegation of Morocco expressed its objection to the amendment as the procedure had not been followed adequately since no samples from Morocco had been examined, and as only Sardina pilchardus should be presented as sardine on the market. The name of products should not be determined by their presentation, as was the case for most "sardine type" species included in the standard, and the Committee should review the current procedure before including any new species. The Delegation pointed out that unfair competition from such products seriously affected the economic interest of Morocco as an exporting country and it could not accept the inclusion of an additional species in the Standard.

164. Due to lack of time the Commission adjourned the debate on this question and no conclusion was reached.

NUTRITION AND FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY USES

Guidelines for the Use of Nutrition Claims: Draft Table of Conditions for Nutrient Content (Part B) [ALINORM 01/26, Appendix II; ALINORM 01/21, Part 1&Add.2 (Comments of New Zealand)]

PROCESSED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES [CAC/LIM 13 (comments from Argentina)]

Draft Revised Codex Standard for Applesauce [ALINORM 01/27 Appendix II]

Draft Codex Standard for Canned Pears [ALINORM 01/27 Appendix III; ALINORM 01/21 Part I-Add. 3 (Comments of the Republic of Korea; CAC/LIM-6 (Comments of China)]

168. The Commission noted that colours were only allowed to be used in special holiday packs for canned pears intended for selling on special festivity occasions and that the labelling provisions of the Standard took adequately care of this particular case. Moreover, these additives had been evaluated as being safe for use in foods by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and was endorsed by the 33^rd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants [ALINORM 01/12A para. 42]. It was also noted that an international standard should be flexible enough to reflect manufacturing practices in the various regions of the world. 

Draft Codex Standard for Kimchi [ALINORM 01/27 Appendix IV; ALINORM 01/21 Part I-Add.2 (Comments from Republic of Korea)]

FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES [CAC/LIM 3 (comments from the European Community); CAC/LIM 11 (comments from Thailand) and CAC/LIM 13 (comments from Argentina)]

Draft Codex Standard for Tannia [ALINORM 01/35 Appendix II]

Draft Revised Codex Standard for Papaya [ALINORM 01/35 Appendix III]

Draft Codex Standard for Cape Gooseberry [ALINORM 01/35 Appendix V]

Draft Codex Standard for Asparagus [ALINORM 01/35 Appendix IV]

• Section 2 - Minimum Requirements was amended to read "free of damage caused by unsuitable washing or soaking" since the excessive soaking of asparagus might result in a fraudulent increase of weight and loss of quality due to the absorption of excess water.

• Section 3.2 Sizing by Diameter was amended to refer to one single point of measurement for the diameter of asparagus by stating that "The diameter of the shoots shall be measured 2.5 cm from the cut end" since the coexistence of two different ways of measuring the diameter of asparagus could cause confusion in international trade. 

Draft Minimum Juice Content for the Codex Standard for Limes [ALINORM 01/35 Appendix VI]

NATURAL MINERAL WATER AND RELATED PRODUCTS 

Amendment to the Codex Standard for Natural Mineral Waters (CODEX STAN 108-1981, Rev. 1 1997)-Health Related Limits for Certain Substances [ALINORM 01/20, Appendix III; comments submitted in response to CL 2000/45-NMW from China (CAC/LIM 6)]

174. Noting the concern expressed by China, the Commission adopted the amendment at Step 8. 

Proposed Draft General Standard for Bottled/Packaged Drinking Waters (Other than Natural Mineral Waters) [ALINORM 01/20, Appendix II; comments submitted in response to CL 2000/45-NMW from India (CAC/LIM 11)]

176. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 5 and 8 by omitting Step 6 and 7. The Delegation of India expressed its reservation on this decision.

COCOA PRODUCTS AND CHOCOLATE

Draft Revised Codex Standard for Cocoa Butter [ALINORM 01/14, Appendix II; comments submitted in response to CL 2000/46-CPC from Brazil , Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, USA (ALINORM 01/21 Part I Add. 2), Malaysia and CAOBISCO (ALINORM 01/21 Part I Add. 3), India (CAC/LIM 11) and the European Cocoa Association (CAC/LIM 9)]

Draft Revised Codex Standard for Cocoa (Cacao) Mass (cocoa/chocolate liquor) and Cocoa Cake [ALINORM 01/14, Appendix III; comments submitted in response to CL 2000/46-CPC from Brazil , Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, USA, CAOBISCO (ALINORM 01/21 Part I Add. 3) and the European Cocoa Association (CAC/LIM 9)]

179. For consistency with the decision taken on the level of lead in Cocoa butter (See paras. 119-120), the Commission agreed that there was a need for reliable scientific data from Governments and other interested organizations in order to justify any lower level than 2 mg/kg.

180. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 8 as amended.

Draft Revised Codex Standard for Cocoa Powders (Cocoas) and Dry Mixtures of Cocoa and Sugars [ALINORM 01/14, Appendix IV; comments submitted in response to CL 2000/46-CPC from Brazil , Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain, USA, CAOBISCO (ALINORM 01/21 Part I Add. 3) and the European Cocoa Association (CAC/LIM 9)]

182. Consistency with the decision taken on the level of lead in Cocoa Butter (See paras. 119-120 above), the Commission agreed that there was also a need for getting reliable scientific data from Governments and other interested organizations in order to justify any lower level than 2 mg/kg in cocoa powders and dry mixtures of cocoa and sugars.

183. The Commission adopted the Draft Standard at Step 8 as amended.

FOOD IMPORT AND EXPORT INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS 

Draft Guidelines for Generic Official Certificate Formats and the Production and Issuance of Certificates [ALINORM 01/30A, Appendix II]

Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems [ALINORM 01/30A, Appendix III]

186. Several delegations were of the view that more time was needed to scrutinize the document in detail through consultation with governments and other interested parties and therefore, suggested that the Guidelines be adopted at Step 5 only. It was also suggested that the document should be considered in parallel with the CCFICS Guidelines on the Judgement of Technical Regulations Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems. It was noted that further consideration was required in the Scope section as well as in the definition for the equivalence of sanitary measures. Discrepancies between the English and Spanish/French versions were also noted.

187. In view of the above concerns, the Commission adopted the Guidelines at Step 5 only so that they could be further considered by the CCFICS.

188. The Observer from Consumers International recommended that to facilitate concensus on the Guidelines, the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems should hold a workshop to agree on what types of information was to be reviewed towards the making of a judgement of equivalence.

STREET FOODS [ALINORM 01/21 Part I -Add. 3 (Comments of Cuba)]

Draft Revised (Regional) Code of Hygienic Practice for the Preparation and Sale of Street Foods [ALINORM 01/36 Appendix II]

SOUPS AND BROTHS [ALINORM 01/21 Part I -Add. 3 (Comments of Poland and Thailand) and CAC/LIM-13 (comments of Argentina)]

Draft Revised Codex Standard for Bouillons and Consommés [ALINORM 01/29A Appendix I]

VEGETABLE PROTEINS

Draft Codex Standard for Wheat Protein products Including Wheat Gluten [ALINORM 01/37A, Annex 1; ALINORM 01/21 Part 1-Add.3; CAC/LIM-3]

192. The Commission discussed section 8.2 Instructions for Use which does not allow the use of wheat gluten for technological reasons for foods which are gluten-free by nature. Several delegations and the Observer from AAC pointed out that allergenicity and intolerance were adequately addressed by the provisions of the amended General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, but that such prohibition was not justified in a standard for a particular product. It was noted that the issues related to the presence of allergens could be further considered from a general perspective if required.

193. Several delegations and observers including the Observer from Association of European Coeliac Societies (AOECS) pointed out that labelling in such cases was not a satisfactory instrument and supported the inclusion of this provision in view of the limited availability of gluten-free foods for coeliacs, which would be further reduced by the use of gluten as coatings or processing aids. The Observer from the AOECS expressed concern at the use of wheat gluten and wheat protein products because this restricted the choice of gluten-free foods available to coeliacs. The Observer urgently requested that food gluten-free by nature be kept gluten-free.

194. The Commission agreed that wheat gluten and wheat protein products should not be used when it was not possible to inform the consumer of their presence through adequate labelling; however, this should not prevent the use of these products as ingredients in composite prepackaged foods when they could be declared in the labelling. The Commission agreed to transfer the third sentence of the Instructions for Use to the Scope with a footnote to the effect that "This does not preclude the use of these products as ingredients in composite prepackaged foods provided that they are properly labelled as ingredients".

195. The Commission noted the reservations of the Delegations of the United States and Uganda on this section and adopted the Standard at Step 8.

METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND SAMPLING [ ALINORM 01/23, CAC/LIM 6 (Comments of ICGFI),  CAC/LIM 7 (bibliography)]

Harmonized IUPAC Guidelines for the Use of Recovery Information in Analytical Measurement

General Codex Methods for the Detection of Irradiated Foods

198. The Committee noted the written comments of the Chair of ICGFI expressing concern at the procedure followed for the endorsement of these methods, the lack of international validation and the potential barriers to trade that would result for developing countries. The Secretariat confirmed that under its Terms of Reference, the Committee could consider general methods of analysis without referring them to other Codex committees and recalled that the adoption of these methods in Codex had been supported by the Representative of FAO/IAEA in the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling.

199. The Delegation of Brazil expressed its concern that the methods proposed would not be easily applicable in developing countries and might therefore create problems in trade. The Observer from the EC pointed out that the five CEN methods had been validated at the international level, as appeared from the comprehensive bibliography provided in CAC/LIM 7. The Commission also noted that the FAO/IAEA Joint Division on Nuclear Techniques in Agriculture had participated in the initial development of these methods.

200. The Commission adopted the five methods proposed as general Codex methods and encouraged the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling to give further consideration to validated methods that would be suitable for use in developing countries. 

General Codex Methods for Contaminants

FATS AND OILS [ALINORM 01/17; ALINORM 01/21 / Part 1-Add 2 (Comments of Canada, Poland) and Add. 3 (Malaysia); CAC/LIM 4 (Comments of Brazil), CAC/LIM 9 (Comments of ICGMA)]

Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils

Proposed Draft Amendments to the Code of Practice for the Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk (List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes and List of Immediate Previous Banned Cargoes)

204. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes at Step 5 only in order to allow for further comments at Step 6 and consideration of the issues raised.

205. As there was consensus on the Proposed Draft List of Banned Immediate Previous Cargoes, the Commission adopted it at Step 8 with the omission of Steps 6 and 7, as proposed by the Committee.

Texts Proposed for Revocation

Residue Limits for Pesticides [ALINORM 01/24, Appendix VI; ALINORM 01/24A, Appendix VI; CAC/LIM 13 (Comments of Argentina)]

Vinegar

MATTERS ARISING FROM REPORTS OF CODEX COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES (Agenda Item 11)

Codex ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology

Preliminary Report of the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology [ALINORM 01/34A, Appendix V]

209. The Commission commended the work of the Task Force. It noted the Preliminary Report and adopted the two draft texts at Step 5, and advanced them to Step 6. The Commission approved the new work on microorganisms. 

Codex ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Animal Feeding [ALINORM 01/38; ALINORM 01/38A; CAC/LIM 14 ]

211. The Commission thanked the Delegation of Denmark and endorsed the interim report. The Commission also decided to circulate the Interim Report to Member countries and Observers.

DESIGNATION OF HOST GOVERNMENTS CODEX COMMITTEES AND AD HOC TASK FORCES (Agenda 12A) [ALINORM 01/16 Part I ]

213. The Commission agreed to the abolition of the Committee on Soups and Broths as suggested by the Host Government, Switzerland.

214. The Commission also agreed to adjourn sine die the Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters, as suggested by the Host Government, Switzerland in accordance with the decision of the Committee at its last session, and recognized that any future concern could be still addressed by correspondence if deemed necessary.

215. The Commission decided to reactivate the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene and agreed to rename it as Codex Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene, following earlier discussion (See para. 9, above). The Commission confirmed that New Zealand would be the Host Government of this Committee.

OTHER BUSINESS AND FUTURE WORK (Agenda Item 13)

Future Work

AVE ATQUE VALE