ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN
ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN
ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
16 REP12/CAC<br />
of the draft MRLs had been considered by the 66 th Executive Committee during the Critical Review, and that<br />
some Members had felt that more efforts should be made to reach consensus through a transparent and<br />
inclusive process and had suggested that a special meeting be organized, possibly in conjunction with the<br />
session of the Committee on General Principles, in April 2012. They had also noted that informal<br />
discussions between Codex members could always take place during or between Codex sessions.<br />
88. The Chairperson explained that subsequent to his discussions with some members of the CCEXEC, it<br />
had been agreed to hold an informal meeting on ractopamine, on 5 April 2012, in the margins of the CCGP,<br />
and that the Delegation of France had kindly confirmed availability of a meeting room to facilitate the<br />
consultations. He added that the Codex Secretariat had sent an invitation on his behalf, on 4 March 2012, to<br />
all members and observers to participate in the informal discussions and that he had prepared, with support<br />
from the Vice-Chairs, a background note to facilitate the discussion. The note, in addition to some historical<br />
context, proposed the following options, which had been put forth by different delegations during previous<br />
discussions on this matter and further recognized that other possibilities might be explored to find consensus.<br />
89. The summarized options were:<br />
i. Continue to hold the draft MRLs at Step 8.<br />
ii. Discontinue the work on the draft MRLs.<br />
iii. Hold the draft MRLs in abeyance for a specified period of time.<br />
iv. Adopt the draft MRLs without a footnote.<br />
v. Adopt the draft MRLs with a footnote.<br />
90. The Chairperson provided a brief account of the informal meeting on ractopamine as follows:<br />
“The informal consultations took place as scheduled from 13:30-16:15. Several members and<br />
observers participated in the discussions. In my opening remarks, I recalled a brief account of the<br />
process between the CAC Sessions of 2010 and 2011. The Commission had voted against conducting a<br />
vote on adoption of the draft MRLs for Ractopamine as a result of which these remained at Step 8.<br />
During this informal meeting, I noted that the objective of the informal consultation was to come to a<br />
better appreciation of the relevant issues and come closer to finding consensus so as to utilize the<br />
Commission’s time more efficiently. It was recalled that the mandate of CAC is to take decisions on<br />
draft Codex standards proposed by the relevant Committees. In light of the previous discussions, the<br />
participants were asked to express their views. A summary of the general comments is as follows:<br />
- This matter has been under discussion at the Commission level for the last four Commission<br />
sessions;<br />
- All Codex requirements as per the Procedural Manual have been fulfilled;<br />
- JECFA has carried out the risk assessment three times as per the procedures and that the MRLs<br />
should be adopted as proposed by the CCRVDF;<br />
- The scientific concerns have not been fully addressed;<br />
- Consumer preferences in certain countries are against use of veterinary drugs for growth purposes;<br />
- Work on these standards should either be discontinued or be put in abeyance for some time due to<br />
lack of consensus;<br />
- Whatever option is selected must foster consensus.<br />
This was an informal meeting and not a forum for making decisions or recommendations to the<br />
Commission. I must say and I had also concluded at the end of the meeting, that the participation of<br />
several members and observers and the level of their engagement was a demonstration of the<br />
willingness of the members to continue their dialogue and discussion on this matter. There was<br />
divergence in the opinion on scientific assessment, the manner of considering consumer preferences as<br />
part of factors influencing Codex standards, and on the fulfilment of all Codex requirements to<br />
support adoption of the draft MRLs.”<br />
91. The Chairperson further recalled the efforts made to develop the various options for consensus among<br />
members of the Commission. He recalled specifically the various informal meetings that he had organised