ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN

REP12/CAC 17
with interested parties and representatives of all FAO/WHO regions, which took place on Sunday, 1 July
2012, with an effort to develop further options for consensus.
92. He also recalled the facilitated session, agreed during the adoption of the agenda that he had organized,
open to all members and observers of the Commission, on Tuesday, 3 July 2012, where a revised set of
options was presented and where it was agreed not to further discuss the options presented.
93. Before opening the floor for comments, he concluded that none of the efforts described above had led
to consensus to emerge around the proposed options and, moreover, that no other options had been put
forward by Members.
Discussion
94. The Chairperson invited the Commission to discus on how to proceed on the adoption of the draft
MRLs for ractopamine.
95. The delegations expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Chairperson to find consensus on this
issue.
96. Delegations which were against taking a decision at the present session considered that there was lack
of consensus and recommended to postpone a decision until consensus could be found. They were of the
view that consensus was necessary to make a decision on the draft MRLs and that more time was necessary
to find a solution that would allow the establishment of standards that were universally acceptable and
applicable. The high level of participation in the informal consultations was, in their opinion, a clear sign of
the level of countries’ engagement to find a solution on this issue. They noted that ractopamine was banned
in several countries because of consumer health concerns and because many countries banned the use of
veterinary drugs other than for animal therapeutic use. They pointed out that two thirds of the world
population was living in countries where ractopamine was not authorized.
97. These delegations were of the opinion that more time and information were needed before an informed
decision could be made as there were still unanswered safety questions, particularly with respect to the
residues in lung tissue and scientific concerns linked to the use of ractopamine, which required further
studies. They considered that it was premature to adopt the proposed MRLs before the studies on residues in
pig lung tissues had been completed and evaluated by JECFA. They also noted that studies on residues of
veterinary drug were done on individual substances and were of the opinion that caution should be used
before authorizing the use of new substances that would contribute to increasing the amount of residues in
food, with cross effects that were not known.
98. These delegations noted that the development of an international standard for a substance that was
prohibited in many countries could have repercussion on the credibility of Codex as the pre-eminent
organization for setting international standards for food safety. They further noted that it was essential for
Codex to base its decisions on a broad consensus not to undermine its credibility.
99. Delegations which were in favour of taking a decision at the present Session, considered that all efforts
had been made to find consensus and that it was urgent to adopt the MRLs to protect the health of consumers.
They noted that international standards for ractopamine were needed in many countries to control the use of
this substance and to avoid its abuse or misuse, as well as to monitor the import of meat products and to
determine the acceptance or rejection of consignments and thus protect the health of their consumers. This
was particularly important for those countries that relied heavily on imports for their meat supply. They were
of the opinion that countries opposed to the adoption of the MRLs on the basis of their national legislation
did not offer any alternative other than their own legislation to be adopted by other countries to the
discussion to find consensus.
100. These delegations supported the adoption of the draft MRLs and emphasized that JECFA had reviewed
the MRLs three times and fulfilled its task by considering all available data. They highlighted that the draft
MRLs were based on the JECFA risk assessment, as prescribed in the Risk Analysis Principles Applied by the
CCRVDF. They noted that no additional study, contradicting the conclusion of JECFA evaluations, had been
put forward for JECFA evaluation and reiterated their confidence in the science-based work of JECFA. They
expressed concern about the precedent that could be set, undermining the work of JECFA and risk
assessment by not adopting or delaying the adoption of the MRLs. They also recalled that it was important
for Codex to make the maximum use of JECFA limited resources and that it was important for Codex to base
its standard on sound science and JECFA recommendations. They further noted that the lack of international
standards could give rise to the development of regional or private standards to fill the gaps and result in