ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN

18 REP12/CAC
disruption to trade. They highlighted their concerns on the long delay to adopt the MRLs based on nonscientific
factors and stressed the need for Codex to base its decisions on science, in view of the status of
Codex standards under the WTO SPS Agreement. They recalled that failure to adopt the MRLs for
ractopamine could negatively impact on food security as the establishment of MRLs for ractopamine would
allow the safe use of new technologies to meet the increasing demand for food production foreseen by FAO.
One delegation pointed out that 26 countries were using ractopamine without problems and that no technical
barriers to trade or food safety alerts through INFOSAN had been reported due to its use.
101. The JECFA Secretariat clarified that ractopamine had been evaluated on several occasions and an ADI
had been established and MRLs proposed that are compatible with consumer safety. Additional residue
studies in pig lungs had been evaluated based on request of the Commission and the report was published
and considered at the 34 th CAC. If safety concerns were brought forth regarding ractopamine, these needed to
be supported by data.
102. After an extensive debate, which had essentially reproduced the discussion that took place at the 34 th
CAC about the three main options on the way to proceed (i.e. continue to hold the draft MRLs at Step 8;
discontinue work on the draft MRLs; and vote on the adoption of the draft MRLs) and their rationale, a large
number of delegations and two observers continued to request the floor. Therefore, the Chairperson proposed,
in view of time constraints, to interrupt the general discussion and to focus on how to move forward.
103. The Chairperson noted that the Commission had not found consensus and noted that as per Rule XII.2
of the Rules of the Procedure of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Commission should make every
effort to reach consensus on the adoption or amendment of standards by consensus. The Chairperson noted
that the Procedural Manual provided sufficient guidance through the Working Principles for Risk Analysis for
Application in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Risk Analysis Principles Applied
by the CCRVDF and the Statements of Principles Concerning the Role of Science in the Codex Decision-
Making Process and the Extent to which other Factors are Taken into Account.
104. The Delegation of Ghana was of the view that, according to Rule XII.2 “consensus” was not a must
but rather a preference for Codex. Therefore, the Delegation called for a roll-call-vote on the adoption of the
draft MRLs for ractopamine as, in their view, all seven “Measures to Facilitate Consensus” had been
explored.
105. The Chairperson raised the question whether every effort had been made to reach consensus before
proceeding with such a vote, as required by the Rule XII.2
106. Delegations were split among:
(i) those who considered that not all measures had been exhausted and, in particular, the following
required further efforts:
- Refraining from submitting proposals in the step process where the scientific basis is not well
established on current data and, where necessary, carry out further studies in order to clarify
controversial issues.
- Providing that matters are not progressed from step to step until all relevant concerns are taken
into account and adequate compromises worked out.
- Emphasizing to Committees and their Chairpersons that matters should not be passed on to the
Commission until such time as consensus has been achieved at the technical level.
In their view, not all scientific evidence had been fully explored; the CCRVDF had prematurely
forwarded the draft MRLs to the Commission without having achieved consensus at the technical level.
(ii) those who considered that all efforts to reach consensus had been made. They were of the view
that: JECFA had clarified that all relevant data had been considered in their recommendations; that
the CCRVDF had in fact considered all relevant concerns and those concerns that were not
addressed were not scientific concerns; and that the Chairperson of the CCRVDF had followed the
Guidelines to the Chairperson of Codex Committees to achieve consensus at the technical level but
no consensus could be found.