ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN
ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN
22 REP12/CAC 127. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Principles and Guidelines, as proposed by the TFAF, and invited delegations to resubmit the comments at Step 6 in order to be considered by the next Session of the Task Force. Pesticide Residues (CCPR) Proposed draft maximum residue limits for pesticides 28 128. The Commission adopted all proposed draft MRLs for pesticides at Step 5 and advanced them to Step 6 for comments and further consideration by the next session of the Committee on Pesticide Residues. 129. The Delegation of the European Union expressed its reservation on the following proposals for MRLs for pesticide / commodity combinations: general reservation on diflubenzuron as the evaluation of this compound was ongoing in the EU and specific reservations for the proposals for peaches, plums and peppers; hexythiazox for strawberries; etofenprox for grapes; dicamba for soybeans; acetamiprid for scarole (leafy vegetables except spinach) and flutriafol for dried grapes (= currants, raisins and sultanas) and grapes. More detailed explanations on the rationale for these reservations are provided in working document CX/CAC 12/35/6 (Rev). The Delegation also expressed a general reservation on the application of the proportionality approach to the derivation of MRLs until further guidance and principles had been agreed by the CCPR. The Delegations of Croatia and Norway also expressed their reservations on these MRLs and the use of the proportionality approach. REVOCATION OF EXISTING CODEX STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS (Agenda Item 6) 29 130. The Commission agreed to revoke all texts proposed, as presented in CX/CAC 12/35/7. The list of texts approved for revocation is summarized in Appendix V to this report. Additional information on the comments made and decisions taken is presented below. Revocation of CODEX STAN 229-1993: Recommended Methods of Analysis for Pesticide Residues 131. The Delegation of India indicated that it did not oppose the revocation of CODEX STAN 229-1993: Recommended Methods of Analysis for Pesticide Residues; however clarification should be provided on the status of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division repository list of methods of analysis for pesticide residues vis-à-vis the status of Codex standards under the WTO/SPS Agreement. The Delegation indicated that methods of analysis for the determination of pesticide residues was an important and integral part of the enforcement of MRLs for pesticides and the identification of suitable methods of analysis should not be left to national laboratories as this might result in barriers to trade. The Delegation expressed the view that, in accordance with the Terms of Reference and the Risk Analysis Principles applied by the CCPR, work should continue on exploring feasible ways to develop and maintain an updated list of methods of analysis for enforcement of Codex MRLs for pesticides. 132. The Commission noted that the Joint FAO/IAEA Division web-based repository list of methods of analysis was not intended to be a list of Codex reference or preferred methods for the determination of Codex MRLs for pesticides but a resource list that countries might consult for the identification of suitable methods for the determination of pesticide residues. The Commission further noted that the Committee on Pesticide Residues was currently working on the development of performance criteria for methods of analysis as opposed to a list of methods of analysis, as recommended by the 34 th Session of the Commission, to assist countries to choose their own validated methods based on these criteria. 133. Based on the above considerations, the Commission revoked CODEX STAN 229-1993: Recommended Methods of Analysis for Pesticide Residues while requesting CCPR to continue to explore feasible ways to identify methods of analysis for pesticide residues. AMENDMENTS TO CODEX STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS (Agenda Item 7) 30 134. The Commission noted that this item was related to the ongoing work of the Codex Secretariat to ensure consistency throughout Codex texts. 135. The Commission adopted the amendments as presented in the working document. 28 REP12/PR, para. 117, Appendix IX. 29 CX/CAC 12/35/7, CRD 4 (comments of Chile), CRD 12 (comments of Indonesia), CRD 13 (comments of India), CRD 16 (comments of Peru) 30 CX/CAC 12/35/8.
REP12/CAC 23 136. One of the amendments was to delete the section on methods for the determination of lead in the standards for cocoa products as there were no MLs for lead for these products. In this context, the Commission noted the request from a Delegation to develop MLs for lead in cocoa products as especially children consumed these in large amounts. The Commission noted that this proposal could be put forward in the Committee on Contaminants in Foods, which had undertaken a review of all current maximum levels for lead. PROPOSALS FOR THE ELABORATION OF NEW STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS AND FOR THE DISCONTINUATION OF WORK (Agenda Item 8) 31 ELABORATION OF NEW STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS 137. The Commission approved the elaboration of new standards and related texts summarized in Appendix VI. The following paragraphs provide additional information on comments made and decisions taken on the following items: Food Hygiene (CCFH) Revision of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Spices and Dried Aromatic Plants 32 138. The Delegation of Brazil reiterated its position presented at the 43 rd CCFH that the Committee should follow a more horizontal approach to the development of Codex texts and that it would be more appropriate to deal with hygienic practices for spices in the context of a more general Code of Hygienic Practice for Low-moisture Foods. The Commission noted that it was the intention of the CCFH to follow a more horizontal approach and that it would be considering a discussion paper on the development of a code of hygienic practice for low-moisture foods at its next session, but that it would start work on the revision of the Code of Hygienic Practice for Spices and Dried Aromatic Plants, which was outdated and required updating, in the interim for possible inclusion in a future code of hygienic practice for low-moisture foods. The Commission approved the new work and noted the reservation of Brazil to this decision. Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) Annex for Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxins and Ochratoxin A in Sorghum to the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Mycotoxin Contamination in Cereals 33 139. In response to the question from a Delegation, the Commission noted that proposals for the expansion of the scope of the Code should be put forward in the Committee. Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Hydrocyanic Acid in Cassava and Cassava Products 34 140. The Commission noted that the establishment of maximum levels for hydrocyanic acid in cassava and cassava products would be limited to the section on contaminants, to establish safe levels of this natural toxin in the aforesaid products. It was also noted that different varieties of cassava contained different levels of cyanogenic glycosides, from which hydrocyanic acid is formed, therefore this should be taken into account when establishing maximum levels. It was further noted that cyanogenic glycosides also occurred in other products for which it would be useful to establish maximum levels. 141. The Representative of the WHO noted that this issue had been considered by the Committee on Contaminants in Foods at the request of the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, when considering the Standard for Bitter Cassava in view of the different levels of cyanogenic glycosides in cassava varieties, especially bitter and sweet varieties. This work should also be seen in the context of the development of a Code of Practice to reduce the presence of cyanogenic glycosides in cassava. 142. The Commission approved new work on proposed draft maximum levels for hydrocyanic acid in cassava and cassava products. 31 CX/CAC 12/35/9; CX/CAC 12/35/9-Add.1; CRD 3 (Comments of Brazil); CRD 7 (Comments of Nigeria); CRD 10 (Comments of Philippines); CRD 11 (Comments of IFAH); CRD 12 (Comments of Indonesia); CRD 13 (Comments of India). 32 REP12/FH, paras 137 - 138, Appendix VII. 33 REP12/CF, para. 141, Appendix X. 34 REP12/CF, para. 165.
- Page 1 and 2: JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRA
- Page 3 and 4: REP12/CAC 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Parag
- Page 5 and 6: REP12/CAC 5 APPENDICES I LIST OF PA
- Page 7 and 8: REP12/CAC 7 6. The Chairperson of t
- Page 9 and 10: REP12/CAC 9 27. The amendments to t
- Page 11 and 12: REP12/CAC 11 42. The Commission not
- Page 13 and 14: REP12/CAC 13 60. The Commission ado
- Page 15 and 16: REP12/CAC 15 evaluation should focu
- Page 17 and 18: REP12/CAC 17 with interested partie
- Page 19 and 20: REP12/CAC 19 107. Following some fu
- Page 21: REP12/CAC 21 - Egypt: considered th
- Page 25 and 26: REP12/CAC 25 MATTERS REFERRED TO TH
- Page 27 and 28: REP12/CAC 27 Conclusion 168. The Co
- Page 29 and 30: REP12/CAC 29 group, taking into acc
- Page 31 and 32: REP12/CAC 31 Objective 4.2 198. Som
- Page 33 and 34: REP12/CAC 33 214. The Representativ
- Page 35 and 36: REP12/CAC 35 RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
- Page 37 and 38: REP12/CAC 37 radionuclides designed
- Page 39 and 40: REP12/CAC 39 274. It was clarified
- Page 41 and 42: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 41 CHAIRPERSO
- Page 43 and 44: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 43 Sra. Andre
- Page 45 and 46: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 45 Ms Ngawang
- Page 47 and 48: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 47 M. Urbain
- Page 49 and 50: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 49 Sra. Gisel
- Page 51 and 52: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 51 Ms LI Ying
- Page 53 and 54: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 53 Sr Gabriel
- Page 55 and 56: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 55 Mr Guido S
- Page 57 and 58: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 57 Mr Ahmed M
- Page 59 and 60: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 59 M. Henri-G
- Page 61 and 62: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 61 GUATEMALA
- Page 63 and 64: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 63 Ms Penny D
- Page 65 and 66: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 65 Dr Pier Gi
- Page 67 and 68: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 67 Mrs Alice
- Page 69 and 70: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 69 MALAYSIA -
- Page 71 and 72: REP 12/CAC Appendix 1 71 Ms Tanja
22 REP12/CAC<br />
127. The Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Principles and Guidelines, as proposed by the TFAF, and<br />
invited delegations to resubmit the comments at Step 6 in order to be considered by the next Session of the<br />
Task Force.<br />
Pesticide Residues (CCPR)<br />
Proposed draft maximum residue limits for pesticides 28<br />
128. The Commission adopted all proposed draft MRLs for pesticides at Step 5 and advanced them to Step<br />
6 for comments and further consideration by the next session of the Committee on Pesticide Residues.<br />
129. The Delegation of the European Union expressed its reservation on the following proposals for MRLs<br />
for pesticide / commodity combinations: general reservation on diflubenzuron as the evaluation of this<br />
compound was ongoing in the EU and specific reservations for the proposals for peaches, plums and<br />
peppers; hexythiazox for strawberries; etofenprox for grapes; dicamba for soybeans; acetamiprid for scarole<br />
(leafy vegetables except spinach) and flutriafol for dried grapes (= currants, raisins and sultanas) and grapes.<br />
More detailed explanations on the rationale for these reservations are provided in working document<br />
CX/CAC 12/35/6 (Rev). The Delegation also expressed a general reservation on the application of the<br />
proportionality approach to the derivation of MRLs until further guidance and principles had been agreed by<br />
the CCPR. The Delegations of Croatia and Norway also expressed their reservations on these MRLs and the<br />
use of the proportionality approach.<br />
REVOCATION OF EXISTING CODEX STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS (Agenda Item 6) 29<br />
130. The Commission agreed to revoke all texts proposed, as presented in CX/CAC 12/35/7. The list of<br />
texts approved for revocation is summarized in Appendix V to this report. Additional information on the<br />
comments made and decisions taken is presented below.<br />
Revocation of CODEX STAN 229-1993: Recommended Methods of Analysis for Pesticide Residues<br />
131. The Delegation of India indicated that it did not oppose the revocation of CODEX STAN 229-1993:<br />
Recommended Methods of Analysis for Pesticide Residues; however clarification should be provided on the<br />
status of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division repository list of methods of analysis for pesticide residues vis-à-vis<br />
the status of Codex standards under the WTO/SPS Agreement. The Delegation indicated that methods of<br />
analysis for the determination of pesticide residues was an important and integral part of the enforcement of<br />
MRLs for pesticides and the identification of suitable methods of analysis should not be left to national<br />
laboratories as this might result in barriers to trade. The Delegation expressed the view that, in accordance<br />
with the Terms of Reference and the Risk Analysis Principles applied by the CCPR, work should continue on<br />
exploring feasible ways to develop and maintain an updated list of methods of analysis for enforcement of<br />
Codex MRLs for pesticides.<br />
132. The Commission noted that the Joint FAO/IAEA Division web-based repository list of methods of<br />
analysis was not intended to be a list of Codex reference or preferred methods for the determination of Codex<br />
MRLs for pesticides but a resource list that countries might consult for the identification of suitable methods<br />
for the determination of pesticide residues. The Commission further noted that the Committee on Pesticide<br />
Residues was currently working on the development of performance criteria for methods of analysis as<br />
opposed to a list of methods of analysis, as recommended by the 34 th Session of the Commission, to assist<br />
countries to choose their own validated methods based on these criteria.<br />
133. Based on the above considerations, the Commission revoked CODEX STAN 229-1993:<br />
Recommended Methods of Analysis for Pesticide Residues while requesting CCPR to continue to explore<br />
feasible ways to identify methods of analysis for pesticide residues.<br />
AMENDMENTS TO CODEX STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS (Agenda Item 7) 30<br />
134. The Commission noted that this item was related to the ongoing work of the Codex Secretariat to<br />
ensure consistency throughout Codex texts.<br />
135. The Commission adopted the amendments as presented in the working document.<br />
28 REP12/PR, para. 117, Appendix IX.<br />
29 CX/CAC 12/35/7, CRD 4 (comments of Chile), CRD 12 (comments of Indonesia), CRD 13 (comments of India), CRD 16<br />
(comments of Peru)<br />
30 CX/CAC 12/35/8.