ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN

28 REP12/CAC
Risk Analysis Principles Applied by the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs. He further
recalled that acceptance of new work required approval by the Commission irrespective of inclusion of drugs
in the priority list by CCRVDF. If changes to the criteria or procedures were needed, the appropriate channels
of Codex could be followed, for example through the Committee on General Principles.
175. One Delegation also questioned how precedence could be established when to their knowledge the
CCRVDF had never experienced similar situation i.e. “no consensus on the substances in the Priority List”.
176. The Chairperson noted the views expressed by the Representative of the Legal Counsel and the
discussion above. He concluded that the Procedural Manual provided sufficient guidance for the inclusion of
zilpaterol in the Priority List and that several countries depended on JECFA evaluations to assess veterinary
drugs. The Chairperson further noted that the Representative of the Legal Counsel had stated that once the
criteria listed in para. 13 of the Risk Analysis Principles applied by the CCRVDF were met, inclusion of the
veterinary drug the Priority List would follow.
Conclusion
177. The Chairperson concluded that, based on the above legal opinion, zilpaterol should be included in the
Priority List for JECFA evaluation, that no further guidance was required for the CCRVDF, that risk
management decisions should follow the risk assessment and that the Commission approved the Priority List
with the addition of zilpaterol hydrochloride. On this basis, the CCRVDF would initiate work based on the
recommendations of the JECFA evaluation.
178. The Delegations of China, Croatia, Egypt, European Union, Norway and Switzerland expressed their
reservation to this decision.
STRATEGIC PLANNING OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION (Agenda Item 10)
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (Agenda Item 10a) 41
179. The Commission noted the discussion that had been held on the monitoring of the Codex Strategic
Plan 2008-2013 at the 67 th CCEXEC, which had noted that there were no specific concerns and that the
overall implementation of the Strategic Plan was progressing satisfactorily. 42
180. With regard to Activity 5.2 “Promote effective use of written comments in the Codex process”, one
Delegation noted that replies to the questionnaire on the use of written comments indicated that late
comments were not dealt with consistently across Codex and suggested to consider the development of a
procedure to ensure a consistent approach among Codex committees on how to handle late comments as an
activity of the new Strategic Plan.
181. In response to a request for clarification of the status of Activity 5.3 “Evaluate effectiveness of Codex
Committee sessions held in developing countries”, the Codex Secretariat clarified that the activity was
completed. A comprehensive study on the effectiveness of Codex committees session held in developing
countries 43 had been considered by the 32 nd CAC and the practical recommendations of the Commission,
including the amendment of the Guidelines for Host Governments of Codex Committees and ad-hoc
Intergovernmental Task Forces and creation of a specific page on co-hosting on the Codex website 44 , had
been implemented.
Conclusion
182. The Commission concurred with the conclusion of the 67 th CCEXEC and noted that the
implementation of the Codex Strategic Plan was underway and progressing in a satisfactory manner.
DRAFT CODEX STRATEGIC PLAN 2014 – 2019 (Agenda Item 10b) 45
183. The Chairperson introduced the item and provided an update on the progress made on the development
of the draft Codex Strategic Plan 2014-2019. Based on the latest draft proposed by the drafting team led by
the Member for North America, the 67 th CCEXEC had discussed changes to the text in an in-session working
41 CX/CAC 12/35/11
42 REP12/EXEC2, para.48
43 ALINORM 09/32/9B Part III
44 http://www.codexalimentarius.org/meetings-reports/co-hosting-meetings/en/
45 REP12/EXEC2, paras 49-60 and Appendix II, CRD 4 (comments of Chile), CRD 6 (comments of EU), CRD 16 (comments of
Peru), CRD 24 (Comments of Dominican Republic)