laporan bersama perwakilan malaysia - Food Safety and Quality ...
laporan bersama perwakilan malaysia - Food Safety and Quality ... laporan bersama perwakilan malaysia - Food Safety and Quality ...
2.2.9 DISCUSSION PAPER ON USE OF NOTE 161 (Agenda Item 5g) HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION (Documents: CX/FA 11/43/13; CRD 17 (EU and Kenya); CRD 25 (EU and Japan)) The Committee recalled that the 41 st CCFA had agreed to request comments (CL 2009/7-FA, Part B, point 7) on the application of Note 161 “Subject to national legislation of the importing country aimed in particular at consistency with Section 3.2 of the Preamble” because of the concern of several delegations on the possible adverse impact of the extensive use of this Note in the GSFA. The 42 nd CCFA had agreed to establish an e-WG, led by the Netherlands, to prepare a discussion paper containing proposals for criteria and conditions for the use of Note 161 in the GSFA. The Delegation of the Netherlands introduced the report of the e-WG (CX/FA 11/43/13) and reported that the e-WG had not reached agreement on criteria and conditions for the use of Note 161. There was no consensus in the e-WG on how to deal with instances of the Note already included in the GSFA or with future requests for including the Note. Several proposals had been presented to limit the application of the Note, e.g. to its original purpose for sweeteners and colours or to cases when no consensus existed if a proposal was in line with section 3.2 of the Preamble of the GSFA. It had also been suggested that Note 161 would be used less if more discussion time was available in the physical Working Group on the GSFA. Several members were of the opinion that the possibility to use Note 161 was important and had often been requested because the procedures established in Section 3.2 of the Preamble of the GSFA, as well as in the Procedural Manual, i.e. Procedures for the entry and review of food additive provisions in the General Standard for Food Additives, had not been followed strictly enough. However, they agreed that COMMITTEE'S DECISION The Committee agreed to establish an e- WG, led by South Africa and open to all Members and Observers and working in English only, to continue working on a discussion paper on the application of Note 161 and in particular to formulate recommendations to facilitate a uniform implementation of Section 3.2 of the Preamble of the GSFA to address the use of Note 161. TINDAKAN MALAYSIA JKCK FA perlu ambil perhatian perkara ini. Nota: Perkara ini perlu dibincangkan dengan lebih teliti mungkin dengan mengambilkira penggunaan klausa seperti ini di dalam Codex Committee yang lain serta kesannya kepada negara. 36
HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION the use of the Note should be limited as much as possible and considered on a case by case basis. It was suggested that a stricter use of the agreed procedures, mentioned above, or the implementation of some of the proposals contained in the “Denner paper”, such as a list of foods which shall not contain any additives, could reduce the use of Note 161. Several other members and observers were against the use of Note 161 and proposed that it be deleted from the GSFA as its extended usage could create obstacles to international trade and undermine the harmonization efforts of Codex and the value of its scientific basis. It was mentioned that since the GSFA is intended to be the single Codex reference for food additives, the Committee should make an effort to find a consensus in line with its procedures whereas the use of Note 161 was counterproductive. As a way to progress on this issue, one Member proposed to hold further discussions on the interpretation of the GSFA Preamble (in particular 3.2) and the relevant sections of the Procedural Manual. Another Member proposed that a working group compile a document with all occurrences of Note 161 and classify them by justification/ or food additive to get a better understanding on why the Note was used. To progress on this issue, the Chairperson proposed to continue work on the discussion paper in an eWG. He also proposed suspending the introduction of Note 161 in the GSFA; however, there was no consensus on this proposal. Note : Countries which opposes the note : Japan, Kenya, Colombia, Mexico, CCLAC, Australia, Tanzania, Paraguay, Costa Rica, South Africa, Mali, Brazil, Santa Lucia, Chile, Canada, ICGMA, IDF, ICBA, IFT. COMMITTEE'S DECISION TINDAKAN MALAYSIA 37
- Page 1 and 2: 1. Delegasi Malaysia Tiga (3) orang
- Page 3 and 4: 2.2.2 MATTERS REFERRED BY THE CODEX
- Page 5 and 6: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION Working Pr
- Page 7 and 8: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION and asked
- Page 9 and 10: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION Proposed d
- Page 11 and 12: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION Proposed D
- Page 13 and 14: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION what the r
- Page 15 and 16: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION They expla
- Page 17 and 18: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION The pWG ha
- Page 19 and 20: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION sweeteners
- Page 21 and 22: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION their rese
- Page 23 and 24: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION expressed
- Page 25 and 26: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION Verbal int
- Page 27 and 28: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION this sessi
- Page 29 and 30: 2.2.6 PROVISIONS FOR ALUMINIUM CONT
- Page 31 and 32: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION Recommenda
- Page 33 and 34: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION the descri
- Page 35: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION The Commit
- Page 39 and 40: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION amendments
- Page 41 and 42: standards. HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION
- Page 43 and 44: 2.2.11 PROPOSED DRAFT REVISION OF T
- Page 45 and 46: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION analytical
- Page 47 and 48: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION Recommenda
- Page 49 and 50: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION The FAO JE
- Page 51 and 52: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION The Commit
- Page 53 and 54: JECFA. HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION The
- Page 55 and 56: 2.2.17 OTHER BUSINESS AND FUTURE WO
HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION<br />
the use of the Note should be limited as much as possible <strong>and</strong><br />
considered on a case by case basis.<br />
It was suggested that a stricter use of the agreed procedures,<br />
mentioned above, or the implementation of some of the<br />
proposals contained in the “Denner paper”, such as a list of<br />
foods which shall not contain any additives, could reduce the<br />
use of Note 161.<br />
Several other members <strong>and</strong> observers were against the use of<br />
Note 161 <strong>and</strong> proposed that it be deleted from the GSFA as<br />
its extended usage could create obstacles to international<br />
trade <strong>and</strong> undermine the harmonization efforts of Codex<br />
<strong>and</strong> the value of its scientific basis. It was mentioned that<br />
since the GSFA is intended to be the single Codex reference for<br />
food additives, the Committee should make an effort to find a<br />
consensus in line with its procedures whereas the use of Note<br />
161 was counterproductive.<br />
As a way to progress on this issue, one Member proposed to<br />
hold further discussions on the interpretation of the GSFA<br />
Preamble (in particular 3.2) <strong>and</strong> the relevant sections of the<br />
Procedural Manual. Another Member proposed that a working<br />
group compile a document with all occurrences of Note 161 <strong>and</strong><br />
classify them by justification/ or food additive to get a better<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing on why the Note was used.<br />
To progress on this issue, the Chairperson proposed to<br />
continue work on the discussion paper in an eWG. He also<br />
proposed suspending the introduction of Note 161 in the<br />
GSFA; however, there was no consensus on this proposal.<br />
Note : Countries which opposes the note : Japan, Kenya,<br />
Colombia, Mexico, CCLAC, Australia, Tanzania, Paraguay,<br />
Costa Rica, South Africa, Mali, Brazil, Santa Lucia, Chile,<br />
Canada, ICGMA, IDF, ICBA, IFT.<br />
COMMITTEE'S DECISION<br />
TINDAKAN<br />
MALAYSIA<br />
37
Change language