laporan bersama perwakilan malaysia - Food Safety and Quality ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.2.15 DISCUSSION PAPER ON MECHANISM FOR RE-EVALUATION OF SUBSTANCES BY JECFA (Agenda Item 9b) HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION (Documents : CX/FA 11/43/19; CRD 21 (Brazil; EU, India, Mali and Peru)) The JECFA Secretariat introduced document CX/FA 11/43/19 and recalled that JECFA and the CCFA had repeatedly discussed the need for a more systematic approach to the reevaluation of food additives that were currently undertaken upon specific requests. Considering that JECFA had evaluated over 600 food additives (excluding flavouring agents) to date and many of these evaluations dated back to over 30 years ago, a more systematic approach to prioritize re-evaluations was necessary. A re-evaluation was the only scientific basis to ensure the safety of food additives and where necessary to revoke existing food additive provisions (in the GSFA and in commodity standards), specifications or ADIs. The re-evaluation process needed to take into account existing information, in particular recent assessments, to avoid duplication and considering the limited resources. The JECFA Secretariat briefly explained the prioritisation criteria and re-evaluation schemes used by JMPR/CCPR and the European Food Safety Authority. The JECFA Secretariat also presented a table on the status of food additives evaluated by JECFA between 1956 and 2008. The JECFA Secretariat proposed as a framework for a re-evaluation scheme: to establish a list of food additives evaluated by JECFA, organized by year and grouped by the main reported technical functions; to gather all available information on these additives from members and organizations, including companies producing food additives; and to establish a prioritized list of food additives for action by the Committee, including requests for re-evaluation by COMMITTEE'S DECISION Conclusion The Committee agreed to establish an e- WG, led by Canada, open to all Members and Observers and working in English only, with the following terms of reference: i. To establish criteria to prioritize food additives for re-evaluation (taking into account the proposed criteria in the working document and those used by JMPR/CCPR); ii. To establish a detailed list of the 107 food colours evaluated by JECFA since 1956, organized by year of evaluation; iii. To compile information on these colours from members and other organizations, including from the industry producing food additives; iv. To establish a prioritized list of food colours based on prioritization criteria, for action by CCFA, including for consideration for re-evaluation by JECFA. The report of the e-WG will be considered by the next session of the Committee. TINDAKAN MALAYSIA JKCK FA perlu ambil perhatian perkara ini. 52
JECFA. HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION The JECFA Secretariat proposed to develop prioritization criteria through an e-WG and test them by focusing initially on food colours. Several delegations acknowledged the importance of this work and supported the establishment of an e-WG. Delegations also highlighted that the re-evaluation of Codex standards in light of new scientific evidence was an integral part of the Codex Risk Analysis Principles and thus should also apply to food additives. Proposals were made to make the prioritization criteria in the discussion paper more specific and to consider the prioritization criteria for periodic re-evaluation of pesticides, described in the “Criteria for the Prioritization Process of Compounds for Evaluation by JMPR” developed by the Committee of Pesticides Residues (CCPR). Some delegations raised concern about resource implications for JECFA from this re-evaluation work. The JECFA Secretariat clarified that the intention of this work was not to repeat efforts by national or regional authorities but to build on this work and that participation of national and regional authorities and sharing information in the e-WG was essential. The JECFA Secretariat stressed however that the financial resources for the work of JECFA were limited, to even complete the regular work, and that it was critically important that Members provide additional resources to continue the work of JECFA, which formed the basis of the work of the CCFA. COMMITTEE'S DECISION TINDAKAN MALAYSIA 53
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 and 36: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION The Commit
Page 37 and 38: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION the use of
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: HIGHLIGHTS OF DISCUSSION The Commit
Page 55 and 56: 2.2.17 OTHER BUSINESS AND FUTURE WO

laporan bersama perwakilan malaysia - Food Safety and Quality ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?