REP11/PR JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME ...

REP11/PR 11
103. The Committee noted that the working group had produced two revised documents as contained in CX/PR 11/43/7 (Principles
and Guidance including Table 1) and CX/PR 11/43/8 (Addenda). The Committee also noted that the two items were correlated and
agreed to discuss them together. The Delegation of the United States of America introduced both documents and gave a brief
summary of the main outcome of the discussions in the working group. In this regard, it was noted that Table 1 had been revised by
including fruit commodity groups with a view to facilitating the finalization of the Principles/Guidance and Table 1 (fruit types) at the
next session of the Committee vis-à-vis the corresponding fruit commodity groups in the Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds
and the decision of the 42 nd Session of the Committee that, if all fruit types were completed by 2012, consideration would be given to
advancing them to Step 8 for final adoption by the Commission and inclusion in the Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds 14 .
104. The Committee agreed that Table 1 should be an integral part of the final document. However, the information contained in
the Addenda was considered useful supportive information for the development of Table 1 (Addendum I) and to provide background
information on the development of the document (Addendum II) but they should not be part of the final document. The Committee
noted that this information was available in the reports and relevant working documents prepared for the discussion of this item at
different sessions of the Committee and that Codex documents were available for consultation on the Codex website. As a result, the
Committee agreed to delete or adjust all references to Addenda I and II in the document.
105. The Committee noted that the reference to “similar (as opposed to same) use pattern or GAP” for the selection of
representative commodities covered by a group MRL was entered to provide for some degree of flexibility in the application of the
Principles and that this term was limited to the relevant provisions provided for in the FAO Manual on the Submission and Evaluation
of Pesticide Residue Data for the Estimation of Maximum Residue Level in Food and Feed.
Consideration of the Principles and Guidance
106. The Committee made a number of amendments by removing or transferring some provisions to other sections as not
necessary or more relevant for the given section.
107. The Delegation of the EU noted that extrapolation of results of residue trials is a possibility to establish MRLs for
crops/commodities for which the number of trials would not be sufficient to derive individual MRLs. However, the setting of MRLs by
extrapolation introduced an additional source of uncertainty. Therefore, extrapolation should be restricted to cases where the GAP
was comparable and similar residue behaviour was expected. If available residue trials demonstrated that the use of a pesticide
would result in different residue concentrations in the crops belonging to the same crop group, it is preferable to derive individual
MRLs instead of extrapolating the highest MRL calculated for the crop with the highest residue to the other members of the
commodity group. In these cases, the ALARA Principles should be applied to set MRLs at appropriate lower levels. Based on this
consideration, the Committee agreed to introduce a reference to the ALARA Principles when considering representative commodity
to extrapolate to other members of a commodity group.
Consideration of Table 1
108. The Committee agreed to change the title to more appropriately reflect the purpose of and information contained in Table 1. In
Group 001 Citrus Fruits, the Committee agreed that, in order to extrapolate maximum residue limits for pesticides to the whole citrus
fruits group (FC 0001), data should be provided on lemon or lime; and mandarin; and orange; and pummelo or grapefruit. In lemons
and limes (FC 0002), the name of “yuzu” was changed to “yuja” for consistency with the discussion on this commodity under Agenda
Item 7(b) (see para. 90).
109. In Group 003 Stone Fruits, apricot was added as an alternative representative commodity to peach for extrapolation of MRLs
to the whole stone fruits group (FP 0009) hence a consequential amendment was made to Subgroup 003C, Peaches. It was noted
that in some countries apricot was the commodity most likely to contain the highest residues. It was however noted that peaches
have large cultivation areas in many countries therefore the decision on which commodity would be considered as representative of
the relevant group could be taken based on information provided on dietary consumption and/or production area.
110. In Group 006 Assorted Tropical and Subtropical Fruits – inedible peel, the reference to “dragonfruit” was changed to
“pitahaya” for consistency with Subgroup 006D, Assorted tropical and sub-tropical, inedible peel – cactus where pitahaya, as
opposed to dragonfruit, was indicated as a representative commodity for inedible peel – cactus (FI 2024). Along these lines,
“Spanish lime” was included in addition to “litchi” in the general Group 006 for consistency with Subgroup 006A, Assorted Tropical
and Sub-tropical, inedible peel, small where Spanish lime was indicated as a representative commodity for inedible peel – small (FI
2021). In this regard, the Committee agreed to include longans as a representative commodity in addition to litchi as they were
similar to litchis in morphology, growth habit, pest problems, similar GAPs, and edible portion for the determination of the residue. In
addition, longans produce similar or higher residues than litchis and were widely produced and traded within the Asian region.
14 ALINORM 10/33/24, para. 104.