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

REP11/PR 12
STATUS OF THE DRAFT PRINCIPLES AND GUIDANCE ON THE SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE COMMODITIES FOR THE EXTRAPOLATION OF
MRLS TO COMMODITY GROUPS
111. The Committee agreed to hold the Draft Principles and Guidance (including Table 1 on fruit commodities) at Step 7 pending
the finalization of the revision of the Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds as per the fruit types (Appendix IX).
DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE GUIDANCE TO FACILITATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS FOR
PESTICIDES FOR MINOR USE AND SPECIALTY CROPS (Agenda Item 9) 15
112. The Delegation of the United States of America, as Chair of the electronic Working Group on Minor Use and Specialty Crops,
introduced the document highlighting the major issues associated with the establishment of maximum residue limits for pesticides for
minor use and specialty crops as presented in CX/PR 11/43/9. As regards the definition of minor use and specialty crops, the
Delegation recalled that the last session of the Committee did not endorse the recommendation for guidance from JMPR on the
number of residue field trials necessary to perform the evaluation as there was not an agreed international definition nor any agreed
data requirements for minor use. The Delegation noted that there is currently no agreement on a definition due to difficulties in
reaching consensus as per what could be considered a minor use and specialty crop vis-à-vis the production and consumption of the
same commodity in different countries and regions. In view of this, criteria as opposed to definition, for use by CCPR and JMPR to
determine the minimum number of field trials necessary to support the establishment of MRLs for minor use and specialty crops
could be more appropriate to assist member countries in the identification of minor use/specialty crops and the submission of data to
JMPR.
113. Several delegations supported the development of criteria for use by CCPR/JMPR and generally favoured the dietary intake
contribution and total production/cultivation area as relevant criteria to address risk assessment for the establishment of MRLs for
minor use and specialty crops. Therefore, economic factors should not be taken into account when further developing the criteria.
Some of these delegations noted that the development of criteria could later on assist in the elaboration of a definition for minor use
and specialty crops that could then be agreed upon by Codex members.
114. In regard to the two criteria identified, several delegation were of the opinion that, in order to provide for more flexibility in their
application worldwide, the cut off figures for dietary intake contribution and the total production area should rather be expressed in
percentages of the global total daily diet (based on GEMS Food Data) and of the world food production (based on FAOSTAT)
however a higher tonnage production than currently presented in the discussion paper should be considered.
115. The Delegation of the EU noted that clarity was needed on the terminology used in the discussion paper to address these
commodities i.e. minor use, minor crops and specialty crops. The Delegation indicated that the terms minor/major crops are used to
define a food safety issue and the number of trials necessary for MRLs setting hence the daily intake contribution and cultivation
area are relevant criteria to identify minor crops. In this regard, the Delegation noted that the discussion paper did not clearly
differentiate between minor crop and minor use and that the latter was more related to the economic return on the use of a pesticide
in relation to the registration costs which in no case would reduce the number of trials required for the establishment of MRLs for the
minor crop. It was noted that, in this framework, there could be major crops with minor use and vice-versa. The delegation also noted
that the discussion paper neither clearly differentiate between “minor crop” and “specialty crop” and that both terms should clearly be
understood for the purposes of MRLs setting by CCPR.
Conclusion
116. Based on the above considerations, the Committee agreed to re-establish the electronic working group chaired by the United
States of America and co-chaired by Kenya and Thailand to work on the development of criteria for use by CCPR and JMPR to
determine the minimum number of field trials necessary to support the establishment of MRLs for minor crops/specialty crops in
order to facilitate data submission to JMPR. The Committee agreed that the electronic working group will hold a meeting prior to the
44 th Session of the CCPR and that both the electronic and physical working groups will work in English only.
PROPOSED DRAFT REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES ON THE ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY OF RESULTS FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF PESTICIDE RESIDUES (Agenda Item 10a) 16
117. The Committee recalled that its last session had agreed to return the proposed draft Guidelines to Step 3 for consideration at
this session.
15 CX/PR 11/43/9. Comments from Kenya (CRD 5); CropLife (CRD 6); Thailand (CRD 8); Colombia (CRD 9); Argentina (CRD 10); China (CRD 19); Nigeria
(CRD 20); Mali (CRD 21); EU (CRD 22); and OECD (CRD 29).
16 CX/PR 11/43/10; CX/PR 11/43/10-Add.1 (Comments from Canada and Cuba). Additional comments from Kenya (CRD 5); Colombia (CRD 9); Japan (CRD
13); EU (CRD 15); China (CRD 19); Mali (CRD 21); and Japan (CRD 23). Report of the in-session Working Group on Methods of Analysis (CRD 30).