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

REP11/PR 13
118. The Delegation of Australia, as Chair of the in-session Working Group on Methods of Analysis, introduced CRD 30 which
contained a revised version of the Guidelines on the estimation of uncertainty of results for the determination of pesticide residues.
119. The Delegation of Egypt pointed out that uncertainty of sampling and sampling preparation should be considered as in many
cases it would be larger than that of analytical measurement and proposed the inclusion of a default uncertainty component for
sampling in the Guidelines. The Committee was reminded that, in general, sampling is outside the control of analytical laboratories
and that the estimation of sampling uncertainty is outside the scope of these Guidelines. Uncertainty associated with laboratory
sample preparation is normally expected to be addressed and incorporated as part of the method validation process for specific food
commodities. It was noted that the question of sampling uncertainty had been considered in the Committee on Methods of Analysis
and Sampling (CCMAS) from a general point of view.
120. The Delegation also indicated that, in addition to the Guidelines applicable to pesticide residues, there were Guidelines on
measurement uncertainty developed by the CCMAS, which would cause confusion and that one harmonized guideline rather than
several guidelines should be developed. The Committee however recalled that the Guidelines on Measurement Uncertainty (GL 54-
2004) were of general application, while the Guidelines discussed in CCPR are specific guidelines for the determination of pesticide
residues.
STATUS OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES ON THE ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY OF RESULTS FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF PESTICIDE RESIDUES (ANNEX TO CAC/GL 59-2006)
121. The Committee agreed to forward the revised Proposed Draft Guidelines to the 34 th Session of the Commission for adoption
at Step 5/8 (Appendix X).
DISCUSSION PAPER ON HOW TO ADDRESS METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR PESTICIDE RESIDUES BY THE CODEX
COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES (Agenda Item 10b) 17
122. The Committee recalled that at its last session it had agreed to consider the status of the repository list of analytical methods
maintained by the IAEA and the implications of maintaining the list as either a resource list or as preferred/ obligatory methods at this
session.
123. The Delegation of Australia, as Chair of the in-session working group, referred to CRD 30. The Committee agreed with the
recommendation of the working group to revoke Analysis of Pesticide Residues: Recommended Methods (CODEX STAN 229-1993)
and that the IAEA would continue to support the maintenance of the web-based method database with a direct link from the Codex
website.
REVISION OF THE RISK ANALYSIS PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES (Agenda
Item 11) 18
124. The Committee recalled that its last session had returned the Revision for redrafting by an electronic working group led by
Argentina in the light of the comments received, to identify issues of concern and prepare proposals on how to resolve these issues.
125. The Delegation of Argentina recalled the initial mandate of the working group when the revision of the Risk Analysis Principles
was initiated in 2008 and summarized the main discussions held in the Committee so far. The Delegation highlighted the main issues
for consideration, especially the revision of the Periodic Review Procedure, and the reordering of the text in order to align it with the
Working Principles for Risk Analysis, as discussed in the Committee on General Principles. As regards section 5.5 Periodic Review
Procedure, two alternative proposals had been put forward.
126. The Committee agreed to focus on the alternative proposals for the revision of the periodic review. Many delegations
supported the first alternative as they considered MRL setting should be consistent with general Codex texts and the Working
Principles for Risk Analysis and therefore MRLs should not be revoked without scientific justification. These delegations also pointed
out that retaining MRLs which were still valid would save resources for the purpose of risk assessment and would limit potential trade
problems.
127. Many other delegations expressed the view that the periodic review was based on science and should be retained especially
for the following reasons: MRLs should be revised when GAP change; MRLs for foods of animal origin should be revised as
appropriate to take into account the update of the OECD Feedstuffs Derived from Crops Table in 2009; and JMPR should consider
establishing an ARfD for the older compounds.
17 CX/PR 11/43/11. Report of the in-session Working Group on Methods of Analysis (CRD 30).
18 CX/PR 11/43/12, CX/PR 11/43/12-Add.1 (comments from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Japan, Uruguay and CropLife International). Additional comments
from Kenya (CRD 5); Colombia (CRD 9); Chile (CRD); Uruguay (CRD 12); Argentina (CRD 18); China (CRD 19); Nigeria (CRD 20); Mali (CRD 21); Australia
(CRD 24); and Brazil (CRD 28).