Codex at 50 - A report of the 36th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, 1-5 July 2013

Alan W Randell

The 36^th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission coincided almost precisely with the 50^th anniversary of the Commission’s first meeting in 1963. The anniversary was celebrated with speeches from both Directors-General of FAO and WHO, eight Ministers and high-level officials from Member countries (including the newest Member, Tajikistan), a birthday cake and a rendition of “Happy Birthday” led by the Director-General of WHO, Dr Margaret Wang.

The meeting was chaired by Mr Sanjay Dave of India and, as is traditional, by the Vice-Chairs of the Commission for some agenda items. The Vice-Chairs were Dr Samuel Godefroy (Canada), Mrs Awilo Ochieng Pernet (Switzerland) and Professor Samuel Sefa-Dedeh (Ghana).

Spicing on the Cake

The Commission celebrated the anniversary in its own way by creating, for the first time in 26 years, a new standing commodity committee, the Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs to be hosted by India. The terms of reference of the new committee cover “spices and culinary herbs in the dried and dehydrated state in the form of whole spices, ground spices, and cracked or crushed spices”. The intention is to exclude consideration of spice extracts and essential oils (considered as food additives and as such subject to specifications of identity and purity) and spices and herbs used as therapeutic goods or food supplements.

The anniversary also seemed to have a positive impact on the Commission’s ability to reach consensus. All of the draft standards submitted for consideration at Step 8 (the final step of the Commission’s procedure) were adopted, albeit with some reservations and in some cases with minor last-minute amendments. Of the 20 texts submitted at Step 5 with a recommendation for fast-track adoption by omitting intermediate steps, all except 3 were given final approval.  More controversy surrounded proposals for new work, as will be discussed below.

New Standards

The full list of newly adopted standard and other texts, together with the revisions and amendments of existing standards, will be published by the Codex Secretariat on its web-site (see http://www.codexalimentarius.org) New standards included:

• Avocado
• Chanterelles (Regional – Europe)
• Smoked Fish, Smoke-Flavoured Fish and Smoke-Dried Fish
• Abalone
• Tempe (Regional – Asia)
• Risk Assessment for [Animal] Feed and Prioritizing Hazards in [Animal] Feeds
• Principles and Guidelines for National Food Control Systems, and
• Codes of Practice for the Management of Ochratoxin A in Cocoa and HCN in Cassava.

Nutrition Remains Controversial

Draft standards concerning nutrition aroused most of the debate during the sessions devoted to the adoption of standards. A draft revised text on Guidelines on Formulated Complementary Foods for Older Infants and Young Children raised questions, particularly from delegates of some African countries, as to the use of defatted cottonseed flour in these formulations and the fact that the Guidelines did not explicitly prohibit ingredients that had either been derived from modern biotechnologies or that had been irradiated.  Defatted cottonseed flour was included in the previous version of the Guidelines. A slight amendment was made to allow discretion at the national level in relation to the use of defatted oilseed flours and is was noted that Codex guidelines on the safety assessment of foods and food ingredients derived from biotechnology provided adequate safety protection. Although not mentioned during the debate, existing Codex standards for infant formula and processed cereal-based foods for infants and young children prohibit the use of ionising radiation on either the finished product or any of its components. The draft Guideline was adopted.

There was also lengthy discussion on the adoption of new Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) for labelling purposes, in particular in relation to the value recommended for saturated fatty acids.  Questions were raised about the completeness of the scientific data, the sufficiency of evidence to establish a reference value, and the impact on the intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids.  The Codex Commission derives its scientific advice in these matters from FAO and WHO, with WHO playing the lead role through its Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG) and the most recent report of the Group on saturated fatty acids and trans-fatty acids in relation to all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, blood lipids, diabetes in both adults and children had not been made available, although it was stated that “it would not change much”.  The new NRVs were adopted with some reservations.

On the other hand, amendments to the Guidelines on Nutrition Claims concerning the non-addition of Na salts were adopted without debate.

Too much of a good thing?

The Commission adopted Guidelines on Application of Risk Assessment for [Animal] Feed and Guidelines on Prioritizing Hazards in [Animal] Feeds, which had been prepared by a Task Force hosted by Switzerland in near record time for Codex work.  The latter text contained an Annex with “Examples of Hazards in Feed with Potential Relevance for Human Health”. The presence of this annex was strongly questioned, in part because the information was not complete and in part because the information that it contained could be misinterpreted for regulatory or control purposes and therefore could be an undesirable – and unintended – barrier to trade.  The Commission decided to adopt the text without the Annex, but asked that FAO publish the information on its website to assist countries in their implementation of Codex Standards.

The issue, which was first raised by Brazil, is not unknown: a number of Codex texts contain extensive explanatory material and some also have extended references to scientific publications.  Apart from the problem of maintaining the currency of this information there is a question as to whether it should be there at all. The General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius, in outlining The Nature of Codex Standards (and related texts), limit the content of these texts to “requirements” with no provision whatsoever for explanatory or other non-regulatory material.  This is probably an issue that will recur. 

Not Quite Ready for Step 8

Three texts proposed for adoption with the omission of intermediate steps were not adopted and will undergo further consideration. These were:

• Standard for Non-Centrifuged Dehydrated Sugar Cane Juice
• Maximum Levels for Lead in Fruit Juices and Nectars – ready to drink, Canned Fruits and Canned Vegetables, and
• Maximum Level for Deoxynevalenol (DON) in Cereal-Based Foods for Infants and Children.

The discussion concerning lead was intense due to the 10-fold reduction in the maximum level proposed, with many countries questioning the adequacy of the exposure assessment database used by the Joint FAO / WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).  In fact, over 110 000 data points from the WHO GEMS / Food database were used for the assessment, from all over the world, although with only few from Africa.  The JECFA Secretariat indicated that the risk assessment of lead was complete as it was now clear that there is no tolerable intake because adverse health effects occur at all levels and are cumulative.

During the adoption of the report a separate discussion arose on a point which had almost gone unnoticed in the general debate: that new canning technologies mean that lead solder is now rarely, if ever, used in the side seams of three-piece cans and, as a result, there was no need to have separate levels for canned fruits and vegetables vis-à-vis fresh fruits and vegetables. This comment came from the European food processing industry and was supported by WHO. How true it is in relation to canning industries in developing countries was not explored.

In the case of DON, the Commission is moving cautiously and inviting further debate.

Meat, Potatoes and Processed Cheese: New Work Proposals Stir Debate!

As in any well-managed business, a decision to undertake new work is at least as important as the work itself. It is not surprising therefore that the Commission spent a considerable amount of time on discussing new work proposals. The first of these was for a standard on ware potatoes. A standard for these commodities has been prepared by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (United Nations 2010) and the proposal in Codex was to establish a world-wide standard. Procedures are in place for converting UNECE standards to Codex Standards. Several delegations raised the problems of pesticide residues and genetically modified (GM) potatoes. The proposal however was limited to quality characteristics, bearing in mind that Codex already has a comprehensive database on maximum residue limits for pesticides for potato (Code VR 0589) and that risk assessment of GM potatoes is covered also in Codex texts. The work proposal will be redefined.

Two standards, possibly linked, had been proposed by the Coordinating Committee for the Near East: Halal food, and fresh and frozen meat.  Here again, Codex has pre-existing relevant texts and the Commission asked that the proposals be redrafted.

A long debate ensued on the question of whether or not to embark on a standard for processed cheese. Standards for this and related products existed from 1978 to 2010, but were withdrawn in light of market and technological developments which had led the Commission to the conclusion that the market was too diverse to be able to define these products.  Nevertheless, a number of countries feel that such standards are useful and necessary. The debate in Codex has continued for almost 15 years and has become more complex as some countries deregulate their requirements while others retain them (the US, for example: see 21CFR Part 133), and all the while technological innovations in market outpace the official decision-making process. The Commission agreed to make a final attempt to see if the development of a standard or standards would be possible.

Funding for Scientific Advice

As noted above, Codex relies on the advice of independent scientific expert panels established by FAO and WHO, covering areas of nutrition, food safety, food science and technology, agronomy and environmental protection. Codex is among the biggest users of this advice and its demands are placing stress on the available resources of the parent bodies. It is now clear that additional, external funding will be needed. WHO excludes the possibility of funding from commercial entities in relation to its normative activities and FAO is considering a similar policy.  However, the Commission called on FAO and WHO to consider expanding the donor base, including through funding from the private sector with the adequate safeguards to ensure independence, impartiality and integrity of scientific advice. The situation is uncertain and the Commission established an ad hoc sub-committee of its Executive Committee to examine the situation.

The final report will be placed on the website of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The working papers and other documents are available from FAO’s FTP server (ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/meetings/CAC/cac36/).

Dr Alan Randell was Senior Officer / Secretary of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO / WHO Food Standards Programme, FAO, 00100 Rome, Italy from 1987-2003; E-mail: alanwill@libero.it