COMMENTS ON METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS IN FOODS (Agenda Item 18a)[84]
188. The 32nd CCFAC agreed to invite comments for additional methods of analysis for the determination of food additives and contaminants in foods for discussion at its current meeting.[85]
189. The Committee noted that the CCMAS had considered the NMKL method for the determination of Ochratoxin A in cereals submitted by the last CCFAC and recognized that the method appeared to be adequate for the commodities specified. However, the CCMAS had agreed that it would not be procedurally correct to endorse a method before the relevant Codex provision had been finalized. The CCMAS also noted that other methods were currently being validated for Ochratoxin A and that CCFAC might also consider them[86].
190. The Observer from the AOAC proposed to consider the AOAC methods for the determination of patulin in apple juice and puree, aflatoxin M1 in milk, ochratoxin A in barley and fumonisins in corn, chloropropanol (3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol; 3-MPCD) in foods and to forward them to CCMAS for consideration.
191. The Committee recalled that the methods selected must have direct pertinence to the Codex standard to which they are directed, as specified in the Procedural Manual. The Chairman indicated that at the present time no maximum limits were under consideration in the Step-procedure for fumonisin and chloropropanol and proposed to send the methods proposed for the other contaminants to the CCMAS.
192. The Observer from AOAC, supported by some delegations, expressed the view that work should be initiated on methods of analysis at an early stage even when no Codex provisions existed and recalled that the CCMAS could consider specific sampling and analysis problems referred by other committees. The Committee noted that the general methods approved by the CCMAS, such as aflatoxins, heavy metals or irradiation, all related to existing Codex provisions. The development of methods could be initiated when the relevant limits were still under elaboration, as in the case of ochratoxin; however, the Committee had not yet decided to undertake the elaboration of maximum levels for fumonisins and chloropropanols.
Status of Methods of Analysis for the Determination of Food Additives and Contaminants in Foods
193. The Committee agreed that only those methods relating to maximum limits under consideration should be developed and agreed to forward the following methods for consideration by the CCMAS:
194. The JECFA Secretariat drew the attention of the Committee to the importance of adequate sampling plans in addition to the methods of analysis, especially in the case of mycotoxins, and invited member countries to provide relevant information on sampling.
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REVISION OF THE CODEX STANDARD FOR FOOD GRADE SALT: PACKAGING, TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE (Agenda Item 18b)[87]
195. The 32nd CCFAC forwarded the proposed draft revision to the Codex Standard for Food Grade Salt concerning the addition of a new Section regarding Packaging, Transportation and Storage to the CCEXEC for adoption at Step 5[88]. The 47th Session of the Executive Committee adopted the proposed draft text at Step 5.[89]
Status of the Draft Revision of the Codex Standard for Food Grade Salt: Packaging, Transportation and Storage
196. The Committee agreed to forward the draft Revision of the Codex Standard for Food Grade Salt: Packaging, Transportation and Storage to the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption at Step 8 (see Appendix XVII).
OTHER MATTERS
Deoxynivalenol
197. The Delegation of Belgium referred to the JECFA evaluation on deoxynivalenol and due to intake concerns, the Committee agreed that Belgium, with the assistance of Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United States and the EC, would elaborate a discussion paper for consideration at its 34th meeting.
Pistachio
198. The Delegation of Iran proposed to establish maximum limits for aflatoxin B1 and total aflatoxins in pistachio’s for further processing and for direct consumption. The Committee agreed that the Delegation of Iran, in collaboration with the Delegation of Sweden, would prepare a discussion paper providing supporting data and relevant information with a view to the establishment of such levels for consideration at the 34th CCFAC.
Use of Active Chlorine
199. The Delegation of Denmark proposed to consider the toxicity of active chlorine used in the food industry in direct contact with the foodstuff, especially for fishery products and for fruits and vegetables, and which might have adverse effects on health. The Delegation expressed the view that the question of active chlorine use would be more adequately covered by the CCFAC, and proposed to put active chlorine on the JECFA priority list.
200. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the use of chlorinated water in fish and fishery products had been addressed in the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products. The last CCFFP session considered a document prepared by WHO in collaboration with FAO and including a survey of current practices in member countries. The document recalled that chlorinated water was widely used to prevent microbiological contamination and concluded that while additional work in this area was recommended, current scientific evidence did not warrant the change of the Codex recommended level of 10mg/l (Code of Practice for Frozen Shrimps and Prawns). The CCFFP accepted the conclusions of the WHO/FAO document and concluded that no further action was necessary on this matter[90].
201. The Committee also noted that from the general point of view, cleaning and disinfection were covered in the General Principles of Food Hygiene. Moreover, the CCFH was currently elaborating[91] a proposed draft Code of Practice for the Primary Production and Packing of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (forwarded to Step 5) and member countries had the possibility to make relevant proposals in that Committee as regards cleaning and disinfection.
202. The Representative of WHO referred to the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality and indicated that it was unlikely that active chlorine used in drinking water would represent a health hazard and that it would be difficult from the scientific point of view to evaluate consumer exposure of related substances.
203. As regards the JECFA priority list, several delegations pointed out that the list of priorities had already been established at the present session and that supporting data was required before placing any substance on the priority list for JECFA evaluation and that there was no clear indication of which chemical substances would require evaluation.
204. The Chairman and some delegations noted that the use of chlorinated water and of processing aids were related issues, and these questions could adequately be addressed in the discussion paper on processing aids, especially in view of the heavy workload of the Committee and to limit the number of new documents to be discussed. However, the Delegation of Denmark stressed that it was a specific problem and should be addressed separately. The Committee agreed that the Delegation of Denmark, in cooperation with the delegations of Norway, Finland, Israel and WHO, would prepare a discussion paper for consideration by the next session.
