84. The Delegation of the Netherlands introduced the discussion paper, viewing the difficulties that small businesses encounter, especially in developing countries when dealing with the HACCP system. In particular, Hazard Analysis, Documentation and Verification were difficult to handle. Furthermore, the approach followed in the European Community in the application of the HACCP system was highlighted.
85. The Committee was reminded that there were two issues on which the Committee was invited to express its view on: (1) the applicability of HACCP in small businesses and (2) the need for Codex guidance for food businesses operating mainly domestically.
86. The Delegation of Japan supported the general application of the HACCP system in small businesses. Though they might encounter difficulties in implementing Hazard Analysis and Documentation, government and other scientific support and appropriate training were useful in resolving the problems. The Delegation indicated that the government had developed an extensive training programme to facilitate the implementation of the HACCP system, especially at the level of small businesses.
87. The Delegation of India highlighted the difficulties faced by the developing countries in the application of the HACCP system, especially in view of the requirements of importing countries, and proposed that such issues should be specifically addressed to in the document. It was emphasized by the Delegation of India, supported by other delegations, that guidance in this area was needed for international reference.
88. The Delegation of the United States pointed out that the General Principles of Food Hygiene referred to HACCP or similar systems and that a risk-based approach should always be followed to ensure an appropriate level of public health protection; in some cases, those systems other than HACCP might also prove to be more prescriptive and less flexible. The Delegations of the United Kingdom and the United States commented that terms such as "HACCP-like" should not be used when describing alternative risk-based systems that did not encompass the seven principles of HACCP.
89. The Delegations of Peru and Argentina expressed the view that the HACCP system should not be applied only to foods intended for export, but to food industry in general in order to protect the consumer, and they stressed their efforts to implement these principles at the national level. The Delegation of Uruguay supported these views and noted that if other risk-based systems were recommended, the Committee should determine how to recognize them within Codex. The Delegation of Argentina indicated that in order to have a common understanding among the countries it was necessary to specify the criteria to be used to classify industry as small businesses.
90. The Delegation of the United Kingdom, supported by the Delegation of Belgium, stressed the need for additional guidelines to implement the HACCP principles in a flexible manner, as appropriate for small businesses as well as for developing countries.
91. The Representative of WHO informed the Committee that WHO had published in 1992 a Guide to Identifying Hazards and Assessing Risks Associated with Food Preparation and Storage, directed to small businesses and that another document had been revised in 1996 to explain how the HACCP approach could be applied to street-food operations. The Representative, therefore, questioned the need for additional guidance from Codex in this area.
92. The Committee agreed that the paper should be revised by the Delegation of the Netherlands in the light of the discussions of the present session, and the following countries offered to provide their assistance: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States. It was agreed that the revised document would be circulated for comments and considered by the next session of the Committee.
