3. The Committee noted that the Swiss Secretariat had prepared a new proposed draft standard for chocolate and chocolate products by merging the existing Codex Standards for Chocolate, for Cocoa Butter Confectionery, and for Composite and Filled Chocolate to accommodate the comments received in response to the circular letter CL 1995/28-CPC. The objective of this exercise had been to simplify the standard so as to make it less restrictive and more flexible. The Committee overwhelmingly welcomed the Swiss initiative and supported the simplification. The Committee agreed to place a number of paragraphs which need further discussions at future sessions in square brackets.
1. Scope
4. The Committee agreed not to include the term “final” before the word “consumers” as it was generally felt unnecessary. The Committee decided to amend the term “bulk sweetener” to “sweetener”.
2.1 Chocolate
First paragraph
5. The Committee considered how the Table summarizing the characteristics of the products be appropriately referred in the Standard. Although there was consensus on the fact that the description of products was defined in the text, the Committee had an extensive discussion on this issue in order to avoid any confusion. Some delegations supported the proposal of the United Kingdom to refer to the Table in such a way as to make it clear that the text prevailed in the case of discrepancy. However, other delegations felt that the Table was useful and an integral part of the Standard and therefore, reference should be kept as drafted. The Committee agreed to a compromise proposal to amend the term “shown in the Table” to “summarized in the Table”.
6. The Committee agreed that the term “sweeteners” should be understood in a general sense, and especially that it included honey. Editorial amendments were included to clarify that the combination with certain products was optional.
7. It was noted that the revised definition of chocolate integrated the previous definition of composite chocolate, although this product had been deleted from the standard, which might cause some confusion. The Committee considered the possibility of reintroducing the definition of composite chocolate and agreed to amend the last sentence of the paragraph to include reference to the exclusion of added flour and starch (except for products in Section 2.4.3 in the amended Standard) and animal fats other than milk fat.
8. The Delegation of France did not agree with this decision as it felt that the distinction between discernible and indiscernible foodstuffs should be retained.
Second paragraph
9. The Committee had an extensive discussion on the second paragraph regarding addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter. Many cocoa beans producing countries expressed their concerns as they felt that the use of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter in chocolate products would lead to a decline in the consumption of cocoa beans and subsequent economic decline in their countries and would be contrary to Articles 32 and 33 of the International Cocoa Agreement. The Delegations of Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire presented information on the loss of income which would arise from the decline of consumption of cocoa beans (200 000 t). The Delegation of Côte d’Ivoire, citing the objective of Codex to protect consumers health, was of the view that while consumer should be well informed of the products, there was no appropriate method of analysis to monitor the level of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter and that as chocolate was cocoa solids/cocoa butter based product, the products containing vegetable fats other than cocoa butter should not be called chocolate. This position was shared by several non cocoa-producing countries including France and Belgium for various reasons, such as the cocoa level in chocolate and chocolate products were always higher than the minimum level prescribed in the Standard for technological reasons. The Delegation of the Netherlands emphasized the need for harmonized provision on this matter. It was also mentioned that present methods of analysis did not allow for a distinction of different vegetable fats.
10. Many other countries, however, argued that consumers should be provided with a broader range of products to choose from. It was noted that the function of the vegetable fats other than cocoa butter was similar to cocoa butter and was technologically useful especially in tropical climates. It was stated that vegetable fats other than cocoa butter were intended to be used in addition to but not as substitute of cocoa butter. The Delegation of Austria informed the Committee that after the legislation regarding the use of up to 5% vegetable fats other than cocoa butter had been put into effect, the consumption of raw cocoa materials increased in its country. The Observer from CAOBISCO referred to the result of the recent study on economic impact on cocoa beans producing countries of introducing vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, which showed that the decrease in consumption would be much smaller than previously estimated, being around 33 000 t of cocoa beans. It was explained that the study also demonstrated that due to a growing cocoa deficit, cocoa prices were rising and anticipated to continue to do so, so that no loss in revenue would be experienced by the producing countries, instead, a growth was to be expected. With regard to other remarks on conformity with the International Cocoa Agreement, the Observer from CAOBISCO mentioned that the Agreement states that substitution is not allowed if it will mislead the consumer which was not the case as the cocoa minima were maintained and that chocolate would carry an ingredient list. The Delegation of the Philippines proposed that the level of vegetable fats should not exceed 5% of the total fat content of the finished products without reducing the minimum contents of cocoa materials.
11. The Committee noted the current situation within the EC: there are a group of countries banning the use of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter and another permitting their use; and the EC Directive on chocolate was in the course of simplification and update.
12. After a lengthy discussion, the Committee decided to place the paragraph between square brackets with the understanding that more information was needed on impact on trade and economy of cocoa producing countries and technological justifications in order for the Committee to decide how to deal with this paragraph. It was noted that reopening of the discussion on the second paragraph of Section 2.1 would entail a discussion on the first paragraph of the Section.
2.1.2 Unsweetened chocolate and 2.1.3 Sweetened (Plain) chocolate
13. The committee decided to retain these definitions as these products are on the market for sale to consumers in North America.
2.1.4 Milk chocolate
14. The Committee considered whether to retain two separate definitions for Milk Chocolate and Milk Chocolate with High Milk Content (as in the current standard), or to merge them into a single definition including all types of milk chocolate.
15. Several delegations and the Observer from the EC expressed the view that a clear distinction should be maintained as the proportion of cocoa solids was different (25% and 20%), while other delegations were in favour of a single definition and the Committee agreed to keep two definitions.
16. The Committee noted that the name of the product in French and Spanish (respectively “chocolat de ménage” and “ chocolate familiar”) did not correspond to the English name “High Milk Content” and had an exchange of views on how to harmonize the names in the three languages. Some delegations felt that a reference to “high milk content” implied a higher quality although this type of chocolate had a lower cocoa content, which would mislead the consumer. Other delegations were of the view that this product corresponded to a demand from consumers and should not be described by a term implying lower quality such as “household chocolate”. The Committee could not find a satisfactory name for the product at this stage and placed the title of section 2.1.4.2 Milk Chocolate with High Milk Content in square brackets.
17. The Committee agreed, despite some opposition, to the suggestion of the Delegation of India to reduce the minimum level of milk fat from 3.5% to 2.5%, in view of the difficulties experienced in keeping the quality of the product in tropical climates.
2.1.5 Skimmed milk chocolate
18. The Committee decided not to amend the maximum level of milk fat as when skimmed milk containing 0.5% milk fat was used to manufacture skimmed milk chocolate, the maximum level of milk fat in the product could not be higher than 0.5% (dry matter basis).
2.1.6 Cream chocolate
19. The Committee decided to delete the reference to the minimum level of total fat.
2.1.7 Cocoa butter confectionery / White chocolate
20. The Delegation of Japan proposed that as cocoa butter confectionery does not contain non-fat cocoa solid, its definition should be separated from those of products containing non-fat cocoa solids, i.e., chocolate. The Committee, however, decided to retain the definition under Section 2.1.
2.2.2 Milk chocolate vermicelli / flakes
21. The Committee agreed to reduce the minimum level of milk solids from 14% to 12%. The Committee further agreed to reduce that of milk fat from 3.5% to 3% based on the calculation that 2% reduction of milk solids would correlate to 0.5% reduction in milk fat. The Committee deleted the reference to minimum level of total fat as in Section 2.1.6.
2.3 Filled Chocolate
22. The Committee decided to retain the second sentence of the section regarding exclusion of flour confectionery, pastry, biscuit or ice cream products as it was generally felt that its deletion would change the whole meaning of the section. The Committee also decided not to include in this section additional products proposed by the Delegation of Japan as they were not currently exported.
23. The Committee decided to maintain the third sentence in the first paragraph concerning minimum level of chocolate part of the coating and to harmonize the texts in French and Spanish version with that of English.
24. It was pointed out that although couverture chocolate was used in manufacturing filled chocolate and was a different product from chocolate with less cocoa solids and more cocoa butter, there was no definition for it in the Standard. It was proposed that its definition be either established or incorporated from the existing standards. The Committee decided to refer to couverture chocolate and milk couverture chocolate in the first sentence and deferred further discussion until the consideration of the proposed draft standards for semi-finished cocoa products under Agenda Item 4.[2]
2.4 Other Chocolate Products
25. The Delegation of Australia stated that this type of products could be adequately regulated under a general standard for mixed foods.
2.4.1 A chocolate
26. The Delegation of India proposed to delete the term “in a single mouthful size” as the term was not applicable to bars. The Committee decided to retain the term in the Standard.
27. The Committee agreed to add a reference to Section 2.4.2 and to couverture chocolate and milk couverture chocolate as done in Section 2.3 since they were used to manufacture a chocolate.
2.4.2 Gianduja chocolate
28. The Committee agreed to use the wording proposed by the Delegation of Italy and Observer from the EC for the product description of gianduja chocolate and milk gianduja chocolate.
29. It was proposed to include a reference to the definition of chocolate in section 2.1.1. However, the Committee recalled that gianduja chocolate was a new product which had not been covered previously by the standard and recognized that in view of its specific characteristics, it did not correspond to the definition, especially as regards the minimum cocoa solids and cocoa butter. The Committee noted that no confusion could arise between gianduja and other products as the name used for labelling purposes was also specific.
Flavoured chocolate
30. The Committee agreed that the description of this product was not necessary and it was deleted accordingly.
2.4.3 Chocolate a la taza
31. The Committee noted that this product was a significant export commodity in Spain and agreed to retain this section as currently drafted.
Table
32. The Delegation of the United Kingdom pointed out that the information contained in the Table was a summary of information in Section 2 while not as much as in Section 2 and proposed that the Table be moved to an annex or a sentence to clarify the status of the Table be introduced. (see also para. 5) The Committee decided to amend the title to read “Summary Table of Compositional Requirements of Section 2”. The table should be amended according to the amendments made in Section 2.
3. Food Additives
3.2 Emulsifiers
33. The Committee agreed that emulsifiers listed should be permitted for all chocolate products specified in the Standards. The Delegation of Brazil expressed a reservation on this amendment.
34. The Committee exchanged the views on the maximum level of total emulsifiers. While some delegations preferred to delete the level, some other delegations expressed the need for the level in relation to emulsifiers with ADIs[3] allocated. The Committee decided to retain the level to cover the use of emulsifiers with numerical maximum levels and to delete the term “singly or” as the maximum levels prescribed for individual emulsifiers in the list were lower than that for total emulsifiers. The Committee also decided not to increase the maximum level to 20 g/kg as it felt that the level of 15 g/kg was high enough to cover the use of emulsifiers used in combination.
35. The Committee further decided to retain sorbitan monostearate and sorbitan tristearate in the list and to include glycerol with the maximum level of GMP.
3.3 Flavouring Agents
36. The Committee agreed to amend the maximum levels of all flavouring agents listed from “in small quantities to balance flavour” to GMP as there had been no definition of the term “small”. The Delegation of Japan proposed to delete the term “except those which would imitate natural chocolate or milk flavours” in order to enhance flavour. However, the Committee decided to retain it as this term was necessary to prevent fraud.
3.4 Sweeteners
37. The Committee agreed to amend the subsection title to “sweeteners”; to amend the maximum level of thaumatin to GMP; and to include the following sweeteners :
|
Sweetener |
Maximum Level |
|
|
420 |
Sorbitol |
GMP |
|
421 |
Mannitol |
GMP |
|
953 |
Isomalt |
GMP |
|
965 |
Maltitol |
GMP |
|
966 |
Lactitol |
GMP |
|
967 |
Xylitol |
GMP |
|
959 |
Neohesperidine dihydrochalcone |
100 mg/kg |
38. The Committee agreed to transfer polydextrose to a new subsection of bulking agent as the substance does not have sweetening function.
3.5 Glazing Agents
39. The Committee noted the use of glazing agents in manufacturing chocolate products and agreed to establish a new subsection for glazing agents which includes the following:
|
Glazing agent |
Maximum Level |
|
|
414 |
Gum Arabic (Acacia gum) |
GMP |
|
440 |
Pectins |
GMP |
|
901 |
Beeswax, white and yellow |
GMP |
|
902 |
Candelilla wax |
GMP |
|
903 |
Carnauba wax |
GMP |
|
904 |
Shellac |
GMP |
40. The Delegation of the United States requested to include the following antioxidants for the use in cocoa butter confectionery.
|
Antioxidants |
Maximum Level |
|
|
304 |
Ascorbyl palmitate |
200 mg/kg |
|
319 |
Tertiary butylhydroquine |
200 mg/kg |
|
320 |
Butylated hydroxyanisole |
200 mg/kg |
|
321 |
Butylated hydroxytoluene |
200 mg/kg |
|
310 |
Propylgallate |
200 mg/kg |
|
307 |
a-Tocopherol |
750 mg/kg |
The use of antioxidants is necessary for countries which have a large geographical area to prolong the shelf life of the product. Successful marketing depends on maintaining the freshness of the product through to sale to the consumer.
Another important point is that non-fat cocoa solids contain natural antioxidants. The non-fat cocoa solids are removed in the formulation of this product.
41. The Committee decided to place the whole subsection in square brackets as it did not have time to study it.
3.7 Colours
42. The Committee agreed to include the colours, gold (175) and silver (174), for the decoration of chocolate products at the maximum level of GMP as proposed by the Observer from the EC.
4. Contaminants
43. The Committee decided to increase the maximum levels for copper in the products described under 2.1 to 2.4 of the Standard (except unsweetened chocolate) and in unsweetened chocolate from 15 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg to 35 mg/kg respectively based on the analytical data of cocoa mass compiled in the Netherlands over seven years. The Committee did not accept the proposal to decrease the maximum levels of lead from 1 mg/kg to 0.1 mg/kg (products except unsweetened chocolate) and from 2 mg/kg to 0.2 mg/kg (unsweetened chocolate) as there was no data available at the meeting to support the proposal.
5. Hygiene
44. The Committee agreed to maintain the Codex standard text provided for in the Procedural Manual.
6. Labelling
45. In section 6.1.1, the Committee agreed to refer to the names listed in Section 2. Description instead of the Table, in order to avoid any confusion.
Section 6.1.2
46. The Committee had an extensive exchange of views on the reference to foodstuffs representing at least 5% of the product in the name of the food. Some delegations were of the view that the consideration on vegetable fats should be deferred until so far as a conclusion had been reached on the addition of vegetable fats. The Observer from the EC informed the Committee that in the current draft EC Directive, whenever vegetable fats other than cocoa butter were added to chocolate, it should be stated in the list of ingredients.
47. The Committee agreed to keep the current definition in square brackets for the time being, with the understanding that this question would be discussed again in conjunction with the inclusion of vegetable fats. It was also noted that this section was not intended to refer specifically to vegetable fats, as it already existed in the current standard, but applied to all added foodstuffs. The Observer from the EC mentioned that “5%” should not be applied to hazelnuts in gianduja/milk gianduja and flour in chocolate a la taza.
48. The Committee also agreed to the proposal of the Delegation of the Philippines to include a sentence which reads when sugar is fully substituted with sweeteners, an appropriate declaration should be included in the designation of the chocolate, as it felt that the replacement of sugars with sweeteners affected the essential characteristics of the chocolate and specific information should be provided to the consumer. The Delegation of Canada agreed that non-nutritive sweeteners could be used if they were declared in the product designation (see para. 37 above). The Delegation of Australia was opposed to the inclusion of the chemical names in the name of the products.
6.1.6 Assorted chocolates
49. The Committee agreed that the ingredients could be declared as a single list for all the products in the assortment or alternatively as separate lists.
Section 6.1.7
50. In section 6.1.7, the Committee agreed to refer to Other Information Required instead of Flavoured Chocolate, as this category as such had been deleted from the Description. It further agreed to refer to the characterizing flavour in the product name.
51. The Committee considered whether to retain sections 6.1.7.3 and 6.1.7.4 respectively on the declaration of coffee and spirits and it was agreed to delete both sections as this was covered by the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. In reply to a question by the Delegation of Malaysia, the Committee was informed that the declaration of any added spirits and liquors to the product was required in the list of ingredients. It was also noted that the reference to “halal” in the labelling was covered by the Draft General Guidelines for the Use of the Term “Halal”[4]. In this regard, the Delegation of Indonesia also expressed the view that the use of the term “halal” be fully reflected in the labelling.
Section 6.1.8
52. The Committee considered the proposal of CAOBISCO to introduce a new section 6.1.8 on the use of the term “chocolate” in other foodstuffs which made use of chocolate (e.g. chocolate cake). Some delegations expressed their concern as to the implications of this proposal which would need more thorough discussion. It was agreed to include this new section in square brackets.
6.2 List of Ingredients
53. The Committee agreed to delete this section as no addition was required with respect to the General Labelling Standard.
6.3 Declaration of Minimum Cocoa Contents
54. The Committee agreed to delete the reference to milk solids and to the indication of cocoa solids in proximity to the name of the product. The Delegation of the United States expressed the view that this declaration was not necessary as the product was required to conform to the specifications in the standard.
55. The Committee had an exchange of views on how the percentages should be calculated for declaration purposes. Some delegations were in favour of a calculation based on the deduction of discernible added foodstuffs only, as the current calculation after deduction of all edible foodstuffs would increase artificially the percentage of cocoa solids and would mislead the consumer. Several delegations however expressed the view that the current calculation was adequate and the Committee agreed to retain the present definition on the deduction of all other edible foodstuffs (discernible and non-discernible). The Delegation of Côte d’Ivoire expressed its reservation on this decision.
56. The Observer from the EC suggested the inclusion of a provision reserving information or descriptions relating to quality criteria of chocolate and chocolate products, in particular, products with higher level of cocoa solids.
6.4 Net Contents
57. Some delegations pointed out that the current exemption applying to small units up to 50 g should be limited to 15 g. It was also proposed to determine labelling requirements for small units on the basis of surface instead of weight. Notwithstanding, the Committee agreed to retain this section as currently drafted.
7. Methods of Analysis and Sampling
58. Due to time constraints, the Committee could not discuss this provision and agreed to consider it at the next session.
Status of the Proposed Draft Standard for Chocolate and Chocolate Products
59. As several issues in the standard required further consideration, the Committee agreed to return the Proposed Draft Standard to Step 3 of the Procedure for further comments on the text, as amended during the present session.
