28. The Commission had before it a list of Members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The membership as at 17 November 1972 is set out below. The Commission noted that since its last session membership had increased by 10 countries, and that 98 countries were now Members of the Commission. The Commission also noted that one of the new Members, Fiji, had not yet indicated in which region it wished to be placed, i.e. Asia or South-West Pacific Region, and that pending receipt of the wishes of the Government of Fiji on this matter, Fiji had been provisionally placed in the South-West Pacific Region. It was noted that, although the number of Members represented at the session was large, there were many Members - especially developing countries -not represented. The Commission appreciated, however, that representation did present problems for some far distant countries.
European Region
North America
Latin America
Africa
South-West Pacific
Asia
* New Members since Eighth Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
29. The Commission took note of the contents of documents ALINORM 72/5, Parts I, II, III, IV and V. These documents gave details of the replies received to-date from governments concerning acceptance of the 42 Recommended Standards which had already been sent to them for acceptance. The documents also gave, separately from replies on acceptances, details of action already taken, or in the course of being taken or contemplated in connection with the Recommended Standards. Over thirty countries had indicated their positions in regard to the acceptance of the Recommended Standards. Many of these countries, a significant number of which were developing countries, had given Full Acceptance to the standards. Others had given Target Acceptance to several of the standards and a number had given Acceptance with Minor Deviations. In addition, a considerable number of countries had given details of action taken or being taken or contemplated regarding the standards. Particular attention was drawn to the considerable detail made available in this connection by the United States of America and Canada. Delegates from countries which had made information on this subject available to the Commission were invited to provide a verbal commentary on their countries' replies and delegates from other countries were also invited to speak.
30. The delegate of the U.S.A. stated that, of all the information which had been made available concerning the U.S.A., the information contained in Section B of document ALINORM 72/5-Part II best summarized the position of the U.S.A. He also drew particular attention to the detailed information made available concerning the U.S.A. in document ALINORM 72/5-Part IV. This document gave details of Proposed Rule Making on the basis of a review and recommendations regarding the Recommended Codex Standards for certain sugars, frozen peas and canned sweet corn; it also gave details of Recommended Codex Standards for certain edible oils on which comment was being invited. Referring to Section B of document ALINORM. 72/5-Part II, the delegate of the U.S.A. drew attention to how the various Recommended Standards had been categorized. He stated that in cases where the U.S. did not have regulatory standards for products covered by Recommended Codex Standards and where, in addition, it was not the intention of the U.S.A. to issue standards for such products, the U.S. expected that, as a minimum, it would permit such products which are in conformity with Recommended Codex Standards to move freely in the U.S.A. The delegate of the U.S.A. stated that it was gratifying to note the early favourable responses from many governments on the subject of acceptances.
31. The delegate of Canada drew attention to some of the main features of Canada's reply, which was set out in great detail and was contained in document ALINORM 72/5-Part III. Canada had carried out a detailed study of the Recommended Standards for Labelling, Pesticide Residues (1st and 2nd series), certain sugars and certain edible oils. In the case of the Recommended General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, Canada's reply had indicated that, with a small number of exceptions, the provisions of this standard would be acceptable to Canada. In the case of the other Recommended Standards mentioned above, Canada had indicated which provisions in these standards would be acceptable, and which changes it would be prepared to make in Canadian legislation to give effect to these acceptable changes. Canada had given written summaries of its position in regard to acceptance by reference to the four questions posed by the Executive Committee in paragraph 79 of the Report of its 18th session. The Canadian reply also pointed out that where changes were required in the Canadian regulations, Canadian acceptances would take effect when the necessary amendments to Canadian regulations had been made using regular procedures. Such procedures would be initiated when the Codex Alimentarius Commission determined, in the light of the acceptances received, that it would be appropriate to publish these standards in the Codex Alimentarius. Canada had indicated that it had no objection to the publication in the Codex Alimentarius of the following standards: General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, the First and Second Series of Pesticide Residue Tolerances, the Standards for White Sugar, Powdered (Icing) Sugar, Soft Sugars, Soya Bean Oil, Arachis Oil, Cottonseed Oil, Sunflowerseed Oil, Maize Oil, Sesameseed Oil, Safflowerseed Oil, and Mustard Seed Oil, but Canada would have reservations on certain of the provisions in these standards, as set out in Canada's reply.
32. The delegate of Hungary indicated that Hungary had now decided to give acceptance to some twenty Recommended Codex Standards covering sugars, processed fruits and vegetables, mushrooms and fats and oils. This would be Full, or, in a few cases, Target Acceptance. In the case of the Recommended Standards for some edible fats and oils, Hungary would be giving Acceptance with Minor Deviations.
33. The delegate of Trinidad and Tobago indicated that, further to the information given in document ALINORM 72/5-Part I, in the section setting out country positions on acceptance of Recommended Codex Standards as at 30 April 1972, Trinidad and Tobago had, since that time, incorporated the standards to which it had given Target Acceptance into the Food and Drug Regulations of the country. Trinidad and Tobago was also considering the Recommended Standards for processed fruits and vegetables, for sugars, and the Recommended General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, with a view to incorporating them also in the country's food and drug regulations. The Commission was also informed that the Recommended Standards for edible fats and oils would be considered as the basis for an agreement on standards in this field in the Caribbean Free Trade Area.
34. Several delegates, including the delegates of India, Malaysia, Senegal and the observer from the Gabonese Republic, which were not yet in a position to give acceptance to the Recommended Standards, described the steps or action taken or being taken in their countries to consider the Recommended Standards, such as the establishment of appropriate technical committees, or the consideration of the standards by National Food Standards Institutions or Food Standards Committees. They stressed the lack of infrastructure, particularly appropriate laboratories and qualified personnel, to enable proper study of the recommendations of Codex Committees and of the Commission to be carried out, for the acceptance of food standards. The delegate of Ghana, besides referring to the acceptance of the Recommended Standards by Ghana (the position of Ghana on acceptance was set out in Conference Room Document ALINORM 72/5-Part V) drew attention to the remarks of the Executive Committee in paragraphs 76 and 81 of ALINORM 72/3.
35. Other delegates indicated that they did not feel it necessary to speak at this stage of the discussions, as they had already communicated their positions in writing to the Secretariat and their positions had been reflected in the working papers for the session. A communication concerning the position of Belgium on acceptances, which was the same, in substance, as those of the other Members of the European Economic Community which had replied, had not been received sufficiently in advance of the session to be included in the working papers before the Commission.
36. The Commission noted with satisfaction the encouraging replies which had been received from governments on the subject of acceptance, from which it had become evident that the Recommended Codex Standards were having a significant influence on the development and content of national standards. The Recommended Codex Standards were also forming the basis for discussion, or points of departure, in many cases, as for example in the European Economic Community and in the Caribbean Free Trade Area, for harmonized legislation. The latest position on acceptances is set out in tabular form, on a standard by standard basis in Appendix III to this Report.
37. Having reviewed the position on acceptances, the Commission then proceeded to consider the various points and suggestions which had been recommended to it for attention by the Executive Committee at its Eighteenth Session on the subject of acceptance generally and related matters. The Executive Committee had been entrusted with two basic tasks by the Commission (i) to advise the Commission whether, in its view, a given Recommended Codex Standard should be published in the Codex Alimentarius, (ii) to examine the problem of what criteria should be applied for determining whether a deviation stated to be minor was, in fact, minor.
38. As regards the first point, the Executive Committee had come to the conclusion that, on the basis of acceptances received to-date, there was no case at present, even in the absence of any criteria on which to base a recommendation, for recommending that any of the Recommended Standards should be published in the Codex Alimentarius at this time (see paragraph 78 of ALINORM 72/3). The Commission was in agreement with this conclusion.
39. The second point examined by the Executive Committee concerned the concept of Acceptance with Minor Deviations. The reasons which led the Executive Committee to recommend to the Commission that the time had come to re-examine the Acceptance Procedure, with particular reference to the concept of Acceptance with Minor Deviations, are set down in detail in paragraphs 79-80 of ALINORM 72/3. The Executive Committee had decided, for these reasons, to recommend to the Commission that a meeting of the Codex Committee on General Principles be convened to re-examine this matter. This recommendation was accompanied by advice on the points which might be borne in mind by the Codex Committee on General Principles in re-examining, in particular, the concept of Acceptance with Minor Deviations (see paragraph 83 of ALINORM 72/3). The Executive Committee had also recommended that certain other matters be examined by the Codex Committee on General Principles, including Step 10 of the Procedure for the Elaboration of World-wide Codex Standards, with a view to developing criteria which might be suitable for determining when it would be appropriate to recommend to the Commission that a Recommended Standard be published in the Codex Alimentarius. The Executive Committee had also recommended that the Codex Committee on General Principles should study the way in which minority opinion should be considered in the subsidiary bodies of the Commission. The Executive Committee had concluded by stressing that it would be important that a comprehensive basic document be prepared by the Secretariat which would cover the various points and suggestions of the Executive Committee, and which should be sent to governments for their observations, so that the Codex Committee on General Principles would have both the working document and the comments of governments on it at its next session.
40. There was a general exchange of views in the Commission on the recommendations of the Executive Committee. One delegate considered that the determination of whether or not a deviation was “minor” was a matter calling for technical competence in relation to the product, and could be judged only by the experts in the Commodity Committee concerned. Another delegate stated that conditions and preferences varied so much from region to region and country to country, that it was difficult to see how regional differences could be avoided. Thus there would always be deviations in this sense. Attention was also drawn to the fact that in the case of tolerances for pesticide residues the concept of Acceptance with Minor Deviations could hardly be said to be applicable: a product was either in conformity with the tolerance or it was not.
41. The Commission agreed that it would be desirable for a meeting of the Codex Committee on General Principles to be convened to consider all these matters. A comprehensive working paper should be prepared by the Secretariat, as suggested by the Executive Committee and the paper should be sent to governments for their comments. The working paper and the comments should be put before the Codex Committee on General Principles. In re-examining the concept of Acceptance with Minor Deviations, the Codex Committee on General Principles should also take into account the points made above concerning pesticide residue tolerances and varying national legislations reflecting different conditions and preferences.
42. The Commission stressed the importance of the Recommended Codex Standards as providing a sound basis both for harmonization of national legislations and for countries which had not yet standards for the products concerned.
43. Several delegates stressed and the Commission agreed that the proposed review of the acceptance procedure should in no way discourage or delay the consideration by governments, with a view to acceptance, of Recommended Standards adopted by the Commission in accordance with the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius.
44. The Commission decided that the Secretariat should draw up a list of items for inclusion in the draft agenda of the next session of the Codex Committee on General Principles. The list, which should incorporate the decisions contained in the foregoing paragraphs, should be circulated to the Commission for consideration in connection with the item on the agenda dealing with the Codex Committee on General Principles. The list could also include for consideration of the Commission under that agenda item a proposal which had been made that governments should be requested to indicate what actions they would have to take, under their own procedures, to give effect to acceptances of Recommended Standards.
