1) Nutrition and Health Claims
48. The Delegation of Spain presented CRD 1, which intended to draw the attention of the Committee to the need for careful consideration of nutrition and health claims. The Delegation pointed out that many unsubstantiated claims could be found on all types of foodstuffs; in particular, the use of references to therapeutic or health properties of food was increasing, which created considerable confusion to the consumer, and may even become a public health problem. The Delegation indicated that these concerns should be taken into account by the Committee on Food Labelling and the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses when considering the following questions: nutrition claims, health claims, vitamins and minerals.
49. Several delegations pointed out that as the document had not been distributed in advance, it was not possible for them to take a position on these issues; moreover, questions relating to labelling and nutrition should be addressed in the relevant committees, which were aware of the importance of such problems. The Coordinating Committee was not competent to take a position in this field, although it could draw the attention of its member countries to the issues under consideration, including vitamins and minerals. The Delegation of Spain pointed out that it had distributed the document at the session with the purpose of facilitating an open debate and not a to initiate a technical discussion.
50. The Observer of Consumers International stressed the problems faced by consumers due to the confusion created by certain claims, as indicated in the document prepared by Spain, and expressed the view that health claims should not be allowed.
51. The Secretariat recalled that the Guidelines on Nutrition Claims, adopted as a final text by the 22nd Session of the Commission, included two parts: the text and the Table, which had been developed respectively by the CCFL and the CCNFSDU, following an earlier Commission decision. As the text was finalized, no further work was required in the CCFL. Part A of the Table was adopted with the text and further work was needed only on the expression of conditions for claims per serving and on Part B of the Table (protein/fibre/vitamins and minerals). The Committee also noted that the Guidelines had been considered extensively by both Committees and had been adopted through consensus. As regards health claims, the question was under consideration in the CCFL and the Committee invited member countries in the region to submit their comments in this respect to that Committee. The Delegation of Spain expressed the view that it would be preferable to consider this question in the CCNFSDU.
52. The Committee agreed to draw the attention of the CCFFL and the CCNFSDU to the importance of questions relating to nutrition and health claims and the need to proceed with work in this area in order to provide appropriate guidance and recommendations at the international level.
2) Special Dietary Foods for Coeliacs: Proposals for a Method of Analysis
53. The Delegation of Spain introduced CRD 2 which considered the level of gluten in the Draft Standard for Gluten-Free Foods and the methods of analysis for its determination, with a view to identifying key issues and drawing the attention of the CCNFSDU and the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling to this urgent problem. The Delegation expressed its concern as to the current level, which would not protect affected patients, and as to the proposed method, which was likely to produce false negatives as it identified mainly gliadins; the development of new methods should therefore be taken into account before finalizing the draft. The Delegation also pointed out that it would be useful to convene an expert consultation on this question.
54. Several delegations recognized that they were not in a position to discuss such technical and complex issues, especially in view of the late availability of the document. The Committee was not in any case competent to consider the level of gluten and the corresponding method, which should be addressed in the competent committees on the basis of scientific evidence. The Delegation of Spain explained that it had sought to promote and open dedate and not a technical discussion.
55. The Secretariat recalled that the CCNFSDU was aware of the difficulties inherent to the revision of the standard, which had been extensively discussed in the latest sessions, and the Commission had recommended that all relevant elements should be taken into account in the finalization of the standard. At the present stage, the draft only included an “outline of a method”, which would not appear in the final text, but no specific method was actually recommended. This question was to be addressed by the CCNFSDU, as the CCMAS did not propose methods for specific products, which should be selected by the specialized committees. The responsibility of CCMAS was only to endorse such methods and to propose general methods for all foods, and this had been reasserted following a similar request from CCNFSDU in 1995.
56. The Committee noted the concerns expressed and encouraged member countries to communicate all relevant information and proposals on the method as well as the level to the CCNFSDU, in order to facilitate the discussion of the standard at its next session (September 1998).
Proposed Draft Amendment to the Regional European Standard for Mayonnaise (CODEX STAN 168-1989)
57. The Committee recalled that the Commission had agreed with the proposal of the Committee on Fats and Oils to discontinue work on the conversion of the Regional Standard into a world-wide one. The Committee considered document CRD 3, which compared the Codex Standard for Mayonnaise and the Code of Practice developed by the Comité des Industries des Mayonnaises et Sauces Condimentaires de la Communauté Économique Européenne (CIMSCEE), underlining the modifications suggested by this organization.
58. The Observer of CIMSCEE recalled that mayonnaise was the main product in the range of emulsified condiment sauces. He expressed the view that there was a need to update the standard in order to simplify the document and to bring it into line with new trends in the European market, consumers expectations and changes in the regulations concerning the use of additives, labelling, etc. He asked the CCEURO to propose the revision of the Codex Regional Standard for Mayonnaise to the Executive Committee.
59. Several delegations indicated that they had not had time to consider this issue in detail since the document was not made available during the Session and therefore they could not prepare their position in coordination with their national experts. Some delegations also expressed the opinion that careful consideration should be given to the opportunity of revising the standard as not enough justification had been provided by CIMSCEE. Other delegations pointed out that all standards should be kept under regular review and that this had been recognized when the conversion of the standard was initiated. They also recalled that the Commission had asked its subsidiary bodies to simplify standards; in this respect, the work already done by the Committee on Fats ands Oils could be taken into account in the revision.
60. The Delegations of Norway and Switzerland indicated that, while not opposing the revision in principle, they could not take a position on this issue and they should consult at the national level with their industries, which were not members of CIMSCEE. They agreed that the Committee should propose a revision in principle without committing itself to the actual contents of the revised standard.
61. The Delegation of Germany pointed out that although it did not oppose the revision in principle, adequate justification should be provided to introduce such significant amendments as were included in the Table attached to the document (fat contents and egg yolk). In this regard, the Committee noted that the Code of Practice was only a reference document and necessary adjustment would be made when discussing the revision of the standard.
62. Following a brief discussion, the Committee agreed to submit to the Executive Committee a proposal for new work on the revision of the Regional Standard for Mayonnaise.
4) Code of Ethics
63. The Delegation of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of the consideration being given by the countries in the European Union to the revision of the Code of Ethics, scheduled for consideration by the next session of the Committee of General Principles: support was expressed for continued consideration of the Code in the framework of that Committee, since it was recognized that the Code referred to several aspects of Codex work.
64. Some delegations indicated that they had not yet considered this question in detail, but recognized the need to revise the Code to take into account the provisions of the WTO Agreements, the work carried out by the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems on import and export matters and the general approach to food safety matters, as evidenced in the work on such documents as the General Standard for Food Additives and the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food.
65. Some delegations suggested that the revised Code could be expanded to address other general issues: the status of Codex texts, consumer concerns, technological need, good agricultural practice, procedures for dealing with contaminated food and the precautionary principle. The Observer from Consumers International welcomed the revision of the Code which should be better focused in relation to consumer protection and consumer concerns.
Matters Arising From the Codex Committee On Food Import And Export Inspection and Certification Systems
66. The Delegation of the United Kingdom informed the Committee of the views of the countries in the European Union concerning the work of CCFICS. The Committee had been created with the understanding that it would carry out specific tasks and reexamine the need for its work to continue. The time had come to examine the question of whether the CCFICS had now completed its work assignments. Some delegations expressed their appreciation for the work carried out so far by CCFICS while expressing their concerns as to the possibility that it extend its work to areas beyond those specified in its terms of reference. If that was the case careful consideration should be given to the task assigned to the Committee, especially on the question of equivalence applied to Codex standards.
67. The Delegation of Norway pointed out that the work of CCFICS was not initially scheduled to be discussed by the Committee and that it could not take a position on such issues; further information should be provided by countries in the EU as to their specific concerns. It was however noted that the position of the EU countries was presented for information purposes only.
Future Work
68. The Committee noted that in addition to standing items on the Agenda, the next session of the Committee would consider Proposed Draft Revised Regional Standards for Mayonnaise and for Vinegar, subject to the approbation of the Executive Committee.
