Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety

CCGP advanced the Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety (for use by governments) to the Commission for adoption at Steps 5/8.

CCGP had previously agreed to separate the development of principles for use by national governments from principles for use in the context of Codex, recognizing that certain key issues associated particularly with risk management were unique to national governments. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) adopted Working Principles for Risk Analysis for use by Codex, but discussion over the need for risk analysis principles for use by national governments and their content continued over several sessions of CCGP. At the 23rd Session (2006), the Committee agreed to establish a Working Group (WG) to attempt to resolve contentious issues. The WG agreed to develop a simple set of principles using the Working Principles for Risk Analysis for use by Codex as a basis and making only those changes needed to make the principles applicable to member governments. The resulting document was considered by CCGP at this session. The Committee agreed with the approach suggested and discussed the principles in detail. Highlights of the discussion included:

• Consideration of the paragraph on the use of precaution. Some delegations continued to express concern with the inclusion of the concept in the document while others noted that precaution applied generally to risk analysis, was employed by countries in risk analysis, and was directly related to uncertainty in the scientific information required to make decisions on selecting food safety control measures. The Committee ultimately agreed to retain the paragraph unchanged.
  
  
• Agreement to retain references to OIE and IPPC standards, in addition to the reference to Codex standards, as countries recognized that standards of all three organizations were used in food safety control systems.
  
  
• Consideration of the difficulties experienced by developing countries in implementing risk analysis and applying the principles. However, no modifications of the text were made with respect to this issue.
  
  
• Consideration of the issue of conflict of interest, especially whether it applied solely to risk assessors or more generally to all involved with risk analysis, including risk managers and risk communicators. Ultimately the Committee decided that the reference to conflict of interest in the risk assessment section was sufficient as the risk management section included various provisions, including transparency, which accommodated the conflict of issue concerns.
  
  
• Agreement that principles under the section headed "implementation" were not precisely related to this activity and were more related to "application" and were of a general nature. The Committee moved these principles to the section on "general aspects".

Several delegations reserved their position on the decision to move this document to Step 5/8, preferring to advance the text only to Step 5 to provide for an additional round of comments.

Codex Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food

CCGP greed to continue work on the Codex Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food, focusing on a short list of principles as recommended by the United States.

For a number of Sessions, CCGP has had under revision the Codex Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food (the Code). Many countries have expressed the view that the Code is no longer necessary because key provisions of the original text are now sufficiently dealt with through the WTO trade agreements. Other countries have indicated an updated Code is needed to retain important statements related to ethics in relation to food trade, while still other countries have indicated that the Code should be retained and expanded to include areas such as technical assistance and food aid. A major concern voiced particularly by developing countries is the need for the Code to better deal with the re-export of unsafe and/or unsuitable food. No consensus has existed on the need for a revised Code or its content.

The Chairperson of CCGP strongly encouraged the Committee to continue its work on the Code's revision. Countries continued, however, to have mixed views on the need for the Code. Eventually, the Committee agreed to establish a Working Group (which met Tuesday evening) to determine how best to proceed. The WG recommend that a draft document prepared by the United States be circulated for continued discussion in the Committee. The Committee agreed to this approach and returned the Code to Step 3 for comments by governments with consideration at Step 4 at the next Session of CCGP.

Respective Roles of the Regional Coordinators and Members of the Executive Committee Elected on a Geographic Basis

As a result of the FAO/WHO evaluation of Codex, the Codex Regional Coordinators became members of the Codex Executive Committee (CCEXEC). With this change, countries agreed there was a need to better clarify the specific roles of Members elected as Regional Coordinators and Members elected on a geographic basis.

Based on discussions at this and prior meetings of CCGP, the Committee reaffirmed the view that Members elected on a geographic basis were expected to act in the interest of the Codex Alimentarius Commission as a whole while the primary role of Members elected to the Executive Committee as Regional Coordinators were to present the views of their respective regions on matters under discussion in CCEXEC. The Committee agreed to amend the Rules of Procedure to clarify the two roles.

The Committee also agreed to continue the policy of permitting Members of the CCEXEC elected on a geographic basis to accompanied by no more than two (2) advisors. This provision does not apply to Members elected as Regional Coordinators.

Guide to the Procedure for the Revision and Amendment of Codex Standards and arrangement for the amendment of Codex Standards elaborated by Codex committees which have been adjourned sine die

The Committee previously recommended, and the CAC adopted, amendments to Codex Procedural Manual revising and streamlining provisions relating to the revision of standards. However, concerns remained regarding what constituted an "amendment" as opposed to a "revision" of a Codex text. A proposal to amend the Procedural Manual to clarify these terms was prepared by the Codex Secretariat. After some discussion, the Committee agreed to the proposed amendments.

Review of the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius

CCGP previously agreed to revise the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius. The revision removed language relating to "advisory texts", because all Codex texts have the same status within the context of the WTO's SPS Agreements. However, the CAC returned the proposed revision to the Committee based on a request by Malaysia to retain language on advisory texts. Malaysia also proposed to include language to clarify what is meant by the term "related texts". The Committee, after discussion, did not agree to re-incorporate language relating to advisory texts, but did agree to incorporate a footnote to the term "related texts" to clarify that such texts included codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations.

Proposed Draft Amendments to the Procedure for Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts

At is 27th (2004) Session, CAC referred back to CCGP a number of proposals from India to amend the procedures for the elaboration of texts. These proposals relate to: 1) establishing a definition of consensus; 2) the need to take into account the needs of developing countries in Project Documents, specifically the need to incorporate information on the economic impact and technical feasibility of the standards with respect to developing countries; and 3) the extent to which CCEXEC evaluates proposals for work under the critical review process. The Committee had a general discussion, especially on the proposal to define consensus. However, there was no agreement on any of the three areas and all were referred back to the CAC for further consideration.

Review of Observer status with the Codex Alimentarius Commission

The 58th (2006) Session of the Codex Executive Committee considered the issue of double representation of international non-governmental observer organization, which occurs when an observer organization is a member of a larger, "umbrella" organization that is also a recognized observer in Codex. As part of this discussion, the broader issue was considered - what criteria should be used to review observer organizations - those in force at the time the organization was granted observer status or those in force when the review is conducted? Several delegations noted the need to treat existing observers and new applicants equally. After some discussion, the Committee agreed to recommend for adoption, a proposal of the Codex Secretariat to amend the Principles Concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, to use the criteria in force at the time of the review to determine the status of an observer organization. The Codex Secretariat informed the Committee that it would most probably proceed with the review of the status of observer organizations, most likely in an incremental manner so that the review would not constitute a burden on the Secretariat.

Review of the Format and Content of the Codex Procedural Manual

The Committee had previously recommended the review of the format and content of the Codex Procedural Manual. At its 2006 session, CCGP reviewed an outline for revision of the Manual prepared by the Codex Secretariat and made suggestions for change. At this Session, the Committee reviewed a further outline for the revision of the Manual prepared by the Secretariat. A general discussion on the subject was held with many delegations noting that one of the most critical issues, irrespective of the format and content of the Manual, was for the Manual to have a good index. The Secretariat recognized the constructive contributions and indicated that it would take the proposals into account in subsequent revisions of the Manual, including the inclusion of an adequate index.

Other Matters

Draft Risk Analysis Principles Applied by CCPR and CCRVDF
As a result of earlier CAC decisions regarding the need for Codex committees dealing with risk analysis to develop guidance relating to its application within their own areas of work, the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) each developed and submitted for endorsement principles for the application of risk analysis within their individual committees. (The Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) previously submitted a similar document that has been endorsed by CCGP and adopted by the CAC). The Committee noted that there were discrepancies between how the texts handled similar processes and that it would be necessary to align the documents; however, CCGP agreed that it was important to approve the texts now and that alignment could occur at a later time. The Committee, after making various editorial amendments, endorsed the two documents and forwarded them to the CAC for adoption.

CCFA and CCCF Related Items
The Committee endorsed the Codex Committee on Food Additives' Procedures for Consideration of the Entry and Review of Food Additive Provisions in the General Standard for Food Additives. The Committee also endorsed standard wording for reference to the Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food (CSCTF) for placement in the section on contaminants in Codex commodity standards.

Terms of Reference of Regional Coordinating Committees
The FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean (CCLAC) previously proposed that CCGP amend CCLAC's Terms of Reference (TOR) to include the adoption of regional positions on significant Codex issues. CCGP did not accept this proposal, but allowed CCLAC to use this term of reference while the proposal was circulated to other Regional Coordinating Committees for comment. Most Regional Coordinating Committees agreed that current TOR for Regional Coordinating Committees are adequately flexible and do not need to be changed. Most also were of the view that TOR for all Regional Coordinating Committees should be harmonized. At this session of CCGP, CCLAC member delegations again expressed their view that explicit recognition of the development of regional positions should be included in the TOR of Regional Coordinating Committee. There was no consensus, however and CCGP suggested that CCLAC continue to operate with this new term of reference while the proposal was re-circulated to Regional Coordinating Committees for further review and comment.

Proposed New Definitions of Risk Analysis Terms Related to Food Safety
The Committee considered a revised paper prepared by New Zealand and the United Kingdom on differentiating Codex standards as risk-based standards and hazard-based. The Committee continued to express difficulty in understanding the concepts of the paper and the need for differentiation. Due to lack of time, CCGP agreed to postpone a more extensive consideration of this subject until its next Session.

Next Session of CCGP

The 25th Session of CCGP is tentatively scheduled for April 2009, in Paris.