Introduction
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) held the 40th Session in Hangzhou, China, from April 14 - 19, 2008. Professor Zongmao Chen served as Chair, and Dr. Hans Jeuring (NL) served as Vice Chair. The Session was attended by 58 member countries, 1 member organization, and 8 international organizations. The U.S. Delegation was chaired by Ms. Lois Rossi of EPA, and the co-chair was Dr. Robert Epstein of USDA.

The following summarizes issues of particular interest to the US Delegation. Complete details of the 40th Session may be found on the Codex Alimentarius Web site (ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/alinorm08/al31_24e.pdf).

Nomination and Prioritization of Compounds to be Considered by the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)
A new procedure for the nomination and prioritization of compounds was implemented at this Session. The ad hoc Working Group on Priorities which previously met immediately before the CCPR Session and developed a report for the meeting was replaced with an electronic working group (of all interested countries) that produced a report well in advance of the Session. This report was considered as an agenda item. The new procedure is more efficient and gives member countries a full perspective on proposed compounds and priorities before the Meeting.

All U.S. nominations both for new compounds and additional uses of existing compounds were scheduled with one exception. Pyroxsulam was removed from the schedule for 2009 because it does not have quantifiable residues and therefore does not fulfill the current prioritization criteria. U.S. attempts to have the criteria modified were not successful. The US position that compounds with chemistries that yield no residues on commodities in trade are among the safest and should be promoted by establishing Codex MRLs did not prevail. The CCPR agreed to defer this discussion to the electronic working group lead by Argentina which would be revising the document on Risk Analysis Principles applied by the CCPR which includes the prioritization criteria.

The U.S. supported the periodic review of metalaxyl and fenvalerate. Both compounds continue to be registered in the U.S. and have extensive use throughout the world, especially in the developing countries. Without periodic review, the compounds will be removed from the Codex system and replaced by a very limited number of MRLs for the resolved isomers metalaxyl M and esfenvalerate.

MRL Results
The MRL recommendations from the 2008 JMPR, compound/commodity MRLs remaining at Steps 3 or 6/7 from the 39th Session, and MRLs (CXLs) previously recommended for withdrawal were considered during two days of deliberations.

Approximately 261 pesticide/commodity MRLs, based on the consideration of 18 pesticides by the 2007 JMPR, were advanced to Step 8 by the current CCPR for adoption by the CAC. This was the third year that the accelerated procedure along with the criteria for decision making, were used with great success. An additional 17 pesticide/commodity MRLs for 5 pesticides were advanced to Step 5 only, either as the result of the identification of a potential dietary intake concern by the JMPR (e.g., triazophos on soya bean) or as the result of a country's expressed concern based on the availability of additional information not previously considered by the JMPR (e.g., flusilazole on edible offal, nectarine, peach, and pome fruit, per dietary intake concerns of the EC). The U.S. expressed no concerns and supported the advancement of all MRLs except those with JMPR-identified possible dietary intake concerns.

Some 92 pesticide/commodity CXLs for 13 pesticide chemicals were recommended for revocation. These are typically CXLs no longer supported, e.g., carbaryl on apples, or CXLs deemed by JMPR to have potential dietary intake concerns with no alternative GAP, e.g., endosulfan on broccoli, celery, and cherries. Additionally, 30 pesticide/commodity MRLs at various steps in the Codex process were withdrawn for various reasons. For example, 5 malathion MRLs for animal feed commodities (alfalfa, etc.) were withdrawn because the manufacturer failed to supply a livestock feeding study to JMPR, and 4 oxydemeton-methyl MRLs for apple, cabbages, grapes, and oranges were withdrawn because of apparent dietary intake concerns for which no acceptable alternative GAP (retrospective analysis) could be identified.

About 85 pesticide/commodity MRLs were returned to steps 6 or 7 and 4. These represent 14 chemicals with dietary intake or other issues previously identified and awaiting further review by the JMPR, either retrospective analysis (alternative GAP) or periodic review.

Revision of the Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds
The electronic working group, co-chaired by the Netherlands and the U.S., provided updated recommendations for the revision of two crop groups, bulb vegetables and fruiting vegetables (non-cucurbit), following introduction at the 39th CCPR and circulation for comments. Additionally, two new crop groups were proposed to the Session: (1) edible fungi and (2) berries and small fruits. The four groups will be redrafted, circulated for comments (Steps 2/3), and discussed at the 41st CCPR. A paper concerning principles and guidance on the selection of representative commodities, which was developed by the working group and presented by the U.S. was returned for revision and further discussion at the 41st CCPR. It was agreed that representative commodities will be proposed for the four new groups and for groups introduced in subsequent years and that the representative commodities will be maintained in a guidance document separate from the Classification.

The electronic working group was reauthorized for work in 2009 to address the above issues and to prepare crop group proposals for citrus fruits and oilseeds.

Matters Arising from the Global Minor Use Summit
The USDA and EPA sponsored a half day workshop on minor use/specialty crops focusing on a discussion of the outcomes of the Global Minor Use Summit in December 2007. The session was attended by numerous delegates from developing countries and a few other countries. There was unanimous support for CCPR to undertake a minor use initiative.

During the 40th Session, the Representative of FAO reported on the outcomes of the Global Minor Use Summit, including the recommendation to establish a CCPR Working Group on Minor Uses and Specialty Crops. The Session agreed to establish such an electronic working group, chaired by the U.S. and co-chaired by Kenya and Australia. A huge number of countries including a wide representation of developing countries volunteered to join the group.

Achieving Globally Harmonized MRLs through Codex
The Delegation of the U.S. introduced a paper in which we proposed a process for the evaluation of new chemicals by JMPR before finalization of any national review/registration. Under this process, JMPR would estimate the MRLs before MRLs/tolerances are set at the national level. JMPR would thus set the reference standard which member countries would then consider in setting their national standards. This approach encourages harmonization of MRLs.

A pilot project utilizing an upcoming multinational (global) review compound was proposed. The representatives of WHO and FAO were supportive, but also indicated that there were numerous implications for the work of the JMPR and that these factors would be considered by the 2008 JMPR.

It was agreed to establish an electronic working group led by the US to prepare a detailed paper on the pilot process for the next CCPR. Thus, a pilot project for the 2009 JMPR is a possibility.

Transparency in JMPR Derivation of MRLs
The CCPR noted the request from the Delegation of the U.S. for increased transparency in the JMPR MRL estimation process through the publication of the MRL Calculator summary table in the JMPR report together with a short explanation of how the MRL was determined. The JMPR Secretariat agreed to consider this request at the 2008 JMPR meeting.

Processed Foods and Feeds
The JMPR endorsed the current Codex practice of establishing processed commodity MRLs only where the residue concentrates from the raw agricultural commodity to the processed item. The JMPR also supplied a table of allowable processing factor extrapolations among commodities. The CCPR reestablished the electronic working group on this issue and asked the U.S. and the EU to prepare a guideline paper for the 41st Session on CCPR policy for the use of processing factors and related issues. The U.S. is in general agreement with the recommendations of the JMPR.

Analytical Methods and Related Issues
Discussions continued on the use of the estimation of uncertainty in analytical results from the determination of pesticide residues. The U.S. does not apply an uncertainty factor in reporting pesticide residue values for enforcement purposes. The test values must exceed the U.S. tolerance or maximum residue limit for all reported values for the tested commodity to be in violation. It was decided that the use of measurement uncertainty for enforcement purposes would remain as a national issue and not be incorporated into Codex, although some delegations noted that different national approaches could create trade problems.

The Session decided to establish an electronic working group (new work request to CCPR) to revise the Guideline on the Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty. The aim is to provide pesticide residue laboratories with practical recommendations, including examples, on the estimation and application of uncertainty.

On the issue of milk fat analysis, the Committee agreed with the proposal from the Australian Delegation, which was supported by the US and the Working Group for Analytical Methods and Sampling, that for regulatory purposes, whole milk should be tested. Test results should be compared with MRLs for whole milk. Similarly, milk products should also be tested on a whole product basis.

Next CCPR
The 41st Session was tentatively scheduled for Beijing, China, from April 20 to April 25, 2009.