| Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |
World Health Organization
|
| Acknowledgements |
| The evaluators wish to express their appreciation to all those from Government and the International Community who were so helpful and willingly provided information and their thoughts on the Codex and other aspects of food standards work through questionnaires and during country visits and other meetings. Similar thanks go to FAO and WHO senior and technical staff in Headquarters, Regional and Country Offices who were prepared to put at the evaluators’ disposal the time needed to respond to the many questions we raised. Particular votes of thanks go to: Maria Gattone, Gemma Harper, Nadine Monnichon and Heather Young, at FAO, Christine Perry and Mary Vallanjon at WHO and Seoung-Yong Lee of the Codex Secretariat for their tireless patience and effort in organizing contractual and logistic matters, and in assisting with questionnaire and other supporting analysis for the evaluation. |
| Report of: | |
| Evaluation Team:
W. Bruce Traill, Team Leader
15 November 2002 |
Independent Expert Panel:
Alejandro Cravioto, Chairperson
|
ALIMENTARIUS AND OTHER FAO AND WHO FOOD STANDARDS WORK
| International Community who were so helpful and willingly provided information and their thoughts on the Codex and other aspects of food standards work through questionnaires and during country visits and other meetings. Similar thanks go to FAO and WHO senior and technical staff in Headquarters, Regional and Country Offices who were prepared to put at the evaluators’ disposal the time needed to respond to the many questions we raised. votes of thanks go to:at FAO, Christine Perry and Mary Vallanjon at WHO and Seoung-Yong Lee of the Codex Secretariat for their tireless patience and effort in organising contractual and logistic matters, and in assisting with questionnaire and other supporting analysis for the evaluation. |
1. The evaluation was commissioned by FAO and WHO and was also designed to meet the request for a review by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The terms of reference specify that the evaluation should provide an input into decision making on future policy, strategy and management at the level of FAO and WHO Governing Bodies and their respective secretariats and to the joint FAO-WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. It was to make recommendations for the future relevance of standards or alternative approaches in meeting overall objectives in consumer protection, especially for health, and in fair practices for food trade. Particular attention was to be paid to the needs of developing countries. Although the evaluation concentrates on Codex, it covers all aspects of the food standards work of FAO and WHO, which includes capacity building and expert scientific advice.
2. The work of the evaluation was undertaken by an independent team advised by an independent expert panel. The evaluation team consisted of five persons, three of whom, including the team leader, were external to the two Organizations. The independent expert panel had 10 members drawn from all parts of the world and stakeholder interests. At meetings between the evaluation team and the expert panel, key issues, procedures and recommendations of the evaluation were agreed. The evaluation also benefited from the advice of the Codex Executive Committee.
3. In the conduct of the evaluation, members of the evaluation team visited 24 countries in all parts of the world and at all levels of development and also the European Commission. During these visits they held discussions with civil servants responsible for health, agriculture and food, industry, trade and standard setting and with representatives of primary producers, industry, consumers and other sections of civil society. They also had discussions with other international standard setting organizations. A questionnaire was sent to all members of Codex and non-Codex members of FAO and WHO (103 replies received of 186 sent out). A further questionnaire was sent to Codex and WHO - INGO and IGO Observers [ INGO - International Non-Governmental Organization ; IGO - Inter-Governmental Organization .] (40 replies received). There were two calls for comments on the Internet, the first completely open, the second targeted to national NGOs. The evaluation team also met with key informants involved with Codex, including the Chairman and other members of the Executive Committee, Chairs of some Codex committees and staff of the Codex and the FAO and WHO secretariats. A number of background papers were used, including several prepared by members of the expert panel (see Annex 6).
Findings
4. The evaluation found that Codex food standards had a very high importance to members. They were seen as a vital component of food control systems designed to protect consumer health and for international trade in the light of the WTO -SPS and -TBT agreements [ WTO - World Trade Organization; SPS - Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures; TBT - Technical Barriers to Trade .] . Standards were regarded as a fundamental prerequisite in consumer protection but had to be looked at in the context of the total system, especially the food safety system. International standards also provide a basis for smaller and lesser developed countries’ own standard setting. Codex has been most successful in establishing health-related standards where there is a clear science base.
5. Capacity building in developing countries was found to be essential for countries to protect their own citizens, to benefit from a globalizing market in food and to represent their interests effectively in Codex and WTO negotiations. Codex and FAO and WHO capacity building were found to be continuing to make a substantial contribution internationally and to individual countries.
6. In improving international food standard setting, it was found particularly important to strengthen the input of independent expert advice into Codex especially for risk assessment. The scientific quality of the advice given at present is rated highly, but backlogs exist and demands are expected to rise sharply in future.
7. Based on analysis of the problems, four
main areas for improvement to enhance impact were identified. Recommendations
of the evaluation are designed to contribute to these:
Codex Mandate and Priorities
8. The health-related demands on Codex are growing with greater consumer consciousness, the emergence of new technologies, pathogens and nutrition-related issues including supplements, functional foods and health claims. If Codex is fully to cover health risks in foods it also needs to address packaging and processing agents. Without prioritization, these would require substantial additional resources for Codex and for expert scientific advice to Codex. Prioritization is thus essential and in determining its standard setting programme, Codex should prioritize as follows:
a) standards having an impact on consumer health
and safety;
b) commodity standards responding to the expressed
needs of developing countries;
c) commodity standards responding to the expressed
needs of developed countries; and
d) informational labelling relating to non-health
and non-safety issues.
9. There is a need for a precise mandate for Codex and this should be ratified by the FAO and WHO Governing Bodies. We suggest the mandate could be:-
10. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) deals with zoonoses and other livestock diseases transmitted through food, while the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) addresses all aspects of plant pests in food. Food safety increasingly addresses the food chain in a unified way, leading to increased complementarities between Codex, OIE and IPPC. Codex and OIE, in particular, should formalize their relationship and should use joint task forces as appropriate to deal with overlapping issues.
Management Structure of Codex
11. Within the overall structure of FAO and WHO, Codex should have greater independence for proposing its work programme and for the execution of that work programme, once approved by the two parent organizations. Proposals for a revised organizational structure are designed to improve business management and strengthen central management of standards development, leading to greater speed in standard setting.
12. For business management, Codex should have an Executive Board meeting twice a year. This should be smaller than the present Executive Committee, with representation from Codex observers for consumer and industry INGOs.
13. The function of ensuring much tighter management of standards development is regarded as especially important for the effectiveness of Codex. This function could be exercised by the Executive Board, but may be better executed by a Standards Management Committee. This committee would meet as required, but at least once a year. This committee would include Codex committee chairs and observers representing primary producers, industry and consumers.
14. The executive role of the secretariat should be enhanced to support the greater independence of Codex and increased efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. This requires both the expansion of the secretariat and greater seniority of its staff. Substantially increased financial resources are required for the secretariat to exercise its expanding role (initially US$ 1.4 million per biennium).
Codex Committee Structure and Working Procedures
15. Codex working methods should be streamlined, yet become more inclusive. The evaluation recommends that there be a detailed review of the present structure and distribution of responsibilities between Codex committees with a view to achieving greater consistency and focus on priorities, including emerging issues. Commodity committees will be of reducing importance and commodity (vertical) work should be handled through task forces of limited duration, rather than committees. Even in horizontal areas, no new committee should be established until the continuing need and possibilities for progress have been established in a task force. Task forces should also be used to facilitate work involving more than one committee. Regional committees need to be re-structured and given mandates more relevant and responsive to regional needs. All work in all committees and task forces should be time-bound.
16. In Codex there should be a clearer distinction between risk assessment and risk management. Codex committees should concentrate on risk management and not confuse it with assessment. Questions of assessment should be referred to scientific expert committees and/or ad hoc consultations.
17. In a major departure from the present way of working, there should be much more work between sessions with use of facilitators to consult among members and to develop re-drafts for further consideration by committees. The emphasis should shift from developing standards in committee sessions to developing standards between sessions following a consultative process with the members that also fully considers written comments. The use of facilitators and electronic working groups has the potential to foster an inclusive process of consultation for developing countries whereas the greater use of between-session working group meetings could have the reverse effect.
18. In further moves to enhance developing country involvement, as well as that of other countries, encouragement should be given to regional economic groupings and other groups of countries with common interests to develop common positions. In this context, the possibility for one country to speak in meetings on behalf of several countries should also be encouraged, as should committee co-chairs and meetings held in developing countries.
19. More between-session work and meetings held in developing countries entail increased resources of host countries. The concept of shared hosting may be introduced where no one country feels able to bear the full cost (this may also facilitate increased developing country involvement).
20. Committees should complete the process of discussion and agree on draft standards. Standards should only be submitted to the Commission for approval when there is believed to be consensus or the basis for a clear decision. All standards should be submitted for final approval at Step 5. The Commission will accept the standard, or refer the standard back to the committee to explore certain changes, or cancel or suspend work on the standard. The Commission is not a suitable venue for standard drafting and it would not itself change the standard at this final stage.
21. Decisions in committees and the Commission should wherever possible continue to be taken by consensus. There is need for agreement on a definition of consensus and the evaluation proposes "no formal objection by more than one member present at the meeting". In the case of a vote, it should only be in the Commission, and by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting.
Expert Advice and Scientific Risk Assessment
22. Expert advice to Codex needs to have greater identity and coordination and significantly increased resources and its independence and transparency need to be further reinforced within FAO/WHO. There should also be greater distinction between the function of risk assessment undertaken by experts and that of risk management undertaken by Codex committees. At the same time, Codex needs to be able to establish priorities within an agreed budget for expert advice in line with its work programme. This budget needs to be adequate to, not only cover the inputs from JECFA, JEMRA and JMPR [ JECFA - Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants; JEMRA - Joint Meetings on Microbiological Risk Assessment; JMPR - Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues .] to Codex, and also respond to priorities for more ad hoc advice, including for the new issues mentioned in paragraph 8 and for emerging issues.
23. It is recommended that FAO and WHO establish a scientific committee of eminent scientists to provide to Codex and the two Organizations, over-arching scientific advice, including on emerging challenges and to provide guidance and quality control to JECFA, JEMRA, JMPR and ad hoc committees. A joint FAO/WHO Secretary to the Scientific Committee and Coordinator for Risk Assessment and Food Safety and Health Scientific Advice should be appointed and housed in WHO. The secretariats to the existing JECFA, JEMRA and JMPR should continue as at present. WHO is recommended to markedly increase its contribution for health risk-assessment. In addition to the work on food safety assessment, FAO should strengthen its input on good manufacturing and handling practice.
24. Urgency is attached to increasing the throughput of standards for pesticides to ensure that new pesticides can be reviewed quickly and existing pesticides recommendations updated. Expansions in the work of the JECFA and JEMRA are also envisaged. The minimum necessary immediate increase in resources from FAO and WHO is estimated at US$ 2.5 million per biennium.
25. It is also recommended that the consultation requested by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on strengthening scientific support for Codex decision making now be regarded as an immediate priority. A number of points for consideration by the study and subsequent consultation are discussed in the report.
Capacity Building
26. Capacity building for food safety and health systems for domestic consumers and for trade is a major priority of developing countries. In many of these countries, domestic food safety surveillance and controls tend to be very weak.
27. The evaluation found inadequate interaction between FAO and WHO at the country level in developing food safety systems and food standards. The new funding arrangement, for which the secretariat is provided by WTO and some seed money from the World Bank, is welcomed. It is a valuable initiative to foster cooperation for capacity building in relation to standards and the SPS agreement between FAO, WHO, OIE and IPPC. The new trust fund hosted by WHO (Codex trust fund) to enable effective participation in Codex, including attendance at meetings, is also welcomed. A major joint FAO-WHO effort is now recommended to mobilize extra-budgetary funds and foster coordinated bilateral assistance in capacity building. This will help promote a more coordinated approach between WHO and FAO. In addition, FAO and WHO should urgently analyse and report back to the Codex Alimentarius Commission on how they will improve coordination and distribution of work drawing on their mutual strengths and synergies.
In Conclusion
28. We recommend early and continued action for
implementation of agreed recommendations with:
2. As set out in the attached terms of reference (Annex
2), the evaluation team was asked to examine issues including, but not
restricted to:
4. The evaluation took as its starting points:
6. In drawing up recommendations, the evaluators have attempted to be realistic with regard to the possible. At the same time, it has been felt important to put thoughts forward, which can be further explored and debated, rather than always providing an immediate basis for implementation. It is within this spirit that certain of the ideas presented depart from the current thinking in Codex and FAO and WHO.
| Section 2 is intended for the general reader and briefly summarises the present situation. Those familiar with Codex and FAO and WHO food standards work will not need to read this section. |
7. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was established in 1963 as an intergovernmental body by FAO and WHO. Membership is open to all Member States of FAO and WHO. There are currently 167 members and 149 International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) with observer status representing producers, industry and civil society and 58 intergovernmental organizations [ of which 16 are UN and UN specialized agencies.] . Standards are developed through 29 subsidiary bodies consisting of regional, commodity and general committees of which 24 are active.
8. The work of the CAC, which meets in full body every two years, and its subsidiary bodies is logistically, technically and managerially supported by a small secretariat ("Codex secretariat") housed in FAO and funded jointly by FAO and WHO. The cost of regional, commodity and general committees is met in whole or in part by host countries, but also supported administratively by the Codex secretariat. Members bear the cost of their own participation in meetings.
9. Expert scientific advice to inform Codex standard making is provided by two established expert committees financed and administered jointly by FAO and WHO. JECFA is responsible for food additives, contaminants and veterinary drug residues and JMPR for pesticide residues. JEMRA is a new group, still termed a ‘joint expert consultation’ rather than a formal committee, and is responsible for microbiological risk assessment. Other expert consultations may be set up as needed. Committees and expert consultations are administered and financed independently of Codex by FAO and WHO. JECFA and JMPR each have a joint secretary in each Organization.
10. FAO and WHO undertake capacity building separately. The Codex secretariat also cooperates with FAO and WHO for some capacity building in the form of training, workshops, etc.
11. The components of these programmes will be discussed at appropriate points within the evaluation.
12. It is important to make a definitional point early on because the terms are used throughout this report and Codex uses terms in relation to work of the Commission and subsidiary bodies and expert scientific advice differently than they are sometimes used elsewhere. Within Codex, risk analysis has three distinct components [ CAC Procedural Manual p44 English version.] , risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. Broadly speaking, risk assessment is conducted by the expert committees and consultations that give scientific advice to Codex and is described as "a scientifically-based process consisting of the following steps: (i) hazard identification; (ii) hazard characterization; (iii) exposure assessment; and (iv) risk characterization". This is the function of expert scientific advice to Codex. What Codex calls risk assessment is elsewhere often termed risk analysis. In this evaluation, we will use the terms as defined by Codex. Risk management is defined as "the process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy alternatives, in consultation with all interested parties, considering risk assessment and other factors relevant for the health protection of consumers and for the promotion of fair trade practices and, if needed, selecting appropriate prevention and control options". This is the work of the CAC and its subsidiary bodies. Finally, risk communication is defined as "the interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process……among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the academic community and other interested parties, including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions". Codex continues to refine these definitions, particularly through the Committee on General Principles (CCGP) which, at its 2002 meeting, made significant progress on the Principles of Risk Analysis to be applied within the Codex framework.
13. The evaluation notes the trend to separate science-based assessment of health risk from the risk management function (e.g. the European Food Safety Authority was established as an independent body for risk assessment distinct from risk management carried out by the European Commission). This is in line with the Codex principle of functional separation of risk assessment and risk management.
15. There are, however, costs related to the improvement of governance and manpower and investments in the public and private sector infrastructures needed to implement standards [ Sanitary and Phytosanitary Management, Compliance Strategies and Costs in Developing Countries: Project Description, World Bank, July 2002.] . Cost implications in the implementation of standards are particularly important in developing countries and such countries may need financial assistance and training. They will also benefit from Codex principles and procedures for the recognition by countries of equivalence in food control systems.
16. It is evident that food safety cannot be isolated from other risks which, in developing countries especially, include water-related risks. Unsafe water is not only a risk in its own right, but water is used to irrigate, wash and process food, which can lead to cross-contamination. Thus, food safety should be viewed within the context of the entire food chain, not just the finished product, and it is important that standards are developed which focus attention in a way that is both strategic and practical on those points of greatest risk. For this to happen, surveillance of food-borne risks is a pre-requisite, as are the capacity for risk assessment and the ability to manage food safety through, among other things, enforcement targeted where there is greatest risk. Countries or regions will need better data on food-borne illness in human health. This has implications for Codex in priority setting and for FAO and WHO in capacity-building.
17. As the nature of food demand and trade have changed to meet the requirements of developed countries for variety in food products and for year-round supply of fresh fruit and vegetables, fresh fish and fish products and fresh meat, the nature of relationships between actors along the supply chain has changed. There is greater coordination and vertical integration with less open-market transactions. Associated with this change has been a move to control food quality and safety through the supply chain, often using process standards, rather than the more traditional end-product standards. Codex standards, increasingly based on risk assessment, are reflecting this change. Another implication of the supply chain approach is the interest in taking a plough to plate view of food safety which requires strong coordination between regulatory authorities within countries (e.g. agricultural and health regulators) and at the international level (e.g. between Codex, OIE and IPPC). The discussions at the Marrakech meeting of food safety regulators gave global recognition to the need for action taken throughout the food production chain and for the involvement of all stakeholders in the regulatory process. The regulators also affirmed that food safety regulations should be science-based and built on an appropriate risk assessment with implementation based on the risk analysis paradigm.
18. Globalization has seen growing levels of international trade in agricultural and food products and new food-borne hazards rapidly spread internationally. Food standards and control in another country can be as important as in one’s own, which creates a demand for international standards of the type developed by Codex. Emerging pathogens (e.g. Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni, Vibrio vulnificus and virulent Salmonella spp.) are not responsive to many traditional food preparation and preservation practices. As these become global food safety issues they demand global solutions which include standards based on risk assessment and global surveillance. [ Paper prepared for expert panel by Professor K. Buckle.] At the same time, novel processing technologies are increasingly being used in response to developed country consumers’ preferences for more ‘natural’ food (e.g. less salt and additives) and food standard setting needs to respond to the changing needs of changing technology. One of these challenges is establishing the equivalence of alternative preservation techniques based on scientific risk assessment [ Buckle, op. cit.] . Advances in science, including increasingly sensitive laboratory detection methods, mean that standards need frequent review and updating.
19. As well as protecting consumers’ health, food standards reduce the costs of doing business (e.g. the risk of fraud and costs of finding reliable trading partners). To be useful they must be meaningful to consumers and if so, they reduce consumers’ risks (of inadvertently buying inferior quality as well as unsafe food). In providing benefits to both producers and consumers, standards promote economic welfare, thus they are considered by many economists to be a pre-requisite to the operation of a well-functioning market [ Reardon, T. (2000). Challenges in Fighting Rural Poverty in the Globalizing Economy of Latin America: Focus on Institutions, Markets and Projects, FAO/CEPAL Seminar, Santiago de Chile, 2000.] . If standards are harmonized (within or between countries), they naturally facilitate trade (domestic and international) and trade itself is generally judged to promote economic development [ Witness the Brundtland-Moore quote in Section 1.] .
20. As countries become richer and better educated, their consumers demand increased standards of quality and safety. This creates a possible difficulty for international harmonization of standards because it costs more for producers to meet higher standards and these costs get passed on to consumers who, in poor countries, might have other priorities (clean water, enough to eat [ Governments in poor countries also have other, perhaps higher priority, health-related concerns such as Aids, malaria and tuberculosis that demand their scarce resources. ] ). As an international standard setting body, one of the difficulties Codex faces is balancing the different needs of consumers in developed and developing countries. The balancing of the costs and benefits of incremental increases in food safety and quality is part of the process of risk management.
21. Whereas in the past member governments of Codex were under no obligation to use Codex standards for domestic consumer protection or health, since the WTO SPS agreement of 1994, Codex has had legal status. While this does not require that all countries adopt all Codex standards, they must be able to justify non-adoption according to strictly-defined criteria. Legal recognition of Codex has given it greater relevance and importance, but has inevitably made compromise more difficult.
22. Food quality standards (by which we mean standards concerning non-health related characteristics of a product) do not need to be developed by governments, they can be agreed between trading partners and, in a world trading system increasingly dominated by multinational food retailers, there is a tendency for establishment of standards without any public involvement. Nevertheless, companies continue to find value in harmonization of quality standards by bodies like ISO (e.g. for spices) and UN-ECE for fruit and vegetables. Codex too, is involved in setting quality standards and a major issue for Codex is to decide how high a priority this should be, particularly in light of Codex limited resources and its need to set health-related standards.
24. During country visits and in reviewing the responses to the questionnaire, it became very evident that developing countries feel unable to participate as effectively as they would wish in Codex, and developing country participation is recognized as a problem too, by developed and middle-income countries. Overall, 78% of respondents scored below the mid-point for the balance in involvement and influence of poorer countries in Codex. Ninety six percent of low-income countries and 87% of middle-income countries do not participate in Codex to the extent they think desirable, the overwhelming reason given being lack of financial resources.
25. Both country visits and the questionnaire indicated the major importance of capacity building for developing and some middle-income countries. They are concerned to be able to better participate in Codex but their main concerns are wider. In particular, they are concerned to be able to meet standards for export and to protect the health and ensure fair trade for their consumers. This will require a major increase in capacity building assistance and more effective use of resources. It is also essential to recognize that countries can benefit from Codex, not only by virtue of the standards it produces, but also from participating in the standard setting process. For many developing countries, this is a form of capacity building in its own right, allowing those who attend meetings (though often outside the formal meeting) to gain valuable insights into how to establish and enforce appropriate food standards. Even developed country participants cited this as a benefit of Codex.
26. Developed countries in particular are concerned that the food standards programme is too slow. Thus, 68% of questionnaire respondents from high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank) rated overall efficiency of Codex below the mid-point of a 7-point scale (where 1 corresponds to very poor and 7 to very good) compared to only 9% of low-income country respondents. For speed of operation, 90% of high-income respondents rated satisfaction below the mid-point compared to 24% from low-income countries. Codex observers (see Section 5.4) are in broad agreement with high-income countries. Similar, if less pronounced, dissatisfaction by developed countries is found with the speed of expert scientific advice to Codex.
27. There is some concern among developing countries that their priorities are not always reflected in the standards developed by Codex, so Codex is not as useful as it might be. Developed countries especially find that the usefulness of Codex standards would be greater if standards were produced in a timelier manner.
28. Finally it may be noted that there were significant concerns to improve the basis for science-based prioritization of health issues for standard setting and strengthened risk assessment as an input into Codex standards.
29. Core Concerns: The evaluation team identified
four main concerns which its recommendations are intended to address. These
are:
| Section 4.1 is intended for the general reader and briefly summarizes the present situation. Those familiar with Codex and FAO and WHO food standards work will not need to read this section. |
30. The Codex Alimentarius is a collection of internationally-adopted food standards presented in a uniform manner. The Procedural Manual of the Codex Alimentarius Commission states (p28 English version):
"The Codex Alimentarius includes standards for all principal foods whether processed, semi-processed or raw for distribution to the consumer…..The Codex Alimentarius includes provisions in respect of food hygiene, food additives, pesticide residues, contaminants, labelling and presentation, methods of analysis and sampling……….Codex standards contain requirements for food aimed at ensuring for the consumer a sound, wholesome food product free from adulteration, correctly labelled and presented".
31. In practice, this means that Codex currently produces:
32. It is worth making the point that the WTO-SPS
Agreement, which applies to the first two categories of standards above,
does not differentiate between standards, guidelines and other Codex recommendations
[ The WTO-TBT Agreement relates to the other three categories.] .
33. Animal and plant health are covered by OIE and IPPC respectively; UN-ECE produces regional standards for fruit and vegetable quality descriptions that are now taken up for incorporation in Codex standards. ISO has 67 standards in food technology, concentrated on analytical methods.
35. The Commission elects a chairperson and three vice-chairpersons from its membership. The chairperson or, in his absence, a vice-chair, presides over meetings of the Commission and exercises such other functions as may be required to facilitate the work of the Commission. These officers are elected to serve for one ordinary session of the Commission (two years) and can hold their office for a total of two consecutive sessions.
36. Between sessions, an Executive Committee acts on the Commission’s behalf. The Executive Committee is composed of the chairperson and vice-chairpersons together with seven further members elected by the Commission, one each from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, North America, and South West Pacific.
37. Coordinators are appointed by the Commission for each of the seven geographical regions on the basis of support from a majority of the members in each region. Regional coordinators are appointed for three sessions and can retain office for a maximum of two consecutive terms. Their role is to assist and co-ordinate the work of regional coordinating committees in preparing draft standards, guidelines and recommendations for submission to the Commission. They also advise the Executive Committee and Commission of the views of members and recognized regional intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in their region relating to matters currently under discussion. Coordinators participate in the Executive Committee as observers.
38. The elaboration of draft standards and related texts within Codex is undertaken by subsidiary bodies. Codex committees and ad hoc task forces are responsible for the preparation of draft standards for submission to the Commission, whether intended for global use or for a particular region or group of countries. There are two broad types of Codex committee. General subject (‘horizontal’) committees are responsible for establishing standards on general principles of food safety and consumer health protection applicable to all food commodities. Commodity committees (‘vertical’) are responsible for establishing standards relevant to specific commodities. Currently, there are nine general subject and 11 commodity committees. Four of the established commodity committees are currently adjourned.
Figure 1 Organizational Structure of Codex
39. A series of coordinating committees for regions or groups of countries is responsible for general coordination of the preparation of draft standards relating to particular regions or groups of countries. Currently, there are six regional coordinating committees.
40. More recently, the Commission has looked to establish ad hoc intergovernmental task forces rather than Codex committees as a means to streamline the organizational structure of the Commission and enhance the efficiency with which subsidiary bodies operate. The terms of reference of ad hoc intergovernmental task forces are specified at the outset and limited to an immediate task. Their lifetime is pre-specified, and should not normally exceed five years. To date, three task forces have been established.
41. At each biennial meeting the Commission designates the host government for each Codex committee and ad hoc intergovernmental task force. The host country then nominates a chairperson. The country acting as chair of each subsidiary body is responsible for the operating costs.
42. The organizational structure of Codex is supposed to inter-link, with comparable administrative structures within each member country. The key institutional interface between Codex and a member country is the national Codex contact point. According to the Procedural Manual, the core functions of a Codex contact point [ FAO (2001). Procedural Manual of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 12 th Edition. FAO, Rome.] include acting as the link between the Codex secretariat and member countries and co-ordinating all relevant Codex activities at the national level. Desirably, the Codex contact point supports a national committee, the structure of which reflects national legislation, government administrative structures and established procedures and practices [ Of those that responded to a question in the questionnaire, two thirds (58 countries) said they have a national Codex committee, the proportion being similar across all stages of development. It could reasonably be expected that those countries which did not complete the questionnaire are less likely to have a national committee.] .
44. An accelerated procedure can be employed, essentially consisting of Stages 1 to 5 at the end of which the text is adopted as a Codex standard. This is generally employed where an immediate need for a standard is identified and/or there is already broad consensus on the issue under consideration. The Commission, Executive Committee, or a subsidiary body (subject to subsequent confirmation by the Commission or Executive Committee) can invoke the accelerated procedure on the basis of a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.
47. Observers are entitled to:
Observers do not have the right to vote.
48. Of 151 INGOs with observer status in February 2002, around 71% are industry bodies, 22% professional and 8% consumer/public interest.
"The food standards, guidelines and other recommendations of Codex Alimentarius shall be based on the principle of sound scientific analysis and evidence, involving a thorough review of all relevant information, in order that the standards assure the quality and safety of the food supply."
51. It is also agreed that ‘other legitimate factors’ can be taken into account provided these relate to the health protection of consumers and/or promotion of fair trade practices:
"When elaborating and deciding upon food standards, Codex Alimentarius will have regard, where appropriate, to other legitimate factors relevant for the health protection of consumers and for the promotion of fair practices in food trade."
52. In defining criteria concerning the consideration of ‘other legitimate factors’, explicit reference is made to the provisions of the WTO-SPS and TBT Agreements. The key elements of these criteria are as follows:
There is still no precise agreement on what constitutes an 'other
legitimate factor'.
53. The Commission has recognized that precaution is an element of risk analysis, but has not defined or agreed to the use of the 'precautionary principle`within the framework of Codex. The issue remains highly contentious and the Commission in 2001 adopted the position that: "When there is evidence that a risk to human health exists but scientific data are insufficient or incomplete, the Commission should not proceed to elaborate a standard but should consider elaborating a related text, such as a code of practice, provided that such a text would be supported by the available scientific evidence" [ Alinorm 01/41 para. 81.] . However, WTO recognizes codes of practice as the same as standards in a legal sense, unless there is a definite statement in the text to the contrary. This compromise text remains contentious among a number of members.
| Figure 2 – Procedures in other International Standard Setting Bodies | |||
| International Plant Protection Convention | International Organization for Standardization (ISO) | World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) | |
| Mandate/
objectives vis-ą-vis standard setting |
- Standard setting mandate is recent (1993).
- The Convention creates certain rights and obligations for contracting parties including provision for the use of phytosanitary certification and provides models for this as part of the Annex of the Convention. - Produces global phytosanitary standards. - Standards are referenced under the SPS and used in national legislation |
- The International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) is a non-governmental organization established in 1947 of national
standards bodies, one from each country. It has the mandate to develop
standards in all technical fields (except electrical and electronic engineering
standards).
- Most standards are not used in national legislation but for labelling and contract. |
- The OIE is an intergovernmental organization
created by the International Agreement in 1924.
- Among its various missions, the OIE is to guarantee the sanitary safety of world trade by developing sanitary rules for international trade in animals and animal products. - The OIE develops normative documents for rules that member countries can use to protect themselves from disease, without setting up unjustified sanitary barriers. - Standards are referenced under the SPS and used in national legislation. |
| Structure of Committees | - IPPC: has currently 117 contracting parties
- The Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures (CEPM) was set-up in 1993. The Standards Committee now supersedes it, which is a group of 20 experts (predominantly from governments). Its structure is being revised to consist of three experts for each of the seven FAO regions. It meets twice a year. - the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) which is an FAO body and open to all FAO members. The commission members are governments. The ICPM will remain an "interim" body until the amendments to the Convention come into force and a permanent commission is in place. |
- ISO has a General Assembly but its
operations are governed by the Council, (officers and 18 elected
member bodies). Council appoints the treasurer, the members of the Technical
Management Board (TMB), and the chairmen of the 3 policy
development committees.
- The TMB advises the Council. It has 14 members of which 3 currently come from developing countries. It has a key role in the management of technical work. - Technical work is highly decentralized, carried out in a hierarchy of technical committees (or standard committees), sub-committees and working groups. There are 2,885 technical bodies comprising 186 technical committees, and 2,699 working groups. - There are 2 small management committees (7 members each) on finance and on strategy which report to the Council. |
- In May 2002, the OIE had 162 member countries.
- The Office is placed under the authority and control of an International Committee (IC) consisting of delegates designated by the governments of member countries who meet once a year. - The OIE is supported by elected commissions: • Administrative Commission • Five Regional Commissions • Specialist technical Commissions (TC). composed of 6 elected people (1 from each region + 1 chair) who are elected for a 3-year term by the IC. There are 4 TC : (i) International Animal Health Code Commission; (ii) Foot and Mouth Disease and Other Epizootics Commission;(iii) Standards Commission; and (iv) Fish Diseases Commission. |
| Secretariat | - Set up in 1992, the secretariat is provided by FAO and charged specifically with the coordination of the work programme of the IPPC, particularly the elaboration of ISPMs. | - ISO has a strong central secretariat with 165 full time staff (in the year 2002) and a central budget of about US$ 20 million per year. | The day-to-day operations are managed by a central bureau situated in Paris, placed under the responsibility of a Director-General elected by the International Committee. |
| Scientific Support | - Ad hoc international working groups are established
or experts are used by the secretariat to prepare a standard. The standard
draft is submitted to the SC which is itself composed of experts.
- There is a FAO Regular Programme budget, which covers the costs of experts to participate in the activities of IPPC, especially working groups to draft international standards. Experts from developed countries may, however, volunteer to cover their own costs, which has in the past allowed the secretariat to make the most of limited resources. |
- A working group of experts, the chairman (convenor) of which is the project leader, is set up by the technical (sub) committee for the preparation of a working draft. Successive working drafts may be considered until the working group is satisfied that it has developed the best technical solution to the problem being addressed. At this stage, the draft is forwarded to the working group's parent committee for the consensus-building phase. | Standards are prepared by elected specialist commissions and by working groups bringing together internationally-renowned scientists, most of whom are experts within the network of 152 collaborating centres and reference laboratories that also contribute towards other scientific objectives of the OIE. |
| Use of science and other legitimate factors in standard setting | The standards in general concern procedures for risk assessment and management (Pest Risk Analysis), provision of certain types of information, conducting surveillance, and other activities that may be undertaken by national plant protection organizations. Standards are very much science-based. | - Most standards concern quality and performance. Science is a secondary factor. | - Food safety standards pertain to reducing
food-borne risks to human health due to hazards arising from animals.
- Science-based criteria prevail entirely in standard setting. - No consideration of other legitimate factors except animal welfare scientifically defined. |
| Consensus and
Voting |
- Approval of standards by the ICPM is by consensus;
-If there are voices in opposition, consensus is taken to be a two-thirds majority of the members present. A vote can only be taken, however, when a proposal has been presented to the ICPM on at least two occasions. |
- The acceptance criteria stipulate approval by two-thirds of the ISO members that have participated actively in the standards development process, and approval by 75 % of all members that vote. Voting is postal. | - The International Committee approves the standard through consensus providing that not more than 10 members are against. There is no voting procedure. |
| Priority
Setting |
- Established by the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures in consultation with the secretariat. | - Established by the Council and the Technical Management Board. | - Established by the International Committee. |
| Inclusive-ness and participation | There is a large degree of inclusiveness in
the current standard setting process:
(i) Suggestions to develop a standard can arise from governments, industry, NGOs and regional plant protection organizations as well as other international organizations. (ii) There are observers to the ICPM. (iii) Developing countries participate in standard setting and funds are provided for their participation. |
- Some 30,000 experts participate in meetings
each year drawn from industry, research institutes, government authorities,
consumer bodies, and international organizations.
- ISO does not have observers in addition to the country members but delegations would appear to often represent different interest groups. - ISO participation is dominated by the developed countries. |
- The level of inclusiveness is relatively high
because of the regional representation system with elected people from
each region (5 regions + chair within the specialized committees) which
ensures participation of all members systematically. Furthermore, OIE pays
for the participation of many developing countries to attend the IC.
- Observer organizations are all global with high participation of industry but no non-industry NGO representation. |
56. In the questionnaire, governments were asked in what ways Codex standards are important for their country and the results are shown in Table 1by level of development [ Using World Bank Categories where ‘Middle’ combines World Bank categories ‘Lower Middle’ and ‘Upper Middle’.] . Low- and middle-income countries find them very important in protecting the health of their consumers by ensuring safe food whether produced domestically or imported, and for trade facilitation domestically and internationally. High-income countries, with better-developed domestic food legislation and control systems, place more emphasis on Codex for export facilitation and ensuring the safety of food imports. Producer and consumer NGOs also rate Codex standards very important in all their functions.
57. The majority of countries at all stages of development claim to have adopted into their national legislations more than 60% of all types of Codex standards with the exception of those relating to methods of analysis, though for domestic legislation Codex is probably most important to developing countries and the smaller developed countries that do not have the resources to develop all their own standards. The use of Codex standards in both developed and developing countries was confirmed in the country visits.
58. During country visits it was found that exporters and importers, including the major developed countries, find that Codex standards provide a basis for negotiations in trade over quality and safety, a view shared by industry. Harmonized standards also reduce the need for diverse requirements in formulation and labelling. Codex standards are a valuable basis for the development of standards by new trading blocks such as Mercosur and SADC. WFP also uses Codex standards as a reference in specifying contracts for food aid. To be valuable though, standards have to be timely and industry and some middle-income and developed countries find the delays in Codex and in the expert committees’ advice to Codex in respect of pesticides and, to a lesser extent, additives may reduce the overall relevance of the system. In the case of veterinary drugs companies are often no longer putting new products forward for consideration for a variety of reasons.
59. Turning to the type of standards appreciated by
stakeholders, countries at all stages of development valued all types of
Codex standards (more than 50% of respondents scoring above the mid-point
on a 7-point scale) with the exception of high-income countries that attached
less importance to commodity/product standards, quality descriptors, and
processes and procedures. Two high-income countries visited, however, considered
commodity standards important. More than 70% of countries report that residue
limits, additives, hygiene and labelling standards are ‘very important’
(score 6 or 7 on 7-point scale). Observers are largely in agreement, according
even higher importance to these same standards.
| Table 1: In which ways are Codex Standards important for your Country? | ||||
| Income Level | Not Important*
(% of respondents) |
Medium Importance*
(% of respondents) |
Very Important*
(% of respondents) |
|
| Protect Health of Domestic Consumers | All Countries | 2.0 | 22.0 | 76.0 |
| Low | 2.9 | 11.1 | 86.0 | |
| Middle | 0 | 17.3 | 82.7 | |
| High | 5.3 | 52.7 | 42.1 | |
| Facilitate Domestic Commerce | All Countries | 8.6 | 40.5 | 51.0 |
| Low | 8.6 | 20.0 | 71.5 | |
| Middle | 2.2 | 44.4 | 53.3 | |
| High | 21.1 | 68.4 | 10.6 | |
| Facilitate Food Exports | All Countries | 0 | 23.0 | 77.0 |
| Low | 0 | 8.6 | 91.4 | |
| Middle | 0 | 29.6 | 70.5 | |
| High | 0 | 33.3 | 66.7 | |
| Ensure Safety of Food Imports | All Countries | 1 | 16.7 | 82.3 |
| Low | 0 | 11.4 | 88.6 | |
| Middle | 0 | 21.7 | 78.3 | |
| High | 4.8 | 14.4 | 80.9 | |
| *On 7-point scale, Not Important = scores of 1 or 2, Medium Importance = 3, 4 or 5 and Very Important = 6 or 7 | ||||
60. Codex is directly referenced in the WTO-SPS Agreement for health-related standards and indirectly for non-health related standards in the TBT Agreement. The latter states that countries should adopt international standards where they exist, but does not mention Codex specifically. Most of the industry representatives the team met believe that Codex should concentrate its limited resources on science-based standards and this view was supported, in the main, by the developed country governments.
62. As recognition grows of the importance of diet
and nutrition in the prevention of chronic, non-communicable diseases,
demands will be made on Codex in the future to handle these emerging challenges
to protect the consumer by drawing on science-based health risk assessment
and ensuring better consumer information and product labelling from a nutritional
and health perspective. Likewise, increasing attention will be demanded
with respect to new categories of foods for special dietary uses, expanded
health claims and nutrient addition. Both this work and that on packaging
and processing referred to above will require significant inputs of expert
advice.
Recommendation 1: The scope of Codex
should fully cover health-related aspects of food standards. It will, therefore,
need (subject to availability of resources for Codex and expert scientific
advice and prioritization on the basis of expert scientific advice as to
the importance of alternative risks) to :
|
63. Some have argued that Codex also has a role to play in guiding countries on building national food control systems based on the criteria of consumer health protection and fair practices in trade. In this report, this function is treated as part of capacity building, though the role of Codex in making recommendations with respect to priorities for capacity building activities of FAO and WHO may need clearer definition.
64. Other areas of extension of Codex’s scope of work that we asked about brought split responses with developed countries opposed, usually strongly, but low- and middle-income countries strongly in favour. Industry INGOs were most strongly opposed to any extension of Codex work into new areas. These new areas were environmental issues not covered by other conventions or organizations, notifications on bio-terrorism, management of arrangements between nations for technical assistance, a disputes mechanism on detailed technical issues in trade and development of notification procedures and maintenance of a data base for new procedures, methods of analysis, etc. put in place by countries (the database is very important for developing countries and is returned to in Section 4.5 Communication).
65. Despite an overall majority in favour of each
of these extensions of Codex work (with the exception of the trade disputes
mechanism), without a major injection of new funds and given the very divergent
views and the already very heavy workload of Codex and its secretariat,
it is not recommended that Codex take on other new tasks at this time,
though it should review the scope of its work every few years.
| Recommendation 2: It is recommended that Codex does not take on additional work in non-health related areas. |
66. Developing country governments consider science-based standards important, but continue to value commodity standards and would like to see the list of standards extended to products particularly relevant to them (although this was often found in country visits to apply to such concerns as pesticide MRLs handled in horizontal committees). Consumer groups in particular value the information content of labels.
67. Asked in the questionnaire to rate future priorities
for Codex work, 81% of government respondents and 87% of observers accorded
very high priority to strengthening the science base for health risk analysis
in standard establishment in Codex’s future work. There continues to be
support among low- and middle-income countries for extending the coverage
of commodity standards, but little enthusiasm from developed countries.
Product descriptors are seen as low priority. Likewise, there was limited
enthusiasm for future work on non-health related aspects of food labelling
such as fair trade, animal welfare, religious and cultural labelling. There
is relatively more support from governments for work on organic labelling,
point of origin and quantitative ingredient declaration (QUID), though
among high-income regions, Europe is more favourably disposed than is North
America. Observer groups with the exception of consumers are opposed to
all forms of non-health-related labelling. In assessing priorities for
future work, governments and observers gave the highest proportion of ‘very
high priority’ scores (about 80% in each case) to pesticides, veterinary
drugs, additives and contaminants—all health-related, science-based issues.
| Box 1: Labelling of Foods Derived from Biotechnology
(GM Labelling)
The Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) first considered labelling of foods derived from biotechnology - in 1993. In 1997, the secretariat prepared guidelines, on the basis of advice from CCEXEC, and the statement on the role of science and other factors and the findings of an FAO/WHO expert consultation. The guidelines were presented as amendment to the General Labelling Standard for comments and major divergences of opinion continued. In 1998, CCFL forwarded the definitions and the provisions on allergens to CAC for adoption at Step 5 and returned the labelling requirements to Step 3. In 1999, the CAC adopted the Proposed Draft Amendment Concerning the Labelling of Foods Obtained Through Biotechnology (partial text) at Step 5. At the CCFL in 1999, there was debate on the requirement of labelling for foods containing or obtained from genetically-modified organisms (GMO). The United States stated that there was no scientific basis for systematic labelling and suggested, supported by industry IGOs, that it may be misleading to consumers. The European Union, supported by consumers advocated mandatory labelling. CCFL agreed to return the labelling provisions to Step 3 for redrafting. At the CCFL, in 2000, "modern biotechnology" was replaced with "genetic modification/genetic engineering" throughout definitions. There was further debate over "modified" versus "engineered" (both versions were retained) and the definition of "no longer equivalent/differs significantly", which was left in square brackets. CCFL advanced the draft amendment on allergens to Step 8 for adoption at the CAC in 2001 and it was adopted. CCFL returned the definitions to Step 6. The working group presented revised labelling provisions with either labelling when products obtained through biotechnology differ significantly from the corresponding food or the declaration of the method of production for foods containing or produced from GMOs. The US, and other delegations, highlighted the implications of enforcement, methodology, economic cost and consumer perception; and that developing countries would face technical difficulties. Due to the diversity of opinions, CCFL decided to return the labelling provisions to Step 3. At the CCFL in 2001, the central issue for definitions was the need for consistency throughout Codex [ The Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology (TFFBT) had taken its definition of "modern biotechnology" from the Cartagena Protocol, in accordance with its terms of reference to use established international definitions.] with the inclusion of "modern biotechnology" (Argentina, Brazil) versus use of terminology such as "genetic modification/genetic engineering" that consumers would understand (Norway, Ireland, India, Nigeria, Consumers International). Based on a compromise text, proposed by the working group, the definitions were retained and "modern biotechnology" was added. The CCFL agreed to forward the definitions to Step 8 for adoption by the CAC in 2001. However, due to the lack of consensus on the appropriate terminology for the definitions, CAC agreed to return the text to Step 6 demonstrating that the proposal to the CAC had been premature. The working group revised the labelling provisions in the form of guidelines. Argentina expressed reservation due to the implications in international trade and WTO. Some delegations indicated that Codex should give general recommendations that could be applied in all countries as a basis for international harmonization. CCFL was not able to proceed further due to time constraints and returned the text to Step 3. At the CCFL in 2002, CCFL could not reach consensus on the definitions and they returned again to Step 3. Polarization has increased as governments incorporate labelling provisions in their national legislation. There are accusations of inflexibility, criticism of the chair and general frustration at the lack of progress. This outcome suggests that CCFL could have benefited from more focused direction from the Codex Commission. Furthermore, CCFL did not have the benefit of an expert consultation on risk management or communication. As the working group became larger, there was less efficiency and less progress. Furthermore, while the Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology benefited from the Cartagena Protocol definition, it was a source of divergence for CCFL. The issue of "other factors" complicated the picture further and Principles for Risk Communication had not yet been elaborated. Due to political aspects of risk management and communication, and the current impasse, CCFL may not be able to resolve this dispute. |
68. To demonstrate the difficulties that can arise with non health-related standards, one may look at biotechnology (GM) labelling. This is one of the most difficult issues Codex has addressed, where there appear to be intractable differences between country positions (see Box 1) and progress (if any) has been painfully slow. While Codex has been deliberating, many countries have introduced national legislation on GM labelling (and the market has also responded with retailers and manufacturers taking GM ingredients out of their products in countries where consumers are opposed to them). [ It is conceivable that mandatory labelling could be seen as a non-tariff barrier in breach of the TBT Agreement but, in the absence of a challenge, it should be assumed that this is not the case. ] This particular issue reflects a broader difficulty in international harmonization when cultural differences among countries mean that consumers have different interests and priorities.
69. Contrast the position for labelling with that
for risk assessment of foods derived from biotechnology (Box 2). Progress
on agreeing to procedures for assessing health risks proved relatively
straightforward. Several explanations have been given for this success
including resources put into the process, the use of a task force approach
and a strong chair. However, part of the explanation is undoubtedly that
the issue was one of science not culture.
| Box 2: Procedures for Assessment of Health
Risks from Foods Derived From Biotechnology
In 2000, the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology (TFFBT), hosted by Japan, began its four-year mandate. According to the terms of reference, TFFBT was obliged to take full account of existing work and it agreed that environmental risk was and should be addressed by other bodies such as the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Plant Protection Convention and the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Moreover, the development, adoption, acceptance and use of Codex standards on biotechnology had to be undertaken within the international regulatory framework, resulting in the definition of "modern biotechnology" being taken from the Cartagena Protocol. TFFBT relied on three well-funded joint FAO/WHO expert consultations (plants, allergenicity, micro organisms [ The proposed Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on genetically modified animals has not been initiated.] ) and three ad hoc working groups to develop texts (principles, plants and micro organisms (chaired by Japan); analytical methods (chaired by Germany); allergenicity (chaired by Canada)). The Draft Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology and the Draft Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants have been advanced to Step 8 for adoption at the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2003. As the safety assessment procedures for plants and micro organisms were the same, they were retained, wherever possible, for recombinant-DNA micro organisms. The Proposed Draft Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Produced using Recombinant-DNA Micro organisms has been advanced to Step 5. The ad hoc working group, chaired by Germany, revealed that different countries use different analytical methods for the detection or identification of foods or food ingredients derived from biotechnology and that there were no internationally validated methods available at present. The consensus on the list of validated methods of analysis, proposed by the working group, is expected to be approved at the next meeting of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling in November 2002. Based on the proposals of the working group, chaired by Canada, and subsequent revisions, TFFBT agreed to advance the Draft Annex on the Assessment of Possible Allergenicity to Step 5 and recommended that the CAC also adopt the text at Step 8 with omission of Steps 6 and 7. Risk assessment in the development of these texts focussed on the issue of "substantial equivalence", which, although questioned by Consumers International, was concluded to be a useful approach to risk assessment of foods derived from biotechnology (joint FAO/WHO expert consultation, 2000). Conversely, the risk management issue of "traceability" was more controversial. There was debate between the EU, who called for the inclusion of the issue in the Principles document, and the US delegations, who stated that the issue was more appropriately covered by the Codex Committee on General Principles. There was further dispute by Consumers International and Greenpeace International versus industry observers on the inclusion of "traceability". Nevertheless, TFFBT concluded that "traceability" was an important tool for the implementation and enforcement of risk management measures and, therefore, agreed on a compromise text on product tracing. The development of these texts on principles, plants and micro organisms is an example of consensus building in a very short time period. The success of this case may be attributed to the chair who concentrated the discussion on procedures and did not allow it to move beyond science-based health considerations or to diverge from developing procedures into other aspects of potential GMO standards. The process also benefited from well-funded expert consultations and well-funded inter-meeting work of the ad hoc working groups. The scientific basis of risk assessment means that the established methods could be easily transferred to both the guidelines for plants and micro organisms. However, risk management remains at the abstract level due to various possible policy responses to risk assessment results, e.g. "traceability". Nonetheless, the overall success of TFFBT is undeniable and may be attributed to the restricted terms of reference, science-base of the discussion, established international definitions and methods of risk assessment, technical input resources and focus on food safety for human health. |
70. For the moment, Codex does not overtly prioritize between its twin objectives of protecting consumer health and ensuring fair practices in food trade. Food safety standards perform both functions, but commodity standards, product descriptors and informational (non-health related) labelling are targeted specifically at fair trade and informed consumer choice.
71. The evaluation team believes that, given ever-increasing demands, Codex now needs to prioritize in the use of scarce resources, putting health first. Product definition remains important but a lower priority is implied for commodity standards and product quality descriptors.
72. Codex will still work on issues such as informational
labelling as, in this domain, Codex has proven to be in some cases, a valuable
forum for international discussion, and such discussion can lead, over
a period of time, to a convergence of opinions. Within the domain of food
labelling it indicates higher priority for health-related aspects such
as nutritional labelling, health claims and allergens than for non-health
related issues such as, country of origin, religious and cultural labelling.
73. Priorities for standards having an impact on health should be established as far as possible on the basis of scientific surveillance and assessment of health impact.
74. We are aware that the recommendation that a lower priority be placed on non-health standards comes at a time when a recent WTO TBT decision that the Codex sardine standard is the appropriate basis for national rule making has raised the profile of Codex commodity standards. We nevertheless believe that our priorities are correct given the limited resources available to Codex, the heavy and growing demands on Codex with respect to health and the possibility in many cases for alternative routes to the establishment of quality standards.
75. The remaining work on commodity standards should address, first and foremost, the need for product definition (i.e. the species of primary products and necessary analytical measures for ripeness/maturation parameters and the content specification [ and possibly, critical organoleptic/spoilage specifications.] for processed products and exclude quality characteristics of size, colour, flavour, etc. which may be appropriate in national legislation). Commodity standards would only normally address health aspects which cannot be addressed through horizontal standards. In view of this, a revised and more restrictive format is desirable for Codex commodity standards.
77. Article 1 goes on to describe the purpose of the Joint Food Standards Programme: "
a. protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices
in food trade;
b. promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken
by international governmental and non governmental organizations;
c. determining priorities and initiating and guiding the preparation
of draft standards through, and with, the aid of appropriate organizations;
d. finalizing standards elaborated under c) above;
e. amending published standards, after appropriate survey in the
light of developments".
Recommendation 4: It is important
that a comprehensive and clear mandate be developed for Codex and ratified
by the FAO Conference and the World Health Assembly. The mandate should
be quite simple, for example:
|
78. The mandate should make clear that Codex is not an addition to the work of FAO and WHO but represents the definitive voice of the two Organizations in its mandated areas.
79. Codex reports are advisory to the FAO and WHO
secretariats. During country visits and discussions with members of the
Codex Executive Committee the question was raised as to how Codex could
ensure that those issues it felt to be of special importance could be formally
brought to the attention of FAO and WHO Governing Bodies for action and
through them to a wider audience in member countries.
| Recommendation 5: FAO and WHO should define how formal recommendations of Codex for consideration by FAO and WHO Governing Bodies may be brought to their attention (for example in FAO through one of the Committees of the Council). |
81. The SPS and TBT Agreements in fact exhort members to play a full part in international standard development and, by stipulating that SPS and TBT measures that conform to international standards are presumed consistent with the WTO Agreement, promotes the use of standards developed by Codex. Most people the evaluation team spoke to felt that the WTO Agreements had injected new impetus to Codex at a time when it was in danger of drifting into irrelevance. In the questionnaire, 90% of government respondents wanted Codex to continue to be referenced for the SPS Agreement, as do consumer and producer INGOs (Codex observers).
82. Concern has also been expressed that since the WTO, discussions within Codex have become more politicized and that there is greater representation in Codex committees by trade rather than technical specialists and that this has resulted in a slowing down of the process of setting standards in CAC. However, comparison with the pre-Uruguay Round level of standard setting activity does not show that there is actually any slowing down. Rather, the expectation of accelerated decision making has not been realized and there is frustration with the normal pace of activity. The recommendations we make concerning priorities, decision making and representation aim to reduce this problem.
83. The SPS Agreement, in making reference to the use of risk assessment in determining food health risks and in advocating the use of equivalence of SPS measures, could be argued to have encouraged Codex to intensify its work on these subjects, which in turn could be argued to benefit consumer health and, ultimately, develop country trade.
84. Despite these positive comments, exporters, particularly in developing countries, find that in practice they have to meet importing countries’ standards that can be stricter than Codex standards and also vary from country to country. In part, this lack of harmonization results from the major developed countries developing their own standards more quickly than Codex. Relaxing already established standards to new Codex standards would be politically difficult as it would be perceived by domestic consumers as a reduction in their level of protection (see Box 3 on Aflatoxin M1). Faster decision-making in Codex would lessen this problem to the benefit of developing country exporters.
85. The evaluation believes that it is timely for
Codex to intensify efforts preliminary discussion and then dropped in the
Codex Committee on General Principles to develop guidelines for what constitutes
an acceptable level of protection for consumers (this was given preliminary
discussion and then dropped in the Codex Committee on General Principles).
We determined that few guidelines in this area have been elaborated by
national governments. If Codex is able to make progress, countries will
be in a better position to obtain the full benefits of the WTO-SPS Agreement.
The existence of guidelines on the determination of acceptable levels of
protection, agreed to by risk managers, would also make it easier for risk
assessors to provide appropriate and consistent scientific advice to Codex
committees.
| Recommendation 6: Codex, supported by FAO/WHO independent expert advice, should intensify efforts to develop guidelines on determination of acceptable levels of protection (ALOP) for use by risk assessors in giving scientific advice to committees and to reduce the scope of disputes in the WTO. |
| Recommendation 7: Codex should remain within FAO and WHO but should have more independence, authority and responsibility over priority setting and management of its work programme. FAO and WHO Governing Bodies should endorse the overall Codex programme of work and the budget on a biennial basis. |
89. There are gaps in standard setting that are not covered either by Codex or the OIE. The case of food safety standards relating to food-borne hazards arising from animals before slaughter is one. In this regard, the OIE Committee has recently adopted a resolution [ Resolution n. XV, 70 GS/FR Paris, May 2002.] clarifying the food safety mandate of the OIE ("reduce food-borne risks to human health due to hazards arising from animals, in collaboration with appropriate international agencies"). The resolution promotes the establishment and/or the strengthening of both formal and informal relationships with relevant international agencies, including FAO and WHO and their subsidiary bodies, including CAC. We have already recommended above that the Codex mandate reflect this.
90. We note that the Chairman of Codex and the Director-General of OIE have recently held informal discussions to identify and consider appropriate collaboration in areas of their respective competence. Mechanisms they envisaged for improving cooperation between Codex and OIE were exchange of information; cross-utilization of experts in working groups and relevant conferences; and conduct of a census to facilitate the comparison of existing OIE/Codex standards on the same subjects. Informal agreement between the two parties has not been formalized. The following areas of common interest have been identified:
Recommendation 8: Codex and OIE should
intensify their collaboration to minimize overlaps and avoid gaps in standard
setting with:
a) delineation of work and specific modalities of collaboration should be defined by Codex and OIE within the near future and formalized in a memorandum of understanding;Continued close collaboration between Codex and IPPC should also be maintained. |
92. A common view from country visits, particularly from high-income countries, was that the CAC meeting only every two years is a serious impediment to speedy decision making. Coupled with sometimes poor sequencing of committee meetings (including the sequencing of meetings of JECFA and JMPR to give expert scientific advice to relevant committees), long delays are built into the system. In the questionnaire, there was overwhelming support for annual meetings of the Commission—80% of government respondents (100% from high-income countries and 67% from low-income countries, even though some of those had expressed concern in country visits that it would be hard for them to afford to participate in annual meetings) and 97% of observers were in favour.
93. At the same time, there are concerns with the present Executive Committee. It is said to be too large to be a strategic management board yet not sufficiently transparent (no observers) and not sufficiently representative to be allowed to consider standards. Questionnaire responses with respect to the Executive Committee were mixed—56% of countries, mostly low- and middle-income ones favoured greater power for the Executive Committee to monitor and manage the Codex work, but 48% of countries (including a majority of high-income countries and 77% of observers) were in favour of elimination of the Executive Committee and its replacement by an executive board. Observers and high-income countries were, however, opposed to the election of an executive chairman with authority over the secretariat and a strong leadership role.
94. We interpret proposals to give greater power to
the Executive Committee as equivalent to the creation of an Executive Board.
Recommendation 9: The Executive Committee
should be replaced with an Executive Board, meeting every six months, charged
with strategic and managerial responsibility but without the authority
to consider standards. The function of the board would be to improve speed
and efficiency by assisting the Commission in strategic planning, budgeting
and monitoring, including:
|
95. A possible composition of this board would be the chairman and vice-chairs, an elected representative from each region and the secretary of Codex. Two representatives each from FAO and WHO, rather than the present unlimited participation, would regularize the official standing of the two parent Organizations in a framework of greate