Analysis
of the 2005 Session of the
quoted
from BRIDGES Trade BioRes, published by the
International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development,
Geneva (http://www.ictsd.org/),
Vol. 5 No. 7, 15 April 2005:
CODEX CONSIDERS ROLE OF
PRECAUTION IN RISK STANDARD
The Codex Alimentarius Committee on General
Principles (CCGP) decided to reopen the Proposed Draft Working Principles
for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for governments by discarding the
current draft and starting discussions on a new one, after deadlock on
the role of precaution in the principles held up discussions at its meeting
from 11-15 April in Paris, France. The problem posed by the exportation
of substandard food to developing countries that do not have the
capacity to monitor imports was also recognised and forwarded to the Codex
Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS).
The decision to restart drafting on the
Principles for Risk Analysis was a major step, given that negotiators have been
discussing the current draft for several years. At the heart of the debate
is the role of precaution in risk analysis, with the EU arguing that the
precautionary principle must be clearly identified and defined with clear
guidance on how to apply it to ensure food safety. Other countries, however,
have said that it is not necessary to include an explicit reference to
precaution in the document.
Principles aim to guide
government policy
The debate on precaution in the CCGP dates
back to 2002, when negotiations on Principles for Risk Analysis for Food
Safety overcame deadlock on the precaution issue and scope of the Principles
by making two separate standards on Risk Analysis, with the first
applying solely as guidance for Codex itself and the second to apply to
governments (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 2 May 2002,
http://www.ictsd.org/biores/02-05-02/story2.htm). The
decision enabled the adoption of Draft
Working Principles for Risk Analysis for application within the framework of Codex
in 2003 which included a reference to precaution as an "inherent
element" of risk management, but no mention of the precautionary principle per se
(see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 17 April 2003,
http://www.ictsd.org/biores/03-04-17/story1.htm).
Discussions on the second set of guidelines, which are to
apply to governments, started in 2003 and have used an exact copy of the
Codex-only Principles as the basis
for negotiations.
Participants decided at this CCGP meeting to
abandon the current draft and start from scratch. Based on a workshop held
on 6 November 2004 in Paris, which was mandated by the 2004 CCGP meeting,
agreement was reached that no consensus could be found on the role of
precaution in the new agreement and particularly in the preamble and risk
assessment section. Latin American, US and several South Eastern Asian countries
argued against including mention of the term "precaution", the EU wanted to
keep the current draft and more clearly specify how the precautionary
principle was to be used. Some African countries said that guidance was needed on
risk analysis in general but did not stake out a position on the need to
include precaution in the guidelines.
Agreeing that new ideas were necessary, the
CCGP's decision to restart drafting means that countries will soon be
asked to submit comments on what the new draft should look like. This process
will likely last until the end of September 2005 and will produce a
"skeleton" of a new draft which will be considered at the CCGP's 2006 meeting.
Code of ethics outdated?
The meeting also considered whether Codex's
existing code of ethics for international trade in foods needs updating.
The code, which was written in 1979 and revised in 1985, has been called
"outdated" owing to its references to documents inside and outside Codex that
are many decades old. For example, all countries agreed that the code
as it currently stands fails to recognise or take into account the work of
Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification
Systems (CCFICS), which has created many agreements covering issues that the Code
tries to address, and does not take into account the WTO's Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreements.
Some countries, including several developed
countries and smaller developing countries, supported the revision of the code
in order to bring it up to date and, in particular, to address the needs
of developing country food importers who do not have the capacity to set
and implement food standards to protect themselves against exports of
substandard food from other countries. While several developing countries
said that their real need was technical assistance to set up working food
standards bodies and enforcement mechanisms, they said that the code would
help with the problem. Although all countries agreed that the code was needed
and opposed revoking the existing code, the US, New Zealand,
Australia, Argentina and Mexico along with others said that revisions were not
necessary. Concerns include that any update that takes into account the CCFICS,
SPS and TBT agreements will leave very little for the Code of Ethics to
cover.
The CCGP decided to forward the issue of
sub-standard exports to developing countries without the capacity for food
standards to CCFICS, given the latter's reputation for quick and efficient
action on food standards issues, by asking them to develop new standards or
amend their current standards to address this challenge. The CCGP will return
to the Code of Ethics issue in one year to assess CCFICS's addition to
issues potentially under its scope and at that time reconsider the need for
revisions.
Background
While Codex standards are only voluntary, the
Codex Alimentarius Commission is recognised by the SPS Agreement as the
international organisation responsible for standard-setting related to
food safety. WTO Members "shall base" their measures related to human and
plant health on Codex's standards, guidelines or recommendations. Such measures
"shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant
life of health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions"
of the SPS Agreement. The other two international standard-setting body
recognised in the SPS Agreement are the International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC) for plant health and the Office International de Epizooties (OIE)
for animal health.
Additional Resources
Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk
Analysis for Food Safety can be accessed at
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ccgp22/cl04_34e.pdf
The conclusions of the November 2004 working
group can be accessed at
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ccgp22/gp22_04e.pdf
The Proposed Draft Revised Code of Ethics for
International Trade in Food can be accessed at
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ccgp22/cl04_57e.pdf
Comments on the Code can be accessed at
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ccgp22/gp22_05e.pdf,
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ccgp22/gp2205ae.pdf and
ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ccgp22/gp2205be.pdf
The Consumers International Press Release on
the meeting is available at
http://www.consumersinternational.org/news/display.asp?regionid=135&tag=C&id=467&type=news&cat=465&langid=1
ICTSD Reporting.
