Post on 31-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Workshop on the relationship between the SPS Committee and the international
standard-setting organizations
Codex Alimentarius Commission
Tom Heilandt
Codex Secretariat
Codex mandate, membership and results
Mandate
• Protect the health of consumers• Ensure fair practices in the food trade• Promote coordination of all food standards work
undertaken by IGOs and INGOs• Develop and maintain a collection of
international food standards: the Codex Alimentarius
Codex offers a forum to negotiate standards
• 182 members, one member organization (EC)
• 200 IGOs and NGOs
99% of the worlds’ population
33
247+1
49
23
17
11
Codex results
• Horizontal standards (GSFA, GSCTF, labelling, methods)
• Product standards (individual and group)• Guidelines (principles, certification, inspection,
risk analysis, sampling)• Codes of practice (hygiene, prevention of
contamination)• Pesticide MRLs• Veterinary drugs MRLs• Regional standards, codes and guidelines
The SPS agreement
defines International standards, guidelines and recommendations:
“for food safety, the standards, guidelines and recommendations established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission relating to food additives, veterinary drug and pesticide residues, contaminants, methods of analysis and sampling, and codes and guidelines of hygienic practice”; (Annex A,3.a))
Stucture,standard setting, role of science
Aditivos Alimentarios (China)
Contaminantes de los Alimentos (Países
Bajos)Higiene de los
Alimentos
(Estados Unidos)
Food Labelling
(Canada)
Residuos de Plaguicidas
(China)
Residuos de Medicamentos
Veterinarios en los Alimentos
(Estados Unidos)
Horizontal Committees Vertical Committees
Milk and Milk Products (New Zealand)
Processed Fruits and Vegetables (United States)
Meat Hygiene
(New Zealand)
Fish and Fishery Products (Norway)
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (Mexico)
Fats and Oils
(Malaysia)
Cereals, Pulses and Legumes (United States)
Vegetable Proteins
(Canada)
Natural Mineral Waters
(Switzerland)Cocoa Products and
Chocolate (Switzerland)
Ad-hoc intergovernmental task forces
Foods derived from Biotechnology (Japan)
Antimicrobial Resistance (Republic of Korea)
Processing and Handling of Quick Frozen Foods
(Thailand)
FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees
Africa
(Ghana)
Asia
(Indonesia)
Europe
(Poland)
Latin America and the Caribbean (Mexico)
Near East (Tunisia)
North America and South West Pacific
(Tonga)
Executive Committee Secretariat
Codex Alimentarius Commission
Import and Export Inspection and
Certification Systems (Australia)
Sugars
(United Kingdom)
active
adjourned sine die
Fruit Juices (Brazil) Animal Feeding (Denmark)
dissolved
activeGeneral Principles
(France)
Food Additives (China)
Contaminants in Foods (Netherlands)
Food Hygiene
(United States)
Pesticide Residues
(China)
Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods
(United States)
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses
(Germany)
Methods of Analysis and Sampling
(Hungary)
Discussion paper
Start Criticalreview
Elaboration/Negotiation/consultation
Adoption/decision
T 1
T 5
T 8
Proposed draft standard
Projectdocument
T2elaboration
T3consultation
T4negotiation
Draft standard T6consultation
T7negotiation
Codex standardExecutive
Committee CommitteeCommission
T 5 Endorsement bygeneral committees
T 8
T 1
Committee
consultation
consultation
consultation
Implementation of standards and monitoring
• FAO/WHO capacity building programmes• Acceptance procedure eliminated 2005• FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees review
use/non-use of Codex Standards based on replies from members of the region.
Role of science
• 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. (CAC decision 1995)
• Since 1995 Risk Analysis has been implemented in Codex – process will be completed in 2010
JECFA
Ad hoc consultations
JMPR
biotechnology
JEMRA
biotoxins active chlorine
etc..
Chemical hazards Microbiological hazards
Nutrition
Risk Assessment for Codex FAO/WHO scientific advice
CCFACCCFCCRVDF
CCPR CCFH CCNFSDU
TFFBTCCFHCCCF
Relationship withthe SPS committee andOIE and IPPC
Codex - SPS
• Mutual reporting and participation of secretariats in meetings and workshops
• Cooperation on SPS training activities and in STDF
• Contacts between SPS/CAC chairs have led to a new food additive maximum value
• Monitoring of application of standards (WTO members are encouraged to notify)
Codex - OIE
• Mutual participation at all different levels• Participation of OIE in the work of Codex and
reporting encouraged by the Commission (ALINORM 05/28/3, paras 97-98)
• OIE initiative to evaluate in CCGP the possibility of joint standards
Codex - IPPC
• Codex risk analysis texts served as model for IPPC
• Regular consultations between the Secretariats of the Codex Alimentarius Commission
• Mutual participation in meetings
Challenges, Possible common topics
Challenges
• Speed of standard development while remaining inclusive and transparent
• Finding consensus in a heterogeneous membership
• Participation of developing countries• Private standards
Is Codex slow? From 1 to ∞• The Codex procedure allows to create a standard
in one year• For many standards steps 6 and 7 are omitted and
the majority of work is completed in 2 - 4 years• Few standards move slowly but eventually get
adopted (e.g. definition for fibre, oranges, risk analysis for governments) 5 – 10 years
• Very few don’t move but also no consensus on stopping work > 10 years
• Some are held at step 8
Speed in recent years• New work 2008: 19
– 2009: 1 at 5/8; 1 at 5
• New work 2007: 12– 2008: 4 at 5/8, 1 at 5
– 2009: 1 at 8, 1 at 5
• New work 2006: 13– 2007: 1 at 5/8, 3 at 5
– 2008: 3 at 5/8, 3 at 8, 3 at 5
– 2009: 1 at 5/8, 2 at 8
• New work 2005: 11– 2006: 2 at 5/8, 2 at 5, 1 disc– 2007: 1 at 5/8, 2 at 5– 2008: 2 at 8– 2009: 1 disc
Standards management - improvements
• Joint Evaluation resulting in Critical Review function of CCEXEC
• Recently Executive Committee developed guidance for:– Monitoring the standards setting process– Application of the Criteria for the
Establishment of Work Priorities
Consensus• Codex today works mainly by consensus• Building consensus can take time• Some votes in the past have been divisive• It is the chairpersons responsibility to facilitate
consensus and to rule when it has been reached• Consensus in Codex does not have to be
unanimity but there is no definition• There is a common understanding but some
concern that the concept is not applied equally across Committees
CAC32 on consensus
• Brochure for Chairs on how to apply the concept of consensus uniformly
• Use of a facilitator• Satisfaction survey (including question on chairperson)• Problematic issues to be brought to the CCEXEC and
the informal meeting of chairs for appropriate action • Convening an informal meeting of chairs • Explore possibilities for developing a reference
document for delegates on consensus building
Participation
Host governments + co-hosting
1
4 2+3
1
2
1+2
1+1
1
211
1 11
2
1+1
11
1+2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
Proposals discussed at CAC32
• Make best use of written comments
• Foster dynamic exchange outside physical meetings
• Reduce the number of sessions
• Concentrate all Codex sessions in Rome or Geneva
CAC32 - Conclusions• Strengthening of the Trust Fund• FAO and WHO capacity building activities in
developing countries, including regional workshops and STDF projects
• Co-hosting of Codex sessions should be continued
• Mentoring mechanisms through intra-regional cooperation
• Timely distribution of documents in the official languages.
Private standards: consultants’ opinions
• Codex has had an implicit role in guiding the development of private standards setting out a framework and common vocabulary
• Similar to national regulations, private standards translate Codex texts into standards containing guidance for application and auditing
• Codex should increase speed of standard setting• Codex clientele has changed. To remain relevant, Codex
depends on the adoption of its standards, guidelines and codes by both governments and private standard setters
(The Impacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and on Public Standard-Setting Processes (ALINORM 09/32/9D-Part II) Spencer Henson and John Humphrey) )
CAC32 on private standards• Concern to many members as compliance/ certification was
difficult, especially for developing countries. • Need to see how private standards relate to Codex standards.
Codex standards should be benchmarks for these private standards. International harmonization of food safety provisions should be based on Codex standards.
• Forum to address the legal implications of private standards is the WTO SPS committee.
• CAC will work with OIE and IPPC should consult on a common strategic position on this matter
• Study to analyse the role, cost and benefits of private standards especially with respect to the impact on developing countries
Thank you