FSIS Reports on Results of Codex Meeting on Food Additives and "Note 161”

CCFA Fails to Reach Agreement on Note 161

The following is a detailed account of the discussion surrounding Note 161:

• The discussion on Note 161 (Subject to the national legislation of an importing country aimed in particular, at consistency with Section 3.2 of the preamble) to the GSFA, was opened by the Chair who noted that not only did many of the delegations feel the Note's use was inappropriate, but that the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) had clearly indicated its concerns over the use of the Note. The Chair also reminded the Committee that use of the Note was suspended at last year's CCFA session.
• South Africa, which chaired the eWG, provided a synopsis of the eWG report, and stated that an analysis showed that use of the Note was primarily in cases of colors and sweeteners, although the use of these additives coincided with the Committee's list of foods in which colors and sweeteners had already been justified.
• The eWG report revealed that the countries that opposed the Note's use did so because they believed it served as a trade barrier and was not within the spirit of harmonization of international standards in Codex. They emphasized that the GSFA provided adequate guidance to national authorities when interpreting the acceptable maximum use levels to account for differences in national practices in the use of additives. Countries that supported the use of Note 161 believed it was necessary to account for national practices and to prevent misleading the consumer. They also maintained it was needed because, in their view, Section 3.2 of the Preamble was not rigorously applied.
• The eWG recommended three options including immediate elimination of Note 161. The Chair, however, did not believe consensus could be reached on this option, and instead recommended that the Committee agree to maintain the use of the Note in the 399 GSFA provisions in which it was already used, but stop any future use of it. The United States and other Quad countries, as well as countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, all voiced support for eliminating or discontinuing the use of Note 161. Countries that opposed its elimination and suspension maintained that Note 161 was necessary for continuing progress on the GSFA and should be applied on a case-by-case basis. There was universal support however, for reducing the Note's use.
• The Chair proposed to establish an eWG to address the use of Note 161 in sweeteners where it is currently used, but there was no consensus on the Terms of Reference, i.e., whether the goal of the eWG would be to eliminate references to national legislation or to reduce references to national legislation. As such, the Chair concluded that there was no reasonable expectation of reaching consensus on this issue and suspended discussion.

Other Discussions on Revising or Revoking Provisions of the GSFA

The CCFA also discussed revising or revoking other provisions of the GSFA, as follows:

• In other work, the CCFA agreed to adopt, revise, discontinue, or revoke about 340 provisions in the GSFA. It also agreed to apply a horizontal approach to the consideration of provisions in Tables 1 and 2 for additives in Table 3 of the GSFA, with the technological function of "acidity regulator" or "emulsifier, stabilizer, thickener" for consideration at the 45th Session next year.
• The CCFA also agreed to further work on the remaining GSFA provisions for the aluminum-containing additives and make recommendations for action at the 45th Session. These tasks, along with consideration of outstanding GSFA provisions not discussed at the 44th Session, have been charged to an eWG chaired by the United States.
• The CCFA discussed the revised title and descriptor of food category 16 (Composite foods -- foods that could not be placed in categories 01 -- 15) of the GSFA, and its consequential effects on food category 12.6.1 -- Emulsified sauces (e.g., mayonnaise, salad dressing) and on the Preamble to the GSFA. The United States and several other delegations supported the proposed revisions, while the EU and several other delegations did not. As a compromise, it was proposed to keep the revised title and descriptor of food category 16.0, but to delete all examples included in the descriptor. The revised title and compromise text for the descriptor were forwarded to the CAC for adoption.
• The CCFA also agreed to recommend that the CAC revoke or discontinue work on all provisions for food category 16.0 in the GSFA, and to request via Circular Letter, proposals for provisions to be included in the revised food category, in particular, clarifying why these provisions would not be covered by food categories 01 - 15.
• Finally, the CCFA agreed to the consequential changes to the title and descriptor of food category 12.6.1, and recommended adoption by the CAC. However, the Committee agreed not to revise the Preamble of the GSFA.