The annual meeting of the Commission, an intergovernmental body jointly established by the UN Food and Agricultural Commission (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) was held in Geneva from 30 June to 4 July. The Commission is a forum engaging the international community in harmonising food safety standards and ensuring fair food trade practices.

Codex standards are non-binding and used as references by the WTO. They are implemented and enforced by individual countries. Because of the increasing global market for food, such standards have important implications for international food trade. By providing baseline guides for domestic food production, Codex standards seek to harmonise international practices with regard to consumer safety and lower non-tariff barriers.

The 31st meeting of the Commission discussed 41 texts, including standards for powdered milk formula, cereal toxins, shellfish, ingredient labelling, the use of flavourings and gluten-free foods. Thirty standards were adopted for inclusion in the formal Codex text, following comments by Commission members.

Old concerns

Among the standards passed during the meeting, officials agreed to a benchmark on powdered formula to reduce the risk of Enterobacter sakazakii, a bacteria that causes severe illness in babies and small children. The code sets maximum limits for the bacteria and provides guidelines on how to produce and handle prepared powdered formula.

All members of the Commission recognised the need for strict measures on this product, but some developing countries, led by Indonesia, inquired about possible alternative testing methods at lower cost. Indonesia’s question was echoed by Cuba, who argued for more scientific analysis of safe levels of bacteria, as well as a possible funding source for testing. The countries raised the possibility that the Codex Commission could provide more support for developing countries in meeting Codex standards, with the FAO and the WHO playing a greater role in capacity building.

As shown by their reservations with regard to standards that would require using costly production techniques, developing countries were concerned over potential implications for their export capacity and competitiveness. Throughout discussion about standard adoption on 30 June, Commission members from various developing countries stressed the need for consumer safety — not only for exported goods, but also for products used domestically — while also voicing concerns with regard to resource constraints and difficulties they face in standard implementation.

In a similar example, a standard on fish and fishery products practices was adopted in part, with a section on lobster definitions reverted to the Committee level for more discussion after ardent objections by several developing countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Indonesia and Mexico.

The section in question set a maximum limit for the amount of chlorine used to treat water that comes in contact with lobsters, to ensure that residual chlorine content does not exceed that of potable water.

Brazil and some other countries claimed, however, that the clause had no scientific basis and argued against setting a precedent for standards ‘without technical or scientific evidence’. Decreasing the amount of chlorine in water used to farm fish increases the cost of production, due to chlorine level monitoring and testing requirements.

Guidelines on tolerable allowance of low-level biotech grain

The Commission also adopted a guideline for countries to allow the low-level presence of unapproved biotech presence in grains and other products that have passed a food safety assessment according to Codex standards. The standard recognised that the commingling of commodities from storage, export and processing would inadvertently have only low levels in individual servings of food.

The EU, which in general is extremely cautious about biotech products, agreed to the annex at a meeting of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology last September, given the implementation of an effective system for data and information sharing (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 19 October 2007, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-10-19/story1.htm).

Though the annex does not address risk management measures for individual countries or eliminate industry responsibility for meeting import requirements, the standard adoption was hailed in the US, which has taken a pro-biotech stance.

“This development in Codex is another tool to help improve the free flow of genetically enhanced grains,” said Erick Erickson, US Grains Council special assistant for planning, evaluation and projects. The standard is a step in creating regulating mechanisms to address the unintentional occurrence of biotech material.

New standards

Commission members also adopted a new international standard for tomatoes, ending seven years of debate. According to the standard, tomatoes can be round, ribbed, oblong or elongated, as well as cherry or cocktail tomatoes.

“Many developing countries in particular said that they needed this standard so that they ensure that they would get the right quality of products that they ordered,” said Tom Heilandt, senior food standards adviser at the FAO. He argued that such definition standards protect importing countries.

The Commission also adopted a standard setting a permitted limit of 10 parts per billion (ppb) aflatoxin content in pistachio nuts. Aflatoxins are naturally occurring carcinogenic substances. The standard, proposed by Iran, lowers trade restrictions on pistachio exports to Europe.

Other standards adopted include a definition for food labelled gluten-free – gluten level cannot exceed 20 milligrams per kilogram. Discussion on labelling centred on whether food sold as a mixture or combination should disclose percentage and weight in order to clarify contents for the consumer. Standards for bitter cassava and flavourings use by the Codex Committee on Food Additives were also added to the Codex text.

Each of the approved standards has undergone a long process. After negotiation at the individual Committee level, they go through a critical review at the Executive Committee, followed by elaboration and consultation with governments by a Task Forces and endorsement by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

The next session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission will be held from 29 June to 4 July 2009 in Rome.

Additional resources

Drafts of the discussed standards can be found online, and the final meeting report will be posted at http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/archives.jsp?lang=en.

ICTSD reporting; 4 July 2008, “Hallmarks of the perfect tomato,” AGENCE FRANCE-PRESS; 3 July 2008, “USGC applauds Codex Alimentarius Commission,” GRAINNET.

The standards include zero tolerance for child and slave labour, with the requirement that mills have 100 percent mechanised labour by 2014. The private-sector regulations are meant to ease European consumer concern about ethanol’s sustainability and its environmental, social and economic implications. The trading company SCA, which will manage the exports, says this represents a major step toward realising an international standard for sustainable ethanol.

Though there is discussion worldwide about certification criteria for sustainable ethanol, no decisions have been made yet (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 18 April 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-04-18/story2.htm). Overall, the sustainability of the biofuels sector is increasingly being questioned, especially following the recent rapid rise in food prices (see related story, this issue, and Bridges Trade BioRes, 13 June 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-06-13/story1.htm).

In related news, Brazilian president Lula da Silva has said that Brazil expects rapid expansion of its ethanol industry and is preparing to address growing concerns about its ethanol production. Lula met with US president George Bush in Washington following the early June Rome Summit on World Food Security. During the discussions, Bush said the US planned to raise its consumption from 5 billion to 35 billion gallons by 2017, using both domestic corn-based products and sugar-based imports from Brazil. The US currently subsidises its domestic ethanol industry, as well as maintaining tariffs on ethanol imports from Brazil.

ICTSD reporting; “Brazil signs deal to export sustainable ethanol,” REUTERS, 25 June 2008; “Biofuels: Brazil disputes cost of sugar in the tank,” GUARDIAN, 10 June 2008.

The WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) met from 24-25 June, with Members raising specific export-related concerns with regard to health and safety standards set by other Members. The meeting was preceded by informal consultations on 23 June.

Discussion on private sector standards to continue, divisions remain on form

A number of developing countries are highly critical of the use of private sector standards, saying they reduce the efficacy of the SPS regime by creating higher standards outside of government control. These countries stress that the standards are arbitrary and end up penalising developing countries and small farmers exporting to the North since they lack capacity and funding. Many developing countries argue that governments should to take responsibility for standards set by private-sector actors within their boundaries. Others, especially developed countries, say that private sector standards fall outside the remit of the WTO and its SPS Agreement. This debate has been going on since 2005 (see Bridges Weekly, 6 July 2005, http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/05-07-06/story3.htm).

Uruguay, one of the proponents of further discussions on how to rectify problems posed by private sector standards, made a submission outlining the terms of reference for a Working Group on Private Standards (G/SPS/W/225, available at http://docsonline.wto.org) just prior to the latest session of the SPS Committee. According to the submission, the Working Group would be charged with coming up with concrete recommendations to the SPS Committee within a defined timeframe. It would be chaired by a developing country representative. The scope of its work would be limited to SPS aspects of private sector standards, although a joint workshop could be held with the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The Working Group would: undertake a study of the differences between standards set by the private sector and the official standards in the same area; address government responsibilities with regard to private sector standards; communicate and coordinate with the SPS reference organisations (Codex Alimentarius, the International Animal Health Organisation and the International Plant Protection Convention); and undertake a legal analysis of the consistency between private standards and the SPS Agreement.

Members discussed how to move the work forward during an informal meeting on 23 June. While several countries supported the proposal by Uruguay, others felt that it prejudged any work by taking a negative approach to private standards. During the discussions, disagreements surfaced around the areas of work suggested by Uruguay, and also over practical issues, such as the size and chairmanship of the group.

Following the meeting, the Secretariat will send Members a questionnaire about the organisation of further work on private standards. Based on the replies, countries will continue informal discussions on the way forward in conjunction with the next SPS Committee meeting.

Using the “good offices” of the Chair

During the formal meeting of the SPS Committee from 24-25 June, Members continued considering ways to facilitate their own work. Members have the option of using the Chair’s “good offices,” or mediation, to help resolve differences and conflicts that occur between trade partners with regard to health and safety standards. This option provides a middle way between an airing of concerns within the SPS Committee and a full-fledged dispute. However, mediation is seldom used, so the group discussed the development of concrete guidance on the practicalities of using the Chair’s assistance when needed.

Both the US and Argentina had put forth proposals in this regard since the last meeting of the SPS Committee (G/SPS/W/227 and G/SPS/W/219). Both papers set out concrete timelines and steps to be taken in case the Chair’s mediation was needed. Both also emphasised the technical and scientific nature of the consultations, and suggested inviting expert input from the Codex Alimentarius, International Animal Health Organisation or International Plant Protection Convention as needed. The Geneva-based consultations would be voluntary and confidential in nature, although the Chair would provide a general report to the SPS Committee at the end of the consultations.

The US and Argentina said they would work on consolidating their two drafts in advance of the next meeting of the SPS Committee. This meeting is scheduled to take place from 8-9 October 2008.

ICTSD reporting.

In their 5 June meeting in Luxembourg, ministers recognised the need to improve the GM evaluation and authorisation system, with emphasis placed on longer-term discussion on health and environment impacts.

The proposal stems from growing criticism of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU’s scientific risk assessment body that authorises products for the European market. Member states claim that the understaffed agency relies too much on information provided by the industry and therefore improperly approves GM products with insufficient research. EFSA is responding by creating a database of external scientific experts to help the agency with its work and to increase transparency in the process.

“It is now clear that the authorisation process must be halted until risk assessment procedures are truly independent and compliant with EU legal requirements,” said Marco Contiero of the Greenpeace Genetic Engineering European Unit to the EUObserver.

The EU is, however, under pressure from its trading partners to ensure that GM approvals are speeded up, following a dispute settlement case at the WTO (see Bridges Trade BioRes, 22 February 2008, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-02-22/story2.htm).

Meanwhile, on 10 June EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou proposed raising the tolerance threshold for unauthorised GM material in imports, negating the EU’s “zero tolerance” policy. This move, which was strongly opposed by environmental groups, could open the door for more imports from trading partners that have embraced GM. Much European feed is imported, and the feed industry had called for an easing of imports to deal with shortages and rising prices.

On a related note, Switzerland voted on 29 May to extend its moratorium on GM cultivation to 2010. According to the Swiss Federal Council, Swiss farmers have been able to sell their products at a premium on the international market, as they are guaranteed to be non-GM and free of GM contamination.

ICTSD reporting; “EU food safety agency aims for more transparency,” EURACTIV, 9 June 2008; “EU to propose more flexible GMO food imports,” REUTERS, 10 June 2008; “Environment ministers agree GMO approval overhaul,” EUOBSERVER, 6 June 2008; “GM crops banned in Switzerland until 2010,” AGRA EUROPE, 29 May 2008; “EU official takes Nebraska agricultural tour,” WORLD HERALD BUREAU, 16 May 2008.