Codex Committee Moves Forward On Risk Analysis Standard

The Codex Committee on General Principles (CCGP) at its meeting on 15- 19 April in Paris, France, agreed to forward the "Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius" to the Executive Committee for adoption as Draft Principles. The previous deadlock over the scope of the Principles and references to precaution could finally be resolved following a decision to elaborate two separate standards for use within Codex and by governments. The CCGP also discussed traceability and ethics in food trade, but made little headway on these issues.

Delegates agreed to advance the Proposed Draft Working Principles to Step 5 of the Codex Procedure for consideration by the Executive Committee at its next session in June 2002 (see below for an outline of the Codex procedure). It is important to note that the finalised text will only apply in the framework of the Codex Alimentarius, not to governments, i.e. it will be included in the Procedural Manual as general guidance to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and its subsidiary bodies. The CCGP will now elaborate separate "Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis to be Applied by Governments". The decision to develop two sets of Principles -- instead of one set that would apply to both Codex and governments as originally envisaged -- meant that the deadlock could be resolved which had held up adoption of the Principles in previous meetings, when a number of countries, most notably the US, had objected to the inclusion of precaution in the Principles, leading some to suggest that Codex had become the latest battleground for trade negotiators, rather than health practitioners (see BRIDGES Weekly, 1 May 2001).

Delegates agree on precaution and trade references

In the adopted Proposed Draft Principles, delegates agreed to include references to precaution as an "inherent element of risk analysis" (including risk assessment, management and communication). While Argentina supported deleting the reference and the US called for a more detailed clarification on the nature of the risk and its potential public health consequence, the originally proposed wording was retained given the considerable effort that had been made to achieve a consensus. The issue of precaution has in the past repeatedly led to disagreement, in particular between the US and the EU, at the WTO -- most prominently over the EU's ban in hormone-treated beef from the US - - and during negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

The CCGP furthermore discussed how to address trade implications in standard setting. While Brazil suggested including language of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) to clarify that risk management options should not be more trade restrictive than necessary, the Representative of WTO questioned whether the CAC should systematically consider trade implications and suggested such references to be deleted. Other delegates supported the view that an assessment of trade implications was not the role of the CAC, as the level of protection was determined by member countries and national measures were subject to the provision of the SPS Agreement. Following a debate on the extent to which trade aspects should be considered in the development of Codex texts, delegates agreed on a proposal put forward by Canada, which instructs the CAC to "seek and take into consideration the potential impact of such measures on trade between member countries". The Principles furthermore state, "in order to avoid unjustified trade barriers, risk management should ensure transparency and consistency in the decision-making process in all cases".

Little headway on traceability and ethics in food trade

Also of relevance in the trade context were discussions on traceability and ethics in food trade. Regarding traceability, delegates made little headway, only agreeing that the Secretariat should prepare a discussion paper on how the CCGP could best contribute to consideration of this issue in Codex. Discussions on traceability have in the past divided delegates in a number of Codex Committees, notably in the Codex Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived From Biotechnology and the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 3 February 2002). During Debates on the Proposed Draft Revised Code of Ethics for International Trade in Foods, Bolivia raised the question whether the Code should be restricted to ethical aspects in food trade or should be expanded to cover related issues, such as access to food, depletion of genetic resources and the resulting distortions in trade. Due to time constraints, consideration of the text could not be completed, leading some countries to express concern that the Code would again be delayed, especially given the limited progress that had been made.

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 these 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 and zoonoses. While Codex standards only apply to food safety, they are likely to have far wider implications on discussions in the other standard-setting bodies as well as in related fora, including other Codex Committees, the WTO and bilateral negotiations.

Uniform procedure for the elaboration of Codex standards

Step 1- 3: Elaboration of a PROPOSED DRAFT STANDARD in the respective body

Step 4: Possible amendments by the respective body based on comments received from governments and interested international organisations

Step 5: Proposed Draft Standard forwarded to the Commission or the Executive Committee for adoption as a DRAFT STANDARD

Step 6: Circulation for comments

Step 7: Possible amendments by the respective body based on the comments

Step 8: Draft Standard submitted to the Commission for adoption as a STANDARD

For further details, see http://www.codexalimentarius.net/Proced1.htm.

Additional Resources

"Precaution And Risk: A Consumer Response", Consumers International, Food Policy Briefing Paper No. 3, April 2002.

ICTSD Internal Files.