Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC 42)

Draft United States Positions for the 42nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC 42)

NOTE: This is a draft document and the U.S. positions in this document are subject to change. Agenda items are up to date as of June 18, 2019.

Contents Agenda Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda ...... 10 Agenda Item 2: Reports by the Chairperson on the 76th and 77th Sessions of the Executive Committee ...... 10 Agenda Item 3: Amendments to the Procedural Manual ...... 10 Agenda Item 4: Final Adoption of Codex Texts ...... 11 Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) ...... 11 • Alignment of the Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (CXC 52-2003) with the Histamine Control Guidance (REP 19/FH, Para. 38, Appendix II) [Step 8] 11 Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH) ...... 12 • Proposed Draft Standard for Dried or Dehydrated Garlic (REP19/SCH, Para. 47, Appendix IV) [Step 5/8] ...... 12 Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO) ...... 12 • Proposed Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Addition of Palm Oil with High Content of Oleic Acid (OXG) (REP 19/FO, Para. 21, Appendix II Part B-1) [Step 8] ...... 12 • Proposed Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210- 1999): Replacement of Acid Value with Free Fatty Acids for Virgin Palm Oil and Inclusion of Free Fatty Acids for Crude Palm Kernel Oil (REP 19/FO, Para. 67, Appendix II Part C-1) [Step 5/8] ...... 13 • Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999): Inclusion of Almond Oil; Flaxseed (Linseed) Oil; Hazelnut Oil; Pistachio Oil; and Walnut Oil (REP 19/FO, Para. 88, Appendix II Part C-2) [Step 5/8] ...... 14 • Proposed Draft Revision of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210- 1999): Amendment to the Values of the Refractive Index and Apparent Density of Palm Superolein at 40°C (REP 19/FO, Para. 60, Appendix II Part A-1) ...... 15 • Proposed Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210- 1999): Applicability of the Fatty Acid Composition of Other Oils Listed in Table 1 in Relation to their Corresponding Crude Form and Consequential Deletion of an Equivalent Note for Rice Bran Oil (REP19/FO, Para. 137, Appendix II Part A-2)15 • Proposed Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210- 1999): Inclusion of Free Fatty Acids as Quality Characteristic Criteria for Refined Rice Bran Oil (REP 19/FO, Para. 140, Appendix II Part A-3) ...... 16 • Amendment to the Sections of Food Additive Provisions to: CXS 19-1981 (Section 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5); CXS 210-1999 (Section 4.2 and 4.3); and CXS 211-

1999 (Section 4.2 and 4.4); CXS 256-2007 Section 4.1 and 4.7) (REP 19/FO, Para. 113 (a) (i) (ii), Appendix III Part A-B) ...... 17 Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) ...... 17 • Proposed Draft Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives Arising from the 86th JECFA Meeting (REP 19/FA, Para. 26, Appendix III, Part A) (REP19/FA, Para. 26, 146(ii), Appendix III Part B, Appendix IX Part B) [Step 5/8] 17 • Draft and Proposed Draft Food-Additive Provisions of the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) (CXS 192-1995) (REP 19/FA, Para. 137(i), Appendix VI Part A) [Steps 8 and 5/8] ...... 18 • Revision of the Class Names and the International Numbering System for Food Additives (CXG 36-1989) (Proposed Draft) (REP 19/FA, Para. 149(i), Appendix IX Part A) [Step 5/8] ...... 19 • Revised Food Additive Provisions of the GSFA in Relation to the Alignment of the Thirteen Standards for Milk and Milk Products (Ripened Cheese), Two Standards for Sugars, Two Standards for Natural Mineral Waters, Three Standards for Cereals, Pulses and Legumes, and Three Standards for Vegetable Proteins (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(ii)a, Appendix VI Part B1-B3 ...... 21 • Revised Food Additive Provisions of the GSFA in Relation to the Alignment of Provisions for Ascorbyl Esters (ascorbyl palmitate (INS 304) and ascorbyl stearate (INS) 305)) in the Standards for Infant Formula and Formula for Special Dietary Purposes Intended for Infants (CXS 72-1981) and Follow-up Formula (CXS 156-1987) (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(ii)b, Appendix VI Part B4) ...... 22 • Revised Food-Additive Provisions of the GSFA in Relation to the Replacement Notes to Note 161 (REP 19/FA, Para. 119(i), Appendix VI Part C) ...... 22 • Insertion of a Footnote to the Table Entitled “References to Commodity Standards for GSFA Table 3 Additives” (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(iii), Appendix VI Part B5) ...... 24 • Revised Food-Additive Sections of the Thirteen Standards for Milk and Milk Products (Ripened Cheese), i.e. Standards for Cheddar (CXS 263- 1966); Danbo (CXS 264-1966); Edam (CXS 265- 1966); Gouda (CXS 266-1966); Havarti (CXS 267- 1966); Samsø (CXS 268-1966); Emmental (CXS 269-1967); Tilsiter (CXS 270-1968); Saint-Paulin (CXS 271-1968); Provolone (CXS 272-1968); Coulommiers (CXS 274-1969); Camembert (CXS 276-1973); and Brie (CXS 277- 1973) (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(i)a, Appendix V Part A) ...... 25 • Revised Food-Additive Sections of the Two Standards for Sugars and Two Standards for Natural Mineral Waters, i.e. Standards for Honey (CXS 12- 1981); and Sugars (CXS 212-1999) and Standards for Natural Mineral Waters (CXS

108- 1981); and Bottled/Packaged Drinking Waters (other than natural mineral waters) (CXS 227- 2001) (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(i)b, Appendix V Part B) ...... 26 • Revised Food-Additive Sections of the Three Standards for Cereals, Pulses and Legumes and Three Standards for Vegetable Proteins, i.e. Standards for Wheat flour (CXS 152-1985); Couscous (CXS 202-1995); and Instant noodles (CXS 249-2006); and Wheat protein products including wheat gluten (CXS 163-1987); Vegetable protein products (VPP) (CXS 174- 1989); and Soy protein products (CXS 175-1989) (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(i)c, Appendix V Part C)...... 26 • The Revised Table on “Justified use” in Food Additive section in the Standard for Mozzarella (CXS 262- 2006) (REP 19/FA, Para. 69) ...... 27 Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses, and Legumes (CCCPL) ...... 28 • The Draft Two Sections in the Standard for Quinoa (CL 2019/42-CPL Annex 2) [Step 8] ...... 28 Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) ...... 29 • MRLs for Different Combinations of Pesticide/Commodity(ies) for Food and Feed Proposed for Adoption by CCPR49 (REP 19/PR, Para. 145, Appendix II) [Step 5/8] ...... 29 • Revision of the Classification of Food and Feed (CX/M 4-1989): Miscellaneous Commodities Not Meeting the Criteria for Crop Grouping (REP19/PR, Para. 156, Appendix VII) [Steps 8 and 5/8] ...... 31 Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) ...... 32 • Proposed Draft Revised MLs for Lead in Selected Commodities in the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995) (REP 19/CF, Para. 44, Appendix II) [Step 5/8] ...... 32 • Proposed Draft ML for Cadmium in Chocolates Containing or Declaring <30% Total Cocoa Solids on a Dry Matter Basis (REP 19/CF, Para. 56, Appendix III) [Step 5/8] ...... 33 • Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol esters (3-MCPDEs) and glycidyl esters (GE) in Refined Oils and Food Products Made with Refined Oils (REP 19/CF, Para. 79, Appendix IV) [Step 8] ...... 34 • Draft Guidelines for Rapid Risk Analysis Following Instances of Detection of Contaminants in Food Where There is No Regulatory Level (REP 19/CF, Para. 87, Appendix V) [Step 8] ...... 34 Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)...... 35 • Methods of Analysis and Sampling Plans for Provisions in Codex Standards (REP 19/MAS, Para. 9, Appendix II) ...... 35

• Preamble and Document Structure for the General Standard for Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CXS 234-1999) (REP 19/MAS, Para. 61, Appendix II) [Step 5/8] ...... 36 Agenda Item 5: Adoption of Codex Texts at Step 5 ...... 37 Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection Certification Systems (CCFICS) ...... 37 • Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Assessment and Use of Voluntary Third- Party Assurance (vTPA) Programmes (N27-2017) (REP 19/FICS, Para. 53, Appendix III) ...... 37 Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) ...... 38 • Proposed Draft Code of Practice on Food Allergen Management for Food Business Operators (N05-2018) (REP 19/FH, Para. 56, Appendix III) ...... 38 Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) ...... 39 • Review of the Standard for Follow-up Formula (CXS 156-1987): Proposed Draft Scope, Description, and Labelling for Follow-up Formula for Older Infants (N07- 2013) (REP 19/NFSDU, Para. 57, Appendix III) ...... 39 Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH) ...... 40 • Proposed Draft Standard for Dried Oregano (N06-2014) (REP19/SCH, Para. 30(i), Appendix II) ...... 40 • Proposed Draft Standard for Dried Roots, Rhizomes, and Bulbs—Dried or Dehydrated Ginger (N02-2017) (REP19/SCH, Para. 39(i), Appendix III) ...... 41 • Proposed Draft Standard for Dried Basil (N05-2017) (REP19/SCH, Para. 66(i), Appendix V) ...... 42 • Proposed Draft Standard for Dried Floral Parts—Dried Cloves (N08-2017) (REP19/SCH, Para. 88(i), Appendix VI) ...... 43 • Proposed Draft Standard for Saffron (N06-2017) (REP19/SCH, Para. 95(i), Appendix VII) ...... 44 Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) ...... 45 • Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Labelling of Non-Retail Containers (REP19/FL, Para. 64, Appendix II) ...... 45 Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)...... 45 • Proposed Draft Revised Guidelines on Measurement Uncertainty (CXG 54-2004) (REP 18/MAS, Para. 66, Appendix IV) ...... 45 Agenda Item 6: Revocation of Codex Texts ...... 46

Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) ...... 46 • Provisions for Monosodium Tartrate (INS 335(i)), Monopotassium Tartrate (INS 336(i)), and Dipotassium Tartrate (INS 336(ii))) in the Standard for Processed Cereal-Based Foods for Infants and Young Children (CXS 74-1981) (REP 19/NFSDU, Para. 10) ...... 46 Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO) ...... 47 • Provisions for Monosodium Tartrate (INS 335(i)), Monopotassium Tartrate (INS 336(i)), Dipotassium Tartrate (INS 336(ii)) and Sodium Sorbate (INS 201) in the Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads (CXS 26-2007) (REP 19/FO, Para. 113 (a) (ii), Appendix III)...... 47 Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) ...... 48 • CXLs for Different Combinations of Pesticide/Commodity(ies) for Food and Feed (REP 19/PR, Para. 145, Appendix III) ...... 48 Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) ...... 49 • MLs for Lead in Selected Commodities in the GSCTFF (REP 19/CF, Para. 44, Appendix II) ...... 49 Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)...... 49 • Methods of Analysis for Provisions in Codex Standards (CXS 234-1999) (REP19/ MAS, Para. 9, Appendix II, Part 2) ...... 49 Agenda Item 7: Proposals for New Work ...... 50 Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) ...... 50 • Project Document for New Work on the Consolidation of Codex Guidelines Related to Equivalence (REP 19/FICS, Para. 32(ii) and (iii) (b), Appendix II) .... 50 Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) ...... 51 • Project Document for New Work on Development of Guidelines for the Control of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Beef Meat, Leafy Greens, Raw Milk and Cheese Produced from Raw Milk, and Sprouts (REP 19/FH, Para. 76) 51 Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) ...... 52 • Proposal for New Work to Develop Guidelines for Compounds of Low Public Health Concern that could be Exempted from the Establishment of CXLs (REP 19/PR, Para. 206, Appendix IX)...... 52 • Priority List of Pesticides for Evaluation by the 2020 JMPR (REP 19/PR, Para. 250, Appendix X) ...... 53

6 Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) ...... 54 • Establishment of MLs for Lead in Certain Food Categories (REP 19/CF, Para. 96, Appendix VI) ...... 54 • Revision of the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods (CXC 56-2004) (REP 19/CF, Para. 107, Appendix VII) 54 • Development of a Code of Practice for the Reduction and Prevention of Cadmium Contamination in Cocoa Beans (REP 19/CF, Para. 112, Appendix VIII) 55 • Establishment of MLs for Aflatoxins in Cereals and Cereal-Based Products Including Foods for Infants and Young Children (REP 19/CF, Para. 155, Appendix IX) ...... 55 Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) ...... 56 • Proposed Draft Guidance on Internet Sales/E-Commerce (REP 19/FL, Para. 91(a), Appendix III) ...... 56 • Proposal for New Work on Allergen Labelling: Revision to the General Standard for the labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Allergen Labelling, and Guidance on Precautionary Allergen or Advisory Labelling (REP 19/FL, Para. 98(a), Appendix IV) ...... 57 Agenda Item 8: Discontinuation of Work ...... 58 Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) ...... 58 • NRV-NCD for EPA and DHA Long Chain Omega-3 Fatty Acids (CXG 2-1985) (REP 19/NFSDU, Para. 94) ...... 58 Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) ...... 58 • Draft and Proposed Draft Food Additive Provisions of the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) (CXS 192-1995) (REP 19/FA, Para. 137(iii) and Appendix VIII) ...... 58 Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) ...... 59 • MRLs for Different Combinations of Pesticide/Commodity(ies) in the Step Procedure that were withdrawn (discontinued) by CCPR (REP19/PR, Para. 145, Appendix VI) ...... 59 Agenda Item 9: Amendments to Codex Standards and Related Texts...... 59 Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF) ...... 59 • Amendment of the ML for Wine ...... 59 Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)...... 60

7 • Editorial Amendments of Methods of Analysis/Performance Criteria for Provisions in Codex Standards (REP 19/MAS) (Appendix II, Part 3) ...... 60 Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes (CCCPL) ...... 61 • Editorial Amendments to Codex Standards ...... 61 Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products (CCPMPP) ...... 61 • Editorial Amendments in the Scope of Standard for Luncheon Meat (CXS 89- 1981) ...... 61 Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins (CCVP) ...... 62 • Editorial Amendments in Annex “Codex Guidelines for Testing Safety and Nutritional Quality of Vegetable Protein Products” of the General Guidelines for the Utilization of the Vegetable Protein Products (VPP) in Foods (CAC/GL 4- 1989) ...... 62 Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) ...... 62 • Consequential Amendments to Relevant Codex Texts ...... 62 Agenda Item 10: Matters Referred to the Commission by Codex Committees ... 63 Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) ...... 63 • Discussion Paper on Food Integrity and Authenticity……………………………...63 • Assessment of the Experimental Approach for Intersessional PWGs (trial) Combined with Webinar Technology……………………………………………...... 63 Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) ...... 64 • Postponement of the Development of Sampling Plan for Histamine in Eleven Commodity Standards for Fish and Fishery Products ...... 64 Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO) ...... 65 • Report on the Outcome of Monitoring the Conformity of Named Fish Oils with the Requirements (Especially the Fatty Acid Profile) of the Standard for Fish Oils and its Effect on Trade (Replies to CL 2017/71-FO) (REP19/FO Para. 126) ...... 65 • Discussion Paper on the Better Management of the Work of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (REP19/FO, Para. 126) ...... 66 Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) ...... 67 • The Technological Justifications for the Use of Preservatives and Anticaking Agents in the Specific Products Covered by the Standard for Mozzarella (CXS 262-2006) ...... 67 Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)...... 67 • Guidance on Endorsement ...... 67

8 Agenda Item 11: Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025 ...... 68 Agenda Item 12: Codex Budgetary and Financial Matters ...... 68 Agenda Item 13: FAO/WHO Scientific Support to Codex Activities: Activities, Budgetary, and Financial Matters ...... 69 Agenda Item 14: Matters Arising from FAO and WHO ...... 69 Agenda Item 15: Report of the Side Event on FAO and WHO Capacity Development Activities ...... 69 Agenda Item 16: Report of the Side Event on the Codex Trust Fund (CTF2) ...... 69 Agenda Item 17: Election of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons and Members of the Executive Committee Elected on a Geographical Basis ...... 70 Agenda Item 18: Designation of Countries Responsible for Appointing the Chairpersons of Codex Subsidiary Bodies ...... 70 Agenda Item 19: Any Other Business ...... 70

9 Agenda Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda

• U.S. Position Currently, the United States has no plans to offer amendments to the Agenda and we are not aware of any plans to do so.

Agenda Item 2: Reports by the Chairperson on the 76th and 77th Sessions of the Executive Committee

• The report for the 76th Session is available on the Codex website. The report for the 77th Session will be made available after the conclusion of the session, July 1-5, 2019.

Agenda Item 3: Amendments to the Procedural Manual

• No amendments to the Procedural Manual have been proposed for adoption by the 42nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC42).

Agenda Item 4: Final Adoption of Codex Texts

Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH)

• Alignment of the Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (CXC 52-2003) with the Histamine Control Guidance (REP 19/FH, Para. 38, Appendix II) [Step 8]

o Background . CAC39 (2016) assigned work on histamine control guidance proposed by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) to CCFH. (CCFFP has adjourned sine die.) . CCFH49 (2017) completed work on a histamine control section for the Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (CXC 52-2003), and it was adopted by CAC41 (2018). . CCFH49 noted that the guidance would be published once the location for the histamine control section and consequential amendments to other relevant sections of CXC 52-2003, if any, were finalized and adopted by CAC. . CCFH50 (2018) agreed on the recommended location for the new section and necessary conforming amendments to CXC 52-2003 and forwarded them for final adoption to CAC42 (2019).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH)

• Proposed Draft Standard for Dried or Dehydrated Garlic (REP19/SCH, Para. 47, Appendix IV) [Step 5/8]

o Background . CCSCH3 (2017) established an electronic working group (EWG), co-chaired by India and Mali, to prepare a draft standard for discussion at CCSCH4 (2019) at Step 3. . There were two rounds of comments in the EWG followed by substantial discussions during the CCSCH4 (2019) at which the Styles section was adjusted to include a definition for “whole” for solo garlic and intact cloves. All other provisions were aligned with the requirements of the Group Standard Layout format. . CCSCH4 agreed to forward the draft standard for final adoption.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO)

• Proposed Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Addition of Palm Oil with High Content of Oleic Acid (OXG) (REP 19/FO, Para. 21, Appendix II Part B-1) [Step 8]

o Background . At CCFO26 (2019) and in previous sessions, there have been divergent views on whether the use of the term “high oleic acid” is appropriate for the proposed range of oleic acid (48.0–58.0%) or if it would be best described as “mid oleic acid” palm oil. . The United States, in written comments provided in advance of the committee, supported the addition of a new category for palm oil to address “higher” oleic acid content. However, to be consistent with ranges for percent

oleic acid (C18:1) in mid and high oleic acid oil categories currently found in the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999), the United States recommended that palm oil containing 48-58% oleic acid be named “Palm Oil- Mid Oleic Acid,” not “Palm Oil-High Oleic Acid.” . Following discussions of this revision, CCFO26 agreed to define the product as “Palm oil with a higher content of oleic acid [that] is derived from the fleshy mesocarp of hybrid palm fruit OxG (Elaeis oleifera x Elaeis guineensis).” . CCFO26 also agreed to include the following text at the end of Section 3.1 of the standard: “Palm oil with a higher content of oleic acid must contain not less than 48% oleic acid (as % of total fatty acids).” . Following the discussions, the committee agreed to forward the draft revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999) for final adoption.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Proposed Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999): Replacement of Acid Value with Free Fatty Acids for Virgin Palm Oil and Inclusion of Free Fatty Acids for Crude Palm Kernel Oil (REP 19/FO, Para. 67, Appendix II Part C-1) [Step 5/8]

o Background . At CCFO25 (2017), Malaysia proposed new work to revise the way acidity of virgin palm oils was expressed in the Appendix of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils and to include a similar provision for crude palm kernel oil since the existing situation was creating difficulties in the trade of this commodity. . The Delegation explained that since the free fatty acid (FFA) of palm oil is expressed as palmitic acid, being the major fatty acid of palm oils, there would be a mismatch of the acidity expressed as acid value of 10.0 mg KOH/g oil (in the Standard) with the specification of FFA 5% (as palmitic acid) currently in practice in the international trade of palm oil in view that the maximum level of 10 mg KOH/g of oil of acid value is only equivalent to the specification of FFA 5% (as oleic acid). Since this situation was creating difficulties in the trade of this commodity, Malaysia was proposing new work.

. CCFO25 agreed to start new work on this revision and it was subsequently approved by CAC40 (2017). . Following discussion of this proposed revision at CCFO26, the committee agreed to: • Forward the proposed draft revision for final adoption at Step 5/8, and • Forward the method for the determination of Free Fatty Acids and Acid Value for endorsement by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) (Appendix V, Part A).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210- 1999): Inclusion of Almond Oil; Flaxseed (Linseed) Oil; Hazelnut Oil; Pistachio Oil; and Walnut Oil (REP 19/FO, Para. 88, Appendix II Part C-2) [Step 5/8]

o Background . Over the last few sessions of the CCFO, the committee generally supported the revision of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils to include the following new oil categories: almond oil, flaxseed (linseed) oil, hazelnut oil, pistachio oil, avocado oil, and walnut oil. . The committee noted that, although these nut oils are not major oils in terms of current trade volume, they were emerging as high value and nutritionally important oils in international trade. . At CCFO26 (2019), the committee agreed on the parameters and inclusion of the following oils in the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: almond oil, flaxseed (linseed) oil, hazelnut oil, pistachio oil, and walnut oil. The committee agreed to forward the proposed draft revision for final adoption. . Since data on avocado oil was conflicting, the committee agreed to return the potential inclusion of avocado oil to Step 2 for further consideration. The United States and Mexico will co-chair the EWG to work on defining compositional parameters for avocado oil.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Proposed Draft Revision of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999): Amendment to the Values of the Refractive Index and Apparent Density of Palm Superolein at 40°C (REP 19/FO, Para. 60, Appendix II Part A-1)

o Background . At CCFO25 (2017), Malaysia proposed a revision to the temperature for analysis in this standard since the current Codex limits for refractive index and apparent density for palm superolein could only be achieved when analyzed at 30°C, but not 40°C. . To be consistent with the temperature required for analysis of refractive index and apparent density for most other oils found in the standard, the United States recommended that the temperature for analysis be maintained at 40°C, but that values for refractive index and apparent density be corrected. . At CCFO26 (2019), following some discussion, the committee agreed to maintain the temperature of analysis at 40°C. It also agreed to forward revised values for refractive index and apparent density for palm superolein to CAC42 for final adoption.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption of the revision.

• Proposed Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999): Applicability of the Fatty Acid Composition of Other Oils Listed in Table 1 in Relation to their Corresponding Crude Form and Consequential Deletion of an Equivalent Note for Rice Bran Oil (REP19/FO, Para. 137, Appendix II Part A-2)

o Background . At CCFO25 (2017), the committee agreed to establish an EWG to consider the applicability of the fatty acid composition of all oils in Table 1 of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999) in relation to their corresponding crude forms. The EWG, chaired by the United States, with the assistance of the American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS), was tasked with preparing a discussion paper on this topic.

. At CCFO26 (2019), the United States introduced the agenda item and proposed a draft footnote to Table 1. After some discussion, the committee agreed to add the new footnote to Table 1 in the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999) and forward it to CAC42 for adoption. The footnote states: “The fatty acid values in this table apply to the vegetable oils described in Section 2.1 presented in a state for human consumption. However, in order to provide clarity in trade of crude oils, the values of the table may also be applied for the corresponding crude forms of the vegetable oils described in Section 2.1.” . The committee also agreed to delete the “Note” on the applicability of the fatty acid composition of rice bran oil to the crude form of the oil as a separate note for rice bran oil is no longer necessary.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the approach agreed upon by the committee and final adoption of the new footnote.

• Proposed Draft Revision to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999): Inclusion of Free Fatty Acids as Quality Characteristic Criteria for Refined Rice Bran Oil (REP 19/FO, Para. 140, Appendix II Part A-3)

o Background . As described above, this is a consequential change due to the adoption of the revised Note on the applicability of the values in Table 1 to other oils. . The committee agreed to delete the “Note” on the applicability of the fatty acid composition of rice bran oil to the crude form of the oil from Section 2: Composition and Quality Characteristics of the Appendix to CXS 210-1999.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Amendment to the Sections of Food Additive Provisions to: CXS 19-1981 (Section 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5); CXS 210-1999 (Section 4.2 and 4.3); and CXS 211-1999 (Section 4.2 and 4.4); CXS 256-2007 Section 4.1 and 4.7) (REP 19/FO, Para. 113 (a) (i) (ii), Appendix III Part A-B)

o Background . The United States participated in the EWG created following CCFO25 (2017), led by the EU, and supported the proposal to use a general reference to the General Standard on Food Additives (GSFA), rather than listing individual food additives in the commodity standards. . At CCFO26 (2019), following a discussion in the in-session Working Group and in the plenary on the alignment of food additive provisions and technological justification for use of emulsifiers, the committee agreed to forward the following to CAC42 for adoption: • The proposed food additive provisions for addition to the Standard for Edible Fats and Oils not covered by individual Standards (CXS 19- 1981), Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999), and Standard for Named Animals Fats (CXS 211-1999), for adoption, and the specific food additive provisions in the Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads (CXS 256-2007) for revocation.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA)

• Proposed Draft Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives Arising from the 86th JECFA Meeting (REP 19/FA, Para. 26, Appendix III, Part A) (REP19/FA, Para. 26, 146(ii), Appendix III Part B, Appendix IX Part B) [Step 5/8]

o Background . As part of its work, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) establishes specifications of identity and purity for food additives,

including flavorings, used in food. JECFA is regarded as the expert risk assessment body that provides scientific advice to CCFA, and ultimately the CAC. Therefore, CCFA considers JECFA’s food additive specifications of identity and purity to represent the minimum criteria necessary to establish food grade quality for an additive. CCFA provides recommendations to the CAC for adoption of the JECFA specifications of identity and purity as Codex specifications (CAC/MISC 6). . CCFA51 (2019) forwarded full specifications for 6 food additives (5 revised and 1 new) and 24 flavorings to CAC42 (2019) for adoption at Step 5/8 as Codex specifications (REP 19/FA, Appendix III). . In response to questions regarding the inclusion of the use of basic methacrylate copolymer (BMC) (INS 1205) in the “Definition” Section in the JEFCFA specification monographs that limits its application to only food supplements and foods for special medical purposes, the JECFA Secretariat reconfirmed that the “Descriptions” Section is intended mainly for informational purposes and further noted that the changes were editorial in nature and would not affect the specification. However, given that this information seemed to have caused misunderstandings, this sentence will be removed after consultation at the upcoming JECFA meeting.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption (with the proposed deletion).

• Draft and Proposed Draft Food-Additive Provisions of the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) (CXS 192-1995) (REP 19/FA, Para. 137(i), Appendix VI Part A) [Steps 8 and 5/8]

o Background . The General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) (CXS 192-1995) is intended to be the single reference for food additives in Codex. The GSFA sets forth the conditions under which food additives are recognized as suitable for use in all foods, whether standardized by Codex or not. For a food additive to be listed in the GSFA, it must have an assigned Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) by the JECFA and an assigned International Numbering System (INS) number. . In the GSFA, food additive provisions are presented in three tables: • Table 1 lists, in alphabetical order, each food additive or food additive group with a numerical ADI, the food categories in which the additive is

recognized for use, the maximum use level, and its technological function. Table 1 also includes the uses of those additives with non- numerical ADI (which are found in Table 3) for which the use is specified in accordance with the Annex to Table 3, • Table 2 contains the same information as Table 1 but is listed by food category number, • Table 3 lists additives that have been assigned a non-numerical ADI (“not specified” or “not limited”) by JECFA that are acceptable for use in foods in general in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). . The Annex to Table 3 lists food categories and individual foods that are excluded from the general conditions of Table 3. Provisions for use of Table 3 additives in the food categories listed in the Annex to Table 3 are specifically listed in Tables 1 and 2. . As of the CAC42 (2019), approximately 4,100 food additive provisions have been adopted, and approximately 1,700 food additive provisions remain in the Step process. . Every year an EWG (led by the United States) reviews a subset of provisions currently in the Step process for adoption into the GSFA and provides recommendations. Those recommendations are discussed at a physical working group (PWG) led by the United States, which meets for two days prior to the CCFA session to formulate final proposals for the committee to consider for adoption.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption as recommended by the committee.

• Revision of the Class Names and the International Numbering System for Food Additives (CXG 36-1989) (Proposed Draft) (REP 19/FA, Para. 149(i), Appendix IX Part A) [Step 5/8]

o Background . The need for the identification of food additives on food labels arises from the provisions of the General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Foods (GSFL) (CXS 1-1985). The Class Names and the International Numbering

System for Food Additives (CAC/GL 36-1989) was prepared by the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) (adjourned sine die) to provide a voluntary, harmonized international numerical system for identifying food additives in ingredient lists as an alternative to the specific name, which may be lengthy. CAC18 (1989) adopted the International Numbering System (INS) as a Codex Advisory Text on the basis that the list would be an open one, and that proposals for inclusion of further additives would be considered (ALINORM 89/40, Para 297). . Inclusion of a food additive in the INS does not imply approval by Codex for use. The INS list includes additives that have not been evaluated by JECFA. The INS list does not include flavors, since the GSFL does not require these to be specifically identified in the list of ingredients, and since flavors already have a JECFA number as an identifier. Further, it does not include chewing gum bases, and dietetic and nutritive additives. However, it does include enzymes that function as food additives. . The INS list serves as the official source of additive names, INS numbers and functional classes for use in the GSFA. The technological purposes for each additive contained in the INS is listed. . CCFA51 (2019) recommended modification of the functional classes and technological purpose(s) in Sections 3 and 4 of the INS for BMC (INS 1205), and the revision of the name for INS 160a(iv) from “Carotenes, beta-, algae” to “β-carotene-rich extract from Dunaliella salina” in the CAC/GL 36-1989, as outlined in REP 19/FA, Appendix IX. These proposals were forwarded to CAC42 (2019) for adoption at Step 5/8. o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption as recommended by the committee.

• Revised Food Additive Provisions of the GSFA in Relation to the Alignment of the Thirteen Standards for Milk and Milk Products (Ripened Cheese), Two Standards for Sugars, Two Standards for Natural Mineral Waters, Three Standards for Cereals, Pulses and Legumes, and Three Standards for Vegetable Proteins (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(ii)a, Appendix VI Part B1-B3

o Background . CCFA50 (2018) established an EWG, led by Australia and co-chaired by the United States and Japan (REP 18/FA Para 49(i) and (ii)) to: • Prepare proposals for the alignment of the twenty-three (23) standards for Cheddar (CXS 263-1966), Danbo (CXS 264-1966), Edam (CXS 265-1966), Gouda (CXS 266-1966), Havarti (CXS 267-1966), Samsø (CXS 268-1966), Emmental (CXS 269-1967), Tilister (CXS 270-1968), Saint-Paulin (CXS 271-1968), Provolone (CXS 272-1973), Coulonmiers (CXS 274-1969),Camembert (CXS 276-1973), Brie (CXS 277-1973), Honey (CXS 12-1981), Sugars (CXS 212-1999), Natural mineral waters (CXS 108-1981), Bottled/packaged drinking waters (other than natural mineral waters) (CXS 227-2001), Wheat Flour (CXS 152-1985), Couscous (CXS 202-1995), Instant noodles (CXS 249-2006), Wheat protein products including wheat gluten (CXS 163-1987), Vegetable protein products (VPP) (CXS 174-1989), and Soy protein products (CXS 175-1989). . CCFA51 (2019) considered the report of the EWG on alignment, and agreed to forward to the CAC42 (2019) for adoption: • The revised food additive sections of provisions in the commodity standards for Standards for Cheddar (CXS 263-1966), Danbo (CXS 264- 1966), Edam (CXS 265-1966), Gouda (CXS 266-1966), Havarti (CXS 267- 1966), Samsø (CXS 268-1966), Emmental (CXS 269-1967), Tilister (CXS 270-1968), Saint-Paulin (CXS 271-1968), Provolone (CXS 272-1973), Coulonmiers (CXS 274-1969),Camembert (CXS 276-1973), Brie (CXS 277-1973), Honey (CXS 12-1981), Sugars (CXS 212-1999), Natural mineral waters (CXS 108-1981), Bottled/packaged drinking waters (other than natural mineral waters) (CXS 227-2001), Wheat Flour (CXS 152- 1985), Couscous (CXS 202-1995), Instant noodles (CXS 249-2006), Wheat protein products including wheat gluten (CXS 163-1987), Vegetable protein products (VPP) (CXS 174-1989), and Soy protein products (CXS 175-1989); (REP 19/FA, Para 57(i) and (ii) and Appendix V).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Revised Food Additive Provisions of the GSFA in Relation to the Alignment of Provisions for Ascorbyl Esters (ascorbyl palmitate (INS 304) and ascorbyl stearate (INS 305)) in the Standards for Infant Formula and Formula for Special Dietary Purposes Intended for Infants (CXS 72-1981) and Follow-up Formula (CXS 156-1987) (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(ii)b, Appendix VI Part B4)

o Background . CCFA51 (2019) endorsed the recommendations by Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) to consider the appropriate food-additive provisions and maximum levels for two commodity standards (CXS 72-1981 and CXS 156-1987) so that alignment work for these standards could be commenced after CCFA52 (2020).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Revised Food-Additive Provisions of the GSFA in Relation to the Replacement Notes to Note 161 (REP 19/FA, Para. 119(i), Appendix VI Part C)

o Background . Note 161, which specifies that the standard is “subject to the national legislation of the importing country,” has been attached to roughly 400 provisions in the GSFA, primarily colors and sweeteners. . Many Codex members, including the United States, objected to continued use of this Note since it appeared to be inconsistent with the Codex Procedural Manual.

. Despite JECFA’s safety findings, approximately 1,200 food additive provisions have been on hold in CCFA while the committee attempted to find an alternative solution to Note 161. . As a consequence, Note 161 is creating confusion in countries that are adopting the GSFA as their national legislation. Further, the large number of food additive provisions that are on hold, pending resolution of Note 161, is creating trade barriers, particularly in countries which have adopted the GSFA. . CCFA50 (2018) endorsed two separate activities aimed at furthering the discussion on Note 161 in order to work towards a resolution (REP 18/FA, Paras. 112(ii), 142 and 172): • The EWG on the GSFA, chaired by the United States, considered all draft provisions for colors in Food Categories 05.2 (Confectionary including hard and soft candy, nougats, etc. other than food categories 05.1, 05.3, and 05.4), 05.3 (Chewing gum) and 05.4 (Decorations (i.e., for fine bakery wares), toppings (non-fruit), and sweet sauces, and • An EWG, co-chaired by the EU and the United States, developed wording for an alternative to Note 161 relating to the use of sweeteners consistent with Section 3.2 of the Preamble to the GSFA and the Statement of Principles in the Procedural Manual to address concerns of those Codex members requiring significant energy reduction or food with no added sugars when sweeteners were used and those Codex members requiring flexibility in the use of sweeteners; and, subject to agreement on the wording of an alternative, review CXFA 15/47/13, in particular recommendations 1 to 6, in the context of pending and adopted provisions. . CCFA51 (2019) agreed: • To adopt the following two alternative replacement notes to Note 161: o Note for provisions for additives with the function of sweetener but not the function of flavor enhancer: “Some Codex members allow use of additives with sweetener function in all foods within this Food Category while others limit additives with sweetener function to those foods with significant energy reduction or no added sugars,” and o Note for provisions for additives with both sweetener and flavor enhancer functions: “Some Codex members allow use of additives with sweetener function in all foods within this Food Category while others limit additives with sweetener function to those foods with significant energy reduction or no added sugars. This limitation may not apply to the appropriate use as a flavor enhancer.” • That the alternative notes would apply to both the adopted provisions and provisions in the Step procedure, based on the intended function of the additive (i.e., sweetener function only or sweetener and flavor enhancer functions).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption of both of the revised provisions for sweeteners in the food categories listed in Rep 19/FA, Appendix VI, Part C. This represents significant progress in advancing CCFA work.

• Insertion of a Footnote to the Table Entitled “References to Commodity Standards for GSFA Table 3 Additives” (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(iii), Appendix VI Part B5)

o Background . CCFA50 (2018) established an EWG, led by Australia and co-chaired by the United States and Japan (REP 18/FA Para 49(i) and (ii)) to: • Consider the addition of a footnote to the Table entitled “References to Commodity Standard for GSFA Table 3 Additives” to read: “This Section only lists Commodity Standards where the corresponding GSFA Food Category is not listed in the Annex to Table 3. Provisions for the use of specific Table 3 additives in Commodity Standards where the corresponding GSFA Food Category is listed in the Annex to Table 3 can be found in the corresponding Food Categories in Tables 1 and 2,” and • Propose revisions to the adopted provisions contained in CRD 2 Annex 4 Part C, i.e., the deletion of Note 15 in Food Categories 13.1.1, 13.1.2, and 13.1.3 for ascorbyl palmitate (INS 304) and ascorbyl stearate (INS 305). . CCFA51 (2019) considered the report of the EWG on Alignment, and agreed to forward to CAC42 (2019) for adoption: • A footnote to the entitled “References to Commodity Standards for GSFA Table 3 Additives” of the GSFA to read “This Section only lists commodity standards where the corresponding GSFA Food Category is not listed in the Annex to Table 3. Provisions for the use of specific Table 3 additives in commodity standards where the corresponding GSFA Food Category is listed in the Annex to Table 3 can be found in the corresponding Food Categories in Tables 1 and 2. Be aware that the process to align food-additive provisions in commodity standards with the GSFA is a work in progress, and as a result not all commodity standards are yet listed in this Section” (REP 19/FA, Para 57(iii)).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Revised Food-Additive Sections of the Thirteen Standards for Milk and Milk Products (Ripened Cheese), i.e. Standards for Cheddar (CXS 263- 1966); Danbo (CXS 264-1966); Edam (CXS 265- 1966); Gouda (CXS 266-1966); Havarti (CXS 267- 1966); Samsø (CXS 268- 1966); Emmental (CXS 269-1967); Tilsiter (CXS 270-1968); Saint- Paulin (CXS 271-1968); Provolone (CXS 272-1968); Coulommiers (CXS 274-1969); Camembert (CXS 276-1973); and Brie (CXS 277- 1973) (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(i)a, Appendix V Part A)

o Background . CCFA50 (2018) established an EWG, led by Australia and co-chaired by the U.S. and Japan (REP 18/FA Para 49(i) and (ii)) to: • Prepare proposals for standards for Cheddar (CXS 263-1966), Danbo (CXS 264-1966), Edam (CXS 265-1966), Gouda (CXS 266-1966), Havarti (CXS 267-1966), Samsø (CXS 268-1966), Emmental (CXS 269-1967), Tilister (CXS 270-1968), Saint-Paulin (CXS 271-1968), Provolone (CXS 272-1973), Coulonmiers (CXS 274-1969), Camembert (CXS 276-1973), and Brie (CXS 277-1973). . CCFA51 (2019) considered the report of the EWG on Alignment, and agreed to forward to CAC42 (2019) for adoption: • The revised food additive sections of provisions in the commodity standards for Standards for Cheddar (CXS 263-1966), Danbo (CXS 264- 1966), Edam (CXS 265-1966), Gouda (CXS 266-1966), Havarti (CXS 267- 1966), Samsø (CXS 268-1966), Emmental (CXS 269-1967), Tilister (CXS 270-1968), Saint-Paulin (CXS 271-1968), Provolone (CXS 272-1973), Coulonmiers (CXS 274-1969),Camembert (CXS 276-1973), and Brie (CXS 277-1973).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Revised Food-Additive Sections of the Two Standards for Sugars and Two Standards for Natural Mineral Waters, i.e. Standards for Honey (CXS 12- 1981); and Sugars (CXS 212-1999) and Standards for Natural Mineral Waters (CXS 108- 1981); and Bottled/Packaged Drinking Waters (other than natural mineral waters) (CXS 227- 2001) (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(i)b, Appendix V Part B)

o Background . CCFA50 (2018) established an EWG, led by Australia and co-chaired by the U.S. and Japan (REP 18/FA Para 49(i) and (ii)) to: • Prepare proposals for changes in commodity standards for Honey (CXS 12-1981), Sugars (CXS 212-1999), Natural mineral waters (CXS 108- 1981), and Bottled/packaged drinking waters (other than natural mineral waters) (CXS 227-2001). . CCFA51 (2019) considered the report of the EWG on Alignment, and agreed to forward to CAC42 (2019) for adoption: • The revised food additive sections of provisions in the commodity standards for Honey (CXS 12-1981), Sugars (CXS 212-1999), Natural mineral waters (CXS 108-1981), and Bottled/packaged drinking waters (other than natural mineral waters) (CXS 227-2001).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Revised Food-Additive Sections of the Three Standards for Cereals, Pulses and Legumes and Three Standards for Vegetable Proteins, i.e. Standards for Wheat flour (CXS 152-1985); Couscous (CXS 202-1995); and Instant noodles (CXS 249-2006); and Wheat protein products including wheat gluten (CXS 163-1987); Vegetable protein products (VPP) (CXS 174- 1989); and Soy protein products (CXS 175-1989) (REP 19/FA, Para. 57(i)c, Appendix V Part C)

o Background . CCFA50 (2018) established an EWG, led by Australia and co-chaired by the U.S. and Japan (REP 18/FA Para 49(i) and (ii)) to:

• Prepare proposals for standards for Wheat Flour (CXS 152-1985), Couscous (CXS 202-1995), Instant noodles (CXS 249-2006), Wheat protein products including wheat gluten (CXS 163-1987), Vegetable protein products (VPP) (CXS 174-1989), and Soy protein products (CXS 175-1989). . CCFA51 (2019) considered the report of the EWG on Alignment, and agreed to forward to CAC42 (2019) for adoption: • The revised food additive sections of provisions in the commodity standards for Wheat Flour (CXS 152-1985), Couscous (CXS 202-1995), Instant noodles (CXS 249-2006), Wheat protein products including wheat gluten (CXS 163-1987), Vegetable protein products (VPP) (CXS 174- 1989), and Soy protein products (CXS 175-1989).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• The Revised Table on “Justified use” in Food Additive section in the Standard for Mozzarella (CXS 262- 2006) (REP 19/FA, Para. 69)

o Background . At CAC38 (2015) the Codex Secretariat noted that in the table listing the technological functions of food additives in CXS 262-2006, entries for the use of preservatives and anticaking agents for surface treatment of mozzarella with high moisture content had been left blank. However, it had not been possible to find a clear record of the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products (CCMMP) (adjourned sine die) decision on how these entries should be completed (i.e., whether these two functional classes of food additives were technologically justified). . CAC39 (2016) did not address this issue due to time constraints. . CAC40 (2017) discussed this issue and determined that this issue was not sufficient to keep the CCMMP active and therefore requested CCFA to address only the technological justification of the use of preservatives and anticaking agents for surface treatment of mozzarella with high moisture content in the framework of the alignment work of food additive provisions of CCMMP standards and the GSFA. CCFA50 (2018) considered this request and determined that this task should be undertaken by the EWG on the GSFA for CCFA51 (2019).

. The PWG on the GSFA determined that the use of anticaking agents in the surface treatment of high-moisture mozzarella was technologically justified only for the shredded or diced forms of the product; and that the use of preservatives in the surface treatment of high-moisture mozzarella was technologically justified only when not packaged in liquid. . The committee agreed to submit for adoption the consequently revised table on “Justified use” in CXS 262-2006.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses, and Legumes (CCCPL)

• The Draft Two Sections in the Standard for Quinoa (CL 2019/42- CPL Annex 2) [Step 8]

o Background . CAC41 (2018): • Adopted, subject to the endorsement of the labelling provisions by CCFL45 (2019) the draft standard for quinoa at Step 8, with the exception of the provisions for moisture content and grain size, which were returned to Step 6, and • Established an EWG, chaired by Costa Rica and co-chaired by Chile and the United States, to continue the work on the provisions for moisture content and grain size. . The following Circular Letters (CL) were subsequently distributed: • CL 2018/68-CPL “request for comments on two section of the draft standard for quinoa” in July 2018, and • CL 2019/20-CPL “request for comments: Analysis of responses to CL 2018/68-CPL: draft two sections of the standard for quinoa” in February 2019. . The United States, as host country of CCCPL, analyzed the comments received in response to CL 2019/20-CPL and presented its report on the development of the two sections in the standard for quinoa in CL 2019/42- CPL. Based on the comments received, the United States also

recommended that CAC42 (July 2019) adopt the following draft two sections in the Standard for Quinoa at Step 8 and requested comments on: • Section 3.2.1 Moisture content- 13.0% maximum, and • Lower moisture limits may be required for certain destinations in relation to the climate, duration of transport, and storage. [Governments accepting the standard are requested to indicate and justify the requirements in force in their country.]

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption of the recommended 13.0% maximum for moisture content with the accompanying note “Lower moisture limits should be required for certain destinations in relation to the climate, duration of transport, and storage. . The United States believes that the sentence “Governments accepting the standard are requested to indicate and justify the requirements in force in their country.” should be deleted as it refers to the acceptance procedure that was discontinued . The United States supports adoption of the recommendation to delete grain sizes in section 3.2.7 of the Standard for Quinoa, consistent with the other grain standards adopted by Codex.

Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR)

• MRLs for Different Combinations of Pesticide/Commodity(ies) for Food and Feed Proposed for Adoption by CCPR49 (REP 19/PR, Para. 145, Appendix II) [Step 5/8]

o Background . CCPR agreed to forward 326 MRLs (at Step 5/8) to the CAC for final adoption at its next session. The accelerated procedure and criteria for decision-making were successfully used to advance all the recommended MRLs. . These MRLs are associated with 31 pesticides; 183 of the MRLs are for plant commodities, while 143 are for animal commodities. . Three (norfluazon, fluazinam, and pyriofenone) of the seven new compounds reviewed by The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) in 2018 were nominated by the United States.

. Crop Group and Subgroup MRLs accounted for 43 of the 326 MRLs forwarded for adoption. . Draft Maximum Residue Limits at Step 5/8: • 110 Imazalil (19 MRLs) • 126 Oxamyl (2 MRLs) • 148 Propamocarb (6 MRLs) • 160 Propiconazole (8 MRLs) • 171 Profenofos (1 MRL) • 172 Bentazone (6 MRLs) • 177 Abamectin (12 MRLs) • 193 Fenpyroximate (5 MRLs) • 199 Kresoxim-Methyl (27 MRLs) • 200 Pyriproxyfen (10 MRLs) • 207 Cyprodinil (1 MRL) • 210 Pyraclostrobin (31 MRLs) • 211 Fludioxonil (23 MRLs) • 231 Mandipropamid (11 MRLs) • 233 Spinetoram (1 MRL) • 243 Fluopyram (3 MRLs) • 252 Sulfoxaflor (15 MRLs) • 254 Chlorfenapyr (23 MRLs) • 256 Fluxapyroxad (7 MRLs) • 261 Benzovindiflupyr (2 MRLs) • 263 Cyantraniliprole (8 MRLs) • 281 Cyazofamid (2 MRLs) • 286 Lufenuron (11 MRLs) • 290 Isofetamid (8 MRLs) • 291 Oxathiapiprolin (19 MRLs) • 304 Ethiprole (14 MRLs) • 305 Fenpicoxamid (1 MRL) • 308 Norflurazon (9 MRLs) • 309 Pydiflumetofen (2 MRLs) • 31 Diquat (18 MRLs) • 310 Pyriofenone (6 MRLs) • 311 Tioxazafen (15 MRLs)

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Revision of the Classification of Food and Feed (CX/M 4-1989): Miscellaneous Commodities Not Meeting the Criteria for Crop Grouping (REP19/PR, Para. 156, Appendix VII) [Steps 8 and 5/8]

o Background . Revision of the Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds is part of an ongoing effort to revise all the crop groups. . The United States has chaired/co-chaired this working group since the beginning of the effort and provided much of the documentation for the proposed crop groups. . At CCPR51 (2019), the committee considered proposed amendments and reached consensus on the classification work for the following crop groups and subgroups: Class C: Primary Feed Commodities, Type 11: Primary Feed Commodities of Plant Origin, All Groups, and Class D: Processed Food Commodities of Plant Origin All Types and Groups. Specifically, the committee agreed with working principles for transferring commodities from Class D (Processed Food Commodities of Plant Origin) to Class C (Feed Commodities of Plant Origin) and revisions to the table on examples of representative commodities. . CCPR51 agreed on the format and codes to address miscellaneous commodities within the Classification that did not meet the criteria for crop grouping. . CCPR51 noted that only miscellaneous commodities had been identified for inclusion in Class A: Primary Food Commodities of Plant Origin and agreed with their inclusion in this Class. . CCPR51 forwarded the format and codes for the single system, as well as miscellaneous commodities in Class A, to CAC42 for final adoption at Step 5/8.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF)

• Proposed Draft Revised MLs for Lead in Selected Commodities in the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995) (REP 19/CF, Para. 44, Appendix II) [Step 5/8]

o Background . Since CCCF06 (2012), the United States has led work to review the maximum levels (MLs) for lead in multiple food categories in the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (GSCTFF, CXS 193-1995). . This work was undertaken in response to the new toxicological evaluation of lead in food conducted by JECFA. JECFA stated that exposure to lead is associated with a wide range of effects, including neurodevelopmental effects, impaired renal function, hypertension, impaired fertility, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Since no safe level for lead has been identified by JECFA, the focus of this work has been to review occurrence data to determine what percentage of samples can meet proposed new MLs. . CCCF13 (2019) recommended MLs for two food categories, wine and edible offal, final adoption at Step 5/8: • Wine (made from grapes harvested after the date of the adoption of the ML): 0.1 mg/kg, • Fortified/liqueur wines (made from grapes harvested after the date of the adoption of the ML): 0.15 mg/kg, • Edible offal: o Cattle: 0.2 mg/kg, o Pig: 0.15 mg/kg, o Poultry: 0.1 mg/kg. • The committee also recommended retaining the current ML of 0.2 mg/kg for wines made from grapes harvested before the date of CAC42 (2019) and noting this in the GSCTFF [for the category on wine (wine and fortified /liqueur wine)].

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption. This marks completion of a major area of work led by the United States.

• Proposed Draft ML for Cadmium in Chocolates Containing or Declaring <30% Total Cocoa Solids on a Dry Matter Basis (REP 19/CF, Para. 56, Appendix III) [Step 5/8]

o Background . At CCCF08 (2014), the Ecuador proposed new work on MLs for cadmium in chocolate and cocoa-derived products. While the evaluation of the 77th JECFA (2013) had concluded that the intake of cadmium from the consumption of chocolate and cocoa derived products is not a health concern, Ecuador noted that the lack of an ML for cadmium in cocoa and its derived products could threaten exports from some member countries, particularly developing countries who are the major exporters of cocoa. . At CCCF13 (2019), Ecuador, as chair of the EWG, noted that there was a lack of consensus on the proposed MLs (CX/CF 19/13/6, Appendix I) in the EWG and presented various options for consideration, including postponing discussion of MLs on the remaining chocolate categories. . After extensive discussion and noting the lack of consensus to postpone discussion on the remaining categories, the Chair proposed that CCCF consider a proposal from Brazil to consider MLs on a proportional basis to the existing MLs of 0.8 mg/kg (≥50% to <70% total cocoa solids) and 0.9 mg/kg (≥70% total cocoa solids) as follows: • For chocolate products with <30% total cocoa solids on a dry matter basis: 0.3 mg/kg, • For chocolate and chocolate products with ≥30% to <50% total cocoa solids on a dry matter basis: 0.5 mg/kg, and • For cocoa powder (100% total cocoa solids on a dry matter basis): 1.5 mg/kg. . CCCF13 (2019) agreed to advance the ML of 0.3 mg/kg for chocolate products containing or declaring < 30% total cocoa solid on a dry matter basis for final adoption at Step 5/8 by CAC42. . CCCF also agreed to work on MLs for chocolate and chocolate products with ≥30% to <50% total cocoa solids and for cocoa powder, using a proportional approach, while allowing some flexibility to avoid very high rejection rates. If no consensus is reached at CCCF14 (2020), the work will be discontinued until the Code of Practice (COP) for the Prevention and Reduction of Cadmium Contamination in Cocoa is finalized and implemented.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Draft Code of Practice for the Reduction of 3-monochloropropane- 1,2-diol esters (3-MCPDEs) and glycidyl esters (GE) in Refined Oils and Food Products Made with Refined Oils (REP 19/CF, Para. 79, Appendix IV) [Step 8]

o Background . In 2016, JECFA evaluated the toxicity of 3-MCPDE and GE and dietary exposure to these compounds and recommended reducing 3-MCPDE and 3- MCPD in infant formula and measures to reduce GE and glycidol in fats and oils, especially those used in infant formula. . At CCCF11 (2017), an EWG, chaired by the United States and co-chaired by the EU and Malaysia drafted a Code of practice for the reduction of 3- monochloropropane-1,2-diol esters and glycidyl esters in refined oils and products made with refined oils, especially infant formula, which was consequently approved as new work at CAC40 (2017). . At CCCF12 (2018), the committee decided to broaden the scope of the work to include non-vegetable oils, remove infant formula from the title, and revise text on low lipase activity, irrigation water, polar solvents, degumming, agricultural practices, and bleaching clay deodorization. . At CCCF13 (2019), the committee agreed to the EWG modifications (i.e., clarifying the process of GE formation, stating that physical refining occurs at higher temperatures than chemical refining, adding explanatory text on the handling/disposal of water/alcohol mixtures); to retain a non-exhaustive list of foods that could contain the esters, including infant formula; and to remove inferences that levels of esters have been historically higher in palm oil.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption.

• Draft Guidelines for Rapid Risk Analysis Following Instances of Detection of Contaminants in Food Where There is No Regulatory Level (REP 19/CF, Para. 87, Appendix V) [Step 8]

o Background . At CCCF11 (2017), the committee endorsed new work proposed by New Zealand on the development of risk analysis guidelines to address chemicals

inadvertently present in food at low levels. CCCF established an EWG chaired by New Zealand and co-chaired by the Netherlands, to prepare this work. . At CCCF12 (2018), the committee discussed and finalized the scope, definitions, and sections of rapid risk assessment methodologies. The committee agreed to advance the guidelines document as revised and CAC41 (2018) adopted the text at Step 5, allowing for another round of review in the committee. . At CCCF13 (2019), the PWG led by New Zealand discussed modifications of the title, scope, and terminology of a cut-off value (1 ppb), and the decision tree. CCCF agreed to the modifications and advanced the draft Guidelines to Step 8 for final adoption by CAC42 (2019).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the final adoption of the draft Guidelines, establishing a cut-off value at 1 ppb.

Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)

• Methods of Analysis and Sampling Plans for Provisions in Codex Standards (REP 19/MAS, Para. 9, Appendix II)

o Background . The PWG on the endorsement of methods, led by United States and Australia, reviewed the methods and sampling plans referred to CCMAS by Codex committees. The PWG recommendations were subsequently considered by CCMAS for final endorsement. . CCMAS confirmed final endorsement for the following: • Methods of analysis in the Standard for Infant Formula for copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium and sodium, zinc, vitamin K and folic acid as listed in Appendix II, Parts I and II (referred by CCNFSDU); • Methods of analysis for acid value and free fatty acids for virgin palm oil and crude palm kernel oil (referred by CCFO); • Methods of analysis for milk and milk products commodities listed in Appendix II, Part 1 of Draft Rep 19/MAS.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption.

• Preamble and Document Structure for the General Standard for Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CXS 234-1999) (REP 19/MAS, Para. 61, Appendix II) [Step 5/8]

o Background . Brazil and Uruguay, chairs of the relevant EWG and PWG, led this work to revise the Recommended Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CXS 234-299) (“CXS234”). . The goal of this work is to create database which provides a single compendium of methods that can be used to assess compliance with provisions in Codex commodity standards. After addressing comments and proposed revisions, CCMAS40 (2019) agreed to endorse the preamble, which includes the scope and definitions; and the structure, which lists all methods of analysis in the same table with fields containing hyperlinks for Codex methods in CXS 234 and the method performance criteria associated with each. . The United States volunteered to develop a prototype database using the dairy workable package for the next session.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports final adoption of the preamble and structure at Step 5/8.

Agenda Item 5: Adoption of Codex Texts at Step 5 (Allows for further consideration by the relevant committee)

Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection Certification Systems (CCFICS)

• Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Assessment and Use of Voluntary Third-Party Assurance (vTPA) Programmes (N27-2017) (REP 19/FICS, Para. 53, Appendix III)

o Background . vTPA programs are used by countries to inform their risk profiling of food businesses to more effectively target resources within their National Food Control Systems (NFCS). . The guidelines are flexible to reflect the diverse needs, motivations, and capabilities of countries regarding the use of vTPA to inform and complement their NFSCS, but do not compel this approach. . The committee agreed to forward the proposed draft principles and guidelines for the assessment and use of vTPA assurance programs (see Appendix III) to CAC42 for adoption at Step 5; and establish an EWG, with the possibility of convening PWGs, including immediately prior to CCFICS25 (2017), chaired by the United Kingdom and co-chaired by Canada and Mexico, to consider comments submitted at Step 6 as well as all outstanding issues, including comments made at CCFICS24 (2018).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption at Step 5.

Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH)

• Proposed Draft Code of Practice on Food Allergen Management for Food Business Operators (N05-2018) (REP 19/FH, Para. 56, Appendix III)

o Background . During an in-session new work working group at CCFH49 (2017), Australia introduced a project document prepared with the United States to develop a COP on Food Allergen Management for Food Business Operators. The purpose of the COP is to provide guidance to food business operators and governments to manage allergens in food production and retail/food service, including controls to prevent allergen cross-contact. Food allergen management also involves allergen labelling, which is addressed by the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (CXS 1-1985), developed by the CCFL. . CCFH49 (2017) established an EWG with Australia as chair and the United Kingdom and the United States as co-chairs. CAC41 (2018) approved this new work. . The EWG prepared a draft COP that was circulated by the Secretariat for country comments prior to CCFH50 (2018). . CCFH50 considered a revised proposal that addressed country comments received prior to CCFH50. The main issues relate to thresholds for allergens, allergen risk assessment methods, and the use of precautionary/advisory allergen labeling (e.g., “may contain”). The committee agreed to most of the revisions and made additional changes and editorial corrections. . The committee supported the use of precautionary allergen labeling, provided that such labeling did not replace implementation of measures to prevent or minimize the presence of undeclared allergens. The committee agreed to seek input from CCFL with respect to precautionary allergen labeling, including the definition, and put relevant statements in square brackets pending CCFL input. The committee also agreed to submit food labeling provisions to CCFL for endorsement. In addition, the committee agreed to seek advice from FAO/WHO related to thresholds and risk assessment to support decisions for allergen management such as use of precautionary allergen labeling and validation of cleaning procedures between foods with different allergen profiles. . CCFH50 forwarded the proposed draft code for adoption by CAC42 at Step 5.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption at Step 5.

Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU)

• Review of the Standard for Follow-up Formula (CXS 156-1987): Proposed Draft Scope, Description, and Labelling for Follow-up Formula for Older Infants (N07-2013) (REP 19/NFSDU, Para. 57, Appendix III)

o Background . CCNFSDU40 (2018) focused on revising and updating the sections of the standard relating to scope, product definition, and labeling of follow-up formula for older infants (aged 6-12 months). After much discussion and having reached agreement on product composition, the committee agreed to define the product for follow-up formula for older infants as a “breastmilk substitute as a liquid part of a diet for older infants when progressively diversified complementary feeding is introduced.” . CCNFSDU40 accepted most of the draft labeling provisions recommended by an EWG led by New Zealand, with minor amendments. The labeling provisions focus on the relevant principles contained the WHO Guidance on Ending the Inappropriate Promotion of Foods for Infants and Young Children but without citing or referencing the entire WHO Guidance, which is overly broad and covers topics beyond the scope of Codex and products outside of the Standard. . The committee very briefly considered a new amendment supported by WHO that was not considered by the EWG, stating that: “Cross promotion between product categories is not permitted on the [label/labelling] of the product.” The United States and others intervened to clarify whether cross promotion included advertising and marketing and whether the concept of cross promotion went beyond the mandate of CCNFSDU and Codex. After conferring with the Codex Secretariat, the Chair confirmed that any reference to cross promotion should be related to the label of the product. The United States intervened that the term ‘labelling’ was too ambiguous and could extend the provision to cover marketing and advertising. Due to time constraints and divergence in views, the committee placed the terms

“label/labelling” in brackets and referred the labelling provisions for follow-up formula for older infants for endorsement to the CCFL45 (2019). . CCFL45 did not endorse the sentence in Section 9.6.4 on cross promotion and the matter was referred to CCNFSDU for further discussion.

o U.S. Position . The United States generally supports adoption at Step 5, subject to endorsement of the labeling provisions by CCFL. The United States remains concerned about the labeling provisions, particularly the proposed prohibition on “cross promotion” and addressed the issue in the CCFL endorsement process.

Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH)

• Proposed Draft Standard for Dried Oregano (N06-2014) (REP19/SCH, Para. 30(i), Appendix II)

o Background . CCSCH1 (2014) established an EWG, chaired by Argentina and co-chaired by Greece, to prepare a proposed draft standard for dried oregano for consideration at CCSCH2 (2015). . CCSCH2 (2015) discussed the text and returned it for redrafting to an EWG chaired by Argentina and co-chaired by Turkey in preparation for CCSCH3 (2017). . At CCSCH3 (2017), some major producing countries of oregano, Origanum spp. unsuccessfully attempted to limit the standard to only that species, excluding Lippia spp., commonly known as Mexican oregano. Following some discussion, CCSCH3 decided to include all plant species marketed as “oregano” in the draft standard. . CCSCH3 also decided to address the different oregano species in the standard, where necessary, within the following Sections: 3.2.5 Chemical Characteristics, 3.2.4 Physical Characteristics, and 8 Labeling. The draft text was returned for redrafting at Step 3 for discussion at the next session. . There was extensive discussion again at CCSCH4 (2019) regarding what should be covered by this standard. CCSCH agreed again that it should cover the different plant species traded as oregano, both Lippia spp. and Origanum spp. . The classification of oregano into three grades/classes was made optional to better reflect current trade practices. The committee agreed that when

oregano is traded as “unclassified/ ungraded,” the minimum Chemical Characteristics and Tolerances for Defects Allowed/Physical Characteristics in Class II apply as the minimum requirement. . CCSCH also adjusted the Tolerances for Defects Allowed/Physical Characteristics and Chemical Characteristics; however, differences persist within the CCSCH on the appropriate levels of tolerances for certain defects (insect fragments, other excreta, etc.). . The particle size requirement in powdered styles was broadened to reflect different name and size screens used in trade, and the committee agreed that size requirements would only be applied upon request, supported by documentary evidence that a specific particle size was requested. . Based on the amount of work still outstanding, the committee agreed to advance the draft standard to Step 5 for another round of comments, and to re-establish the EWG to continue development of the draft standard.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption at Step 5. . The United States is satisfied that this single standard will sufficiently address the specific requirements of both oregano species (Origanum and Lippia) and will provide the necessary information to the consumer once finalized. . The United States looks forward to further discussion on the Defects Allowed/Physical Characteristics to have the draft standard for oregano reflect the needs of all Codex members and current trade practices.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Dried Roots, Rhizomes, and Bulbs— Dried or Dehydrated Ginger (N02-2017) (REP19/SCH, Para. 39(i), Appendix III)

o Background . CCSCH3 (2017) established an EWG led by Nigeria, to prepare a draft standard for dried or dehydrated ginger for consideration at CCSCH4 (2019). There were two rounds of comments in the EWG. . The United States participated in the EWG and provided comments to both rounds and in plenary at CCSCH4 (2019). . Substantial progress was made on the standard at the session. More specifically, CCSCH amended the product definition in line with the revised Grouping Standard Layout format, presented by the United States, that more closely reflects naming practices in trade—common name, trade name, and scientific name. The different trade names (yellow, white, blue Hawaiian, and

baby ginger) were not included, but will be further evaluated in preparation for CCSCH5 (2020). . The Styles section was also adjusted to reflect the product characteristics and included a definition for “Whole Ginger.” . The residues from processing aids (sulfur dioxide and calcium dioxide) were not resolved. Some delegations wanted more in-depth review of the necessity of use of processing aids and if processing aids alter the nature of the product. There was some discussion regarding whether such products should even fall within the purview of the CCSCH. . One overarching issue in this committee is the support to have “zero” percent tolerance for defects in ground/powdered forms of spices and culinary herbs (SCH) generally. This is not practical, because whole and rubbed/crushed forms of SCH that are allowed to have defects are the ones that will likely be ground into powdered forms.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption at Step 5, to allow for additional comments and consideration of unresolved issues by the next session of CCSCH.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Dried Basil (N05-2017) (REP19/SCH, Para. 66(i), Appendix V)

o Background . CCSCH3 (2017) approved the development of a standard for dried basil by an EWG, chaired by Egypt and Sudan, that would come up for discussion at Step 3 at CCSCH4 (2019). . The EWG had two rounds of comments resulting in the draft text that was the basis of the CCSCH4 discussion. . This draft standard was discussed within the framework of the Grouping Standard Layout template; however, the Sections on the Chemical Characteristics and Physical Characteristics remain unresolved. . For instance, the condiment/herb name “basil” as with other dried culinary herbs, refers to a flavor, not to any one plant species, furnished by plants of several species in different parts of the world. CCSCH standards must reflect global trade practices and should not be used to impose unnecessary restrictions and limit established safe trade practices. Therefore, all the plant species and sub-species traded as basil should be included in the standard.

. If any plant species have unique characteristics or require specific labeling, it can be addressed in the relevant sections of the standard. . One overarching issue in this committee is the support to have “zero” percent tolerance for defects in ground/powdered forms of spices and culinary herbs (SCH) generally. This is not practical, because whole and rubbed/crushed forms of SCH that are allowed to have defects are the ones that will likely be ground into powdered forms.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption at Step 5, to allow for additional comments and consideration of unresolved issues by the next session of CCSCH.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Dried Floral Parts—Dried Cloves (N08- 2017) (REP19/SCH, Para. 88(i), Appendix VI)

o Background . CCSCH3 (2017) considered the proposal and agreed to propose new work on a draft standard for cloves via an EWG, chaired by Nigeria and co-chaired by Sri Lanka, working in English, for consideration at its next session. . CCSCH4 (2019) discussed the draft standard for cloves, making a number of revisions and changes for consistency with the Grouping Standard Layout and with the characteristics of cloves. . There was concern that the classification of cloves is not internationally practiced; therefore, the committee agreed that classification should be optional and that the minimum requirements for Class II apply to ungraded cloves as well. . There was also concern about defects allowed for excreta and dead insects, and appropriate adjustments were made, taking into account the shape and color of cloves (whole and in pieces) and methods of drying and handling.

o U.S. Position . Since there are still some outstanding issues, the United States supports adoption at Step 5 to allow for further comment and consideration at the next session of CCSCH.

• Proposed Draft Standard for Saffron (N06-2017) (REP19/SCH, Para. 95(i), Appendix VII)

o Background . CCSCH3 (2017) and CCSCH4 (2019) considered the revised proposal for a standard for saffron, prepared by Iran. . Following two rounds of comments by the EWG and discussions at CCSCH4, the United States was concerned about the following: • Some delegations did not support the addition of food additives (anticaking agents) due to economic reasons (value of the product and concerns about purity), rather than for functional or consumer safety purposes, • Some delegations supported having “zero” percent tolerance for defects in the ground/powdered forms, and • The idea of having “zero” percent tolerances for defects in the ground/powdered forms of spices and culinary herbs (SCH) generally is not practical, because whole and rubbed/crushed forms of SCH that have allowances for defects are the ones that will likely be ground into powdered forms.

o U.S. Position . Since there are outstanding issues, the United States supports adoption at Step 5 to allow for further comment and consideration at the next session of CCSCH. . The United States believes that the use of anticaking agents should be standard for all spices if they are technologically justified. . The United States recommends that CCSCH revisit its decision/practice of having zero tolerances for defects in ground/powdered styles of SCH. This is contradictory to current trade practices and is not practical. . The United States recommends that the classification/grading of all SCH should be optional and that the minimum requirements in the draft standard should be the same for the lowest class/grade if classified.

Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL)

• Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Labelling of Non-Retail Containers (REP19/FL, Para. 64, Appendix II)

o Background . At CCFL45 (2019), the committee convened a PWG on the Sunday prior to the beginning of the meeting to refine the draft standard. . During the CCFL45 plenary sessions, the draft guidelines were thoroughly discussed, and the United States intervened on several key issues including the definition of a non-retail container and the general principles in the guidelines. . At the end of the meeting, the committee noted the progress of the work and agreed to: • Forward the proposed draft revision to CAC42 for adoption at Step 5, • Extend completion of the work to the CCFL46 (2020) and inform CCEXEC accordingly, and • Inform the relevant commodity committees on the progress of the work on the draft guidelines for the labeling of non-retail containers. . The committee also noted that once the draft guidelines are finalized, there could be a need for a consequential amendment to the Procedural Manual, the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (GSLPF) (CXS 1-1985), and relevant commodity standards.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption at Step 5.

Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)

• Proposed Draft Revised Guidelines on Measurement Uncertainty (CXG 54-2004) (REP 18/MAS, Para. 66, Appendix IV)

o Background . At CCMAS35 (2015), the committee agreed to develop procedures for determining uncertainty of measurement results, including sub-sampling, sample processing, and analysis (REP14/MAS, paragraph 86). This work was initially undertaken as a part of the development of the Principles on Sampling and Testing in International Trade, and then was expanded to address other

practical situations in determining measurement uncertainty (MU). . At CCMAS37 (2016), Germany, as chair of the EWG, noted that the document included procedures to estimate measurement uncertainty without being overly prescriptive and, for illustration, provided examples of procedures for estimating measurement uncertainty for practical, routine examples. CCMAS agreed that the examples presented were not intended to be an exhaustive list and the new work would focus on measurement uncertainly only and not sampling uncertainty. Germany agreed to provide a project document for consideration at CCMAS29 (2018). . At CCMAS39 (2018), the committee revised the new work proposal to address the role of uncertainty in sampling and proposed new work on the revision of the Guidelines on Measurement Uncertainty (CXG 54-2004) for approval by CAC41 (2018). Germany clarified that the guidelines would not cover conformity assessment. CAC41 (2018) approved the new work. . At CCMAS40 (2019), the committee revised the document to address comments received during both the EWG and plenary.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports advancing this work at Step 5.

Agenda Item 6: Revocation of Codex Texts

Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU)

• Provisions for Monosodium Tartrate (INS 335(i)), Monopotassium Tartrate (INS 336(i)), and Dipotassium Tartrate (INS 336(ii))) in the Standard for Processed Cereal-Based Foods for Infants and Young Children (CXS 74-1981) (REP 19/NFSDU, Para. 10)

o Background . In response to recommendations from CCFA40 (2018), CCNFSDU agreed to revoke the provisions for monosodium tartrate (INS 335(i)), monopotassium tartrate (INS 336(i)), and dipotassium tartrate (INS 336(ii))) in the Standard

for Processed Cereal-Based Foods for Infants and Young Children (CXS 74- 1981).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports revocation of these food additives provisions

Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO)

• Provisions for Monosodium Tartrate (INS 335(i)), Monopotassium Tartrate (INS 336(i)), Dipotassium Tartrate (INS 336(ii)) and Sodium Sorbate (INS 201) in the Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads (CXS 26-2007) (REP 19/FO, Para. 113 (a) (ii), Appendix III)

o Background . The United States participated in the EWG created following CCFO25 (2017) (led by the EU) and supported the proposal to use a general reference to the General Standard on Food Additives (GSFA), rather than listing individual food additives in commodity standards. . At CCFO26 (2019), following discussion in the in-session Working Group and in plenary on the alignment of food additive provisions and technological justification for use of emulsifiers, the committee agreed to forward to CAC42 the specific food additive provisions in Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads (CXS 256-2007) for revocation: • Monosodium tartrate (INS 335(i)) • Monopotassium tartrate (INS 336(i)) • Dipotassium tartrate (INS 336(ii)) • Sodium sorbate (INS 201)

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the revocation of these provisions.

Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR)

• CXLs for Different Combinations of Pesticide/Commodity(ies) for Food and Feed (REP 19/PR, Para. 145, Appendix III)

o Background . CCPR recommended revocation of 150 previously adopted CXLs (Codex MRLs) associated with 22 pesticides. Of these, 92 are for plant commodities and 58 are for animal commodities. . These are typically CXLs that are (1) being replaced based on review of additional data, (2) uses no longer supported, or (3) found by JMPR to have potential dietary intake concerns with no alternative good agricultural practice. . Maximum Residue Limits Recommended for Revocation: • 110 Imazalil (11 MRLs) • 126 Oxamyl (1 MRL) • 148 Propamocarb (3 MRLs) • 160 Propiconazole (3 MRLs) • 172 Bentazone (4 MRLs) • 177 Abamectin (6 MRLs) • 193 Fenpyroximate (6 MRLs) • 199 Kresoxim-Methyl (16 MRLs) • 2 Azinphos-Methyl (27 MRLs) • 210 Pyraclostrobin (9 MRLs) • 211 Fludioxonil (13 MRLs) • 231 Mandipropamid (1 MRL) • 233 Spinetoram (1 MRL) • 243 Fluopyram (2 MRLs) • 252 Sulfoxaflor (5 MRLs) • 256 Fluxapyroxad (2 MRLs) • 261 Benzovindiflupyr (2 MRLs) • 263 Cyantraniliprole (1 MRL) • 286 Lufenuron (5 MRLs) • 291 Oxathiapiprolin (10 MRLs) • 31 Diquat (16 MRLs) • 60 Phosalone (6 MRLs)

o U.S. Position . The United States supports revocation of these MRLs.

Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF)

• MLs for Lead in Selected Commodities in the GSCTFF (REP 19/CF, Para. 44, Appendix II)

o Background . At CCCF13 (2019), the committee agreed to request revocation by CAC42 of the current MLs for lead in the GSCTFF (CXS 193-1995) for edible offal of cattle, pig, and poultry.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports revocation of the currently listed MLs and replacing them with the revised MLs recommended by CCCF13(2019) If the proposed revised MLs are not adopted, the existing MLs should remain in place.

Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)

• Methods of Analysis for Provisions in Codex Standards (CXS 234- 1999) (REP19/ MAS, Para. 9, Appendix II, Part 2)

o Background . The PWG on the endorsement of methods, led by the United States and Australia, reviewed the methods and sampling plans referred to CCMAS by Codex committees. The PWG recommendations were subsequently considered by CCMAS for final endorsement and revocation. . As a result of this review, CCMAS recommended revocation for all methods listed in Appendix II, Part of its report (REP 19/MAS).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports revocation of all methods that were endorsed by CCMAS40 (2019).

Agenda Item 7: Proposals for New Work

Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS)

• Project Document for New Work on the Consolidation of Codex Guidelines Related to Equivalence (REP 19/FICS, Para. 32(ii) and (iii) (b), Appendix II)

o Background . During CCFICS24 (2018), New Zealand, as Chair of the EWG on the Use of Systems Equivalence, and the two Co-Chairs (Chile and the United States) were in agreement on merging the current draft standard, once finalized, with the other two existing Codex guidelines related to equivalence (i.e., Guidelines for the Development of Equivalence Agreements Regarding Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CXG 34-1999) and the Guidelines on the Judgment of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification Systems (CXG 53-2003)) and making any relevant consequential amendments. . The committee discussed the process and the next steps of the complex work related to consolidating Codex guidelines on equivalence, emphasizing the importance that a consolidated document be practical and avoid overlap and duplication. . Several delegations emphasized the need for clarity and transparency, including for those countries not present at CCFICS24 (2018), and requested a new project document to address the consolidation work that would take place following the adoption of the current draft guidelines on system equivalence. The draft project document for new work on consolidating Codex guidelines on equivalence was prepared during an in-session working group. . The committee agreed to re-establish the EWG, chaired by New Zealand, co-chaired by Chile and the United States, with the possibility of convening PWG, including immediately prior to CCFICS25 (2020). . The EWG will continue to develop the draft guidelines on recognition and maintenance of equivalence of NFCS for circulation for comments at Step 3 and consideration at its next session, and subject to approval by CAC42, begin work to consolidate all Codex guidance related to equivalence by preparing a proposal for circulation for comments at Step 3. . The purpose of the work is to consolidate all equivalence guidelines to provide clear, consistent and useful guidance to countries considering the use of any form of equivalence determinations.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports new work on the consolidation of Codex guidelines related to equivalence, consistent with the project document agreed upon at CCFICS24 (2018).

Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH)

• Project Document for New Work on Development of Guidelines for the Control of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Beef Meat, Leafy Greens, Raw Milk and Cheese Produced from Raw Milk, and Sprouts (REP 19/FH, Para. 76)

o Background . CCFH has had work on Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) ranked highly on its forward workplan for several years. At CCFH50 (2018), the United States, Chile, and Uruguay presented a discussion paper and project document on “Control of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) in Beef, Unpasteurized Milk and Cheese produced from Unpasteurized Milk, Leafy Greens, and Sprouts” and proposed to develop new guidance based on a report by the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Meetings on Microbiological Risks Assessment (JEMRA) (“Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and Food: Attribution, Characterization, and Monitoring”) that was commissioned by CCFH47 (2015). . The proposed guidance document would have a chapter structure. The first chapter would be devoted to the characteristics of STEC and its virulence factors, followed by chapters that describe the validated interventions for each commodity at primary production, processing, and distribution levels, including laboratory analysis detection criteria for STEC according to the JEMRA virulence factor analysis. . CCFH50 agreed to the proposed structure and to recommend that the guidelines be developed in a step-wise manner, with beef and leafy greens being the first priorities. The committee also agreed to refer to “raw milk” rather than “unpasteurized milk” to avoid confusion with milk that may have received a thermal treatment but not pasteurization. The specific types of beef meat to be covered will be decided during the drafting of the document.

. Subject to approval of the new work by CAC42, CCFH50 agreed to establish an EWG chaired by Chile and the United States to prepare draft guidelines for CCFH51 (2019).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports this new work proposal.

Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) • Proposal for New Work to Develop Guidelines for Compounds of Low Public Health Concern that could be Exempted from the Establishment of CXLs (REP 19/PR, Para. 206, Appendix IX)

o Background . At CCPR50 (2018), the committee agreed to establish an EWG to explore the development of international guidelines that establish harmonized concepts and criteria that could be used to identify pesticides that are of low public health concern, and therefore, can be considered exempt from the need to establish numerical residue limits/CXLs. . The EWG engaged with Codex members and observers during two rounds of comments. The discussion paper presented to CCPR51 (2019) first identified general considerations, including the relevance of the guidelines to the strategic objectives of Codex, relevance of national legislation on pesticides of low public health concern, and feasibility of establishing standards at the level of Codex. . The EWG’s discussion paper also outlined criteria that could be used to identify pesticides of low risk or low public health concern and proposed that these criteria may be used to identify substances considered exempt from the establishment of an MRL. These criteria include: • Active substances without identified hazardous properties (very low or no toxicological concern), • Substances for which it is not possible to differentiate between the exposure associated with use as a pesticide from its exposure due to other uses in the food chain, and • Substances for which no consumer exposure linked to the mode of application is foreseen. . CCPR51 agreed to recommend new work and to submit the project document to CAC42 for approval. . CCPR51 also agreed to re-establish the EWG, chaired by Chile and co- chaired by the United States and India, with the following terms of reference:

• Develop common criteria for the identification of compounds of low public health concern that may be exempted of CXLs and/or that do not give rise to residues, • Provide harmonized Codex definitions as appropriate, • Provide examples of compounds that meet the criteria to facilitate the development of the guidelines. Such examples will not necessarily remain in the final document, and • Based on the above considerations, present proposed draft Guidelines for consideration at CCPR52.

o U.S. Position . The United States serves as co-chair of the EWG and supports this work. Products of low public health concern, such as biopesticides, are playing a growing role in plant protection. . There is concern that if these products are not being viewed as “safe” or have no Codex standards, growers will be reluctant to incorporate them into farming practices. . The work is consistent with U.S. regulatory approaches.

• Priority List of Pesticides for Evaluation by the 2020 JMPR (REP 19/PR, Para. 250, Appendix X)

o Background . At CCPR51 (2019) Australia, as Chair of the EWG on Priorities, provided an update on the Codex schedules and priorities and the revised Schedules and Priority Lists of Pesticides for review by JMPR • New Compounds: 6 new compounds were confirmed on the proposed schedule, along with five reserve compounds; • New Uses/Other Evaluations: 20 nominations listed for new use and other evaluations, along with ten reserve compounds. • Periodic Review: 6 compounds listed, along with two reserve compounds. . The EWG Chair confirmed that reserve compounds in the “New Compounds” and “New Uses and Other Evaluations” schedules will be prioritized as reserves based on the earliest provision of evidence of national registration/product labels. Reserve compounds, for which use does not give rise to residues, will have lower priority than reserve compounds with evidence of national registrations/product labels.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the JMPR Schedule and Priority List as published in Appendix X of REP 19/PR.

Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF)

• Establishment of MLs for Lead in Certain Food Categories (REP 19/CF, Para. 96, Appendix VI)

o Background . At CCCF13 (2019), based on review of the Discussion Paper on the Establishment of New Maximum Levels for Lead in Commodities According to a Prioritization Approach, the committee agreed to start new work on developing MLs for lead for the following food categories: • Food for infants and young children (except those for which an ML has already been established in the GSCTFF), • Spices and aromatic herbs, • Eggs, and • Sugars and confectionery, excluding cocoa.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the new work.

• Revision of the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods (CXC 56-2004) (REP 19/CF, Para. 107, Appendix VII)

o Background . At CCCF13 (2019), based on a review of the Discussion Paper on the Revision of the Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods (CXC 56-2004), the committee agreed to start new work on revision of the COP. . Subject to approval of the new work by CAC42, an EWG, chaired by the United States and co-chaired by Japan and the United Kingdom, will prepare

a draft revised version of the COP for comments and consideration at CCCF14 (2020).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the new work.

• Development of a Code of Practice for the Reduction and Prevention of Cadmium Contamination in Cocoa Beans (REP 19/CF, Para. 112, Appendix VIII)

o Background . At CCCF13 (2019), based on a review of the Discussion Paper on the Development of a Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Cadmium Contamination in Cocoa, the committee agreed to start new work on a COP. . Subject to approval of new work by CAC42, an EWG chaired by Peru and co- chaired by Ghana and Ecuador, will prepare a draft COP for comments and consideration at CCCF14 (2020).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the new work.

• Establishment of MLs for Aflatoxins in Cereals and Cereal-Based Products Including Foods for Infants and Young Children (REP 19/CF, Para. 155, Appendix IX)

o Background . At CCCF13 (2019), based on review of the Discussion Paper on the Establishment of Maximum Levels for Total Aflatoxins in Cereals (Wheat, Maize, Sorghum and Rice), Flour and Cereal-Based Foods for Infants and Young Children, the committee agreed to start new work on developing MLs for aflatoxins for the following food categories: • Maize grain destined for further processing and flour, meal, semolina and flakes derived from maize, • Husked and polished rice, • Cereal-based foods for infant and young children, and

• Sorghum. . Work will not proceed at this time on rice flours; wheat grain; and flours, meal, semolina and flakes derived from wheat. . An EWG, chaired by Brazil and co-chaired by India, subject to approval of new work by CAC42, would prepare a proposal for circulation for comments and consideration at CCCF14 (2020).

o U.S. Position . The U.S. supports the new work, given the stipulations noted in the report: CCCF noted that for the agreed-on commodities, it would be important to use geographically representative data; to undertake an assessment of the health impact of hypothetical MLs before proceeding, including to determine if similar health impacts could be achieved at lower sample rejection rates; that when undertaking the establishment of MLs consideration should be given to year-to-year variation; whether the MLs would take into account use of rapid field tests using higher limit of quantitation (LOQ) than laboratory testing; and its impact on food security.

Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) • Proposed Draft Guidance on Internet Sales/E-Commerce (REP 19/FL, Para. 91(a), Appendix III)

o Background . At CCFL45 (2019), the United Kingdom introduced the Discussion Paper on behalf of the co-drafters (Chile, Ghana, India, and Japan). The Discussion Paper was well received by the committee and there was broad support to start new work on internet sales/e-commerce. . At the end of the meeting, the committee agreed to: • Recommend new work on internet sales/e-commerce and to submit the project document for approval by CAC42, • Establish an EWG (UK as chair; Chile, Ghana, India, Japan as co- chairs) to prepare a proposed draft text for circulation at Step 3 and consideration by CCFL46, and • Consider convening a PWG immediately prior to CCFL46 (2020).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports approval of new work.

• Proposal for New Work on Allergen Labelling: Revision to the General Standard for the labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Allergen Labelling, and Guidance on Precautionary Allergen or Advisory Labelling (REP 19/FL, Para. 98(a), Appendix IV)

o Background . Prior to CCFL45 (2019), Australia lead the drafting of the Discussion Paper, with the United States and United Kingdom participating as co-drafters . At CCFL45, the Discussion Paper was well received, and the delegations discussed: • The need to consider advice from social science experts on how consumers understand allergen labeling and advisory statements, and • The need to ensure the work on precautionary allergen labelling is consistent with the ongoing work of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) on the Code of Practice on Food Allergen Management for Food Business Operators. . The committee further agreed that any change to the list of ‘foods and ingredients are known to cause hypersensitivity and shall always be declared’ in Section 4.2.1.4 of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (GSLPF) (CXS 1-1985) should be based on scientific advice from FAO/WHO. . At the end of the meeting, the committee agreed to: • Recommend new work to review and clarify the provisions relevant to allergen labelling in the GSLPF and develop guidance on precautionary/advisory labelling, and to submit the project document for approval at CAC42, • Establish an EWG (Australia as chair, the United States and UK as co- chairs) to: o Prepare proposed draft revisions and guidelines for circulation for comments at Step 3 and consideration by CCFL46 (2020), and o Take into account scientific advice from FAO/WHO and evidence- based consumer understanding of allergen labeling and advisory statements. • Request scientific advice relating to the list of foods and ingredients in Section 4.2.1.4 of the GSLPF from FAO/WHO. . This new work will complement the current work by CCFH on allergens.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports adoption of the new work on allergen labeling.

Agenda Item 8: Discontinuation of Work

Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU)

• NRV-NCD for EPA and DHA Long Chain Omega-3 Fatty Acids (CXG 2-1985) (REP 19/NFSDU, Para. 94)

o Background . CCNFSDU40 (2018) considered whether to propose postponing or discontinuing this work to derive Nutrient Reference Values- Non- communicable disease (NRV-NCDs) for EPA and DHA. Since the WHO Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG) had concluded that there was not enough evidence of the effect of EPA and DHA on coronary health disease (CHD) mortality and there was no new evidence that would alter this conclusion, the committee decided to propose discontinuation.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports discontinuation of this work.

Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) • Draft and Proposed Draft Food Additive Provisions of the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) (CXS 192-1995) (REP 19/FA, Para. 137(iii) and Appendix VIII)

o Background . Food additive provisions in the GSFA are listed at a particular step in the Codex standards elaboration process. If there is no support for a provision after it is entered into the Step process, either as a proposed draft (Step 3) or draft (Step 6) provision, work can be discontinued, and the provisions will no longer be listed in the GSFA. . CCFA51 (2019) agreed to discontinue work on 30 proposed draft and draft provisions.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports discontinuation of the provisions in REP 19/FA Appendix VIII due to lack of support.

Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) • MRLs for Different Combinations of Pesticide/Commodity(ies) in the Step Procedure that were withdrawn (discontinued) by CCPR (REP19/PR, Para. 145, Appendix VI)

o Background . CCPR recommended withdrawal from further consideration of 12 draft MRLs for five pesticides: Diquat (31); Propiconazole (160); Fenpyroximate (193); Cyprodinil (207); and Sulfoxaflor (252). These are typically CXLs being replaced based on review of additional data, uses no longer supported, or CXLs found by JMPR to have potential dietary intake concerns with no alternative good agricultural practice.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the withdrawal of these MRLs.

Agenda Item 9: Amendments to Codex Standards and Related Texts

Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods (CCCF)

• Amendment of the ML for Wine

o Background . CCCF13 (2019) agreed to forward a consequential amendment to the current ML of 0.2 mg/kg for lead for wine to also account for fortified/liqueur

wine and to specify that this ML applies to wine made from grapes harvested before the adoption of the new MLs by CAC42.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports these amendments.

Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)

• Editorial Amendments of Methods of Analysis/Performance Criteria for Provisions in Codex Standards (REP 19/MAS) (Appendix II, Part 3)

o Background . The PWG on the endorsement of methods, led by United States and Australia, reviewed and updated the methods for milk and milk products. They made editorial amendments for certain methods, as listed in Appendix II, Part 2. . The committee noted that for several provisions in milk and milk product commodities that require calculation using for example, total solids content, fat content, protein content, dry matter content, the addition of methods for these determinations would be considered editorial in nature in order to avoid giving the impression that the methods for the provisions had been reviewed for their fitness for purpose. These methods were contained in the table for further review and update in the next round of review of the dairy workable package.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the revocation of all the methods that were endorsed by CCMAS40 (2019).

60 Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes (CCCPL)

• Editorial Amendments to Codex Standards

o Background . In line with the decision of CAC28 (2005) to abolish the Acceptance Procedure from the Procedural Manual, it is proposed to delete the sentence “Governments accepting the Standard are requested to indicate and justify the requirements in force in their country” from Section 3.2.1 in the Standards for Gari (CXS 151-1985), Wheat Flour (CXS 152-1985), Maize (Corn) (CXS 153-1985), Whole Maize (Corn) Meal (CXS 154-1985), Degermed Maize (Corn) Meal and Maize (Corn) Grits (CXS 155-1985), Whole and Decorticated Pearl Millet Grains (CXS 169-1989), Pearl Millet Flour (CXS 170-1989), Sorghum Grains (CXS 172-1989), Sorghum Flour (CXS 173-1989), Edible Cassava Flour (CXS 176-1989), Durum Wheat Semolina and Durum Wheat Flour (CXS 178- 1991), Rice (CXS 198-1995), Wheat and Durum Wheat (CXS 199-1995), Peanuts (CXS 200-1995) and Oats (CXS 201-1995). The same sentence should also be removed from Section 3 of the Annex in the Standard for Rice (CXS 198-1995).

Codex Committee on Processed Meat and Poultry Products (CCPMPP)

• Editorial Amendments in the Scope of Standard for Luncheon Meat (CXS 89-1981)

o Background . It is proposed that only the English language shall be used whatever the language of the text is for Section 1, “Scope: “This standard applies to products designated as "Luncheon Meat" which have been packed in any suitable packing material”.

61 Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins (CCVP)

• Editorial Amendments in Annex “Codex Guidelines for Testing Safety and Nutritional Quality of Vegetable Protein Products” of the General Guidelines for the Utilization of the Vegetable Protein Products (VPP) in Foods (CAC/GL 4-1989)

o Background . It is proposed to insert the reference to CXS 234-1999 in Section 2.3 “Nutritional” “so that it reads “Nutritive value of VPP should be assessed by methods listed in CXS 234-1999”.

Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL)

• Consequential Amendments to Relevant Codex Texts

o Background . The term “date of minimum durability” should be replaced by “best before date” or “best quality before date” in relevant Codex texts, including the Procedural Manual, for consistency with the revised section on date marking in the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (CXS 1-1985).

Agenda Item 10: Matters Referred to the Commission by Codex Committees

Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS)

• Discussion Paper on Food Integrity and Food Authenticity

o Background . The committee continued discussions on the topic of food integrity and food authenticity; and agreed to establish an EWG, chaired by the United States and co-chaired by the EU and Iran, to: • Further consider the role of CCFICS with respect to tackling the challenge of food fraud in the context of food safety and fair practices in the food trade, and • Conduct a comprehensive analysis of existing relevant Codex texts within and outside of CCFICS to avoid overlapping or intrusion onto the mandate of other Codex general subject or commodity committees, noting that a number of related Codex texts existed within and outside of CCFICS. . Should the EWG identify gaps in existing CCFICS texts, it may propose new work within the scope and mandate of CCFICS for consideration at CCFICS25 (2020); consider what definitions need to be developed; and propose definitions that may be needed in any future project document, consistent with existing Codex texts, scope and mandate for use in prospective project documents as appropriate. . The committee also agreed to inform CCEXEC, the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including CCGP, of its ongoing discussions on this subject.

• Assessment of the Experimental Approach for Intersessional PWGs (trial) Combined with Webinar Technology

o Background . CCFICS held two intersessional PWGs that incorporated an experimental approach of using webinar technology to provide for face- to-face interaction to facilitate the participation of countries and promote inclusiveness. . The committee agreed to inform CCEXEC that:

• Webinar technology had the potential to enhance participation in and the inclusiveness of Codex meetings and that challenges and/or lessons learned from this pilot exercise should be taken into account when considering its deployment in Codex committee work, and • An analysis was required to better understand the barriers for participation and how to overcome them. . The committee recommended that Codex continue to explore the challenges and advance the possible use of webinar technology in its work.

Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH)

• Postponement of the Development of Sampling Plan for Histamine in Eleven Commodity Standards for Fish and Fishery Products

o Background . At the 32nd Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP32) (2012), Japan and the United States presented a discussion paper that summarized the FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on the Public Health Risks of Histamine and other Biogenic Amines from Fish and Fishery Products. The discussion paper included a table of recommended histamine sampling plans. . AT CCFFP33 (2014) and CCFFP34 (2015), Japan and the United States led working groups on histamine that provided detailed recommendations for histamine sampling plans in fish commodity standards. . At CCFFP34, committee members did not agree on the purpose for histamine sampling plans but agreed to start new work to develop histamine sampling plans for different purposes. . CAC39 (2016) approved new work on histamine control guidance in the Code of Practice and histamine sampling guidance in commodity standards. CCFFP adjourned sine die, and CAC transferred the work to CCFH. . At CCFH49 (2017), the committee established an EWG led by Japan and the United States to draft revised sampling, examination and analyses sections in the standards for fish and fishery products related to histamine food safety. . At CCFH50 (2018), the committee discussed the EWG draft revision of sampling sections in the relevant standards, as updated by Japan and the

United States prior to the meeting, based on comments received for the meeting (CRD 06). The committee did not reach consensus. . The committee agreed to suspend work, noting that perhaps work could resume after revision of the General Guidelines on Sampling (CXG50).

o U.S. Position . The United States supports postponement of this work.

Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO)

• Report on the Outcome of Monitoring the Conformity of Named Fish Oils with the Requirements (Especially the Fatty Acid Profile) of the Standard for Fish Oils and its Effect on Trade (Replies to CL 2017/71-FO) (REP19/FO Para. 126)

o Background . CAC40 (2017) adopted the Standard for Fish Oils as recommended by CCFO25 (2017). . At that time, the committee acknowledged that there may be difficulties associated with using only the fatty acid ranges in Table 1 as a measure to determine compliance of a fish oil with Section 2.1 of the standard. Specifically, the positive verification of the fish species used as raw material may not always be unequivocal. . It was agreed that current practice to refer to supplementary information from traceability and certification systems could assist stakeholders (industry, control authorities, etc.). . The committee agreed to encourage members to monitor the application of the standard with respect to the conformity of named fish oils with the requirements (especially the fatty acid profile), its effect on trade, and to bring this information to CCFO26. . Following discussion at CCFO26 (2019), members agreed: • That no further monitoring on the implementation of the newly adopted standard for fish oils was needed and that data received indicated that the use of the fatty acid profiles for named fish oils did not present a problem, • That if members identify any problems in the future with the implementation of the standard they can submit a proposal for review of the standard,

• To refer to the codex committee on food import and export inspection and certification systems (CCFICS) a concern expressed by Chile related to food fraud in oils in general and fish oil in particular, noting that the current format of commodity standards does not provide for traceability, • To encourage Chile and concerned members to participate in the recently launched EWG on food fraud established by CCFICS and to bring this issue to the attention of the chairs of the EWG, and • To retain the current Spanish translation for anchovy oil.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the approach agreed upon by the committee.

• Discussion Paper on the Better Management of the Work of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (REP19/FO, Para. 126)

o Background . CCEXEC70 (2015) recommended to all committees to consider the need to develop an approach for the management of their work. . CCFO25 (2017) agreed that the CCFO Secretariat (Malaysia) would prepare a discussion paper on the guidance needed for revision of parameters/inclusion of new parameters and editorial amendments to existing fats and oils standards, for consideration at its next session in 2019 (CCFO26). . CCEXEC73 (2017) welcomed the CCFO initiative and recommended that the committee consider whether a simplified project document or procedure would expedite such work. It also recommended that CCFO consider developing a mechanism (e.g., forward plan) to better manage its agenda. . Following discussion of options to better manage CCFO work, the committee agreed to continue to use the existing project document for submission of proposals for amendments of existing fats and oils standards; request the Codex Secretariat to issue a Circular Letter to call for proposals for new work including amendments to existing standards, and to establish an in-session Working Group at each session of the CCFO.

o U.S. Position . The United States supports the approach agreed upon by the committee.

Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA)

• The Technological Justifications for the Use of Preservatives and Anticaking Agents in the Specific Products Covered by the Standard for Mozzarella (CXS 262-2006)

o Background . CAC40 (2017) requested CCFA to address only the technological justification of the use of preservatives and anticaking agents for surface treatment of mozzarella with high moisture content in the framework of the alignment work of food additive provisions of Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products (CCMMP) standards and those of the General Standard for Food Additives (CXS 192-1995) (GSFA). . CCFA51 (2019) considered this matter and agreed to inform CAC42 that: • The use of anticaking agents in the surface treatment of high-moisture mozzarella was technologically justified only in the shredded or diced forms of the product, and • The use of preservatives in the surface treatment of high-moisture mozzarella was technologically justified only when not packaged in liquid.

Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS)

• Guidance on Endorsement

o Background . CCMAS40 (2019) agreed: • To publish the guidance on endorsement including the template for submission of information as an Information Document for internal use by CCMAS (Appendix V), and • That the document would be a living document that could be revised if issues arose during the use of the guidance on endorsement.

Agenda Item 11: Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025

• Background

o The proposed draft Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025 is being developed by a CCEXEC drafting Sub-Committee consistent with the direction given by the CAC that it take the existing Strategic Plan 2014-2019 as the starting point and update it as appropriate to address members’ needs in the coming five years. There have been several rounds of comments, and the United States is among the members that has submitted comments on each draft.

• U.S. Position

o The United States position is generally to support adoption of the Strategic Plan at this session, depending on how the comments submitted are addressed by drafters and the discussion at CCEXEC77. Our primary concerns are to ensure that the new Strategic Plan is consistent with the core mandate of Codex and the current provisions of the Procedural Manual and reflects the values and principles of Codex as the pre-eminent science-based international food standards setting body. We also seek to ensure that any mention of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the Strategic Plan appropriately reflects the nature of the SDGs, as voluntary goals for countries to adopt/adapt as appropriate, and (as previously concluded by the CAC) be limited to those SDGs to which Codex work is directly relevant.

Agenda Item 12: Codex Budgetary and Financial Matters

• Position under development. This is largely an informational item.

Agenda Item 13: FAO/WHO Scientific Support to Codex Activities: Activities, Budgetary, and Financial Matters

• Position under development. The United States is a long-standing and consistent supporter of the FAO/WHO scientific advice program that supports Codex standards development. We are cosponsoring a discussion paper with the European Union and other members supporting the development of a strategy for more sustainable funding to permit timely responses to requests for scientific advice from Codex committees and reduce or eliminate backlogs for scientific reviews.

Agenda Item 14: Matters Arising from FAO and WHO

• This item is intended for information only.

Agenda Item 15: Report of the Side Event on FAO and WHO Capacity Development Activities

• No position required.

Agenda Item 16: Report of the Side Event on the Codex Trust Fund (CTF2)

• No position required. The United States supports CTF2 as a donor country and participates as a regional representative (North American and South West Pacific Region) on the donor advisory committee.

Agenda Item 17: Election of the Chairperson and Vice- Chairpersons and Members of the Executive Committee Elected on a Geographical Basis

• Incumbents eligible for re-election are expected to be re-elected. The CAC Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons are all eligible for re-election. The United States is a current member of CCEXEC elected on a geographical basis and is eligible for re-election.

Agenda Item 18: Designation of Countries Responsible for Appointing the Chairpersons of Codex Subsidiary Bodies

• At this time, there are no proposals for changes in the hosting of existing subsidiary bodies. The United States hosts the Codex Committees on Food Hygiene, Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods; Processed Fruits and Vegetables; and Cereals, Pulses and Legumes. The latter two committees are currently working by correspondence.

Agenda Item 19: Any Other Business

Agenda Item 20: Adoption of the Report