FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentariu

FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius

CFG 15/02

Foodaware's comments on the FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards – Enquiry to National Organisations

Is Codex important and why?

The expansion in international trade in food that has taken place in recent years means that, more than ever, there is a need for associated consumer protection. Codex’s responsibility for establishing international food standards, its remit to protect the health of consumers, and to ensure fair practices in food trade remains central. These elements are essential for consumers worldwide to have confidence in their food - wherever it has been produced.

However, we are concerned that, up to now, Codex has been more concerned by ensuring ‘fair practices in trade’ than ensuring a high level of consumer protection. We believe that there needs to be a redress in the balance between these two remits with greater emphasis on consumer protection. We are also concerned that the interpretation of ‘ensuring fair practices in trade’ has sometimes been interpreted as ‘facilitating trade exchanges and international trade’ rather than ensuring equitable fair practices for all countries and parties involved (in particular the smaller ones).

We therefore believe that Codex must, in the future, give greater emphasis to its commitment to protecting consumer health and should define more clearly what is meant by ‘fair’ practices in food trade.

There is also considerable room for improvement in how Codex operates, and particularly, how consumers and their concerns are represented and recognised within the decision-making process. Our specific comments are set out below.
How well the international standards setting by Codex serves the needs of your members (good points/bad points):

Our emphasis is on European food standards, however, we are aware that national, regional (EU) and international standards are interrelated and influence each other in a number of ways. We recognise that Codex has made attempts to improve consumer participation in Codex in recent years and has made efforts to ensure consumers’ legitimate concerns are recognised within Codex decision-making. However, there is still a long way to go before these goals are fully realised.

‘Sound science’ should undoubtedly be a cornerstone of policy-making in food standards. However, we would support the call for other legitimate factors, including precaution, to be considered and used to inform policy decisions as science alone cannot always provide all the answers.

Transparency, openness and the participation of stakeholders are needed in the risk analysis process in order to ensure an effective precautionary approach is followed. A precautionary approach needs to be recognised throughout the three stages of risk analysis: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication.

These concerns need to be incorporated into the Codex international standards setting process in order for our members’ needs and concerns to be adequately recognised.
The extent to which important public food safety priorities are addressed in your country through Codex standards and guidelines?

In the UK, most important public food safety priorities are probably not addressed directly through Codex standards and guidelines. This is because we have a long history of national food standards, we are heavily influenced by EU food standards, and the most recent food safety crises (BSE, Salmonella, E.coli, dioxin contamination, Foot and Mouth disease etc) have primarily been problems of UK and/or EU origin. However, these food scares have undermined consumer confidence and led to increasing awareness and questioning of how food standards (national and international) are set and enforced.

The slow pace of the Codex standards setting process means that many new issues are addressed at the national and EU level before significant progress is made at Codex.

There is concern that hard won national or EU standards may be threatened by lower Codex standards. A clear example of this was the 1995 adoption (by secret ballot) of Codex standards for Maximum Residue Limits for a number of growth hormones used in beef production. This controversial decision led to the ongoing dispute concerning the EU ban on these substances – a ban which European consumers have long supported. The labelling of genetically modified foods is another case where there is concern that existing EU standards may be threatened.

Nevertheless, Codex has been positively influential on some food policy issues, for example, on health claims where EU regulation is still awaited. The Codex guidelines in this case were welcomed by consumer organisations and have been, and continue to be, influential. Similarly, the Codex decision not to adopt a standard for BST (the hormone used to increase milk-production in dairy cows), on the basis of a precautionary approach, has been significant and welcomed by consumers.
The extent to which important trade issues in food products are addressed in your country through Codex standards and guidelines?

Codex standards are not legally binding and therefore not enforceable in the UK. Consequently enforcement officers in trading standards and environmental health tend not to refer to them but rather UK and EU laws. Codex standards are seen more as a source of principles and guidance for governments. The main areas that Codex standards would appear to have had any impact, other than at government level, are in hazard analysis and critical control point systems for food manufacturers and processors etc. (although businesses may not be aware that such systems originated with Codex).
The extent of your involvement in Codex policy setting by your country?

Foodaware, to date, has been involved by sending comments on specific policy issues to the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) in advance of Codex meetings. For example, this was done most recently in advance of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling. We have also participated in the FSA’s Codex Consumer Committee on general issues and priority setting concerning Codex. We are not at present on the UK National Codex Consultative Committee (NCCC) – mainly as we are a new organisation with limited resources and our priority is European food standards. However, our members are increasingly interested in Codex and have expressed an interest in having a greater input into Codex standards setting in the future, for example, being on the NCCC in a formal capacity.

Some of our members (Consumers’ Association and the National Consumer Council) are members of Consumers International and input both through CI and also through the NCCC. Others are not members of CI but also input through the NCCC (for example, the trade associations for enforcement officers). However, many of our members, especially those that are entirely volunteer-based (women’s organisations and others), do not have the capacity to contribute, on a regular basis, to the NCCC to date.
The extent to which Codex standards are used by your country and whether you would like to see more or less use of those standards and why?

It is hard to say whether we would like to see more or less use of Codex standards in the UK (or EU) in the future. This depends entirely on whether those standards meet consumer requirements in terms of safety, information, recognition of the precautionary principle and other legitimate factors. Increased consumer input into the decision-making process at national and international levels, greater openness and transparency in how Codex operates, together with real recognition of legitimate consumer concerns to the extent that they are reflected in adopted standards, will determine the future credibility of Codex among consumers and consumer organisations. See also points 3 and 4 above.
Your satisfaction with the institutional mechanism within your country for consultation and policy making on codex and on national food standards?

We understand that the UK National Codex Consultative Committee is generally regarded as a good example for consultation and policy making on Codex. Consumer views are always welcomed and the Food Standards Agency has made considerable efforts to encourage consumer participation in this process.

One of the main problems is that most consumer organisations, especially those that have a significant volunteer base, lack the financial resources to participate fully, if at all, in the process. Specific funding for consumer representation at the national level would help enormously.

The FSA has shown its commitment to increasing consumer involvement in Codex by funding a pilot project whereby a consultant was contracted to facilitate and co-ordinate the consumer input on a selection of Codex policy areas/committees (Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food, the Task Force on Animal Feeding and General Principles). This kind of initiative should be welcomed.

The international nature of Codex means that it may be difficult to ensure that all papers are ready, translated and circulated early enough for adequate consultation at the national level before international meetings and other deadlines. However, the early distribution of draft documents is essential if consumer organisations are to have a reasonable chance to input – especially given that they often need to consult amongst their own membership. Consultative meetings held in advance of Codex meetings are important as are other means of consultation such are inviting written comments. Feedback from international meetings – especially on points raised by consumer groups – are also vital both for general information but also so that consumer organisations can gauge the impact they have had on the process.
Your satisfaction with your opportunities to make your views known within Codex through:

a) your government?

b) any international NGO of which you are a member?

a) National representation:

We believe that there is a continued need for individual governments to have a national voice within Codex. We are concerned about the problem of some governments having very large delegations (including large numbers of industry representatives) while others can only send one or two officials. All delegations should have an equal chance to participate and have their voice heard. We believe consideration should be given to limiting the size of national delegations, which in some cases can be very large and overwhelming in terms of influence.

A mechanism also needs to be developed whereby a better balance within delegations is achieved between the different parties involved in the food chain. For example, the same number of consumer representatives should be present as industry representatives. This would properly reflect Codex’s twofold objectives: protection of consumer health and fair trade practices.

Funding remains an on-going problem for consumer organisations all over the world - limiting their ability to participate fully in Codex at the national and international level. Provision for the funding of consumer representatives in national delegations would improve the situation considerably.

b) Representation through international NGOs:

Foodaware places particular importance on the independence of scientific advice. We would therefore support Consumers International’s call for a public register of scientific experts’ financial interests and links with industry groups. This would improve confidence in the expert committees (JECFA, JMPR and JECM).

We are aware that FAO and WHO have, on occasion, invited CI to put forward experts for particular consultation exercises. This has been welcomed. However, we believe that Codex should also consider appointing consumer representatives to its expert scientific committees. This arrangement has become the norm at the national level in the UK. It has had a positive impact on the work of the relevant committees and by no means undermined their scientific credibility or independence.

We also believe that observers, in particular, Consumers International, should be invited to the Codex Executive Committee.

The above measures would contribute to the openness and transparency in the way Codex operates and would consequently inspire greater consumer confidence in the work of the Codex as a whole.
Your satisfaction with the information available to you on Codex, including its timeliness, the form in which it is made available and the medium of transmission used (hard copy, electronic, etc)

Receiving papers too late for proper consultation amongst consumer organisations and their members is an ongoing problem.

In some cases summaries of key points or lists of specific questions have been included when Codex papers have been distributed at the national level. This is a useful practice – making the papers more accessible to a wider range of organisations and which may have particular areas of concern they wish to raise.

The system whereby papers and reports are distributed electronically and are available on the central Codex website and on government websites has improved communications considerably. Similarly, being able to submit comments electronically is helpful. Online discussions could be helpful on occasions – particularly when a rapid input is needed.

However, many small public interest groups do not have the access and skills available to depend entirely on new technologies. Therefore information should also be distributed through other means and hard copies of documents should always be readily available for those who want them.

Foodaware
July 2002