Codex Alimentarius Commission

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), headquartered in Rome, Italy, is an intergovernmental, United Nations (UN) based organization that establishes international food standards to protect consumers’ health and facilitate world trade. Codex was created in 1962 by two UN organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).[16] At its inception, Codex set identity standards, or descriptive standards, that were designed to facilitate trade. For example, Codex created a set of descriptive standards for products such as “olive oil” so that buyers from around the world would know that “olive oil” is made only from olives, should be clear and free from contaminates, and may range in color from light yellow to dark green. 

Codex standards have taken on new significance since Codex was identified in the SPS Agreement as the international body charged with harmonizing food safety standards. Now the WTO looks to Codex standards when settling trade disputes.[17] Codex describes its significance by stating that its “standards have become an integral part of the legal framework. . . . Already, they have been used as the benchmark in international trade disputes, and it is expected that they will be used increasingly in this regard.”[18]  

Codex is organized by committees. Commodity committees work on all topics related to a particular food grouping. Horizontal committees work on issues that apply across all commodity committees. The Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products (CCMP), for example, is a commodity committee that creates standards, regulations and guidelines for all internationally traded dairy products. The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) is a horizontal committee that drafts hygiene standards, regulations, and guidelines that can apply to all standards drafted by the CCMP. 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) meets every two years and is responsible for adopting standards. The CAC prefers to adopt standards on the basis of consensus, but is not required to do so.[19] Proposed standards must go through a formal eight-step process before they can be adopted by the full Commission. Standards proposals originate from Codex member countries and progress through a committee composed of government delegates from member countries. Committees meet annually.

Codex Procedure for Adopting Standards

*Not a formal Codex step, but de facto event as a result of the Uruguay Round Agreement.[20]

U.S. Codex Involvement

The United States’ Codex delegation keeps its office in Washington, D.C. The delegation is comprised of individuals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). U.S. industry input comes directly from non-governmental organizations that participate as observers in Codex meetings or lobby the delegates. Some U.S. consumer groups are also granted observer status in CAC meetings.

In 1999, Thomas J. Billy, USDA Administrator for the Food Safety and Inspection Service was elected to a two-year term as chair of the CAC.[21] He will hold the position through June 2001 and will oversee the adoption of new Codex standards at the 24^th Session of the CAC. In addition to holding the CAC Chair, the United States chairs four Codex committees: Food Hygiene; Cereals, Pulses and Legumes; Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods; and Processed Fruits and Vegetables.[22]

Codex Dairy Hygiene Standards

Two Codex Committees have played key roles in establishing international hygiene standards for dairy products, the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products (CCMP) and the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH).  

• Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products.  The CCMP was integrated into the Codex system in 1993. It replaced the joint FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles concerning Milk and Milk Products, which had existed since 1958. The CCMP is mandated to draft positions on all issues related to milk and milk products. However, the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene must approve all elaborations, clarifications, and new hygiene standards developed by the CCMP.

• Codex Committee on Food Hygiene. The CCFH is a horizontal committee that prepares or approves all Codex hygiene provisions. Food hygiene is defined as "all conditions and measures necessary to ensure the safety and suitability of food at all stages of the food chain."[23] Among other projects, the CCFH is working on the Milk Code. It hopes to have standards adopted by the CAC in 2001 or 2003. After 15 years of negotiation, the CCFH now has a draft framework document and is currently negotiating general principles and details for the Code.

Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products

In 1985, the former FAO/WHO Committee of Government Experts on the Code of Principles Concerning Milk and Milk Products (now the CCMP) began work on a Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Manufacture of Unripened Cheeses and Ripened Soft Cheese (Soft Cheese Code). Work on the Soft Cheese Code stalled for over 10 years due to countries’ differing views on the acceptable level of public health risk associated with raw milk cheese. 

• U.S. Position. The U.S. maintains that scientific evidence demonstrates that raw milk and raw milk products are “potentially hazardous foods,” or foods that support rapid growth of infectious or toxigenic microorganisms such as Listeria monocytogenes, salmonella, e.coli, and others, and that they pose significant public health threats.[24] Cheese poses a particularly high health risk because it is usually a ready-to-eat (RTE) product and will not be cooked before consumption. Cooking is one of the primary means of killing dangerous bacteria and eliminating consumer risk. The United States further notes that scientifically accepted production processes control the threat posed by raw milk and raw milk products. These processes “can include but are not limited to:

• pasteurization of milk,

• heat treatment of milk,

• sterilization of milk,

• aging of cheese, and

• new technologies not yet developed.”[25]

The U.S. position is reflected in U.S. law, which requires pasteurization or equivalent processing for all raw milk products.[26]

• The European Commission’s Position (lead by France includes Italy, Switzerland and Denmark).  The European Commission’s (EC’s) position is that consumer safety is protected when strict veterinary and sanitary practices are followed from production to consumption for ready-to-eat raw milk dairy products including cheese. These sanitary practices include:

• using raw milk from herds that are in good health and that have regular veterinary inspections and are subject to regular sanitary controls;

• using milk that is collected, transported, stocked and transformed within a short period of time while applying strict hygienic rules; and

• educating consumers about proper storage conditions and shelf life of end products.[27]

The French Delegation maintains that these common hygiene provisions provide adequate health protection without mandatory pasteurization.[28] Their position is reflected in EU law.[29]

The differences between the U.S. and the European positions stem from different cultural views regarding food safety. Generally, the European system of food regulations supports traditional production practices. “Regulators and consumers believe that these practices and the foods they produce are safe, and importantly for most European consumers, close to nature and naturalness.”[30] Raw milk cheese and traditional cured meats “are prized by European consumers and permitted by regional and national regulations, which accord some of these products geographical indications. Their safety is assumed, based on centuries of experience rather than on laboratory science.”[31] Americans on the other hand, often view traditional methods of production as unsafe. “These views are reflected in the regulatory structure, which relies on scientific views and provides a climate that encourages new food technologies while exhibiting skepticism about the safety of some foods produced according to traditional practices.”[32]  

While the U.S. and EC have not changed their basic positions, Codex work on saftey standards for soft cheeses resumed when, at the CCFH’s 29^th Session in 1996, the United States proposed that the CCFH work on a broader Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products. The United States was given the role of lead drafting country and was assigned the task of preparing a discussion paper and a draft outline of the Milk Code for presentation at the next CCFH session. France and the International Dairy Federation (IDF) [33] were assigned to assist the United States in this effort (Codex Step 1).  

During the 30^th Session in 1997, the CCFH considered the draft outline prepared by the United States, France and the IDF and agreed to the development of a Milk Code. The CCFH assigned the task of elaborating the Code to a drafting group that included the United States (lead country), Argentina, Australia, France, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and the IDF. During this session, the Committee also agreed to stop work on the Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for the Manufacture of Unripened Cheeses and Ripened Soft Cheese with the understanding that these products would be included in the comprehensive Milk Code.  

At this same meeting, the CCFH was asked to review seven hygiene provisions for dairy-product commodity standards that had been drafted by the CCMP. According to Codex procedure, any hygiene provisions that are part of any Codex standards, recommendations, or guidelines must be approved by the CCFH. The CCMP standards submitted to the CCFH for endorsement included no provisions requiring pasteurization. At the instance of the U.S. delegates on the CCFH, an eighth standard was proposed for consideration that read, “Pasteurization, or an equivalent measure approved by the official agency having jurisdiction, shall be used in order to achieve the appropriate level of public health protection.”[34]  

France, Switzerland, Italy and Denmark strongly opposed the U.S. proposed provision. However, Canada, Japan, Thailand, New Zealand, and Australia supported it. After intense discussions, the CCFH did not include the eighth standard, but neither did it endorse the other seven standards. When the CCFH forwarded the dairy commodity standards to the CAC for approval, both the United States and France submitted written reservations. In its reservation, the United States stated that “the public health benefits that pasteurization provides had been scientifically established, internationally recognized, and were irrefutable.” The French reservations stated that, “common hygiene provisions provide adequate health protection without pasteurization.”[35] The CAC noted the U.S. and French reservations and adopted the dairy commodity standards, without specific pasteurization requirements, during its 22^nd Session in July 1999.  

While this issue—the issue that had stalled work on the Soft Cheese Code for 10 years—was not directly related to the Milk Code drafting process, it highlighted national differences in public health protection related to raw milk products. It was a reminder to the drafting group of the difficult work that lay before them.  

Between the 30^th and 31^st Sessions of the CCFH, the United States and the other drafting countries proceeded to elaborate the standards in the draft Milk Code (Codex Step 2). At the 31^st Session in 1998, the United States, on behalf of its drafting partners, presented the Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products with no language addressing pasteurization, and the proposal was opened for member country comments (Codex Step 3). One of the primary areas of discussion concerned the placement of provisions for raw milk products. Members from France, Italy, Switzerland, and Denmark and many former French colonies[36] strongly opposed requiring pasteurization or equivalent measures. The United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Thailand, Brazil, and other nations supported requiring pasteurization or equivalent measures due to the significant public health protection such measures provide.  

The CCFH recognized that several issues would need to be resolved before it would be able to reach consensus on the Milk Code. CCFH delegates agreed that the drafting group should first identify from official country comments any outstanding issues and then revise the Milk Code for presentation at the 32^nd Session of the CCFH on October 25-29, 1999.

The drafting group identified six major areas that needed further discussion:

1. The use of annexes to describe control measure details.

2. Provisions for raw milk products.

3. The prescriptive nature of the primary production section.

4. Provisions for the validation of control measures.

5. Expansion of scope to include suitability.

6. Shelf-life issues.

Instead of trying to redraft the code, the drafting group held an interim working group meeting in March 1999 in order to try to reach consensus on these issues.[37] The meeting achieved a significant breakthrough when delegates agreed that they should draft overarching general principles that would be elaborated in annexes. The annexes could provide detail to explain and illustrate how the principles may be met in practice. They included a sample of a general provision that read: “Depending on the end use of milk, further processing steps, shelf-life, etc., hazard levels should be kept low enough so as not to result in an unacceptable risk to the consumer.” They explained further that this principle could be elaborated in an annex to explain how it should be met in practice.  

The United States incorporated the interim session agreements into a framework document, which it presented at the 32^nd Session of the CCFH.[38]

Current Status of the Milk Code

During its 32^nd Session ending December 4, 1999, the CCFH endorsed the basic framework of the Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products and assigned the drafting group the task of creating general principles and incorporating appropriate details in annexes.[39] They also agreed to the U.S. proposal to move the Code from Step 4 back to Step 3 in the Codex procedure for elaborating standards. This sent the new framework agreement back to member governments for comment, but the drafting group has concurrently begun the technical work of drafting general principles and technical standards. The CCFH will meet in October 2000 to review progress, revise the draft, and plan future work.[40]

Footnotes

continue to next page