· web viewifac will support the use of “stabilizers, thickeners” and for xanthan gum and...

International Food Additives Council Positions

49th CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOOD ADDITIVES

Conrad Macao, Cotai Central

Macao SAR, China, 20-24 March 2017

Working Group on the Codex General Standard for Food Additives

Friday & Saturday, 17-18 March 2017from 09:00 to 18:00 hours

Background: The General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA) physical working group (pWG) will cover agenda items 5(a)-5(c). IFAC will attend and actively participate in the GSFA pWG.

IFAC POSITION: IFAC’s positions are listed in detail under the corresponding agenda items listed below.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

1

Adoption of the Agenda

CX/FA 17/49/1

Background: We anticipate the establishment of in session physical working groups (pWGs) to meet in the morning prior to the plenary (INS (Tuesday)), and over lunch (Endorsement and Alignment of Food Additive Provisions in Commodity Standards (Monday), and JECFA Priorities (Tuesday)).

IFAC POSITION: There is no need for any intervention by IFAC. IFAC will attend all pWGs and carry positions noted for agenda items below forward during those pWGs.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

2

Matters Referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and Other Subsidiary Bodies

CX/FA 17/49/2

Background: The majority of the information contained in the stroke two document do not require action from CCFA. However action is required on matters of interest to IFAC referred by the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables (CCPFV). IFAC has a history of supporting these provisions at past CCFA and CCPFV meetings.

IFAC POSITION: IFAC will support the use of “stabilizers, thickeners” and for xanthan gum and gellan gum specifically in food categories “14.1.2” Fruit and Vegetable Juices” and 14.1.3 “Fruit and Vegetable Nectars. We will also prepare a conference room document (CRD) providing technical justification for these materials in these applications. We anticipate the U.S. and several other country delegations will support this position, but there will be opposition from the International Fruit Juice Union (IFU) and some European Countries.

We have also been advised by the U.S. that it is likely these provisions will not be adopted this year, but will be referred to the GSFA electronic working group (eWG) for consideration next year. Working with the US delegation, we will assess whether there are any opportunities to push for adoption of these provisions this year. If such opportunities exist, IFAC will support adoption of these provisions.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

3(a)

Matters of Interest Arising from FAO/WHO and from the 82nd Meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)

CX/FA 17/49/3

Background: The full report of the 82nd JECFA meeting is available here. The toxicological monographs for the meeting (WHO Food additive Series) are not currently available. A variety of information is provided for information. However, JECFA has provided a list of recommended actions for CCFA, which CCFA must agree to and endorse.

INS Number

Food Additive Name

ADI or Tox Recommendation

Recommended Action by CCFA

IFAC Position

129

Allura Red AC

The 82nd JECFA concluded that the new data do not give reason to revise the ADI and confirmed the ADI of 0–7 mg/kg body weight (bw).

The 82nd JECFA noted that the range of estimated dietary exposures to Allura Red AC for children based on reported or industry use data were below the upper bound of the ADI and concluded that dietary exposure to Allura Red AC for children and all other age groups does not present a health concern.

Note the JECFA conclusion on an ADI of 0–7 mg/kg body weight (bw) for the Allura Red AC, which does not present a health concern for children and all other age groups.

No action is anticipated to be necessary. However, this may be one of the materials for which a proposal for the GSFA pWG to review colors is raised. IFAC will support this proposal understanding the impact the delays in addressing color provisions are having on color manufacturers.

410

Carob bean gum

The 82nd JECFA concluded that the available studies are not sufficient for the evaluation of carob bean gum for use in infant formula at the proposed use level. The 82nd JECFA requests toxicological data from studies in neonatal animals, adequate to evaluate the safety for use in infant formula, to complete the evaluation. Data are requested by end of 2017.

Note the JECFA request for additional toxicological data to complete the evaluation.

IFAC will not take a position unless a member company advises that data is available.

423

Octenyl succinic acid (OSA)-modified gum arabic

The 82nd JECFA removed the temporary designation and established an ADI “not specified” for OSA-modified gum arabic.

The 82nd JECFA confirmed the validity of the dietary exposure estimate for risk assessment purposes set at a previous meeting.

Note the JECFA conclusion on an ADI “not specified” for OSA-modified gum arabic.

Consider to

- Include OSA–modified gum arabic (INS 423) in Table 3 of GSFA and circulate for comments at Step 3;

- Request for comments/proposals on uses and use levels of OSA–modified gum arabic (INS 423) for the food categories listed in the Annex to Table 3

IFAC will support the US position to add this material to Table 3 of the GSFA.

440

Pectin

The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) in a previously evaluated neonatal pig study was recalculated to be 1049 mg/kg bw per day using measured concentrations of pectin in milk replacer rather than target concentrations.

At the new maximum proposed use level of 0.2%, the estimated exposure of infants 0–12 weeks of age would be up to 360 and 440 mg/kg bw per day at mean and high consumption. The margins of exposure for average and high consumers are 2.9 and 2.4, respectively, when compared with the NOAEL of 1049 mg/kg bw per day.

On the basis of a number of considerations, the 82nd JECFA concluded that the margins of exposure calculated for the use of pectin at 0.2% in infant formula indicate low risk for the health of infants and are not of concern.

Note the JECFA conclusion on the margins of exposure calculated for the use of pectin at 0.2% in infant formula indicate low risk for the health of infants and are not of concern.

Refer the result of JECFA evaluation to CCNFSDU for consideration of the inclusion of pectin in relevant standards.

IFAC will support the U.S. position to refer to the provision to CCNFSDU for inclusion in appropriate standards.

104

Quinoline Yellow

The 82nd JECFA concluded that it was reasonable to use toxicology data on D&C Yellow No. 10 to support the database for Quinoline Yellow. The 82nd JECFA established an ADI of 0–3 mg/kg bw (rounded value) for Quinoline Yellow on the basis of a NOAEL of 250 mg/kg bw per day for effects on body weight and organ weights in two long-term studies in rats on D&C Yellow No. 10. An uncertainty factor of 100 was applied to account for interspecies and intraspecies variability.

The 82nd JECFA concluded that dietary exposure to Quinoline Yellow for children and all other age groups does not present a health concern.

Note the JECFA conclusion on an ADI of 0–3 mg/kg bw (rounded value) for Quinoline Yellow, which does not present a health concern for children and all other age groups.

Consider to - Request for comments/ proposals on uses and use levels of quinolone yellow for inclusion in table 1 and 2 of the GSFA.

IFAC will support the International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM) in their request that the GSFA eWG address provisions for Quinoline Yellow as soon as possible based on technical justification. Like with Allura Red AC, we will support this proposal understanding the impact the delays in addressing color provisions are having on color manufacturers.

415

Xanthan gum

A NOAEL of 750 mg/kg bw per day was established for xanthan gum in neonatal pigs, which are an appropriate animal model for the assessment of the safety of the additive for infants. The margin of exposure based on this NOAEL and the conservative estimate of xanthan gum intake of 220 mg/kg bw per day by infants (high energy requirements for fully formula-fed infants) is 3.4.

On the basis of a number of considerations, the 82nd JECFA concluded that the consumption of xanthan gum in infant formula or formula for special medical purposes intended for infants is of no safety concern at the maximum proposed use level of 1000 mg/L.

Note the JECFA conclusion on the consumption of xanthan gum in infant formula or formula for special medical purposes intended for infants is of no safety concern at the maximum proposed use level of 1000 mg/L.

Refer the result of JECFA evaluation to CCNFSDU for consideration of the inclusion of xantham gum in relevant standards.

IFAC will support the U.S. position to refer to the provision to CCNFSDU for inclusion in appropriate standards.

427

Cassia gum

The 82nd JECFA noted that cassia gum can be obtained from a number of companies and requested information on validated methods of analysis currently in use by providers of cassia gum. The methods submitted should contain details of the use of standard (reference) materials, the extraction efficiency of the initial steps, the recovery of the analytes in question, performance data and the results of the analysis of several batches of the material in commerce.

The tentative specifications will be withdrawn unless the requested information is submitted before 31 December 2017.

Note the JECFA request for information to revise the tentative specifications.

IFAC will not take a position unless a member company advises that data is available.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

3(b)

Proposed draft Specifications for Identity and Purity of Food Additives arising from the 82nd JECFA Meeting

· Comments at Step 3

CX/FA 17/49/4

CX/FA 17/49/4rev1

CX/FA 17/49/4 Add.1

Background:

A total of 15 specifications were designated as “Full” by the 82nd JECFA for adoption by Codex

· Allura Red AC (INS No. 129) (Revised Spec)

· Acetylated oxidized starch (INS No. 1451) (Revised Spec)

· Aspartame (INS No. 951) (Revised Spec)

· Carob bean gum (INS No. 410) (Revised Spec)

· Citric and fatty acid esters of glycerol (INS No. 472c) (Revised Spec)

· Lutein esters from Tagetes erecta (Revised Spec)

· Octanoic acid (Revised Spec)

· Octenyl succinic acid (OSA)–modified gum Arabic (INS No. 423) (Revised Spec)

· Oxidized starch (INS No. 1404) (Revised Spec)

· Pectins (INS No. 440) (Revised Spec)

· Quinolone Yellow (INS No. 104) (New Spec)

· Rebaudioside A from multiple gene donors expressed in Yarrowia lipolytica (New Spec)

· Starch acetate (INS No. 1420) (Revised Spec)

· Tartrazine (INS No. 102) (Revised Spec)

· Xanthan gum (INS No. 415) (Revised Spec)

IFAC POSITION: IFAC does not object to the adoption of the specifications for xanthan gum, pectin, allura red AC quinolone yellow and Carob bean gum. However, we will support a position that will advanced by the International Special Dietary Foods Industries association (ISDI) for those specification changes for infant formula specific specifications that more specific/restrictive specifications for all permitted infant formula additives is not appropriate and redundant because current Codex risk management rules are already set on the finished infant formula, based on the opinions of the Codex risk assessors (e.g. JECFA) and risk managers (CCCF, which maintains the Codex Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed, CX STAN 193-1995). Not knowing whether the Committee will accept this approach, we do not intend to oppose the adoption of the specifications noted above for infant formula if the Committee intends to proceed with them.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

4(a)

Endorsement and/or Revision of Maximum Levels for Food Additives and Processing Aids in Codex Standards

CX/FA 17/49/5

IFAC POSITION: There is no need for any intervention by IFAC. The majority of information provided under this agenda item is for information only.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

4(b)

Alignment of the Food Additive Provisions of Commodity Standards: Report of the eWG on Alignment

CX/FA 17/49/6

Background: The 2016 Alignment eWG completed the work for the following tasks: Considered the application of the decision tree to the standards related to frozen fish and fish products including the Standards for Quick Frozen Finfish, Uneviscerated and Eviscerated (CODEX STAN 36-1981); Quick Frozen Shrimps or Prawns (CODEX STAN 92-1981); Quick Frozen Lobsters (CODEX STAN 95-1981); Quick Frozen Blocks of Fish Fillet, Minced Fish Flesh and Mixtures of Fillets and Minced Fish Flesh (CODEX STAN 165-1989); Quick Frozen Fish Sticks (Fish Fingers), Fish portions and Fish Fillets-Breaded and in Batter (CODEX STAN 166-1989); Quick Frozen Fish Fillets (CODEX STAN 190-1995); Quick Frozen Raw Squid (CODEX STAN 191-1995); Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs (CODEX STAN 292-2008); Live Abalone and for Raw Fresh Chilled or Frozen Abalone for Direct Consumption or for Further Processing (CODEX STAN 312-2014); and Fresh and Quick Frozen Raw Scallop Products (CODEX STAN 315-2014). The alignment eWG also completed work on alignment of the provisions for ethylene diamine tetra acetates (INS 385, 386) in the Standard for Canned Shrimps or Prawns (CODEX STAN 37-1991).

The eWG was not able to complete work as tasked by the 48th CCFA on food additive provisions of the GSFA that, according to the Codex Committee on Process Fruits and Vegetables (CCPFV), are not technologically justified in specific food categories covered by the Standards for Certain Canned Citrus Fruits (CODEX STAN 254-2007), for Preserved Tomatoes (CODEX STAN13-1981), for Processed Tomato Concentrates (CODEX STAN 57-1981) and for Table Olives (CODEX STAN 66-1981). The eWG also failed to complete work on the alignment of the provisions for ethylene diamine tetra acetates (INS 385, 386) in the Standard for Canned Shrimps or Prawns (CODEX STAN 37-1991) as requested by 34th Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP).

IFAC POSITIONS ON APPENDIX 1

IFAC can, in general, support the proposals provided by the Chair in the Stroke six document for Items 1-21 of Appendix 1 (see page 3 of the Stroke 6 document). Included in those items are the following specific recommendations of potential IFAC interest:

1. Is it reasonable that all the GSFA phosphate permissions in Table 1, and food category 09.2.1 (adopted in 2012) in Table 2 should be permitted for CS 92-1981, CS 95-1981, CS 165-1989 and CS 190-1995, since GSFA provisions were adopted years later than the various Codex Standards? The additional phosphates in the GSFA are 338, 342(i), (ii), 450(vi), (ix).

Chair’s proposal: that for alignment purposes all phosphate provisions in the GSFA should apply to CS 92-1981, CS 95-1981, CS 165-1989 and CS 190-1995 provided that the alignment takes into account the specific functional classes required for alignment with each commodity standard (see further explanation in note 9 below). As a general principle, it is proposed that where a group additive is listed in the GSFA, the alignment should be extended to all additives within the group with the appropriate functional class – see “Working Principles” in Appendix 3. This principle also applies to points 2 and 3, below.Specific IFAC Position: IFAC will strongly support this recommendation. It provides that all phosphates considered under the group ADI for phosphorous would be permitted for use in these standardized products so long as they achieve a permitted technical effect. This is a positive precedent and could provide additional applications for phosphates.

4. It was initially thought that note 37 in the GSFA needed to be amended to make it explicit that the provision relates only to minced fish flesh, due to alignment with CS 165-1989. This has also been addressed in the USA report dealing with CS 166-1989 (e.g. new note 61). However it was later realized that the current note 37 is appropriate for the alignment of the sodium alginate provision in CS 165-1989, since it relates to the all products conforming to the standard and not limited to minced fish flesh. Therefore, note 37 cannot be replaced by a new note 37. The earlier “new note 37” in the 1st circular needs to be replaced with a different new note number (now called BB).

Japan made a comment on the 2nd circular that note 37 should be removed from the entry for sodium alginate in food category 09.2.1 since CS 190-1995 also has provisions for sodium alginate, not just CS 165-1989. Removing the note would reduce confusion.

Chair’s proposal: Note 37 has been removed from the entry for sodium alginate in food category 09.2.1. A new note has been written which was earlier called “new note 37” but now called BB.

Specific IFAC Position: IFAC will support this recommendation. Note BB states “For non-standardized food and for minced fish flesh only in products conforming to the Standard for Quick Frozen Blocks of Fish Fillets, Minced Fish Flesh and Mixtures of Fillets and Minced Fish Flesh (CODEX STAN 165-1989).” We believe this note is suitable and reflects earlier positions IFAC has taken on the use of alginates in minced fish.

9. The phosphate alignment provisions added for food category 09.2.1 due to CS 315-2014 have needed to be fully listed out when they have the functional class of humectant or sequestrant as per the Standard (new note CC). The phosphate provisions due to CS 92-1981, CS 95-1981 and CS 165- 1989 have needed to be listed when they have the functional class of humectant (new note DD). The reason they have needed to be individually listed is that not all the phosphates listed in the GSFA have the functional class of humectant or sequestrant, which are the classes listed in the Codex Standards.

New Zealand asked whether the EWG can consider if all phosphates have the function of humectant and sequestrant, since this would simplify notes CC and DD. This may be outside the remit of the alignment EWG, but is it something that could be considered by the GSFA EWG?

Chair’s proposal: Changes made for the reason given above

Specific IFAC Position: IFAC will support this recommendation for the reasons noted under recommendation 1 above. Members have advised that not all phosphates listed under the group ADI for phosphorus can serve as humectants or sequestrants, so IFAC will support the proposed separate notes.

10. The Thailand submission noted that phosphoric acid (INS 338) has the functional classes of acidity regulator, antioxidant and sequestrant (in Table 1 of the GSFA). All phosphates (including 338) have provisions in food category 09.2.1. CS 292-2008 permits any antioxidant listed in food category 09.2.1 to be permitted for any raw frozen molluscs. The question raised is does phosphoric acid (338) require its own provision as an antioxidant for raw frozen molluscs since it can have the function of an antioxidant or when it is listed with the other phosphates in food category 09.2.1 it is performing as a different functional class, such as acidity regulator or sequestrant?

Chair’s proposal: Because the provisions of phosphoric acid are part of the phosphates group in food category 09.2.1 it is not deemed appropriate to consider it separately as an antioxidant when the other phosphates are not. Therefore the note BB is not appropriate to replace the current XS292 provided for phosphates.

Specific IFAC Position: IFAC will support this recommendation unless otherwise advised. It provides for the use of phosphoric acid in these products without restricting the use of other phosphates.

13. Several comments were received indicating that the text for “New Note 299” for the phosphates provision in food category 09.2.2 as a result of alignment with CS 166-1989 was too long and difficult to read. Suggestions were made that only the INS numbers be retained in the revised note, and that the use level and functional effect be placed ahead of the list of phosphates. A revised note based on these suggestions is as follows:

New Note 299: “For use in non-standardized food; and for use at 400 mg/kg as phosphorous singly or in combination in breaded or batter coating in accordance with in products conforming to the standard for Quick Frozen Fish Sticks (Fish Fingers), Fish Portions and Fish Fillets - Breaded or in Batter (CODEX STAN 166-1989) as follows: the following phosphates for use as humectants at 2200 mg/kg as phosphorous, INS 339(i), 339(ii), 339(iii), 340(i), 340(ii), 340(iii), 341(i), 341(ii), 341(iii), 450(i), 450(ii), 450(iii), 450(v), 450(vii), 451(i), 451(ii), 452(i), 452(ii), 452(iii), 452(iv), 452(v), and 542; and the following phosphates for use as raising agents in bread and batter coatings only at 440 mg/kg as phosphorous, INS 339(i), 340(iii), 341(i), 341(ii), 341(iii), 450(i), 450(ii), 450(iii), 450(v), 450(vi), 450(vii), 450(ix), 452(i), 452(ii), 452(iii) and 452(iv).”

Chair’s proposal: Incorporate the suggested revisions to New Note 299. Also revise other long notes pertaining to phosphates in the GSFA in a similar manner (e.g. Note DD and Note EE resulting from alignment with CS 165-1989).

Specific IFAC Position: IFAC will support this recommendation unless otherwise advised. It is consistent with existing adopted GSFA provisions for these products and the usage level of 400 mg/kg as phosphorous established for these products and is a clerical exercise.

19. Section J (proposed amendments to CS 315-2014) in Appendix 2. Japan noted in the 2016 amendment of CS 315-2014 that phosphates (in section 4.2 of the Standard) can be used as acidity regulators, humectants, sequestrants and stabilizers, so these functional classes need to be added into the amendment. This amendment came from REP 16/FFP para. 51 which stated that “The Committee agreed to: (i) inform CCFA that the phosphates INS 342(i) and (ii), and INS 343(i)-(iii) in the Standard for Fresh and Quick Frozen Raw Scallop Products (CODEX STAN 315-2014) act as acidity regulators and stabilizers; and (ii) to modify the Standard to reflect these additional functional classes.

Chair’s proposal: Make the changes as proposed to include acidity regulator and stabilizer in alphabetical order in section J of Appendix 2 as CS 315-2014 has the functional classes for the phosphate provisions as Humectant/Sequestrant/Acidity regulator/Stabilizer.

Specific IFAC Position: IFAC will support this recommendation unless otherwise advised. It appears to recognize the additional functions these phosphates provide in these commoditized foods.


The proposed changes presented in Appendix 2 are consistent with the proposals listed in Appendix 1, so IFAC is generally supportive. For reference, we have listed the standards below. Please not, some of the changes impact phosphates and gums. We have listed the standards below so that members may review the stroke 6 document if you have an interest in any of the commoditized products.

a. Standard for Quick Frozen Fin-Fish, Uneviscerated and Eviscerated (CODEX STAN 36-1981) IFAC can support the proposed amendments

b. Standard for Quick Frozen Shrimps or Prawns (CODEX STAN 92-1981)

IFAC can support the proposed amendments

c. Standard for Quick Frozen Lobsters (CODEX STAN 95-1981)


d. Standard for Quick Frozen Blocks of Fish Filets (CODEX STAN 165-1989)


e. Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Sticks (Fish Fingers), Fish Portions and Fish Fillets – Breaded and in Batter (CODEX STAN 166-1989)


f. Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Fillet (CODEX STAN 190-1995)


g. Standard for Quick Frozen Raw Squid (CODEX STAN 191-1995)


h. Standard for Raw and Bivalve Molluscs (CODEX STAN 292-2008)


i. Standard for Live Abalone and Raw Fresh Chilled or Frozen Abalone for Direct Consumption or for Further Processing (CODEX STAN 312-2014)


j. Standard for Fresh and Quick Frozen Raw Scallop Products (CODEX STAN 315-2014)



IFAC can support the US position that the Working Principles outlined at the beginning of Appendix 3 that were used to carry out the alignment process are suitable.

IFAC also supports the changes made to Tables 1 and 2 of the GSFA to align the 10 commodity standards related to frozen fish products pertaining to food categories, which are consistent with the provisions noted above:

· Food Category 09.1 (Fresh fish and fish products, including mollusks, crustaceons, and echinoderms)

· Food Category 09.1.2 (Fresh mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms)

· Food Category 09.2 (Processed fish and fish products, including mollusks, crustaceans and echinoderms)

· Food Category 09.2.1 (Frozen fish, fish fillets, and fish products including mollusks, crustaceans and echinoderms)

· Food Category 09.2.2 (Frozen battered fish, fish fillets and fish products, including mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms)


Given the food additive provisions listed in Appendix 4, staff does not believe that any IFAC interventions are necessary at this time.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

Codex General Standard on Food Additives (GSFA)

5(a)

CCFA48 Outstanding Provisions; Provisions for Benzoates in FC 14.1.4; Provisions in FC 5.0 and 5.1; Provisions Associated with Note 22; Provisions in FC 01.1, 01.1.1, 01.1.3 and 01.1.4 (Report of the eWG on the GSFA)

CX/FA 17/49/7

Background: This agenda item covers all matters that were reviewed by the GSFA eWG, including several provisions of interest to IFAC. As above, IFAC positions will be presented by appendix.


Following are those food additive provisions that IFAC plans to support.

Food Category

Additive

eWG proposal

IFAC Position

Other Notes

01.4 (Cream (plain) and the like)

Nisin

Proposed for removal at the past CCFA and move to subcategory 01.1.4, but the eWG has suggested that the issue be discussed further.

Does not support moving nisin to subcategory 01.4.4. Codex Stan 288- 1976 is out of date and should be updated. Request that CCFA solicit feedback on whether other CCFA members believe the standard needs to be updated.

Disallowing a technically justified additive in this food category simply because of an outdated standard is not acceptable. We appreciate that some eWG members believe the need for additives in plain creams is limited, but following is the technical justification. – IFAC understands nisin is currently used in products in international trade conforming to this standard. Products in this food category are heat labile and typically only pasteurized.

Spores of thermophilic bacteria commonly found in milk (e.g. Bacillus cereus, Bacillus spp.) generally survive pasteurization. Disruptions in cold chain can lead to microbial outgrowth resulting in product spoilage and food wastage. Studies show nisin inhibits thermophilic bacterial spore outgrowth and thereby helps to extend product shelf life and to ensure food safety.

It is possible that this provision will be held pending review by an electronic working group to update Codex Stan 288-1976, as it is likely that this would be the only way to advance the provision.

01.4.1 (Pasteurized cream (plain))

Nisin

Discuss further. Define what “fresh thickened cream” is

The issue noted above regarding Codex Stan 288- 1976 applies here too. Same technical justification.

IFAC can accept a provision for Nisin here (versus on the parent category 1.4) with a note limiting it to fresh thickened cream as requested by New Zealand. This is dependent on whether CCFA feels that it can make this decision on the fly, which would impact Codex Stan 288 1976. It appears more likely that this issue will require further review.

01.4.2 (Sterilized and UHT creams, whipping and whipped creams, and reduced fat creams (plain))

Nisin

Discuss further. Define what “fresh thickened cream” is

The issue noted above regarding Codex Stan 288- 1976 applies here too. Same technical justification

Again, we may be able to accept a provision for Nisin here, but this will likely require further review/discussion of Codex Stan 288-1976.

01.6.4 (Processed cheese)

Nisin

Adopt

Supports adoption. Currently used in FC 01.6.4 products in international trade. Studies show that nisin @ 2.5-6.25 mg/kg can help control Clostridial spore outgrowth and spoilage in various processed emmental and cheddar cheeses and @ 2.5-12.5 mg/kg can reduce Bacillus spp. spores counts in pasteurized processed cheese. Nisin (@12.5- 250 mg/kg) also used to control Clostridium botulinum growth in pasteurized processed cheese spreads. (Use at 250 mg/kg is country specific and for lower sodium and higher moisture processed cheese spreads.) IFAC notes that several member states have supported this provision, and the only opposition appears to be based on antimicrobial concerns, which are not relevant here per JECFA.

We do not anticipate this provision will be controversial.

05.1.5 (Imitation chocolate, chocolate substitute products)

Sorbitan Esters Of Fatty Acids

Adopt at 10,000

mg/kg

Supports proposal. Sorbitan esters are commonly used in imitation chocolate. Sorbitan esters stabilize the crystal form of the fat thus retarding blooming (grey chocolate) and ensuring the right mouth feel.

Has the effect of prolonged shelf life at varying temperatures. Ensures a homogenous product Typical use level: 3.000- max: 10.000 mg/kg

05.2.2 (Soft candy)


Adopt at 5,000 mg/kg

Used to support the whipping of sugar-based and cocoa-based soft candies. These additives are used at levels between 1,000 to 5,000 mg/kg

. 05.2.3 (Nougats and marzipans)


Adopt at 10,000 mg/kg

Used to prevent fat crystallization in cocoa-based candy products. These additives are used at levels between 3,000 and 10,000 mg/kg

07.1.1.1 (Yeast-leavened breads and specialty breads)

Stearoyl Lactylates

Adopt at 5000 mg/kg

The technological purpose is as an emulsifier. The two major functions of emulsifiers in bread making are dough conditioning or strengthening and shelf life extension or crumb softening. Emulsifiers are not added directly to breads (they are contained within the bread improvers purchased and as such the amounts are proprietary to the supplier

IFAC POSITIONS ON APPENDIX 2-4

Given the food additive provisions listed in Appendix 2-4, staff does not believe that there is a need for any interventions by IFAC.


Food Category

Additive

eWG proposal

IFAC Position

Other Notes

Food Category No. 01.1.1 (Fluid milk (plain))

Carrageenan

Adopt; with Note 227

Supports Proposal; Carrageenan is an important component of UHT plain milks due to its heat stability and unique interaction with casein protein in the milk which results in the formation of structures which reduce problems with age gelation. This renders the UHT product stable despite high heat treatment

It is likely that the issue of the use of these products in UHT will be a point of specific discussion.

Gellan gum


Supports; Like carrageenan, gellan can be used in in UHT plain milks due to its heat stability by formation of structures which reduce problems with age gelation. This renders the UHT product stable despite high heat treatment. We would not object to the inclusion of Note 227

Mono- And Diglycerides Of Fatty Acids


Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids can be used as an emulsifier/anti-fouling agent by reducing surface tension of the milk, which prevents fouling layer build-up and then allows for longer run-times of equipment. (Note 227 should be added. ML=1000 mg/kg)

Phosphates


Supports Proposal; Phosphates are important components of UHT plain milks due to their ability to stabilize proteins and prevent phase separation after the milk, particularly milks with higher fat content, are exposed to high heat. Annual, cyclic variations in protein and vitamin balance of milk can affect heat stability of milk. The use of phosphates can help compensate for these variations, while also ensuring a consistent product. We support the inclusion of Note 227. We have consulted our members and been advised that the maximum usage level need to achieve this technical functionality is 1500 mg/kg. IFAC notes this provision was adopted at a usage level of 1500 mg/kg recently (2012). Given the technical justification for this usage level, we recommend it be maintained with the appropriate notes

Polydextroses

Adopt

Supports Proposal; As noted in the first circular, polydextrose adds body to low/reduced fat milks, contributing to mouthfeel and the perception of creaminess, thereby increasing organoleptic acceptability to consumers. As consumers continue to look for ways to reduce caloric intake, tools like polydextroses allow manufacturers to provide acceptable products with fewer calories, including low and no fat milks.

Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose (Cellulose Gum)


Supports Proposal. Like other gums, cellulose gum can be used in in UHT plain milks due to its heat stability. This renders the UHT product stable (prevents separation) despite high temperatures. We would not object to the inclusion of Note 227.

01.1.3 (Fluid buttermilk (plain)

Mono- And Diglycerides Of Fatty Acids

Adopt; with Note 227 at GMP

Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids can be used as an emulsifier/anti-fouling agent. They help reduces surface tension of the milk, which prevents fouling layer build-up and then allows for longer run-times of equipment. (Note 227 should be added. ML=1000 mg/kg)

Phosphates

Adopt; with Note 227 and add Note 261 at 1000 ML

Supports the 2nd circular proposal. Phosphates are important components of UHT plain milks due to their ability to stabilize proteins and prevent phase separation after the milk, particularly milks with higher fat content, are exposed to high heat. Annual, cyclic variations in protein and vitamin balance of milk can affect heat stability of milk. The use of phosphates can help compensate for these variations, while also ensuring a consistent product. We would not object to the inclusion of Note 227 and support the inclusion of Note 227. We have consulted our members and been advised that the maximum usage level need to achieve this technical functionality is 1500 mg/kg. IFAC notes this provision was adopted at a usage level of 1500 mg/kg recently (2012). Given the technical justification for this usage level, we recommend it be maintained with the appropriate notes.

Polydextroses

Adopt

Supports the 2nd circular proposal. As noted in the first circular, polydextrose adds body to low/reduced fat buttermilks, contributing to mouthfeel and the perception of creaminess, thereby increasing organoleptic acceptability to consumers. As consumers continue to look for ways to reduce caloric intake, tools like polydextroses allow manufacturers to provide acceptable products with fewer calories, including low and no fat buttermilks.


Adopt; with Note

227 and Note 261

IFAC can support the proposal. Like other gums, cellulose gum can be used in in UHT milks to prevent protein aggregation. This renders the UHT product stable (prevents separation) despite high temperatures. We would not object to the inclusion of Note 261.

01.1.4 (Flavoured fluid milk drinks)

Diacetyltart Aric And Fatty Acid Esters Of Glycerol

Adopt; with New note: For use in products conforming to the Codex Standard for fermented milk (CODEX STAN 243 - 2003) at 1000 mg/kg

Stabilize proteins in drinks with low pH, thereby assisting in prevention of the precipitation of proteins. In those drinks containing phenols, such as drinks flavoured with coffee or tea, these additives stabilize proteins by influencing the phenol-protein interactions, thereby assisting in prevention of the formation of precipitate. The typical use level is 1,000 mg/kg

Nisin

Adopt

Products in this food category are heat labile. Heat resistant pores of thermophilic bacteria are commonly found in milk (e.g. Bacillus cereus, Bacillus spp.) In pasteurized products, spores that survive the pasteurization process can outgrow when disruptions in the cold chain occur, resulting in product spoilage and food wastage. Studies show that nisin inhibits thermophilic bacterial spore outgrowth and thereby helps to extend product shelf life and to ensure food safety. In thermally processed products, studies show nisin improves the bacteriocial effect of heat sterilization by reducing the thermal resistance of these sporeformers. This enables manufacturers to moderate thermal processing regimes, which in turn reduces organoleptic and nutritional changes caused by high temperature processing and increases acceptability to the consumer. We note that 243-2003 specifically allows preservative in flavored Fermented Milks Heat Treated After Fermentation and Drinks based on Fermented Milk Heat Treated After Fermentation—IFAC’s understanding is that this food category would correspond to such products.

Phosphates

Adopt at 1000

ML

Supports Proposal; Phosphates are important components of UHT and serialized milks (including flavored milks) due to their ability to stabilize proteins and prevent phase separation after the milk, particularly milks with higher fat content, are exposed to high heat. Annual, cyclic variations in protein and vitamin balance of milk can affect heat stability of milk. The use of phosphates can help compensate for these variations, while also ensuring a consistent product. We have consulted our members and been advised that the maximum usage level need to achieve this technical functionality is 1500 mg/kg. IFAC notes this provision was adopted at a usage level of 1500 mg/kg recently (2012). Given the technical justification for this usage level, we recommend it be maintained with the appropriate notes.

Stearoyl

Lactylates

Adopt

Supports Proposal; As noted in the first circular, the substance is needed to stabilize protein drinks with a low PH and to prevent separation. We note support from several EWG members and clear technical justification.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference


5(b)

Use levels for adipic acid (INS 355) in Various Food Categories (Replies to CL 2016/9-FA)

CX/FA 17/49/8

IFAC POSITION

IFAC will support the data provided for Adipic Acid, but we do not believe an intervention will be necessary.

Food Category No.

Food Category Name (1)

Maximum Use Level

Comments

Technological Function

01.6.5

Cheese analogues

0.45%

pH adjusting agent, Stabilizer

01.7

Dairy-based desserts (e.g. pudding, fruit or flavoured yoghurt)

0.55%

pH adjusting agent

02.1

Fats and oils essentially free from water

0.3%

Stabilizer

04.1.2.5

Jams, jellies, marmalades

0.55%

pH adjusting agent, Flavor enhancer

07.2.3

Mixes for fine bakery wares (e.g. cakes, pancakes)

0.05%

Leavening / raising agent

12.6.2

Non-emulsified sauces (e.g. ketchup, cheese sauce, cream sauce, brown gravy)

5.0%

pH adjusting agent

14.1.4

Water-based flavoured drinks, including “sport,” “energy,” or “electrolyte” drinks and particulated drinks

0.005%

pH adjusting agent, Flavor enhancer

15.1

Snacks – potato, cereal, flour or starch based (from roots and tubers, pulses and legumes)

1.3%

Stabilizer

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference


5(c)

Proposals for New and/or Revision of Food Additive Provisions (Replies to CL 2018/8-FA, Point 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c))

CX/FA 17/49/9

IFAC POSITION

IFAC did not submit any new proposals for the GSFA. However, several have been submitted on materials that IFAC represents. While we plan to support these proposals, we will insist that proposals for Table 3 additives be entered with a usage level of GMP rather than a numerical usage level as proposed in several instances. Substances of greatest concern were those poposed by Japan and include the following:

· Microcrystalline cellulose

· Lecithin

· Carrageenan

· Gum Arabic

· Gellan Gum

· Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose

IFAC will support the following, but will insist that all Table 3 additives be entered into the step process at a GMP usage level:

Food Additive

Sponsor

Function/Usage Level

Food Category

Carrageenan

Chin and Japan

Stabilizer/GMP

01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks

Gellan gum

China and Japan

Thickener, Stabilizer/GMP


Lecithin

China and Japan

Antioxidant, Emulsifier/GMP


Microcrystalline cellulose

China

Stabilizer, Thickener/GMP


Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids

China and Japan

Emulsifier, Stabilizer/GMP


Pentasodium triphosphate

China

Stabilizer, Humectant/5000 mg/kg


Polydextrose

China

Thickener/GMP


Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (cellulose gum)

China and Japan

Stabilizer, Thickener/GMP


Sodium polyphosphate

China

Humectant, Stabilize/5000 mg/kg


Trisodium Phosphate

China

Humectant, Stabilize/5000 mg/kg


Xanthan Gum

China and Japan

Stabilizer/GMP


Gum arabic

Japan

Bulking agent, Carrier, Emulsifier, Glazing agent, Stabilizer, Thickener/GMP


Microcrystalline cellulose (Cellulose gel)

Japan

Anticaking agent, Bulking agent, Carrier, Emulsifier, Foaming agent, Glazing agent, Stabilizer, Thickener/GMP


Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids

China and Japan

Emulsifier, Stabilizer/300 mg/kg


Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids

EFEMA

Emulsifier, stabilizer/16000 mg/kg

07.2.3 Mixes for fine bakery wares

(e.g. cakes, pancakes)

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference


5(d)

Discussion Paper on the Use of Food Additives in the Production of Wine

CX/FA 17/49/10

Background: IFAC participated in this eWG and provided general comments consistent with position noted below.

Recommendation 1:

Recommendation 1 deals with additives for which JECFA recommends an additive with Allowable Daily Intake (ADI) not specified, the Maximum Level of this additive authorised in grape wine is set at GMP with the reference to one of the following footnotes (xxxx):

A. “The Maximum level of the additive in grape wine set as Good Manufacturing Practice must not result in (i) the modification of the natural and essential characteristics of the wine and (ii) a substantial change in the composition of the wine and should be consistent with those of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)."

B. “The Maximum level of the additive in grape wine set as Good Manufacturing Practice must not result in (i) the modification of the natural and essential characteristics of the wine and (ii) a substantial change in the composition of the wine. This maximum level may be further specified to be consistent with those of the International Organisation for Vine and Wine (OIV)."

The U.S supportsa ML of “GMP” for provisions for the use of additives with non-numerical use levels (Table 3 additives) in wine. The U.S. maintains that further clarification of GMP is not necessary.

Recommendation 2:

The discussion in Recommendation2 deals with endorsement by CCFA of the additives for the Food Category No. 14.2.3 Grape wines in the GSFA at step 5/8as listed below:

Additive

INS

Step

Year

Maximum Use Level

Notes

Ascorbic Acid, L

300

5/8

GMP

xxxx

Citric Acid

330

5/8

GMP

xxxx

Fumaric Acid

297

8

GMP

xxxx

Gum Arabic (Acacia Gum)

414

5/8

GMP

xxxx

Lactic Acid, L-, D-, DL-

270

5/8

GMP

xxxx

Malic Acid, DL-

296

5/8

GMP

xxxx


466

5/8

GMP

xxxx

IFAC POSITION

IFAC will support the application of the usage level of GMP to any Table 3 additives used in Wine. IFAC will oppose any proposal to further clarify the use level of GMP further with any reference to OIV or other non-Codex organizations.

IFAC will support the US position and requested revisions to Note xxxx. IFAC will also support adoption of those additives listed in the table noted above with the revised note xxxx.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference


5(e)

Discussion Paper on the Use of Nitrates (INS 251, 252) and Nitrites (INS 249, 250)

CX/FA 17/49/11

IFAC POSITION: There is no need for any intervention by IFAC.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

6

International Numbering System (INS) for Food Additives

Proposed Draft Revision to the International Numbering System (INS) for Food Additives (CAC/GL 36-1989)

CX/FA 17/49/12

Comments at Step 3

CX/FA 17/49/12 Add. 1

Background: IFAC participated in the eWG for the INS, but did not submit comments as no feedback was provided indicating that members wished IFAC to support or propose any new or revised INS provisions. However, following publication of the Stroke 12 document, we identified a proposal that was not reviewed by the eWG to remove nisin and pimaricin, natamycin from the INS due to concerns about antimicrobial resistance. As a result, IFAC submitted a response to the circular letter opposing the proposal related to Nisin. These comments should be reflected in the Stroke 12 Add 1 document that will be published before the meeting.

According to the Stroke 12 Document, CCFA will review the following recommendations as part of the INS pWG meeting, which will be held during the meeting. The pWG will provide recommendations to the Plenary on this agenda item:

· Inclusion of a new entry for:

· Iron tartrate with functional class and technological purpose of anticaking agent.

· Trehalose with technological purpose of sweetener, humectant, stabilizer and texturizing agent.

· “Hibiscus colour” and “elderbery colour” with functional class and technological purpose of colour.

· Lecithin, hydroxylated as a food additive with INS 322(iii) with functional class: emulsifier and antioxidant and technological purpose: emulsifier and antioxidant.

· Sodium polyacrylate with functional class and technological purpose of stabilizer.

· Proteases from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, in addition to proteases from Bacillus subtilis (INS 1101(vi)).

· Addition of functional class/technological purpose to:

· Sodium carbonate (INS 500(i)) emulsifying salt synergist with a footnote restricting its use to only those circumstances where the processed cheese is made using lemon juice.

· Sucralose (INS 955): flavour enhancer.

· Deletion of:

· Amylases (INS 1100 i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi), proteases (INS 1101 i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi) and lipases (INS 1104).

· nisin (INS 234) and pimaricin, natamycin (INS 235) because they are antibiotics and could not be used as food additives

IFAC POSITION

IFAC can support the proposed additions and revisions to the INS list. On this subject, we do believe there will be any need for an intervention by IFAC.

However, we plan to strongly oppose the proposal made in CX/FA 17/49/12 to remove Nisin and Natamycin (Pimaricin) from the INS.

· Removing the listings for Nisin from the INS would require the revocation of all adopted provisions and discontinuation of all provisions in the step process for these additives in the GSFA.

· Both Nisin and Natamycin (Pimaricin) have been evaluated for their safe use in food by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Nisin was reviewed most recently at the 77th JECFA (2013) at which an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0-2 mg/kg bw was established. Natamycin (Pimaricin) was most recently evaluated at the 57th JECFA (2002) at which an ADI of 0.3 mg/kg bw was reestablished.

· No AMR concerns were raised by JECFA from the use of Nisin or Natamycin (Pimaricin) as preservatives in food during the review of these additives.

While we do not plan to oppose the removal of these enzymes from the INS if they are only acting as processing aids, and not as food additives, we do plan to oppose their removal if the discussion is framed on safety concerns as it appears to be in the Stroke 12 document.

· Regarding the language included in CX/FA 17/49/12 implying that the enzymes should be removed due to safety concerns, the U.S. is of the view that this language is not reflective of the discussions held by the eWG on the INS. The US is not aware of any safety concerns regarding the use of these enzymes in food. All of the amylases, lipases, and proteases that are currently included in the GSFA have been assigned ADIs of “not specified” by JECFA, meaning that on the basis of available data, they have very low toxicity and do not represent a hazard to health from their use in food.

· If the enzymes are ultimately removed from the INS list (as a result of their use only as processing aids), it should be noted that all GSFA provisions for the enzymes that are adopted or that are in the Step process must be removed from the GSFA.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

7

Proposals for Additions and Changes to the Priority List of Substances Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA (Replies to CL 2016/13-FA)

CX/FA 17/49/13

Background: The following substances have been proposed for addition to the priority list:

· Protease Aqualysin 1 from Thermus aquaticus produced by B. subtilis, strain LMGS 25520 – safety assessment and establishment of specifications

· Inulinase from Aspergillus ficuum produced by Aspergillus oryzae, strain MUCL 44346 - safety assessment and establishment of specifications

· Endo-1,4-β-xylanase from Bacillus subtilis produced by B. subtilis LMG S-28356 - safety assessment and establishment of specifications

· Endo-1,4-β-xylanase from Pseudoalteromonas haloplanktis produced by B. subtilis, strain LMG S-24584 - safety assessment and establishment of specifications

· Endo-1,4-β-xylanase from Thermotoga maritima produced by B. subtilis, strain LMG S-27588 – safety assessment and establishment of specifications

· INS No 445(iii) glycerol ester of wood rosin – revision of specifications

· Steviol Glycosides – revision of specifications

· Benzoic Acid and Its Salts – safety assessment (refined intake assessment)

· Citric and Fatty Acid Esters of Glycerol (INS 472 c) – revision of specifications

· Over 70 flavors (which will not be listed here) –safety assessment

· Lutein from Tagetes erecta – Safety evaluation

IFAC POSITION

IFAC will oppose the proposal to revise the specification for glycerol ester of wood rosin (GEWR). The proposal requests to revise the specifications, which currently restrict the source material (aged pinus stump(s)) to only two pinus species (Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii), to expand the permitted source material to other species based on chemical equivalence between GEWR produced from Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii and from other pinus species.

It is IFAC’s position that GWER can be produced from only P. palustris and P. elliottii—a mixture of the two is a fundamental characteristic of wood rosin production historically and as a matter of quality and technical functionality. IFAC cannot support any proposal that seeks to expand the specification because we do not believe that materials derived from other pine species can be considered to meet the specifications of GEWR regardless of chemical similarity.

Multiple feeding studies have demonstrated the safety of the GEWR from these two pine species, but we are not aware of studies on the safety of wood rosins made from other species. Throughout its history of manufacture, the wood rosin feedstock has always been based on a mixture of P. palustris and P. elliottii, and the process for producing wood rosin and the GEWR has remained consistent. Therefore, the GEWR used for each of the feeding studies, just as the product now in commerce, was based on a mixture of the two species.

The Wood Handbook, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Products Laboratory in 2010, classifies many different species of trees as “Very Resistant,” “Resistant,” “Moderately Resistant,” or “Slightly/Nonresistant” according to their heartwood decay resistance. Only two species of Southern pine, P. palustris and P. elliottii are listed as “Moderately Resistant.” All other pines are classified as “Slightly/nonresistant.” The heartwood of “Slightly/Nonresistant” trees lasts only five years or less, which is not suitable for GEWR production when these stumps are left in the ground for five or more years before being harvested for GEWR. Therefore, P. palustris and P. elliottii are the only pine species with sufficient resistance to heartwood decay that they yield aged stumps suitable for use.

Thus, the main reason that P. palustris and P. elliottii pine stumps have always been used as the feedstocks for wood rosin production is that both species produce enough rosin to yield aged stumps that remain intact and harvestable in the ground. The concentration of rosin in the aged stump and the absence of the rosin-poor sapwood makes them economically viable to process.

In addition, the refinability of the crude rosin from both species is similar, and these species can therefore be refined to produce Pale Wood Rosin with desirable properties. Many other geographical regions and pine species have been evaluated as potential feedstocks for wood rosin in the past, but none are technically or commercially viable. The importance of specifically utilizing P. palustris and P. elliottii as the pine species for wood rosin production is discussed in The Yearbook of Agriculture15 for the year 1949, published by the United States Department of Agriculture. In a section titled “Chemicals from Wood,” the author states:

Extraction differs from the other chemical-processing methods in that it is highly dependent upon species and alters the wood substance only slightly. The only extensive wood-extraction industry is the naval stores industry of the South, which extracts turpentine and rosin from old stumps of longleaf and slash pines from which the sapwood has decayed. Only the heartwood stumps of those species are used because of their high extractive content.

In summary, Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii are the only species that produce stumpwood with the required combination of decayresistance, rosin yield, and highly refinable rosin, which are all attributes needed to sustain a successful wood rosin production facility.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

8

Discussion Paper on the Management of CCFA Work

CX/FA 17/49/14

Background: At the last CCFA, it was agreed that the US working with China would prepare a discussion paper to help CCFA develop strategies to be more strategic in undertaking new or expanded work and make better use of limited resources. This is largely a forward looking (not concurrent or retroactive exercise), so we do not anticipate it impacting current work at this year’s meeting. However, we do believe it will have a very positive impact on what issues are prioritized by the Committee and improve the Committee’s operational efficiency.

· The document outlines the current work of CCFA, including maintenance of the GSFA, alignment of food additive provisions from commodity standards with the GSFA and revision of the International Numbering System (INS). The document also notes current “outstanding” issues, which includes 1823 outstanding provisions in the GSFA and 26 outstanding commodity standards that need to be reevaluated.

· The document presents a proposal for criteria for the committee to consider when prioritizing new work, which is noted below.

Criterion

Rating

Is the topic relevant to developing the GSFA to be the single authoritative Codex Standard for the use of food additives?

Yes/No

If “no” discard proposal

If “yes” proceed to next question

Can the topic be addressed through one of the existing EWGs (EWG on GSFA, Alignment, INS, JECFA priority list)?

Yes/No

If “yes” refer to Chair of relevant EWG for prioritization

If “no” proceed to next question

Is there a risk to public health?

Global Risk: 10

Regional Risk: 5

No Risk: 0

Impact on international food trade

Global Trade Impact: 10

Regional Trade Impact: 5

No Trade Impact: 0

Area of Use-

Whether the related food additives are widely used in GSFA food categories?

Whether the related food additives are used in the high consumption food categories?

More than 10 categories (including 10): 5

Between 5 categories and 10 categories (including 5): 2

Less than 5 categories: 0

Yes: 5

No: 0

· The committee is asked to consider the proposal as well as the other points presented in the discussion paper. We anticipate that the Committee will then form an eWG to make specific proposals on what outstanding items before the Committee should be prioritized. It is possible that this year’s CCFA will also use the approached presented in the discussion paper when prioritizing CCFA’s work for 2018. Again, we do not anticipate any starch specific activities, but this could lead to discussion of Note 161 at future CCFA meetings.

IFAC POSITION:

IFAC will strongly support the proposals and concepts presented in the discussion paper. We also plan to participate in any eWG formed as a result of the discussion paper to agree on priority work areas in the future. IFAC will support CCFA prioritizing work on the outstanding color provisions should it be raised by IACM here.

Agenda Item

Subject Matter

Document Reference

9

Other Business and Future Work

IFAC POSITION: There is no need for any intervention by IFAC.

21

· web viewifac will support the use of “stabilizers, thickeners” and for xanthan gum and...

Documents