ALINORM 03/32 - CODEX Alimentarius

REP 13/FA 8
work was not intended to provide support to CCFA on work on the GSFA as JECFA was the international
expert scientific advisory body to provide such advice to the Committee.
59. The Committee, however, considered that there was a merit in the proposal and, therefore, agreed to
slightly amend the scope to indicate that the Guidelines could also be used as a screening tool by national
governments to support their work on the GSFA.
Main aspects to be covered
60. Following the discussion on the scope, the Committee did not agree to include a reference to other
appropriate screening methods reflecting the data available in the first bullet as this might lead to the
application of methodologies of different levels of complexity. It further noted that the theoretical maximum
daily intake (TMDI) and estimated daily intake (EDI) were simple and conservative approaches to ensure
protection of consumers’ health, that the GSFA already contained guidance to screen proposals for
development of maximum levels for use of food additive with numerical acceptable daily intakes i.e. the
Budget method.
61. Along the same lines, the Committee did not agree to include a reference to modelling of high
consumers in the third bullet as, although modelling tools to characterize risk on sensible population groups
were in the remit of risk assessment, the decision to modelling for sensitive groups laid with risk managers
and the revised guidelines were not intended to modelling data to estimate food additive intakes of special
group populations. In this regard some modelling guidance that governments could apply in this particular
situation were already made available within the FAO/WHO document EHC-240.
62. In reply to a comment that intake assessment to food additives should not apply to fresh produce in
general, the Committee noted that the intake assessment primarily applied to processed foods.
Conclusion
63. The Committee agreed to start new work on the revision of the Guidelines for the Simple Evaluation of
Food Additive Intakes (CAC/GL 3-1989) and to forward the project document as revised to the 36 th Session
of the Commission for approval as new work (Appendix V).
64. The Committee further agreed to establish an electronic Working Group, led by Brazil, open to all
members and observers and working in English only, to prepare proposed draft revised Guidelines for
circulation for comments at Step 3 and consideration at its next Session, subject to approval of new work by
the 36 th Session of the Commission.
GENERAL STANDARD FOR FOOD ADDITIVES (Agenda Item 5) 11
65. The Delegation of the United States of America, as Chair, introduced the report of the pre-session
Working Group on the GSFA.
66. The Working Group had made recommendations on:
- Provisions in Table 1 and 2 of the GSFA for food additives listed in Table 3 with “acidity regulator”
function and the horizontal approach and provisions in Table 1 and 2 of the GSFA for food
additives listed in Table 3 with “emulsifier, stabilizer and thickener” function (Agenda Item 5a); and
- Provisions for aluminium-containing food additives of the GSFA (Agenda Item 5b).
67. The Working Group made recommendations for approximately 600 provisions of the GSFA. However,
due to time constraints, the Working Group could not complete its agenda, which also included: (i) new
proposals for the use of nisin (Agenda Item 5d); (ii) proposals for new additive provisions in food category
16.0 “Prepared foods” (Agenda Item 5e); (iii) proposals for new additive provisions and/or revision of food
additive provisions of the GSFA (Agenda Item 5f); and on a compilation of provisions for acesulfame
potassium (INS 950), aspartame (INS 951) and aspartame-acesulfame salt (INS 962), related to Agenda
Item 5c, 5f and 5g.
68. The Committee considered the recommendations 1-12 of the Working Group and made decisions and
commented as follows.
11 CRD 2 (Report of physical Working Group on the GSFA); CRD 6 (Comments of China, India, Japan, Mali, Philippines,
African Union and OIV); CRD 12 (Comments of Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia and NHF)