JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME ... - Cclac.org

ALINORM 07/30/24 Page 22The Codex Secretariat recalled that the role of the Committee was to establish MRLs and other documentson pesticide residues, and that any further action should be consistent with the mandate of the Committeeand of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.211. After a very intensive discussion, the Committee agreed to inform the Commission of thediscussion and request its guidance and advice on how the issue should be addressed.OTHER BUSINESS AND FUTURE WORK (AGENDA ITEM 11)PAPER FROM THE JOINT FAO/WHO JMPR SECRETARIAT ON SEVERAL ISSUES RELATEDTO THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JMPR AND CCPR (AGENDA ITEM 11) 22212. The JMPR Secretariat introduced the paper and referred to the initiatives taken in recent years toaccelerate the discussion and adoption process of Codex MRLs. The document made severalrecommendations relating to the working relationship between JMPR and CCPR, in order to facilitate theimplementation of the decisions taken earlier by this Committee and by the Committee on GeneralPrinciples.Work Sharing213. The JMPR Secretariat informed the Committee of the experience gained with work sharing pilotprojects, and noted that the pilot phase had been concluded and that work sharing was now routine, withnational evaluations being useful in the preparation of compound evaluations.214. In reply to a question on the ongoing evaluation of the efficiency of work sharing, the JMPRSecretariat indicated that the pilot project had been evaluated (see Agenda Item 4) and that a detailedquantitative assessment would be time consuming but indicated that qualitative comparisons could beconsidered and presented in a summary form in the future.215. The Committee generally supported the use of work sharing and agreed to revise the documententitled “Pesticide Information for CCPR Working Group on Priorities” adding a new entry about availabilityof evaluations from national and regional authorities.216. The Committee noted that calls for data for future JMPR meetings would include requests forsubmission of available national and regional evaluations supporting the worksharing approach, includingaccess to all relevant original studies. Codex members and Observers were asked to arrange for thesubmission in a timely manner.Criteria for prioritisation217. The Committee noted the explanations provided in paragraphs 11 to 14 relating to the amendedprocedures for requesting additional MRLs or a review of an existing MRL, as described in the ExplanatoryNote at the end of the revised Criteria for Prioritisation Process of Compounds for Evaluation by JMPR.Concerns regarding MRLs218. The JMPR Secretariat advised that the Committee had agreed at its last session that governmentscould submit a concern form detailing their scientific concerns about the advancement of a specific MRL,and the paper explained how these concern forms would be handled and established timeframes forconsideration of the concerns. It was clarified that the concern form was intended for JMPR not for CCPR,and that it was important that detailed justification and relevant scientific data were provided to allow JMPRto respond to the concern.219. The Delegation of Morocco sought clarification as to languages in which the data could besubmitted and whether it would be translated. The JMPR Secretariat clarified that JMPR worked only inEnglish and that the data submitted in other Codex languages would be considered but would need to betranslated so that it could be used in JMPR.220. The Committee agreed that at each meeting, the CCPR Chair would announce the specific deadlinethat applied for the submission of concerns forms. If possible, depending on the JMPR workload, theseconcerns would be addressed in the same year but in some cases that might need to be scheduled forsubsequent JMPR meetings. When a concern form was not submitted within the specified deadline, the22 CX/PR 07/39/11-Rev.1; CRD 12 (comments of India).