Report of the 33rd Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

REP 12/NFSDU 748. After extensive discussion, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to delete “probable” from <strong>the</strong> first sentence and toconsider text on <strong>the</strong> suitability <strong>of</strong> probable evidence.49. Some delegations supported to include <strong>the</strong> text in square brackets “in addition, governments mayconsider <strong>the</strong> suitability <strong>of</strong> probable evidence…”;o<strong>the</strong>r delegations proposed to include <strong>the</strong> simplified text“<strong>the</strong> suitability <strong>of</strong> probable evidence may need to be considered”. After some discussion, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Committee</strong>agreed to put both texts in square brackets with <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> ”convincing“ and ”probable“ and consider<strong>the</strong> matter at <strong>the</strong> next session.50. The <strong>Committee</strong> agreed with <strong>the</strong> following amendment on <strong>the</strong> first sentence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first bullet point: toput “relevant” at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sentence, to delete “strength <strong>of</strong>” before “evidence”; to rephrase “<strong>the</strong>nutrient-noncommunicable disease risk relationship” as “<strong>the</strong> relationship between nutrient andnoncommunicable disease risk”; and to include “including validated biomarkers for relevant disease risk”.3.2 Selection <strong>of</strong> suitable data sources to establish NRVs-NCD51. Regarding section 3.2.1, one delegation proposed that <strong>the</strong> sentence should begin with <strong>the</strong> first optionra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> second option for consistency with <strong>the</strong> vitamin and mineral NRV principles. The <strong>Committee</strong>however agreed with <strong>the</strong> second option because that improved <strong>the</strong> clarity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> text and <strong>the</strong> inconsistencyshould be considered when <strong>the</strong>se two annexes would be consolidated. Section 3.2.2 was amendedaccordingly.52. Some observers proposed that <strong>the</strong> last sentence in section 3.2.2 should be an independent paragraph asit would be applied to both section 3.2.1 and section 3.2.2. The <strong>Committee</strong> did not agree because <strong>the</strong> text wasdesignated only for <strong>the</strong> recognized authoritative scientific bodies o<strong>the</strong>r than FAO/WHO.53. One observer proposed to include “independent” before recognized authoritative scientific bodies insection 3.2.2 and section 3.3.2. The <strong>Committee</strong> noted that it had already stated that <strong>the</strong> review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> scienceshould be independent and that <strong>the</strong> recognized authoritative scientific bodies was expected to be independentand <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> agreed not to amend <strong>the</strong> text.54. One delegation proposed to remove “as appropriate” in <strong>the</strong> last sentence <strong>of</strong> section 3.2.2and <strong>the</strong><strong>Committee</strong> agreed.55. In section 3.2.3, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to replace “<strong>the</strong>se values” with “<strong>the</strong> daily intake referencevalues” for clarification and replace “healthy populations” with “<strong>the</strong> general population” for consistency.3.3 Selection <strong>of</strong> appropriate basis for determining and expressing NRVs-NCD56. In section 3.3.1, one delegation raised <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> how <strong>the</strong> principle applied in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> NRVsfor nutrients associated with diet-related noncommunicable diseases and indicated that for certain nutrients<strong>the</strong>re might be evidence <strong>of</strong> a positive association between its intake and <strong>the</strong> risk <strong>of</strong> developing a disease ordisorder but <strong>the</strong>re is not necessarily a clearly identifiable threshold. The <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to make “aquantitative reference value” plural as more than one quantitative reference values for daily intake could beobtained from scientific evidence.57. One delegation proposed to insert “FAO/WHO or o<strong>the</strong>r” before “recognized authoritative scientificbodies” in section 3.3.2 and section 3.4 for consistency and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> agreed with <strong>the</strong> proposal.58. Regarding <strong>the</strong> last sentence <strong>of</strong> section 3.3.5, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to ask CCFL to consider <strong>the</strong>question <strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r to revise section 3.4.4 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CAC/GL 2-1985) toinsert a reference energy value in nutrition labelling.3.4 Consideration <strong>of</strong> daily intake values for upper levels59. Some delegations proposed to delete <strong>the</strong> section as it was not clear how to apply <strong>the</strong> principle to dietrelatednoncommunicable disease and as <strong>the</strong> scientific data to establish <strong>the</strong> upper levels for many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>nutrients associated with NCDs were insufficient or inconclusive. O<strong>the</strong>r delegations expressed <strong>the</strong> view that<strong>the</strong> section was necessary that Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) should be added as anexample and that UL and AMDR has been recognized by authoritative scientific bodies. After somediscussion, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to include <strong>the</strong> sentence with AMDR as an example and remove <strong>the</strong> squarebrackets from <strong>the</strong> section. The Delegation <strong>of</strong> Malaysia expressed a reservation on this decision.
REP 12/NFSDU 82. Definitions2.1 Nutrient Reference Values – Noncommunicable Disease (NRV-NCD)60. One delegation proposed to move “including validated biomarkers for disease risk” from section 3.1to this section. The <strong>Committee</strong> did not agree with <strong>the</strong> proposal as <strong>the</strong> biomarkers should appear in relation toscientific evidence and <strong>the</strong> definition should be consistent with <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> NRVs developed by CCFL.61. The <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to remove “chronic” for consistency and refer to “diet-relatednoncommunicable diseases”.2.2 Daily Intake Reference Values62. The <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to delete both texts in square brackets as definition should be generic. The<strong>Committee</strong> also agreed to move <strong>the</strong> last sentence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> section to <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> section 2.4 as it was moreappropriate.2.3 Upper Level <strong>of</strong> Intake, 2.4 Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR)63. The <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to include <strong>the</strong>se two definitions as <strong>the</strong>se terms appeared in section 3.4 and toreplace “chronic” in section 2.4 with “diet-related noncommunicable” for consistency.O<strong>the</strong>r issues identified by eWG64. Due to time constraints, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to consider <strong>the</strong> issues identified by <strong>the</strong> eWG at <strong>the</strong>next session.Electronic Working Group65. The <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to establish an eWG chaired by <strong>the</strong> United States <strong>of</strong> America and co-chairedby Thailand and Chile, to work in English and Spanish to prepare a revised document for <strong>the</strong> next sessionthat would:1) Focus on text left in brackets in <strong>the</strong> proposed draft Annex on general principles for NRVs-NCD.2) Propose in a separate document for consideration a draft Annex to <strong>the</strong> Guidelines on Nutrition Labellingthat consolidates <strong>the</strong> Annex on general principles for establishing vitamin and mineral NRVs and NRVs-NCD.3) Fur<strong>the</strong>r consider proposals for <strong>the</strong> need for one or more additional NRVs-NCD for o<strong>the</strong>r nutrients with aconvincing level <strong>of</strong> scientific evidence;4) Make proposals on additional issues for consideration in paragraphs 129 to 135 <strong>of</strong> CX/NFSDU 11/33/6includinga) Whe<strong>the</strong>r more than one NRV could be set for certain nutrientsb) Proposed amendments to Section 3.4.4 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling to refer to CCFLthat relate to <strong>the</strong> listing <strong>of</strong> NRVs, andc) Evaluate <strong>the</strong> interest in proposing new work to develop NRVs for total fat, available carbohydrate,and protein based on considerations o<strong>the</strong>r than diet-related NCDs such as energy balance.Status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Proposed Draft General Principles for Establishing Nutrient Reference Values forNutrients Associated with Risk <strong>of</strong> Diet-Related Noncommunicable Diseases for General Population(NRVs-NCD)66. The <strong>Committee</strong> agreed to return <strong>the</strong> Proposed Draft General Principles, as amended at <strong>the</strong> presentsession, to Step 3 for comments, redrafting by a working group as indicated above, fur<strong>the</strong>r comments andconsideration at <strong>the</strong> next session (see Appendix V).
Page 1 and 2: EREP12/NFSDUJOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STAN
Page 3 and 4: REP12/NFSDUiiiTABLE OF CONTENTSSumm
Page 5 and 6: REP12/NFSDUvLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS(U
Page 7 and 8: REP 12/NFSDU 27. The Delegation <st
Page 9 and 10: REP 12/NFSDU 421. WHO continues to
Page 11: REP 12/NFSDU 6PRINCIPLES FOR THE DE
Page 15 and 16: REP 12/NFSDU 10Status of</s
Page 17 and 18: REP 12/NFSDU 1291. With reference t
Page 19 and 20: REP 12/NFSDU 149.Packaging120. An a
Page 21 and 22: REP 12/NFSDU 16SUMMARY STATUS OF WO
Page 23 and 24: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 18Mrs Maria
Page 25 and 26: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 20Mr Hongmi
Page 27 and 28: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 22Ariane Va
Page 29 and 30: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 24Ms Yvonne
Page 31 and 32: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 26Pr<strong
Page 33 and 34: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 28NEPAL / N
Page 35 and 36: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 30Dr Chang
Page 37 and 38: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 32Mrs Krist
Page 39 and 40: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 34Ms Nancy
Page 41 and 42: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 36Pr<strong
Page 43 and 44: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 38Mrs Isabe
Page 45 and 46: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 40Mrs Nynke
Page 47 and 48: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix I 42CODEX SEC
Page 49 and 50: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix III 44APPENDI
Page 51 and 52: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix IV 464. SUITA
Page 53 and 54: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix IV 48manufact
Page 55 and 56: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix IV 506.2 Ener
Page 57 and 58: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix IV 527.2. O<s
Page 59 and 60: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix IV 54ANNEXTAB
Page 61 and 62: REP 12/NFSDU Appendix V 56[In addit

Report of the 33rd Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?