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.
IFAC POSITIONS ON APPENDIX 2
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)
IFAC can support the proposed amendments
d. Standard for Quick Frozen Blocks of Fish Filets (CODEX STAN
165-1989)
IFAC can support the proposed amendments
e. Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Sticks (Fish Fingers), Fish
Portions and Fish Fillets – Breaded and in Batter (CODEX STAN
166-1989)
IFAC can support the proposed amendments
f. Standard for Quick Frozen Fish Fillet (CODEX STAN
190-1995)
IFAC can support the proposed amendments
g. Standard for Quick Frozen Raw Squid (CODEX STAN 191-1995)
IFAC can support the proposed amendments
h. Standard for Raw and Bivalve Molluscs (CODEX STAN
292-2008)
IFAC can support the proposed amendments
i. Standard for Live Abalone and Raw Fresh Chilled or Frozen
Abalone for Direct Consumption or for Further Processing (CODEX
STAN 312-2014)
IFAC can support the proposed amendments
j. Standard for Fresh and Quick Frozen Raw Scallop Products
(CODEX STAN 315-2014)
IFAC can support the proposed amendments
IFAC POSITIONS ON APPENDIX 3
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)
IFAC POSITIONS ON APPENDIX 4
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.
IFAC POSITIONS ON APPENDIX 1
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)
Sorbitan Esters Of Fatty Acids
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)
Sorbitan Esters Of Fatty Acids
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.
IFAC POSITIONS ON APPENDIX 5
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
Adopt; with Note 227
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
Adopt; with Note 227
Mono- and di- glycerides 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
Adopt; with Note 227
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)
Adopt; with Note 227
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 di- glycerides 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.
Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose (Cellulose Gum)
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
Codex General Standard on Food Additives (GSFA)
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
Codex General Standard on Food Additives (GSFA)
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
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Lecithin
China and Japan
Antioxidant, Emulsifier/GMP
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Microcrystalline cellulose
China
Stabilizer, Thickener/GMP
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Mono- and di- glycerides of fatty acids
China and Japan
Emulsifier, Stabilizer/GMP
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Pentasodium triphosphate
China
Stabilizer, Humectant/5000 mg/kg
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Polydextrose
China
Thickener/GMP
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (cellulose gum)
China and Japan
Stabilizer, Thickener/GMP
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Sodium polyphosphate
China
Humectant, Stabilize/5000 mg/kg
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Trisodium Phosphate
China
Humectant, Stabilize/5000 mg/kg
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Xanthan Gum
China and Japan
Stabilizer/GMP
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Gum arabic
Japan
Bulking agent, Carrier, Emulsifier, Glazing agent, Stabilizer,
Thickener/GMP
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Microcrystalline cellulose (Cellulose gel)
Japan
Anticaking agent, Bulking agent, Carrier, Emulsifier, Foaming
agent, Glazing agent, Stabilizer, Thickener/GMP
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids
China and Japan
Emulsifier, Stabilizer/300 mg/kg
01.1.2, Other Fluid Milks
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
Codex General Standard on Food Additives (GSFA)
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
Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose (Cellulose Gum)
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
Codex General Standard on Food Additives (GSFA)
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