[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23745-23753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11314]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
[Docket No. 97-027N]
Codex Strategic Planning Meeting
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; public hearing and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of a strategic planning
activity relating to the U.S. Government's representation on the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, an international food standard-setting
program. The notice includes a description of Codex activities;
identifies five issues to be addressed; identifies specific objectives,
methods, timeframes, and persons or agencies responsible for addressing
them. A public hearing will be held in Washington, DC on May 8, 1997,
to allow a dialogue on the identified issues. U.S. Government agencies
plan to use the record of that hearing and of comments received in
finalizing their planned approaches to achieving U.S. goals for Codex
standard-setting activities.
DATES: The public meeting will be held on May 8, 1997, from 9:30 a.m.
until 12:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The conference will be held at the Holiday Inn Rosslyn-
Westpark, 1900 N. Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, VA 22207. Send an
original and two copies of written comments to: FSIS Docket Clerk,
DOCKET NO. 97-027N, Room 102, Cotton Annex, 300 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC, 20250-3700. All comments submitted and a transcript of
the hearing will be available for public inspection in the Docket
Clerk's Office between 8:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., and
[[Page 23746]]
2:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick J. Clerkin, Director, U.S.
Codex Office, United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, West End Court, Room 311, Washington, DC 20250;
(202) 418-8852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is
an international governmental organization with current membership from
the national governments of 156 countries, including the United States.
It was formed in 1962 to facilitate world trade in foods and to promote
consumer protection.
Codex is a subsidiary of two United Nations groups, the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
It has worked to develop international food standards that protect
consumers' health as well as promote fair trade. Food production
practices all over the world have been upgraded as a result.
The United States participates in Codex Alimentarius activities
through U.S. Codex, which consists of federal government officials
assisted by representatives of non-government interests.
How Codex Currently Operates
Codex provides a forum in which member countries and international
organizations can cooperate to achieve the dual goals of consumer
protection and fair food trade practices. The Commission meets every
other year; its Executive Committee meets between sessions.
Codex Committees
Codex has established several types of committees. The ones that
draft standards and codes of practice and guidelines are commodity
committees and general-subject committees.
Fifteen commodity committees have operated from time to time. Those
currently active are Fats and Oils, Fish and Fishery Products,
Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, Milk and Milk Products,
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Cereals, Pulses and Legumes, Natural
Mineral Waters, Cocoa and Chocolate Products, Sugars, and Processed
Fruits and Vegetables. Meat Hygiene, which had been inactive, was
reconvened in 1991 to update the codes of practice under its
jurisdiction. It adjourned in 1993 after completing this task.
There are eight committees which deal with general subjects rather
than with particular commodities. They are: Food Labeling; Food
Additives and Contaminants; Food Hygiene; Pesticide Residues; Residues
of Veterinary Drugs in Foods; Methods of Analysis and Sampling; Food
Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems; and General
Principles, which sets rules and procedures for Codex.
There are also five regional coordinating committees representing
Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and North
America and the South-West Pacific. They define the regions' problems
and needs concerning food standards and food control.
The United States serves on all the commodity and general subject
committees that are currently active, and on the regional committee
that includes North America.
Two independent committees of experts work closely with Codex: the
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint
FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). These expert committees
perform the scientific evaluations which support Codex standards,
guidelines, Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), and codes of practice.
A comprehensive notice, detailing the sanitary and phytosanitary
standard-setting activity of Codex, is published annually in the
Federal Register (FR) (see June 4, 1996 (61 FR 28132)). It also details
other standard-setting activities of Codex, including commodity
standards, guidelines, codes of practice, and revised texts. Included
as an Appendix to that notice is a description of the system for
elaborating standards within the Codex Commission and its Committees. A
reading of that notice will enhance an understanding of the issues
identified in this strategic planning document.
In 1994, the United States signed and ratified the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, and thereby became a signatory member of the World
Trade Organization (WTO). The agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) requires members to use
international standards as the basis for sanitary and phytosanitary
measures when such international standards meet the member's
appropriate level of protection. The SPS Agreement explicitly
recognizes Codex as an organization that develops such standards. In
this context, Codex standards will play a significant role with regard
to food safety and agricultural trade.
In anticipation of the emerging importance of Codex standards,
Codex inaugurated a review of the policies, processes, and procedures
established over the course of its more than 30-year-history. This
examination grew out of an international conference held in Rome in
1991 to address three major areas of concern: (1) The heightened status
and responsibility that would be given to Codex standards under what
was then a draft proposal of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT);
(2) advances in food production technologies; and (3) changing
consumer expectations about food safety and composition. U.S. Codex
also engaged in a process of self-examination as a prelude to change.
In February 1995, U.S. Codex issued a draft report setting forth
the results of work initiated in October 1992, by a Strategic Planning
Group to recommend a new course for United States participation in
Codex Alimentarius. The group was asked to consider how U.S. Codex can
become more effective in:
--maintaining and improving public health protection;
--encouraging changes in Codex to enhance its public health mission;
--broadening the involvement of public, consumer, and environmental
organizations as well as the chemical and food industries in developing
international food safety standards;
--prioritizing its activities and using its resources more efficiently;
and
--facilitating trade.
The Strategic Planning Group identified five critical issues to be
addressed. The first two issues deal with changes in Codex itself; the
other three issues deal with internal U.S. changes. The Group
subsequently identified specific actions or approaches that the U.S.
Codex might take to address these issues. (The Group did not address
those parts of Codex standards that are not related to food safety;
e.g., food composition/identity standards which are subject to the WTO
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. It might be useful for
another group to consider systematically the strategic issues
concerning these standards.) A brief description of each issue and
related actions is presented below.
Issue 1: U.S. Support for Strengthening the Scientific Basis for Codex
Decisions
Codex health and safety standards have been and must continue to be
based on scientific analysis and evidence. The procedures by which
those standards are elaborated should be transparent and consistently
applied. In many cases scientific work in support of Codex's
elaboration of standards is performed by Expert Committees that
[[Page 23747]]
are independent of Codex. In other cases, work is performed internally
by Codex Committees. In the latter case, those committees are termed,
``process committees.'' In all cases, criteria for making decisions on
standards should be clear and science-based. The United States should
support the efforts of Codex and other international organizations to
improve the scientific basis for Codex standards to meet these goals.
Expert Committees
With regard to the elaboration of standards, primary responsibility
for performing the scientific evaluations that underlie most Codex
health and safety standards rests with FAO, and with WHO through the
International Programme for Chemical Safety (IPCS). This work is done
through two expert committees, The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide
Residues (JMPR) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food
Additives (JECFA). In addition, FAO and WHO sponsor ad hoc expert
consultations on specific topics related to food safety.
Governments and non-governmental organizations have no routine,
direct working relationship with JMPR and JECFA, although both EPA and
FDA have provided funds and support in kind to FAO and WHO/IPCS. While
the work of JECFA and JMPR has been of high quality, the procedures
under which they operate should be enhanced to assure that decisions
are firmly based in science, and that their operations are transparent
to all interested parties. The same would hold true for other expert
consultations.
FAO and WHO/IPCS have begun to make changes in the way they conduct
scientific evaluations of chemicals. However, with demands and
expectations for change coming from many sources, a broader and more
systematic look is needed at the scientific framework, and the
processes of international chemical safety evaluation.
The expert committees need effective processes that would allow
broader consideration of the views of countries, consumer and public
interest groups, the chemical industry, food producers, international
organizations involved in chemical safety, and any other interested
party.
Codex and member countries should encourage the FAO/WHO to initiate
necessary changes internally or support development of and adoption of
such relevant and suitable procedures, as may be internationally agreed
on by other international organizations which will improve the quality,
consistency, integrity, and transparency of expert committee
evaluations.
Issues that might be considered include:
--establishment of minimum data sets for evaluation,
--establishment of guidelines for data development,
--establishment of standard data evaluation and reporting procedures,
--development and application of good laboratory practice standards,
--development and application of data quality standards (factors which
might render a study acceptable or unacceptable for review),
--establishment of harmonized and articulated approaches to risk
assessment,
--use of national evaluations which meet international standards
instead of creating new international evaluations,
--tailoring evaluations to meet the practical needs of countries and
other international organizations,
--establishment of processes and time frames for updating previous
evaluations as new scientific information emerges,
--maintenance of administrative records,
--establishment of roles and responsibilities of member countries and
non-governmental organizations,
--development of guidelines how to establish priorities for chemical
evaluation work,
--improved mechanisms to ensure FAO/WHO awareness of all relevant data,
including adverse effects data, are provided,
--establishment of selection criteria for JMPR/JECFA experts, and
--improvement in communicating of the results of all work that supports
the elaboration of Codex standards.
Process Committees
Codex committees performing work primarily related to food
production and inspection activities, notably the Meat Hygiene and Food
Hygiene committees and the Committee on Food Import and Export
Inspection and Certification Systems, are sometimes known as
``process'' committees. They do not use JECFA or JMPR evaluations as
part of their deliberation. They develop Codes of Practice through
discussion and assignment of working groups. Codes of Practice are not
considered official standards by Codex in that countries are not
requested to provide a formal acknowledgment of acceptance or
rejection. However, they are established through the Codex step process
and will probably be considered as standards under WTO, NAFTA and
future trade agreements.
Criteria for decision-making relating to such standards within
Codex should be clearly articulated to allow consideration of only
those factors relevant to the health protection of consumers and to the
promotion of fair practices in trade. Such criteria for decision making
should be used in all Codex committees and in the Commission itself.
The decisions should be arrived at through an open process, with a
clearly defined rationale. Previous decisions should be revisited if
new scientific information becomes available.
Availability of information on Codex activities and on work
performed in support of Codex activities, in the form of working
documents and standards, is critical to achieving the transparency
necessary to assure the public's confidence in Codex. Mechanisms to
improve communications must be sought by Codex and all member states.
Actopm Plan--Issue #1: U.S. Support for Strengthening the Scientific Basis for Codex Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility Initiation Completion
Objective Method (person/area) Resources date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Develop and promote
criteria to be used by WHO/
FAO in selecting experts to
serve on the JMPR/JECFA
which will be based on the
following:
(1) Open process for the (1) U.S. will U.S. Codex ................ 2/1/97........ (\1\)
submission of develop paper. Office to
nominations/acceptance establish an
and tenure;. inter-agency
group.
[[Page 23748]]
(2) Conflict of interest (2) Paper will
disclosure; and;. be circulated
to U.S.
Government/
NGO's as well
as other
countries for
input.
(3) Technical (3) Document
Qualifications. will be
introduced in
appropriate
Codex forum and
will form basis
for U.S.
Position in any
related
deliberations
of any Codex
Committee.
B. Establish better (1) U.S. Codex U.S. Codex ................ 11/01/96...... 7/1/96
communication mechanisms to establish Codex Office.
ensure that information on Home Page.
Codex activities is readily (2) Encourage
and easily available. Codex to expand
use of the
Internet (See
item 2(A)).
C. Develop and promote the (1) U.S. Develop U.S. Codex ................ 2/1/97........ 10/15/97
establishment of minimum/ paper. Office to
adequate data sets for ( 2) Circulate establish an
expert bodies (JECFA/JMPR). document to inter-agency
Government technical
officials as working group.
well as other
countries for
input.
(3) Document
will be
introduced in
appropriate
Codex forum and
will form basis
for U.S.
Position in any
related
deliberations
of any Codex
Committee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ongoing.
Issue 2: U.S. Support for Codex Efforts to Improve its Management
Processes
U.S. Codex should support the revitalization of Codex.
Revitalization of Codex should include conducting a systematic review
of priorities, streamlining the decision-making processes, increasing
transparency, and improving communication. These steps will enhance the
credibility of Codex with national regulatory authorities and
consumers.
FAO/WHO began a formal reevaluation of Codex procedures and guiding
principles in March 1991 at the Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals
in Foods and Food Trade. Codex is now streamlining its standards to
concentrate on essential health-related aspects. This represents a
shift in emphasis. Now that over l00 countries have become members of
the WTO, it is important that Codex again re-examine its operation with
particular attention to the following areas:
1. Codex should conduct a formal strategic planning exercise,
including a systematic review of Codex priorities. This would provide a
framework for major policy decisions and serve as a basis for
refocusing priorities. Codex needs to strengthen its links with other
international food safety organizations and ensure that its activities
are integrated with and do not duplicate the activities of others in
the broad area of chemical safety.
2. Codex decision-making procedures should be clearly defined and
transparent so that interested parties can more fully understand,
evaluate, and participate in the process.
3. Codex needs to streamline its processes so that standards can be
developed and adopted more rapidly. In addition, it needs a process,
including an emergency procedure, to reevaluate and update its
standards as new scientific information emerges.
4. The public needs to understand how Codex operates in order to
work within the system and use it effectively. Codex should more
frequently and more broadly communicate information on its activities
and on how to obtain standards, meeting reports and other documents.
5. Codex should review the terms of reference of the Executive
Committee to expand its area of responsibility to include strategic
planning and better ensuring that priority areas of work are on target
in terms of time and other considerations. The Executive Committee must
refocus itself to become the ``Board of Directors'' of the
organization, responsible for making decisions on significant issues
occurring between Commission meetings such as establishing work
priorities and directing issues to the appropriate committees for
action.
6. Codex should examine its use of resources to determine whether
increased efficiency is possible. If appropriate, additional resources
should be identified.
[[Page 23749]]
Action Plan--Issue #2: U.S. Support for Codex Efforts to Improve Its Management Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility Initiation Completion
Objective Method (person/area) Resources date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Encourage Codex to U.S. submit a U.S. Codex ................ 2/1/97........ 5/15/97
establish standard proposal to the Office.
procedures for handling Executive
Codex documents to ensure Committee for
timeliness and opportunity discussion.
for adequate review by
member countries.
One ................ ................ .............. (\1\)
recommendation
is that Codex
move
expeditiously
to put
Committee
documents on
the World Wide
Web so that
countries could
have immediate
access to the
working
documents.
B. Codex review its policies U.S. submit a U.S. Codex ................ 2/1/97........ 5/97
for drafting the Committee proposal to the Office.
reports to assure adequate Executive
information is provided on Committee for
assignments and history of discussion.
evolving standards.
C. Commission meeting U.S. submit a U.S. Codex ................ 2/1/97........ 5/15/97
operating practices be proposal to the Office.
reviewed to assure the most Executive
efficient/effective use of Committee for
members time. discussion.
D. Encourage Codex review of Develop U.S. Codex ................ 3/1/97........ 5/97
operating practices to appropriate Office.
utilize strategic thinking follow-up to
in developing the work plan 1995 Executive
and to determine if Committee
additional efficiencies can discussion of
be realized. This could this issue.
include related changes to
the Executive Committee's
terms of reference.
E. In the appropriate Codex 1. U.S. develop U.S. Codex ................ 2/97.......... 11/97
Committee promote the paper. Office.
development of a process for 2. Circulate
establishing emergency document to
procedures (developing, government
revising or elaborating officials as
Codex standards where well as other
warranted to protect public countries for
health by newly developed input.
food safety scientific 3. Present paper
information which in appropriate
invalidates the existing Codex Committee.
standard).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ongoing.
Issue 3: U.S. Acceptance of Codex Standards
To facilitate U.S. decisions on increased acceptance of Codex
standards related to food safety, U.S. Codex should develop processes
for systematically evaluating such existing Codex standards and
proposed new Codex standards using established U.S. approaches to risk
assessment.
Historically, two factors have worked against U.S. Acceptance of
Codex Standards. These are:
--current U.S. workloads, which force the regulatory agencies to place
a low priority on reaching decisions on whether they can accept
proposed Codex standards, and;
--differences between the Codex standards and U.S. regulations.
Under current Codex rules and procedures, Codex member countries
are obligated to consider for acceptance all pesticide and veterinary
drug MRLs as well as all food additive, commodity and general standards
adopted by Codex. Current U.S. acceptance procedures vary among
agencies having responsibilities for each of these categories of
standards. The agencies include EPA, FDA and USDA. These agencies need
to harmonize their processes for considering Codex Standards and for
developing U.S. standards with the Codex processes for data evaluation
and standard development. Where methods supporting the Codex processes
pose impediments to harmonization, the U.S. Codex needs to address
those processes in all appropriate forums. The Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996 provides for consideration by the U.S. Government of Codex
pesticide MRLs.
[[Page 23750]]
Action Plan--Issue #3: U.S. Acceptance of Codex Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility Initiation Completion
Objective Method (person/area) Resources date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Agencies shall consider (1) Develop U.S. Codex Individual 2/1/97........ 10/97
Codex Standards in the model SOP with Office with agency
development of U.S. examples. (The input from resources (to
Standards for food. model should agencies. be determined).
accommodate the
variable
complexity of
different type
standards.).
(2) Have model U.S. Codex ................ .............. ...........
Standard Office Steering
Operating Committee.
Practice
endorsed by
Steering
Committee.
(3) Distribute U.S. Codex ................ .............. ...........
to relevant Office.
agencies for
implementation
B. Improve understanding and --Establish and U.S. Codex ................ 1/1/97........ 06/97
level of quality input into implement an Office.
all phases of Codex outreach
standards development by program
stakeholders (government, including
non-government elements such
organizations). as:
--Home page
--Workshops
--Paper
distribution
C. Encourage U.S. industry to Enhance dialog U.S. Manager for ................ 1/1/97........ (\1\)
submit data relevant to U.S. with U.S. Codex.
consideration of acceptance industry.
of Codex standards.
D. Establish and codify Agencies develop Individual Implementation 01/96......... 3/1/98
process for routine review their own model. agencies. of the
of Codex standards, objective will
guidelines, and require
recommendations for substantial
consideration for acceptance. resources by
individual
agencies (to be
determined).
E. In recognition of the Issue joint Steering ................ 6/97.......... 08/97
obligations under Article 3 policy Committee U.S.
of the SPS Agreement, issue statement Manager for
policy statement regarding across all Codex.
acceptance of Codex agencies.
standards, guidelines and
recommendations.
F. Establish model format for
U.S. positions on proposed
Codex standards at Step 3 to
specifically identify:
(a) whether acceptance of (1) Prepare Steering ................ 2/11/97....... 03/97
the Codex standard would format for U.S. Committee U.S.
affect U.S. consumer positions to Manager for
health and safety. address issues Codex EPA,
``a''-``c'' to USDA, FDA, DOC.
be applied by
committees.
--for any
document going
through step
procedures.
(b) whether acceptance of (2) Train U.S. U.S. Codex ................ 02/97......... ...........
the Codex standard would delegates in Office.
require changes in U.S. implementation
food production, of format.
marketing and regulatory
practices.
(c) steps which need to (3) Implement Individual Substantial 06/97......... ...........
be initiated to new format. agencies. resources (to
harmonize the relevant be determined.).
U.S. standard and the
proposed Codex standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ongoing.
Issue 4: Effective Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations in
U.S. Codex
Balanced non-governmental participation is needed and will help
ensure that the positions taken by U.S. Codex have broad support. In
line with this objective, the process of gathering information and
developing positions should be transparent--open to public scrutiny.
Codex delegations are led by U.S. government officials, primarily
managers and scientists, who serve as the formal U.S. representatives
in Codex committee meetings. Nevertheless, in the development of U.S.
positions, parties outside the government have traditionally provided
technical information and support to such representatives, in some
cases serve as members of the delegation. These experts primarily from
the regulated industry, serve a useful purpose because of their
expertise in specific technical matters before the various Codex
committees. In addition to providing technical information, they convey
the views of their constituents to the
[[Page 23751]]
committees and relay information about U.S. Codex activities to those
constituents.
U.S. Codex should involve a greater variety of groups in its
activities and, for all of its activities, should expand their criteria
for participation. In addition, U.S. Codex's entire process of
gathering information and developing positions must be transparent.
U.S. Codex must develop and implement mechanisms to involve a far
broader range of interests in U.S. Codex activities. This expanded
participation can occur on many levels, ranging from simply receiving
written information on Codex activities to actively participating in
the development of U.S. positions. U.S. Codex should conduct an
extensive outreach effort to include national, regional, and local
organizations and individuals with a stake in the establishment of
international food standards. U.S. Codex should explore the possibility
of creating a network of scientists and food and nutrition
technologists interested in Codex issues.
In order for the U.S. Government to formally accept standards
adopted by Codex, it is essential that such standards not only provide
adequate public health protection, but that non-governmental
organizations (public interest, industry, professional, etc.) have
confidence in the integrity of all aspects of the standard elaboration
process.
Action Plan--Issue #4: Effective Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in U.S. Codex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility Initiation Completion
Objective Method (person/area) Resources date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Establish guidelines and Develop U.S. Codex ................ Started (\1\)
criteria for consistency in guidelines and Office and Operations....
the operations of U.S. Codex provide agency
delegations including the training for representatives
selection process of NGOs on all U.S.
delegations and delegates to
participation of NGOs in ensure
U.S. Codex. awareness of
operating
procedures for
delegations
(See Item 5
(E)).
B. Establish a system for Papers should be U.S. Codex ................ 4/5/96........ (\1\)
timely distribution of posted on Office.
papers to allow for routine Internet and a
and early opportunity for cut-off date
public comment on U.S. should be
positions as well as papers established for
from the Codex Secretariat. submissions of
papers by all
Codex
Committees.
(Discussed in
Executive
Committee, June
1996).
C. Request the establishment U.S. will U.S. Codex ................ 6/96.......... (\1\)
of a procedure for increased request that Office.
participation of NGO's in names be Codex
Expert Consultations. submitted to Secretariat.
Specifically recommend that the Codex
NGO's attend Expert Office by
Consultations as public interest
participants. groups to
facilitate
participation
in Expert
Consultations.
Bring to the
attention of
FAO/WHO the
need to notify
interested
officials when
such expert
consultations
are planned.
D. Continue to work with The United U.S. Codex ................ .............. (\1\)
other Codex members to States will Office.
promote effective NGO continue to
participation. provide strong
support for NGO
participation
in appropriate
Codex forums.
E. Continue to provide U.S. will U.S. Codex ................ .............. (\1\)
opportunities for NGOs to develop regular Office.
increase awareness of the briefings and
Codex Alimentarius Food public meetings
Standards Programme. and utilize
USDA's
Communications
Office and the
Office of
Intergovernment
al Relations,
as well as FR
notices
Internet,
consumer and
industry-
sponsored
forums and
interagency
communications
to promote
awareness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ongoing.
Issue 5: Management and Effectiveness of U.S. Codex
To enhance its effectiveness in Codex, the U.S. government should
consider a larger role for U.S. Codex, including a senior executive
position for the U.S. Manager, staffing, and funding.
The United States has actively participated in and been considered
a leader in Codex since the organization was established. Its
contributions have centered around science and technology. It is now
clear that to capitalize on its scientific and technical capabilities
and increase the effectiveness of its participation, the United States
must expand its focus and investment.
The following points need to be addressed to enhance the
effectiveness of current U.S. participation:
1. U.S. Codex needs to take into account the changing Codex
dynamics and develop increased social, political and economic
sensitivity and awareness
[[Page 23752]]
of the global implications of such change. U.S. representatives must be
fully informed about the needs of other countries as well as domestic
needs. The United States must function as a team player, sharing
information, seeking coalitions and engaging in partnerships to advance
and support proposals of mutual concern. It must be well-prepared to
step into a leadership role when the situation warrants, and be willing
to negotiate in support of the development of science-based standards
for all member countries.
2. The U.S. government should provide adequate resources for
effective participation in Codex and consider a larger organizational
role for U.S. Codex, thus promoting increased efficiency,
effectiveness, and participation. Full support from all management
levels is needed to ensure that Codex activities receive high priority,
with full time staff, targeted funding, and a senior executive position
for the U.S. Manager.
3. The federal managers and scientists in U.S. Codex need training
in international negotiations and intercultural relations. There should
be regular interaction among them to strengthen their sense of
identity, improve awareness of cross-cutting issues, and identify at an
early stage controversial issues that need attention by the coordinator
of U.S. Codex. Early identification of emerging issues will allow
effective coalition building with other countries' delegates to promote
mutual interests.
4. U.S. Codex needs a mechanism to allow it to routinely evaluate
the results of its efforts.
5. The makeup of U.S. Codex should reflect a balance between trade
and regulatory perspectives.
Action Plan--Issue #5: Management and Effectiveness of U.S. Codex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility
Objective Method (person/area) Resources Initiation date Completion date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Establish and recruit/select a --Included in FSIS Under Secretary for ..................... 4/30/96............... 1/30/97.
U.S. Manager for Codex reorganization Food Safety.
Alimentarius in the Office of the package.
Under Secretary for Food Safety in --Announce position..
order to better facilitate --Designate a review
interagency process. panel.
B. Provide adequate staffing for --Appropriately Administrator for ..................... 8/31/96............... Ongoing.
the U.S. Codex Office. classify and staff FSIS.
positions consistent
with Strategic Plan
and Action Plan
assumptions.
Further enhance technical and --Detail staff from U.S. Codex Office No new resources--FTE 4/1/97................ Ongoing.
policy expertise in U.S. Codex relevant U.S. Steering Committee. would be borne by
Office. Government agencies. participating
agencies.
--Internship Programs U.S. Codex Office.... ..................... 08/05/97.............. Ongoing.
--e.g. George
Washington
University Program/
School for Advanced
Studies at John
Hopkins/investigate
other interagency
fellowship
possibilities.
C. Seek appropriations to establish Prepare estimates of Under Secretary for ..................... 1/1/97................ FY-1999.
specific funding for U.S. Codex needed resources. Food Safety,
Office and funding for U.S. hosted Steering Committee,
meetings. U.S. Manager for
Codex, U.S. Codex
Office.
Develop appropriation ..................... ..................... 1/1/97................ ......................
package to include
in FY-99
appropriation
submission.
D. Seek Congressional funding for Prepare estimate of --Policy level ..................... 2/1/97................ 12/97.
individual Federal Agency resources needed. Steering Committee.
activities in the development, --U.S. Manager for
review, and acceptance of Codex Codex.
standards.
E. Provide training for all U.S. Interagency working U.S. Codex Office.... ..................... 2/1/97................ Ongoing.
Codex officials to ensure group to define
awareness of operating procedures training
for delegations and to enhance requirements and
knowledge and skills. (Include plan. (FDA, EPA,
training modules which distinguish USDA, USTR, DOC,
between food safety and quality State).
requirements in Codex standards
and the implications under WTO).
See 4(A).
[[Page 23753]]
F. Reorganize current Codex Discuss proposal w/ --Under Secretary for ..................... 2/96.................. 5/1/97.
Steering Committee to better current Steering Food Safety.
manage and provide oversight in a Committee. --Existing Steering
timely manner to Codex issues, Committee.
e.g. form separate policy and --U.S. Manager for
technical committees. (1 senior- Codex.
level policy committee) (1 senior-
level technical committee).
Review Steering --Under Secretary for ..................... 6/1/97................ 8/1/97.
Committee comments Food Safety.
and get Steering --Steering Committee.
Committee --U.S. Manager for
endorsement. Codex.
Prepare draft terms --Under Secretary for ..................... 8/1/97................ 10/1/97.
of reference for new Food Safety.
committees and --Steering Committee.
determine membership. --U.S. Manager for
Codex.
G. Develop a process to define Agencies document --FDA, USDA, EPA, To be determined..... 2/1/97................ Ongoing.
inter/intra agency communication current procedures DOC, USTR.
problems and necessary steps to of inter/intra --Policy level
resolve them. Such steps should be process to U.S. Steering Committee.
oriented toward sharing Codex office and --U.S. Manager for
information with a view toward identify steps taken Codex.
identifying significant cross- to resolve problems.
cutting or controversial issues to Manager routinely
Codex Steering Committee. participate as
member.
H Establish relationship with SPS Share data on --U.S. Manager for To be determined..... 2/1/97................ 10/1/97.
Committee. acceptance of Codex.
standards. --U.S. Codex Office..
I. Establish Homepage on Internet ..................... --FSIS Administrator. ..................... 2/1/97................ 7/1/97.
in the U.S. Codex Office and --U.S. Codex Office..
utilize electronic transmission of
documents:
transmitting U.S. response
to request for country comments.
receiving working Codex
documents.
J. Ensure that Codex duties are U.S. Codex office to Individual Agencies.. ..................... 2/1/97................ 7/1/97.
reflected in Codex managers introduce subject/
(delegates/alternates) position need to the Steering
descriptions/performance plans. Committee.
Develop generic performance Codex office to ..................... ..................... 10/1/97............... ......................
standards. provide agencies
generic statement of
duties of U.S.
Delegates.
Steering Committee to ..................... ..................... ...................... 10/1/97.
contact individual
agencies to request
initiation of this
objective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing
A public hearing is scheduled for May 8, 1997, from 9:30 AM to
12:30 PM, at the Holiday Inn Rosslyn-Westpark, 1900 N. Fort Myer Drive,
Arlington, VA 22207. Attendees will hear brief descriptions of the
issues and action plans, and will have the opportunity to pose
questions and offer comments. A transcript will be made of the
proceedings. The Agencies plan to use the record of this hearing and of
comments received in finalizing their planned approaches to achieving
U.S. goals for Codex standard-setting activities.
Comments regarding the Codex standard-setting activities may be
sent to the FSIS Docket Room (see ADDRESSES). Please state that your
comments relate to Codex activities and specify which issues and
objectives your comments address.
Done at Washington, DC on: April 25, 1997.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 97-11314 Filed 4-28-97; 1:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
