E1997C0166

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY No 166/97/COL of 17 June 1997 concerning a co-ordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 1997

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the European Economic Area Agreement, and in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement relating to the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 5 (2) (b) and Protocol 1 thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to in point 50 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement on the official control of foodstuffs (Council Directive 89/397/EEC), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 14 (3) thereof,

After consulting the EFTA Foodstuffs Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,

Whereas it is necessary with a view to the sound operation of the European Economic Area, to arrange for co-ordinated food inspection programmes within the EEA;

Whereas such programmes place emphasis on compliance with the foodstuffs legislation in force under the EEA Agreement, the protection of public health, consumer interests and fair trade practices;

Whereas simultaneous implementation of national programmes and co-ordinated programmes can provide information and experience on which to base future control activities;

Whereas Liechtenstein shall comply with the provisions of the acts referred to in Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement by 1 January 2000; whereas Liechtenstein was to do its utmost to comply with the provisions of the acts referred to in that Chapter by 1 January 1997; whereas therefore Liechtenstein is included in this Recommendation for 1997;

Whereas the European Commission, in its Recommendation of 8 January 1997 concerning a co-ordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 1997, has recommended the Member States of the European Union to apply a corresponding programme,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that during 1997 Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway should take samples and undertake laboratory analysis for:

(a) Aflatoxins in spices;

(b) Contamination of food products for persons suffering from food allergy or hypersensitivity;

1. Although sampling rates have not been set, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway should ensure that the number of samples taken is sufficient to provide an overview of the subject under consideration in each EFTA State. Suggestions will be made for the methods of analysis.

2. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway should provide the information as requested following the format of the record sheets provided in the Annex to help enhance the comparability of results.

3. Aflatoxins in spices

Spices, in particular pepper, chilli products, nutmeg and paprika powder, may contain aflatoxins in excessive amounts owing to different processing and storage conditions. Article 2 of the Act referred to in point 54f of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93) prohibits the selling of foodstuffs with excessive amounts of contaminants from the public health viewpoint and in particular at a toxicological level. All EFTA States have specific regulations for the aflatoxin content of this kind of product.

The aim of this element of the programme is to study the extent to which the levels of aflatoxins in these products exceed national limits. This study will also identify the legal basis for rejection in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Analytic methods should be capable of determining aflatoxin levels in the samples at least down to 1 ìg/kg.

4. Contamination of foodstuffs for persons suffering from food allergy or hypersensitivity

Food products labelled or otherwise marketed with claims implying absence of certain protein ingredients and so forth constitute a potential health risk to people suffering from food allergy or hypersensitivity, if they are contaminated with that particular ingredient. Even minute amounts may be fatal. Article 2 of the Act referred to in point 18 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (Council Directive 79/112/EEC) provides that the labelling and the advertising must not be such as could mislead the purchaser to a material degree, particularly as to the composition of the foodstuff. The aim of this element of the programme is to survey the enforcement actions taken by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway when contaminated food products are found on the market.

Scope

Any type of food with claims implying absence of a particular ingredient: in view of the types of such food most commonly offered for sale in EFTA States, sampling should be restricted to products not containing milk/milk proteins, lactose, egg, or gluten.

Project report: record sheet

The EFTA States should ensure that the number of contaminated food products and of producers/importers involved, together with information about enforcement action taken, are reported to the EFTA Surveillance Authority. If the kind of action taken is related to the amount of the contaminant found, action levels should also be reported.

5. This Recommendation is addressed to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

Done at Brussels, 17 June 1997.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

The President

Knut ALMESTAD

ANNEX

1. AFLATOXINS IN SPICES

>START OF GRAPHIC>

Table 1.1

Pepper

Member State: Total number of samples analysed:

Total number of samples rejected:

Number of samples

Average value of positive samples

(ìg/kg)

Median value of positive samples

(ìg/kg)

Maximum value

(ìg/kg)

Limit or guide value for rejection

(ìg/kg)

Aflatoxin Not detected

50 ìg/kg

B1

B2

G1

G2

Legal basis for rejection:

Method of analysis used (reference: literature, written standard, etc.; keyword description of the procedure; limits of detection and determination) (if different from the proposed method):

Other details, indications, difficulties encountered:

Origin of rejected samples, if known:

>END OF GRAPHIC>

>START OF GRAPHIC>

Table 1.2

Chilli and chilli powder

Member State: Total number of samples analysed:

Total number of samples rejected:

Number of samples

Average value of positive samples

(ìg/kg)

Median value of positive samples

(ìg/kg)

Maximum value

(ìg/kg)

Limit or guide value for rejection

(ìg/kg)

Aflatoxin Not detected

50 ìg/kg

B1

B2

G1

G2

Legal basis for rejection:

Method of analysis used (reference: literature, written standard, etc.; keyword description of the procedure; limits of detection and determination) (if different from the proposed method):

Other details, indications, difficulties encountered:

Origin of rejected samples, if known:

>END OF GRAPHIC>

>START OF GRAPHIC>

Table 1.3

Nutmeg

Member State: Total number of samples analysed:

Total number of samples rejected:

Number of samples

Average value of positive samples

(ìg/kg)

Median value of positive samples

(ìg/kg)

Maximum value

(ìg/kg)

Limit or guide value for rejection

(ìg/kg)

Aflatoxin Not detected

50 ìg/kg

B1

B2

G1

G2

Legal basis for rejection:

Method of analysis used (reference: literature, written standard, etc.; keyword description of the procedure; limits of detection and determination) (if different from the proposed method):

Other details, indications, difficulties encountered:

Origin of rejected samples, if known:

>END OF GRAPHIC>

>START OF GRAPHIC>

Table 1.4

Paprika powder

Member State: Total number of samples analysed:

Total number of samples rejected:

Number of samples

Average value of positive samples

(ìg/kg)

Median value of positive samples

(ìg/kg)

Maximum value

(ìg/kg)

Limit or guide value for rejection

(ìg/kg)

Aflatoxin Not detected

50 ìg/kg

B1

B2

G1

G2

Legal basis for rejection:

Method of analysis used (reference: literature, written standard, etc.; keyword description of the procedure; limits of detection and determination) (if different from the proposed method):

Other details, indications, difficulties encountered:

Origin of rejected samples, if known:

>END OF GRAPHIC>

2. CONTAMINATION OF FOODSTUFFS FOR PERSONS SUFFERING FROM FOOD ALLERGY OR HYPERSENSITIVITY

>START OF GRAPHIC>

Table 2.1

Investigation of products with claims implying absence of one or more of the following ingredients: milk/milk proteins, lactose, egg, or gluten

Member State: Total number of products tested:Total number of producers/importers involved: Total number of products in which the abovementioned ingredients were found:Total number of producers/importers of products in which the abovementioned ingredients were found:Enforcement action taken when the abovementioned ingredients were found

Claims

Number of products

Number of producers/importers

Actions taken (*) Number

tested

contaminated

monitored

with contaminated products none verbal warning written warning improved inhouse control required sales prohibition administrative penalty court action other

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

milk/milk protein-freelactose-free

egg-free

gluten-free

(*)Comments on action taken and indication of action level (mg/kg) if the type of action taken is related to the amount of the contaminant found.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

>END OF GRAPHIC>

>START OF GRAPHIC>

Table 2.2

Member State: Analytical methods used

Milk/milk proteins

Lactose

Egg

Gluten

Further comments:

>END OF GRAPHIC>