Codex MRL

When MRLs are set under Japanese law, the Japanese authorities will consider the Codex MRLs for international harmonization. However, Japan has set original food consumption amounts and GAPs. In this respect, the Japanese regulatory agency retains the rights to establish original values for the MRLs for each commodity based on toxicological exposure assessment. 

While all nations of the world possess the sovereign right to establish their own acceptable levels for pesticide residues in foods, many lack the resources to develop their own regulatory programs and instead rely upon a set of international standards developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, frequently referred to as Codex. The Codex international standards are termed maximum residue limits (MRLs) and, like U.S. tolerances, are established primarily as enforcement tools for determining whether pesticide applications are made according to established directions. While many countries have adopted Codex MRLs, others, such as the U.S. and several Asian countries, rely on their own standards. Thus, there is no uniformity among the world with respect to allowable levels of pesticides on foods. A pesticide-commodity... 

In many cases, the U.S. tolerances and the Codex MRLs are similar, although there are other cases where they may be quite different. When U.S. tolerances and Codex MRLs can be compared directly, 47% have been shown to be equivalent, 34% of Codex MRLs were found to be lower (more restrictive), and 19% of U.S. tolerances were lower (General Accounting Office, 1991). There are a number of reasons that explain the differences these include the use of different data sets, different methods to regulate pesticide metabolites, and different agricultural production and pest control practices. 

The Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) began work in 1963 following a decision that the Codex Alimentarius Commission should recommend MRLs for pesticides and environmental contaminants in specific food products to ensure the safety of foods containing residues. It was also decided that JMPR should recommend methods of sampling and analysis. There is close cooperation between JMPR and the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR). CCPR identifies those substances requiring priority evaluation. After JMPR evaluation, CCPR discusses the recommended MRLs and, if they are acceptable, forwards them to the Commission for adoption as Codex MRLs. 

Under the SPS agreement, if an importing country s MRL is more stringent than the Codex MRL for the same drug/commodity combination, the importing country may be required to justify scientifically why it cannot accept the Codex MRL. These provisions will improve the flow of international trade and help reduce the number of different national MRLs. Default tolerances will be subject to the same treatment as MRLs established after full scientific evaluation of the chemicals concerned. 

The concept of adoption of MRLs by reference aims to establish a permanent mechanism under which an importing country with no established MRLs for particular commodity/residue combinations will automatically apply the Codex MRL to relevant imported products. For those situations in which the Codex has not yet established MRLs, the MRL of the exporting country, or that of an agreed third country, would automatically be applied, provided that the MRLs have been determined by scientifically based chemical evaluation procedures. This mechanism already applies in a number of EU countries and is consistent with EU directives. 

Many EU Member States participate actively in the work of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), which is hosted by The Netherlands. Before and during each CCPR meeting, EC positions are co-ordinated as far as possible. In view of the special status attached to Codex MRLs since the signing of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement), the EC now attaches great importance to Codex work. 

The procedures used by the US to establish tolerances are similar to those used by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to determine their analogous Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs). One comparison of US tolerances and Codex MRLs demonstrated that the two sets of standards were equivalent 47 percent of the time while US tolerances were lower 19 percent of the time and Codex MRLs were lower (and therefore more stringent) 34 percent of the time. Some of these differences were explained to result from different agricultural production and pest control practices, the use of different data sets, and differences in how the breakdown products of some pesticides are regulated (General Accounting Office, 1991). 

JMPR Joint Meeting on Pesticides Residues (FAO/WHO) JMPR advises the CCPR, which is responsible for recommending the Codex MRL. 

It was apparent from the compilation of pesticide-commodity combinations of trade violations that national or Codex MRLs of these pesticides for many commodities, both minor and major, are not available (Table 1). Commodities of particular interest to developing countries where national or Codex MRLs are lacking include mango, papaya, banana, peppers, chillies, paprika, Chana dall (chickpea) and sesame seed. 

Codex MRLs are often used as reference standards for the import and export of commodities by many countries, especially developing countries. Setting of MRLs demand vast financial and technical resources and these are often established by developed countries only. Residue trials are usually conducted for major crops in most countries by the agrochemical industry. Although this helps to overcome several problems pertaining to crops providing substantial economic returns, it does not address the problem of setting MRLs for minor food crops. 

Codex MRLs are not available for many agricultural crops originating from developing countries. There are no MRLs of pesticides for starfhiit and only one for passion fruit. For papaya, which is traded in substantial amounts in regional and global trade. Codex MRLs are available for chinomethionat, dithiocarbamates and prochloraz only. There are a limited number of Codex MRLs for several other crops such as pineapple, mango and watermelon. 

Minor crops such as tropical fruits, vegetables, spices, tea, etc. are traded in substantial amounts in international trade. The total amount traded is usually small in comparison with other major crops. These may however, contribute significantly to the national coffers of small developing countries. As illustrated in Table 1, Codex MRLs for many of these commodities are not available for reference as international food standards. This may be attributed to inadequate baseline data on residue trials and the low priority accorded by Codex to the elaboration of these MRLs. 

The number of Codex MRLs deleted each year far outnumbers the enactment of new ones, as the process of establishing international standards is a long and arduous one, and may result in unwarranted trade vulnerabilities particularly for developing countries. 

Extrapolation for major crops is almost impracticable. Developing countries should therefore, take steps to generate residue trial data for the elaboration of MRLs where Codex MRLs are not available for commodities of economic importance to their countries. Collaborative regional efforts could play a pivotal role in meeting this objective. Under the framewoik of the WTO s SPS Agreement, Codex recommendations relating to food safety should be based on sound science and risk assessment. 

Current procedures should be improved to further facilitate the process of setting Codex MRLs. In order to avoid potential trade disruption, the process should be improved to between 2-4 years, and should not exceed 4 years to provide any practical value. The established Codex MRLs should stay longer than 10 years before a periodic review takes place. To avoid trade vulnerabilities, interim MRLs should be made available immediately after the JMPR evaluation. This should remain for 2-3 years, a period sufficient for further comments and evaluation by national governments and other organizations. Importing countries should justify with science-based evidence for the non-acceptance of these interim MRLs. 

Almost all developing countries are dependent on Codex MRLs for the import of foodstuff into their coimtries. While the level of acceptance is extremely high in these countries, which consider Codex MRLs as safe to human health as these have undergone elaborate risk assessment evaluation. Some developing countries however, for lack of understanding and information on the GAP for which these MRLs are established, did not consider the GAP in their countries when incorporating Codex values into their national legislation for food safety. 

Harmonisation with Codex MRLs is a key process in the facilitation of global trade. Codex MRLs should remain the international reference standards for pesticide residues in food should a trade dispute arise, unless a clear and sound science-based assessment showed an intake likely to present a public health concern. 

Developing countries should take efforts to initiate short and long-term programmes to overcome the problem of the lack of Codex MRLs for commodities frequently violating... 

The importance of Codex standards is that they offer a globally harmonized, unbiased and authoritative source of MRLs that take into account the various national GAP for a particular pesticide-commodity as well as available residue trial data. The authoritative nature of Codex MRLs has, in fact, been recognized and agreed in principle (if not always in practice) by the maj ority of important trading countries. The World Trade Organization (WTO), through a 1995 agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), identified Codex... 

MRLs as the official reference for food safety issues which affect intemahonal food trade and the basis for resolution of trade disputes. Thus, it would appear that with respect to management of residues and MRL issues associated with global trade, the mechanism for preemphng potenhal nahonal differences in GAP is neatly in place. Indeed, Codex MRLs are quite useful as reference points for many countries which do not establish their own nahonal M RLs (e.g., Algeria, Chile, Colombia, Pakistan, Philippines) or may defer to Codex MRLs when they are available (e.g., Brazil, China, India, Israel, Korea). 

Thus, the promise of Codex MRLs offering a single, harmonized listing of globally applicable MRLs to facilitate world trade has not yet been fully realized due to internal problems with the Codex process and also the divergent interests... 

MRLs currently in force within the 25 members states, and (3) Codex MRLs. Promulgation of a complete set of EU MRLs may take several years to occur based on the complexities of selecting the most appropriate value to reflect differences in GAP among member states and requirements for safety determination via dietary intake assessment. The new European Food Safety Agency (EES A) is expected to play a major role in implementation of the accelerated EU MRL process. A process for establishment of an EU import MRL based on overseas GAP and data will also be available in the future. 

---