HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
HB Ad Slot
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS: Outcome of 28th Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO28)
Tuesday, March 26, 2024

The 28th session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO28), hosted and chaired by Indonesia, concluded its work on amending the existing Standard for named vegetable oils (CXS 210) by adding four new oils (avocado, Camellia seed, Sacha inchi (Plukenetia volubilis), high oleic acid-soybean oil). CCFO28 completed its work on amending sections 3 and 8 and the appendix of the existing Standard for Olive Oils and Olive pomace oils (CXS 33) while seeking further information about 1,2-diacylglycerides (DAGs) and Pyropheophytin “a” (PPPs).

CCFO28 concluded its work on the addition of Calanus oil in the existing standard for fish oils (CXS 329). CCFO28 amended existing standards on pro-visions for non-retail containers. CCFO28, agreed to start new work on (a) a standard for microbial Ome-ga-3 oils, (b) review some standards to introduce provisions to reduce Trans-Fatty Acid (iTFAs) intake. CCFO28 amended the lists of Acceptable Previous Cargoes and of Banned Immediate Previous Cargoes (CXC 36). CCFO28 addressed other technical issues (methods of analysis, labelling and food additives).

The 28th session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO28), hosted and chaired by Indonesia, was held in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), from 19 to 23 February 2024 and was attended by thirty-seven (37) Codex members, including one regional economic integration organization (i.e., the European Union), as well as by ten (10) observer organizations, and representatives of the two parent organizations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the FAO and the WHO). The next session of CCFO (CCFO29) is tentatively scheduled on the second week of February 2026.

STANDARD FOR NAMED VEGETABLE OILS (CXS 210)

Main outcome

CCFO28 agreed to forward the additions of new vegetable oils (avocado oil, Camellia seed oil, Sacha inchi oil (from Plukenetia volubilis), and high oleic acid soybean oil) and the entire revised Standard for named vegetable oils (CXS 210) for final adoption by the forthcoming (47th) meeting of the Codex Alimen-tarius Commission (CAC47)2.

Main points discussed (see endnote i)

STANDARD ON OLIVE OIL AND POMACE OLIVE OIL (CXS 33)

Main outcome

CCFO28 agreed to forward the draft revised Standard for Olive Oil and Pomace olive oil for its final adoption by the forthcoming (47th) meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC47). The provisions on labelling and methods of analysis are sent to CCFL and CCMAS for their respective endorsement. A new EWG, chaired by Italy and co-chaired by the USA, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Canada was also created to (a) collect global scientific data and information for olive oil on free fatty acids, fatty acid ethyl esters, acidity, peroxides and sensory defects, taking also into account the influence of time, temperature, light exposure, UV exposure and oxygen exposure on the values of PPP and 1,2-DAG on individual samples; (b) assess the collected data and information for suitability and make recommendations to CCFO on the need and process for further analysis; (c) submit the EWG report on collected data sufficiently in advance to CCFO29 ; (d) a Circular Letter (CL) will be issued to seek data and information on these parameters; (e) CCFO28 also sought from CCEXEC an extension of the project timeline until CCFO30, to complete full re-vision of CXS 33 on ordinary olive oil (CCFO27 decision) and on DAGs and PPP, (CCFO28 decision); and (f) FAO was informed to organize a possible expert consultation on DAGs and PPP (decision to be taken by CCFO29, based on the outcome of the new EWG).

Main points discussed (see endnote ii)

CCFO28 considered the outcome of the work of the EWG as well as that of an In-Session Working Group (IWG), both chaired by Spain to address outstanding issues including the percentages for Oleic acid; the Uncertainty measurement of the Trans fatty acids; a footnote associated to sterols; and organoleptic characteristics for virgin oils; and all the related methods of analysis. CCFO28 therefore reviewed the provisions one by one as presented in CCFO28’s CRD03.

STANDARD FOR FISH OILS (CXS 329): INCLUSION OF CALANUS OIL

• Main Outcome

CCFO28 agreed to forward the draft revised standard for Fish Oils and its inclusion about Calanus Oil for final adoption by CAC47. The provisions on labeling and methods of analysis are sent to CCFL and CCMAS for their respective endorsement.

• Main points discussed (see endnote iii)

CCFO28 reviewed the provisions presented in CCFO28’s CRD05 (report of the EWG chaired by Norway). Overall agreements were reached on description; GLC ranges for fatty acid composition; other essential compositional criteria; and the methods of analysis. The revision covered fish oils used in food and food supplements regulated as foods but did not apply to foods or food supplements themselves. The standard was for verification of specific fish oils and for performance criteria of quality control and authentication of traded fish oils. The proposed limits for wax esters and the peroxide value were also agreed upon by the EWG. The EU requested astaxanthin esters levels be included in the proposed draft standard, given the numerical ADI assigned for astaxanthin by EFSA and that Calanus oil was only authorized in the EU member countries in food supplements not intended for infants and young children with different permitted maximum levels for different age groups and additional labelling requirements. CCFO28 noted that regulations of food supplements were outside the scope of CXS 329.

LIST OF ACCEPTABLE PREVIOUS CARGOES AND LIST OF BANNED IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS CARGOES (AMENDMENT CXC 36)

CCFO28 agreed to forward for adoption by CAC47, the proposed draft amendments to the Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk (CXC 36) (included in CCFO28’s Appendix III Part A and Part B) and agreed to keep non-food grade calcium lignosulfonate for an immediate evaluation by JECFA, for possible acceptance as previous cargoes. CCFO28 also agreed to (a) issue a Circular Letter to be issued to propose further amendments to the Lists; (b) encourage Codex Members and Observers to submit data on ammonium sulfate solution, wine iodines and urea for future consideration as previous cargoes. CCFO28 agreed to establish a new EWG, chaired by Malaysia, to (i) summarize the new proposals for addition to the List, (ii) prioritize substances for evaluation by FAO and WHO (JECFA), (iii) consider proposals for substance removals from the list, based on new data; (iv) submit its report well in advance to CCFO29.

Changes to the List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes:

(a) based on the points raised by FOSFA in CCFO28’s CRD16Rev, in Section 2.1.3 of the Code, after the second paragraph, a new sentence added “Therefore, when considering previous cargoes for the storage and transport of edible fats and oils in bulk, Appendices 2 and 3 should be read together as part of this code.” and in the table to increase the value of 0,1 to 0,3 mg/kg bw per day to reference of ADI (or TDI) and add the phrase “Where there are additional sources of dietary exposure to the previous cargo chemical substances, they should be considered in the exposure assessment.”
In the entry 2 on residues; (b) In the list of preliminary Notes to the List, a new Note ‘(3)’ added to read “Restrictions for substances beyond the immediate
previous cargoes must be followed: • Leaded products shall not be carried as the 2nd or 3rd previous cargoes. • Ethylene dichloride and styrene monomer shall not be carried as the 2nd or 3rd previous cargoes in organically coated tanks.”; (c) in the List itself, (i) Note 1 to the tabled List re-
worded to read “Pending further evaluation by JECFA” and Note 1 deleted for the eighteen (18) substances just reviewed by JECFA and confirmed in the List; (ii) Montan wax deleted, (iii) acronym MTBE added to Methyl tertiary butyl ethe; (iv) new substance ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE) added; (v) CAS numbers added to fructose, hydrogen peroxide and urea ammonium nitrate solution; (vi) suffix “highly refined food-grade” is added to Mineral oil (see endnote iv), medium and low viscosity, class II and to Mineral oil, medium and low viscosity, class III; (vii) for JECFA reevaluation, maintain calcium lignosulphonate liquid in the List with the new footnote 1, noting that JECFA recommended for non-food grade calcium lignosulfonate that at a minimum the information for re-evaluation should address the following: molecular weight range(s), chemical component identification and relative composition; toxicological data on representative products; and, (viii) while keeping them in the List with new note 1, assigned low/medium priorities for JECFA reevaluation of acetic anhydride and cyclohexane, noting that JECFA recommended that information for re-evaluation should address at a minimum the following: product grade(s) and composition including characterization and levels of impurities arising from all methods of manufacture.

Changes to the List of Banned Immediate Previous Cargoes:

(a) the Table note is amended to read “*Banned as the 2nd or 3rd previous cargoes in organically coated tanks and as immediate previous cargo in stainless steel and inorganically coated tanks”.

(b) typo to entry for ethylene oxide corrected (‘E0’ into ‘EO’); and (c) the hyperlink to FOSFA November 1999 is changed to new hyperlink to the FOSFA webpage related to Carriage of Oils and Fats at https://www.fosfa.org/technical/carriage-of-oil-and-fats/

PROPOSALS FOR NEW WORK – OMEGA 3-FATTY ACIDS OILS AND TRANS FATTY ACIDS (TFAS)

CCFO28 considered the outcome an In-session Working Group (IWG), chaired by the United Kingdom, that reviewed proposals for new work, as included in CCFO28’s CRD02.

New Standard on Microbial Omega-3 oils.

CCFO28 agreed to submit for approval by the CAC47 the proposal for new work on a standard for microbial Omega-3 oils (see CCFO28 report-Appendix XII).
For that purpose and pending CAC47 approval of this new work, CCFO28 established a new EWG, chaired by the USA and co-chaired by China, to prepare the proposed draft standard for circulation for comments at Step 3 and further consideration by the CCFO29 meeting based on the report of that EWG. The proposal for developing a new standard for Omega-3 oils produced from single-celled microalgae for human consumption was presented to CCFO28 by the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega 3s (GOED). These oils with a high content of EPA and/or DHA could be used in a variety of foods and food supplements. The purpose and scope of the project document was revised to cover any potential food safety issues. The timeline was also simplified (to complete the work within two CCFO plenary meetings). Specific Provisions in Existing CCFO Standards for Trans-Fatty Acid (TFAs) Intake Reduction. CCFO28 agreed to submit for approval by CAC47 the proposal for new work on the proposed revisions to Codex standards on fats and oils to reduce Trans-Fatty Acid intake (see CCFO28 report-Appendix XI). It also agreed to establish a new EWG chaired by Canada and co-chaired by Saudi Arabia, to prepare the proposed draft revisions to the three standards for circulation for comments at Step 3, pending CAC47 approval of this new work. The report of the EWG will be submitted well in advance to CCFO29. Canada presented the proposal by highlighting that the new work shall focus on three CCFO standards, namely, the Standard for Edible Fats and Oils Not Covered by Individual Standards (CXS 19), the Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads (CXS 25), and the Standard for Named Animal Fats (CXS 211), as fats and oils covered by these standards were more commonly partially hydrogenated and contained TFAs. A contrario, the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210) was not included in the scope of the work, since CXS 210 covers pure oils where partial hydrogenation is not an issue (i.e., if TFA may occur during refining, levels remained very low). CCFO28 indicated that priority shall be given to industrially generated TFAs (including iTFAs) through processing, consistently through-out Codex standards.

OTHER MATTERS

Labelling provisions for non-retail containers in existing and draft standards.

CCFO28 endorsed the proposed amendments to the labelling provisions for non-retail containers (based on the generic provision set in the Procedural Manual and a cross reference the new General Standard for the Labelling of Non-Retail Containers (CXS 346) for final approval by CAC47 as included in CCFO’s
CRD06, while informing the CCFL accordingly.

Methods of analysis.

CCFO28 discussed whether the method for the determination of gamma oryzanol in rice bran oil in (CXS 210) was still “ft for purpose” or whether there were any alternative method(s) that could be proposed for endorsement by CCMAS and then future inclusion in CXS 234. It will be subject to CCFO29 discussions based on comments in response to a new Circular Letter.

Food additives.

CCFO28 agreed that there were no technological justification for the use of chlorophylls (INS 140) on products conforming to CXS 19 (in relation to GSFA FC 02.1.2 and use in vegetable oils to restore natural color lost in processing or for the purpose of standardizing color, including in virgin, cold pressed, and other oils covered by CXS 19, especially for vegetable oils used in deep frying, noting also that their use could mislead consumers about the quality and authenticity of vegetable oils (especially virgin and cold pressed oils where no food additives use is permitted according to CXS 19). CCFO28 also agreed with no technological justification for the use of paprika extract (INS 160(c)(ii)) in products conforming to CXS 256. CCFA will be informed accordingly.

Food standards composition in relation to NCDs.

In response to CCEXEC83’s recommendation to all Codex Commodity Committees to give due regard to ongoing global efforts to achieve health and nutrition related goals through reducing non-communicable diseases (NCD) risk factors, CCFO28 indicated that it would be taken into account when considering new standards or during the review of standards relating to composition of foods.

Potential future work on inclusion of virgin coconut oil in the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210).

India was tasked to resubmit its formal proposal (project document).
All Codex texts elaborated by the CCFO and currently ‘in force’ are all compiled at https://www.fao.org/
fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/committee/related-standards/it/?committee=CCFO

CCFO28 full report is accessible at https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/tr/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252F-CX-709-28%252FReport%252FFinal%252520Report%-252FREP24_FOe_COMPILED.pdf

All CCFO28 working documents, audio recordings of the session, and Conference Room Documents (CRDs) are all available at https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/detail/en/?meet-ing=CCFO&session=28


Endnotes

Avocado oil – the outcome of the work of the EWG (chaired by Mexico and co-chaired by USA) was considered by CCFO28. Discussions were held on reducing the low end of the range for beta-sitosterol from 79 to 75 in the table defining maximum levels for some phytosterol (desmethylsterols) in crude avocado oil (authentic samples) as a percentage of total sterols, but the range was finally kept 79.0 – 93.4 for beta-sitosterol. For Delta-7-stigmastenol, it was the upper end of the range which was suggested to be lowered to 1 but CCFO kept the initial 1.5. For Other ste-rols and the footnote for Clerosterol, CCFO28 agreed to increase the upper limit for the range of clerosterol up to 2.5%, (included as a footnote to Table 3) to reflect better authentic avocado oil from various parts of the world. Reference to that footnote was moved from the provision “Others” in the table to “Avocado oil” (i.e., name of the oil) to the top of the table 1 to avoid any confusion between the range for “Others” (Not detectable (ND) – 2.0%) and the agreed final range for clerosterol (1.0 – 2.5%). Indeed, unlike other oils set in the standard CXS 210, a separate range was provided for clerosterol in avocado oil, and thus was not included under “Others”. This footnote is meant to appear under Table 3 once added to the revised standard and CCFO28 agreed that all existing footnotes should appear under all relevant tables – and not just Table 1 – to ease the use of the Standard. CCFO28 also agreed to amend the range for total Sterols from 3500–6500 mg/kg to 3000–7500 mg/kg, to reflect better the range of total sterols found in authentic avocado oil around the world. With regards to levels of tocopherols and tocotrienols in crude avocado oils, CCFO28 agreed with the ranges for tocopherols and tocotrienols levels presented in Table 4 except for deltatocopherol where the upper range was increased from 50 to 70 to reflect better authentic avocado oil from different regions. The requests to adapt composition values – in particular C16:0, C18:1 and C18:2 in Table 1 and on camp-esterol (in Table 3) – to reflect better composition of authentic avocado oil from new growing regions were proposed to be reconsidered in the future considering availability of new data from authentic individual samples. Cis-vaccenic acid (C18:1 n7) could serve as a potential unique parameter to authenticate avocado oil but members were encouraged to collect more data to improve the fatty acid profile of avocado-do oils, in particular for cis-vaccenic acid (C18:1 n7) so that it could be considered for future inclusion by CCFO.

Camellia seed oil – CCFO28 considered the outcome of the EWG, chaired by China, as well as all the comments provided ever since in response to the circular letter or available at the session in Conference Room Documents (CRD). Several technical changes were introduced during that EWG process such as the deletion of C. oleifera var. meiocarpa from the definition, the fatty acid ranges of C17:1 and C22:0 was changed from ND to ND – 0.1 in the Section 3: Essential Com-position and Quality Factors: Table 1; the lower-end range value for saponification was changed from 188 to 187 in the Table 2 of Appendix ; and the lower limit for beta-tocopherol and delta-tocopherol was changed from zero to ND, and the range of total tocopherols and tocotrienols from 70-1000 to 100-1000, in the Table 4 of the Appendix. It was also noted that, com-pared to other oils, Camellia seed oil, as defied, had higher values for delta-7-stigmastenol. Based on the new document presented in CRD19 and comments presented in session, CCFO28 also agreed to add C. japonica to the revised draft product definition in Section 2.1. CCFO28 endorsed all the recommendations in CRD19 about the provisions set in Section 3.1 for the essential composition and quality factors in Table 1 and for the Appendix on other quality factors and composition factors, especially provisions proposed for inclusion in Table 2 on Chemical and physical characteristics of crude Camellia seed oil, in Table 3 on levels of desmethylsterols in crude camellia seed oil from authentic samples, and in Table 4 on levels of tocopherols and tocotrienols in crude Camellia seed oil from authentic samples.

Sacha Inchi oil – CCFO28 considered the outcome of a dedicated EWG chaired by Peru, as well as all the comments provided ever since in response to the Circular Letter or available at the session in CRDs. Several technical changes were introduced during that EWG review, such as different processing methods being deleted from the definition set in Section 2.1 Product definition to ensure consistency with the approach to definitions in CXS 210; the statement regarding the levels of linolenic acid and linoleic acid was deleted to align the relevant section set in CXS 210, with regards to the GLC ranges of fatty acid composition in Section 3.1; the proposed values ND for fatty acids C11:0 and C15:0 were deleted as these are not included in Table 1 of CXS 210; and the fatty acid ranges for C18:1, C18:2, C18:3 were adjusted based on comments received; the lower value of the range of the saponifiation value was amended from 189 to 185 (mg KOH/g oil); while in case of the iodine value, the range was changed to 182-205 in Table 2 of the Annex; and a few editorial or formatting revisions were also made to ensure
better consistency with CXS 210. CCFO28 therefore considered the revised provisions for Sacha inchi oil included in CCFO28’s CRD24 section by section,
noted all the changes and endorsed all the proposed provisions. High Oleic Acid Soya Bean Oil – CCFO28 considered the outcome of a dedicated EWG chaired by the USA, as well as all the comments provided ever since in response to the Circular Letter or available at the session in CRDs. Several technical changes were introduced during that EWG review such as the Product definition (Section 2.1) was amended to include “soybean oil – high-oleic acid”; the range of C18:2 was revised from 1.0-12.0 to 1.0-16.0 in the Table 1– GLC ranges of fatty acid composition (Section 3: Essential Composition and Quality Factors) ; the temperature x=20°C was inserted to the provision for relative density (x °C/water at 20°C) in Table 2 of the Appen-dix; and a few editorial amendments were made to different provisions to ensure better consistency with CXS 210. CCFO28 considered the revised version included in CCFO28’s CRD26. CCFO28 agreed to the proposed revised product definition. It also endorsed the proposed GLC ranges of fatty acid composition (expressed as percentages) and dismissed the proposal to move the phrase “High-oleic acid soya bean oil must contain not less than 65 percent oleic acid (as a percentage of total fatty acids)” from Section 3.1 to Section 2.1 to keep the longstanding approach to with regard to keep the fatty acid composition of oils in Section 3.1., included in the CXS 210 in more than one designation (e.g. normal and high oleic acid varieties). CCFO28 also endorsed all proposed provisions in on essential composition and quality factors (set in Table 1 on in Section 3.1), as well as those for other quality factors and composition factors in the Annex, in particular the Chemical and physical characteristics of crude vegetable oils (set in Table 2), the levels of desmethylsterols in crude vegetable oils from authentic samples as a percentage of total sterols (set in Table 3) and the levels of tocopherols and tocotrienols in crude vegetable oils from authentic samples (mg/kg) (set in Table 4).

ii Oleic acid – With regards to the GLC ranges, CCFO28 discussed two different proposed lower values for the range for Oleic acid (C18:1) (53 and 55). Value 53 was viewed by some Members as necessary to reflect authentic Olive Oil from different production regions. Value 55 was enshrined in other Members legislation, and it was important for ensuring authenticity of Olive Oil. Others pointed out that to have a standard that was inclusive of all authentic Olive Oil due to geographical factors and climatic factors, the value 53 could be a good compromise.
CCFO28 agreed to the proposed lower end value at 53 for Oleic acid.

Uncertainty measurements for Trans fatty acids – CCFO28 endorsed the recommendation of the IWG to maintain the two decimals for uncertainty measurements for this parameter.

4α-Desmethylsterols composition (% total 4α-desmethylsterols) and Footnote regarding sterols – CCFO28 discussed the footnote indicating that “Virgin Olive Oil’s authenticity is not compromised if one sterol, or their minimum content, does not fall within the ranges provided for if all other sterols and parameters tested referred to in this standard fall within the stated range”. Some Members were of the view that this footnote was essential to ensure that the standard did not exclude authentic Olive Oils coming from different regions. Others were opposed to the inclusion of such a footnote noting that it made assumptions that all sterols were equally relevant with regard to determination of authenticity, which was not the case, and it could allow adulterated oils to meet the
standard and such footnotes should not be included until further studies were available to better inform their content. That footnote was subject to extensive debates and opposite arguments and views, especially in relation to the provision for campesterol and its associated footnote on sterols for virgin Olive Oils. It was also noted that in the decision tree, the footnote (c) relating to delta-7 stigmastenol levels should also be revised to better reflect authentic Olive Oils from all regions. CCFO28 finally agreed to amend footnote (b) in the revised decision-tree as follows: “(b) When a virgin or extra virgin olive oil naturally has a camp-esterol level > 4.0% and ≤ 4.8%, it may be considered authentic if the stigmasterol level is ≤ 1.4% and the del-ta-7-stigmastenol level is ≤ 0.3%. The other parameters shall meet the limits set out in the standard.” Members and Observers were urged to undertake further studies on these aspects and that an EWG could be established to examine the results of these studies, to adapt sterol levels and the associated footnotes b and c in the decision-tree. Syria expressed a reservation as it would not recognize as authentic Olive Oils, products deviating from delta-7-stigmastenol ranges.

Organoleptic characteristics of virgin Olive Oils –
Virgin Olive Oil – This issue was also heavily debated as divergent views were expressed on the value of 2.5 (to be maintained in the interest of consumer protection), while a value of 3.5 was more appropriate (due to uncertainty associated with the method). CCFO28 agreed to retain the original value of 2.5 but with the addition of a footnote (i) to indicate that this did not include the uncertainty of the measure calculated by the IOC method. Discussions for ordinary virgin Olive Oil were deferred to CCFO30 (as agreed during CCFO27).

Appendix 1 – 1,2-diglycerides (% total diglycerides) and Pyropheophytin “a” (% total chlorophyll pigments) – The proposed new provisions for 1,2-diglycerides (DAGs) as new section 1.5 and Pyropheophytin “a” (PPPs) as new section 1.6 were
extensively debated (consumer protection arguments versus not an accurate reflection of the quality of extra virgin and virgin Olive Oils). CCFO28 agreed on the need for a concerted effort to formally collect data on the use of DAGs and PPPs as quality parameters, and undertake an expert assessment of that data. CCFO28 agreed to (a) issue a Circular Letter requesting data on DAGs and PPPs as quality parameters in extra virgin and virgin olive oils in particular; (b) establish an
EWG to (i) assess the completeness of data received and report on progress to CCFO29; (ii) assess the need for a possible expert consultation (by FAO); (iii) consider whether or not to include such parameters in the standard at CCFO30, based on the outcome of the EWG and the expert review of the data. The International Olive Council (IOC) stressed its expertise in this regard and remained available to carry out any additional scientific studies and collaborate closely
with CCFO to solve this issue or any other technical issues. Methods of Analysis and Sampling — 1, 2 diglycerides (% total diglycerides) and Pyropheoph-ytin “A” (% total chlorophyll pigments). CCFO28 debated the issue at length, but it agreed to insert a footnote indicating “This method is retained pending review in CCFO29 and CCFO30” should be associated to the methods for DAGs and PPP. CCFO28 also endorsed all the updated methods of analysis in Section 8 and in Section 3 of the Appendix, including the ISO and IOC methods for DAGs, and the ISO method for PPP as presented in CRD03 (these methods were also forward to CCMAS for endorsement with an explanation about exceptional circumstances related to the inclusion of methods of analysis for DAGs and PPP while no parameters were formally included in the
standard yet.

iii Description — CCFO28 endorsed the description that Calanus oil is derived from the species Calanus fnmarchicus. Calanus oil consists mainly of wax esters (section 2.1.6).

GLC ranges of fatty acid composition in Table 1
of Section 3.1 (Essential composition and quality
factors) — With a few editorial amendments to C20:5
(n-3) Eicosapentaenoic acid and C22:1 (n-11) Cetoleic acid, CCFO28 agreed with the proposed provisions for Calanus oil.

Other essential compositional criteria (section 3.2) – minimum content of wax esters – Despite EU proposal to increase the minimum content of wax esters in Calanus oil to 85 w/w% (to align with its specifications), CCFO28 endorsed the outcome of the EWG report that “For Calanus oil (2.1.6) the content of wax esters shall be at least 80 w/w%”.

Quality Parameters (section 3.3) – CCFO28 endorsed the addition of the provision “and fish oils with a high wax ester concentration of 80% or more such as calanus oil (Section 2.1.6)” in Section 3.3.2. CCFO28 agreed to retain the original peroxide value for fish oils of ≤ 5 milliequivalent of active oxygen/kg oil, despite the EU proposal to reduce it to ≤ 3 milliequivalent of active oxygen/kg oil to align with its specifications. It was also recalled that the provision “≤ 5 milliequivalent of active oxygen/kg oil” already existed in CXS 329, and the EU proposal was specific to Calanus oil and would require a new section, as it would not apply to other fish oils with high phospho-lipid concentrations.

Methods of Analysis and Sampling — The only method validated for Calanus oil was the AOCS method. It was noted that wax esters in fish oils could be quantified with ISO/TS 23647:2010. CCFO28 agreed to forward the AOCS Ch 8-02 method for endorsement by CCMAS.

Safety-related provisions on astaxanthin — Based on the EU comments about safe levels of intake of astaxanthin, a new section 3.5 about “Other compounds” was added to CXS 329 to state that “Maximum levels of astaxanthin in Calanus oil (Section 2.1.6) shall comply with regulations of the country of retail sale”; and a new Section 7.3 about “Other labelling requirements” was added to CXS 329 to state that “For Calanus oil (Section 2.1.6), the maximum intake level of astaxanthin shall be declared if required by the country of retail sale in accordance with the acceptable daily intake established for different age groups by competent authorities.”

iv Some Members noted these substances should only be included if they would contain no quantifiable levels of Mineral Oil Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MOAH). JECFA assumed in its evaluation that mineral oil products shipped as previous cargoes were only highly refined-food-grade products free of MOAH and assumed that the tank and associated pipework had been cleaned, inspected and considered clean and dry according to defied standards and good practices. Negligent or fraudulent practices were not considered.

HB Ad Slot
HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot
 

NLR Logo

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins