 First of all, I would like to thank everybody for being on time. Thank you for allowing us to reach you towards through this event, strengthening capabilities in codecs with CCLAC. Thank you for the FAO for the webinar series of webinars where we can gather and strengthen our knowledge about codecs, elementary codecs with the objective of having more feedback about our knowledge. I would give you a few guidelines, general guidelines. First of all, this link for the first three presentations for the first module of the event and the second module will be in December. In the next few days we will have this information through your emails and our official networks. And please, I would ask you to save this link and the code to access the meeting. Don't forget that we have simultaneous translation in both languages, Spanish and English. That's why I would ask you to please choose the channel of your preference. In the next, the sessions will be recorded. So we can gather any information afterwards. These are the initial guidelines at the end of the first presentation. We have a Q&A session. That's why I would like to ask if you could please raise your virtual hand if you have any questions after the presentation. These are the guidelines. And I'm leaving the floor for the engineer, Roman Betancourt, who is the president of CCLSE to start with the event. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Dani. And good morning to everybody. I salute you from Quito and would like to say hello to FAO, regional FAO. Thank you, Marisa, Angeles, and everybody that works at the FAO. Thank you very much. And also I would like to thank the Ministry of Food Safety and of Korea for being a part, a very important part of these webinars. And I would like to thank also to all of the people that are presenting in the modules that we're going to have from now on. These are nine webinars like Daniela was explaining to you. And in this special occasion specifically I would like to salute Amanda Lasso from Costa Rica and Leonardo Vega from Uruguay. We're going to be the people presenting today. I would like to start and we will then start these webinars with them and their presentations and I would like to remind you all how complex the system is turning and we have a lot of challenges in the future. We have to see that the chain food chain for example for like COVID-19, and we have a lot of challenges the invasion of Russia and Ukraine. And all of the challenges that we have been facing from many years ago because of climate change for example, the growth of consumers also the demand of other sources. And how the industry has developed and science of course with new ways of producing food. And we have also plays and diseases that are resilient and have risen themselves and we are looking for technological tools to be able to control them and mitigate them and eliminate them. And we haven't always had the speed of science and the industry of innovation industry have been able to tackle these these challenges that we have, like for example the micro antimicrobial resistance or the use or misuse or abuse of antimicrobial also be in the production of food and also in the human health. All of these challenges makes us see ourselves as consumers and the producers of food in the food industry, so far as to harmonize ourselves to be in the same guidelines so and the same norms. So we can move forward in the commerce and have a basis to be able to protect the health of the consumers, and somehow cover all of these demands and all of these challenges that we face. And we see in some cases that the consumers have some complex demands. And with all due respect, all of us are. Sometimes these demands are extremes and have to be analyzed and we have challenges that are huge challenge for example the respect respect to science, and to be able to respect the codex guidelines to be able to comply these with these worldwide norms, but we also have a lot of pressure for the other actors that in some that were these actors influence in the decisions of codex, all of these challenges has made that together us with together with foul or that works with codex and the ministry of safety food safety and medical safety as well, and gives us a support to be able to tackle these knowledges that we have to express their doubts and to be able to share also their experiences through these series of webinars. And we are going to start doing now virtually that is why I from Ecuador as a regional coordination that we are very happy to be able to be heard. We know that throughout time, we will be able to be here with you until the end of the webinars but also with new participants from all over the Americas, including also the Caribbean. Thank you very much. I'm not going to speak any longer, and I will wish you success. And now we have two very special people that are going to speak in this webinar today so the floor is yours. Thank you very much. For your welcoming words. The floor is to what is a kaipo that is official of your safety and quality of foods in for foul Marisa. Thank you very much, Danny. Welcome to the first webinar strengthening the care, the capabilities of codex in CCLC in the implementation of norms for codex to be able to strengthen the resistance of antimicrobial and that are transmitted through the foul office for Latin American the Caribbean together with the agency of regulation and control of phytocentrary phytocentrary. Also we start this webinar the series of webinars with subjects related to codex elementary codex and food safety one of the subjects that we're going to speak of is the one of the day. The way the commission of codex elementary mission works at the commentary context that first challenges resistance to micro antimicrobial health analysis of risk contamination amongst others. I hope this session is of interest and I would like to wish you a great day, and that you keep on following us following us in this series of webinars the floor is yours once again Donnie thank you very much. Thank you very much Marisa for your words for to open this webinar and so it's time for us to start. I will leave the floor with Leonardo Vega, who is here from Uruguay. He is the director of commercial defense of ministry of industry energy and mining. He acts on behalf of Uruguay as a geographical representative of Latin America and Caribbean of codex he's a professor of innovation management strategic management of the context and international economy economic policy business school. Welcome Leonardo. Thank you for being here with us today. And the floor is yours. So we can begin with this webinar. Thank you, everybody. It is a pleasure to be here. I thank you all for the invitation. And I hope that the things I'm going to speak of today can be of use for everybody that is here. Just one second please because I'm going, I'm going to open my presentation. Very well. First of all, I would like to tell you a little bit briefly about the history of codex. So what came before the existence of codex because I think this helps us to understand the identity and the way that codex works and its purpose of course. Europe has had a very big influence in the norms of codex. In the 19th century, they had a compilation of norms that didn't have any legal value but it was a compilation of the norms that were was called codex elementaries in Latin to be able to give a name for the elementary codex. It was called codex elementaries Austria because therefore it was from Austria in 1943. With some recommendations starts to pop up and suggesting to create a organism to be able to create norms for the food industry, because we started to identify that in these norms, there were two sides that have been there throughout time. It has always been important because of two different reasons because of the protection of the health of the consumers but on the other hand, because the food norms are elementary norms can be a huge obstacle that can be an obstacle for the international commerce. So these two big worries, we have been always present in the worldwide agenda for food safety. And then in 1945 file was created in 1948, we created the OMS organization and one of its committees is specifically guided to do the norms in food safety. In 1955, in a conference together with follow an OMS, we created a committee of people's that knew about the subject and then it was recommended to be able to see the safety and the impact of safety in the food industry. And that's why in 1956 we created that heck for it's a commission that has been working together with codex until today. It is not part of codex, but the work that they do it's a point where they start to do the scientific analysis to be able to create the norms for codex. And the heck for was linked to the food health safety safety and they started to widen their scope of their capabilities and they also see contaminants for example talk scenes and residues of veterinary and medicine, for example, or antibiotics and other initiatives that's that are regional not worldwide but afterwards they become a reference start to add up in the European references always there first was with Austria and then in 1958, we start to think of transforming this initiative in with gathering all of Europe. And having always as a reference what was what was created in Austria back then in 1960 in the conferences of fall in Europe. They talk about the issues that has been generating about the proliferation of the programs of the norms for food industry and the impact that this is having in commerce, for example. In 1961, it is a very important year, because the general director of fall has to create wants to create a program international program of elementary norms or forms and then in Europe. Especially through the program that was being guided by codex and limit areas which was the European codex limit areas. They tell us that the general director of fall that they would accept this program and this is a very important factor that in November fall decides to create the norms of codex limit areas. 1962 actually begins the FAO WHO coordination. So the codex elementaries commission will be managing the preparation of these standards under the framework of a joint program between FAO and w and then w a show in 1963. The first meeting of the commission in Rome takes place. That's an interesting participation and shooting number of people attending. So this whole process has a as a substantial break even point, so to speak, with the year wide round of the gap, the whole way these trade or commerce or regulations were managed. So World Trade Organization established and set of agreements are reached. And those agreements significantly change the way they were managed at the gap times countries would decide what agreements to adhere which now but after the World Trade Organization. This is an adhesion system so you have to adhere to everything if you joined the WHO that means that you are joining, joining all programs that are being implemented. And one of those agreements is the health and fiddle sanitary agreements. This is the MSF. And this will be part of the codex elementaries standards those that places the codex in the top of the list in terms of relevance because it's not just because the protection of health of the population but also. It's relevant in terms of commerce or trade when deciding if a given standard has a scientific background. What's the codex. It's an intergovernment agency with the preparation of international food standards or norms. That's our reference standards under the framework of FA FA WHO joint program main goals, as I said. Or basically to have protection of consumers that is the preparation of standards on food safety and food quality and the guaranteeing that standards have a scientific background to protect the population's health rather than. This guy's way of trade barriers on the other option is deceiving practices. So as to make food item more attractive compared to other by saying that. So codex, it's just a food standards that countries use as a reference. I cannot say that I will. I did this. I will I will not be joining this because I don't I don't want food standards. I will just say that we follow the codex standards and that that's it. Well, that's not so these are not thought to be to substitute a national legislation. These are just a reference. Each country will have to go through the adaptation and putting these standards as. As by codex adapt them to the national legislations. Let's discuss now the, the structure of codex and how this is implemented codex has this structure. And we will elaborate on it later, but we have the committee that's all about commission. That's where all the members are represented. Commission members are those the FAO country members or WHO country members that are willing to join these codex. Then we have two more agencies or levels. The executive committee, which is a subgroup as part of the commission. Doing the political management to the agency and then a secretary with a mandate of the administrative portion. Then there are several technical committees in the preparation of the standards we have general affairs committee. Then committee for products special intergovernment agencies and regional coordinating committees so each one of these boxes. We have a number of technical committees so this is the structure of codex. The commission to date has 189 members in case of 188. These are states state members and then we have a special category, which is a member organization, which is European Union. As I said, in order to join codex commission, you have to be a member of FAO or WHO and request that directors of such organizations to join these commission other countries. And although they are part of FAO or WHO, they might not be willing to join the commission and they may be part of observers. They meet once every year. During the pandemic, meetings were virtual, but when meetings are on site, ones in Rome and FAO and Geneva, the WHO. The commission is the decision making agency or group, those making the final decision. So, most importantly, they adopt the standards which go through a preparation process, which will end up in the decision made by the commission adopting the standard or not. Then, there is a review of the different programs and schedules. They have the mandate to review what has been prepared, the level of the executive committee supported by the secretariat, and of course, reviewing the budget. The executive committee, as I said, that's the political branch as a chair, three vice chairs, all these positions are elected in the chair and the three vice chairs, plus six regional coordinators. And as we will see, Codex has an original organization where each region has a regional coordinator to coordinate activities of the different member states in the region on their work on Codex. The geographic representatives, they are not submitting the interest of the region, they are elected by the region, but I'm the geographic representative for Latin America and the Caribbean, but I am not going to the Codex commission to to what the regional countries think. I go, I attend the executive committee to defend, to protect the Codex interests as a whole. Geographic, because I represent a specific region, which is not the case of the regional coordinators. The mandate is to submit the opinion of the regional countries. The geographic representatives are elected to the commission for two periods and maybe elected only, re-elected only once. Which is the session of the commission, the geographic areas of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, the East, Near East Europe and the Southwestern Pacific. There's no overlap between geographic representatives and coordinators. The executive committee is the one preparing the agendas and sometimes they make decisions, but these decisions are to be taken to the commission. The executive committee will, the commission meets once a year, the executive committee meets more, much more regularly, and the executive committee will put together subgroups as part of the committee to address specific topics. Many of those subgroups are led by some of the VPs. Or the secretariat of the commission and have to lead the administrative support, coordination of work, and that's a gathering point of the points of context over Codex. Countries have different contexts, so the secretariat will talk to the point of contact and the point of contact will disseminate the information throughout the countries. As I said, there are six regional committees led by a coordinator. Those regional committees also work on the regional standard to Codex as a global standard, but also there are cases where for certain food items, which are used and traded in a region, but they are not known worldwide. So Codex says that there is no reason for those regions not to prepare standards since there is a relevant trade of those food items. Not worldwide, therefore, those rules or standards are approved as regional standards, and then regional standards as those items are disseminated throughout the world may be revised as global or worldwide standards. These are the regional committees today. And who are the, which is the country that has the coordination today in the case of Latin America and the Caribbean is it is the Ecuador and as with Romel. Then we have the technical committees, which are general topics, committees for basic products, and also work groups that are amongst the government. So these are the three committees that we have. First of all, let's talk about general topics. We have five that are being worked on general principles and play play besides residues for example, and contaminants and food addition and the special standard for food and nutrition and the contaminants that are present in food. And each one has their own committee. And we will have then also the residues for. Play besides and we also have pesticides and we also have analysis and take taking samples, and we also have committees on basic products. For example, with your oils and fruits and herbs for fresh herbs for example culinary herbs like in India some are active now and other are have their activities which are not working, which are on standby without having having a date where they start working on their work or working again and they have standards that they have to coordinate that it to keep working. And also we have some of them that are in standby and the list is quite long. You can see some of some of the basic products that are in standby. And we have also the work groups that are amongst governments. Here we have these three groups that are for foods that are obtained through biotechnological means, which are is the group of Japan, also food for animals, Biden, and then, and also the antimicrobial resistance. Here we have the National Committees for Codex, they do the work at the level of codex and then we have the National Committee for Codex that exists in most of the countries that are members these committees. They work in every country has a committee. And this is the contact point for Codex worldwide with the government organisms and national level so one of the their jobs is the first to update the government, which are the standards that are being worked on for Codex to coordinate the action of different national organisms that are going to be directly and directly affected by the standard linked to the food safety and also interact because Codex is always asking the countries for their opinions regarding the standards that are being worked on or the subjects that are being considered or topics that are being considered so this is a reference that will be able to answer these questions for Codex and we have to gather the opinion of each organisms that are members of the committee and also the National Committee is the one that tells which are the standards that are going to be approved at a Codex level. This is the history of Codex we have seen the structure of Codex. Now we're going to see briefly, what is the process to be able to approve a standard through Codex. It's a process with different steps. We have a first step that is the long step and then afterwards we have the fast way. The uniform way or the usual way it has eight steps to go through to be able to approve a norm and there's also in this procedure two rounds of questions that have to be answered and then on the fast way we have only five steps and one round of comments that we can write and review. How does this creating a norm a standard start somebody proposes a standard presents a document a project and then a document intended to elaborate this norm regarding a certain topics specific topic and then this starts to be considered by the commission of food. Codex elementaries. If they want then they can approve a new workgroup that always have in mind the project that was presented and the critical examination done by the executive committee on this standard and then they approve for this workgroup to start working on this standard on this norm and then they give this norm to a specific workgroup this organ that took this task as their own. It starts with a project of a standard previous pilot of the project and then we start then we went from step one to step two then we have a previous a pilot of the standard of the norm. So in this step, the secretary of codex is the one the organisms that works in this norm in this step. And then after the secretary of codex gives it to all of the countries to be able to get a feedback on it, like I commented before. Through the focal points through the committees of the international transaction of our limit areas codex and we start to gather feedback from the different members about the standard that was proposed. These feedback this feedback is then passed through the secretary and then is sent to the organ that is working on the standard that is in charge of the standard and then we start to modify the original document or not. We start to see what needs to be changed having in mind these feedbacks. And then if these observations we can are very important we can take a more important decision on the changing the standard. And then we will see the end of this presentation. I call the section of the principles we will see afterwards in the end of the presentation with this needs after the the organ modifies these documents we have then the project of the center. Here we send it to the members. This we send it to the executive committee so they can examine it and to the commission to see if they consider that that we can adopt it as a project as a standard. After a norm has approved this step. Once again, we send it to all of the members so we can gather feedbacks and observations. This is a similar step like we did in step three. In step seven. We examine and make a decision on the standard on the norm. And on step eight, we have a pilot of the norm that is given to the members so we can evaluate it and give it back to the executive committee. So they can thoroughly examine it and then to the commission to adopt the norm, and then this standard or this norm is approved. This is the uniform procedure. And then we have the accelerators pd procedure, then instead of having eight steps has five steps. Basically, the differences that we focus. We just don't do the step number six and seven and we do step five and step eight. Therefore, we eliminate two and we have five steps. In cortex. With the creation of elementary or food norms, it is linked to risks in the food industry. So therefore in cortex we distinguish two different steps, which are completely different. The first one is the analysis of the risks. In this step, what we do is gather the information that allows us to determine what are going to be the conditions in which a food item. It is not considered a risk to the health of the consumers. And the second step is once we have the scientific information in hand. We need to see which is the most etiquette way to create a standard on it. The first step is the analysis of risks. And for this step, for the analysis of risks, which is specifically scientific, the context elementaries has the support of a lot of specialized committees. The most relevant one is the share and that there are also other committees that support with scientific evidence to be able to create these norms. We also have committees of experts in pesticides or pesticides and also microbiology biological risks. And also we have a group of experts to be able to answer questions that we might have specific questions after this scientific step and the evaluation of the norm. We have been the step of risk analysis and then the other part, which is the to create the standard the norm is called the administration of the risks. So far this are the numbers of the results that we have of the work we have done in Codex. Codex has created norms, practical codes, guidelines and standards, general standards for food additives and maximum limit for pesticides or residues and also for veterinarian medication or drugs residue of veterinarian drugs, which limit this is also handled differently in every country some countries adopt this automatically, for example, everything that is regarding to the maximum limit of pesticides for for example, or veterinary and residue this is adopted because usually the countries have their own lists regarding this so we they just add the news pesticides or veterinary and residues these are the new levels and they adopted. There are some other cases, for example, which could be the guidelines or practical or the codes for the practices. It is a little bit harder for them to adopt it because it demands some adaptations because sometimes their norms and the food and norms in each country are already there so therefore this is more of a reference so they need to adapt it to their some cases in the national legislation it is easy to adopt and sometimes the standards that are in Codex they can be added in a country linked to the national legislation and sometimes they need to regulate it a little bit it depends on the nature of the norm and the structure of the legislation of the food safety standards of the country that is receiving this form. To end my presentation. I would like to talk about a very important subject or topic that is. I'm going to be honest it's going it's being the center of the debates regarding on every debate regarding codex. These topics are linked to the essence of codex, and the principles that are in codex. You can see that the reference that I did for the history of codex codex started with these doubts that was the protection of the health of the consumers of the population and also another part which is to also create external international commerce practices so to be able to solve both parts we needed the scientific information if I'm talking about a specific food item. And I say, okay I need to create a standard or norm that protects the health of the population. I said okay in this specific food item. The maximum doses of additives that it can have is this number and this those doses where does it come from how do we, how do we specify it from scientific analysis, there's some scientific analysis that can establish through the consumers for example the, which is the maximum account amount of substances that they can consume as a human being and therefore through science we see what are the requirements in this composition and the production etc etc that are very relevant when we start to create a standard. And. So that's the scientific information in order to protect populations health and then we have to decide what's the protection level. We want to offer those individuals of codex sets according to an agreement a certain reasonable protection level that is. What's the reasonable protection one may say that countries may want to adopt a protection level which might be higher or that is possible. The problem is that when a country wants to adopt a higher protection level then they have to provide scientific information not to codex, but an international trade a foreign trade, they have to prove that such greater protection has a scientific background. That's the problem codex has become a reference of what's reasonable and what's not reasonable to protect popular people's health care codex says that for the reasonable level is five for a given food item if a country has 10 or 15 instead of five. And then it is possible that that 15 the only purpose is just a barrier for trade of such food items so I don't know you. But w u World Trade Organization says you can set the level the protection level you once but you need the. You need. Scientific background if it's above the codex, then you will have to explain why you're doing so what's the scientific background or scientific support, as I said, on the one hand. That has the codex has become in a reference key reference for food trade package food trade but it is also a problem because it creates pressures in the preparation of standards and these are not only prepared as to what is the protection level. But also, we have to think of what will be the commercial impact of it. And we have to deal with that. But then the key here is that how codex will address this. Well, codex has an additional problem. It's not really a problem it's part of its nature codex adopts decisions by. But it's difficult you may say that it's difficult to reach a consensus, but the point is that it is difficult that when when the decision to be made is based on preferences. But it's much easier that the decision to be made is based on scientific information. And since codex is based on scientific information, then it's relatively easier to implement a mechanism where the mechanism for consensus based decisions but in a series of provisions. It says that when you are about to make a decision the scientific support is the key. So that if someone disagrees, it has to use the scientific base. So the scientific information scientific evidence shall be supported. Codex will not accept that the scientific evidence is based on a preference. So the consensus concept. It's not that everyone thinks alike. Consensus for codex is decisions are made based on scientific information. If a country disagrees, they have to be on scientific basis and these agreements without scientific background are disregarded. Let's say, let's say I am part of a committee preparing a standard then most countries. Okay, say the risk analysis step all the necessary information was submitted for the preparation of the standard the center was prepared and the country says. Well, the chair of the committee says, okay, it seems the center is ready so we will now submit this to the executive committee. And then somebody says, but I do not agree. So what happens and somebody could say, okay, there is a lack of consensus. Well, no, we have to see whether it is lack of consensus or not. Questions are to be made are to be asked. First question is based your your disagreement is based on what the individual could say that he or she disagrees because considers that the consideration was made of the given product and therefore the expert to committee preparing the standard should have done a different analysis. Well, that's an observation with a scientific basis. If the chair of the committee will agree to that it could say okay there's no agreement there's no consensus will ask the expert committee to carry out such specific analysis. Let's say the chair asks you disagree based on what and he says, I don't like the standard. Why I don't like it. I don't know I just don't like it. That's not a valid disagreement. You could say, okay, here she says it's not willing to vote. Okay. Fine. It's not just the willingness to vote or not. We need scientific background to disagree. Otherwise, or the chair, there is a consensus. Those disagreeing can and will will be part of the minutes and will explain why, but the if the disagreement that did not have scientific background, then consensus is present. This is an interpretation of a codex standards, which I will share with you, not every codex countries agrees on that some countries. claim that country not necessarily will have to offer a scientific background to disagree by the other reasons other than science that may allow countries to block the approval of a standard but since there is a consensus requirement country says that despite the disagreement there is no scientific background, then this should be considered and therefore the approval should be blocked to date this is being discussed at a codex level. This is an extremely difficult challenging issue and it depends on the development these may change the identity the soul core of the codex the way the way it operates and the rules that have to be met. But let's look at the principles which are those general guidelines that the codex commission has approved over time. So let me describe the sum, which I believe are important. There's a decision by the Commission in 1995, stating that, like I said before, the approval of standards is based on sound scientific data. And the main purpose is to establish quality and safety requirements. So we know the foundation which is scientific and the purpose. And then we have a 2001 decision where the emphasize is that in the risk analysis stage have to be separated so when I'm analyzing risks, you cannot cannot make considerations and how do you want to prepare the standard if you're preparing the standard the information scientific information is to be available. Codex sets a priority that the fact that in the preparation of standards, you cannot exert pressure on the experts provide an input for the preparation of the center so group expert groups have to act as independently as possible. And this decision 1995 says that there are other things other than the scientific background that may be taken into account for the preparation of standard. And this decision says that yes, and they are called other legitimate factors so it says that there might be other reasons and dealing with the protection of health of consumers and a fair trade practices for the preparation of the standard here is that these are additional inputs for the preparation of the standard that is these are additional additional to the scientific information is not a replacement. I mean, I cannot say that the fair trade practices are more are important to ignore and scientific background and and the scientific scientific background will never go against fair trade practices. Not all the other legitimate factors are valid to be discussed other things that the agreement requires if you want to add other legitimate factors in the in the discussion of the standard those factors have to be worldwide accepted. That is, not that in my country so and so, therefore, I want these to be an input for the preparation of a center if it comes from a country is not other country adds not a worldwide. So it's not a valid input for the discussion. If you want to add other legitimate factors into the discussion of the standard then you have to offer a support in terms of what it is and how these will be affecting the decisions made in the preparation of the standard. Say that I I've prepared a standard and in a committee is so the loser country that disagree is what's the procedure to be followed by the chair. If the disagreement is based on scientific information, number one, if not. The chair has to tell the member that well your disagreement is not valid because it will not it will not break the consensus these standard will be approved so the country. What the country can do is going to leave that in the minutes. But the the only the only alternative is that. Let me show you now. The same thing, but in a flow chart for clarification purposes. First, a risk scientific analysis, as I said, this is done by experts, other than the Codex committee. So on the one hand, what's the scientific information supplied for for analysis and then the evaluation or the assessment process by these expert committee that will prepare the inputs for the committees to work. Once that the committees get the scientific information. If we're going to add other legitimate legitimate factors to person to create the standard. Certain countries can say apart from the scientific information that we decided on we I want to have through the elaboration of the standard to consider also the practices for the external commerce for example somebody puts this forth. And the chair has to evaluate three different things regarding this proposal. First of all, if it is a legitimate factor that this country set forth, if the topic that they are presenting is linked to the protection of the health of the consumers or if the committee decides that what that country is is proposing is not a site doesn't agree with the project they have to reject the proposal of that country. If the chair says Okay, whatever you're proposing, we agree on but you have to justify it. Can you please justify why this other factor has to be added in the process of the elaboration of the standard. The country can say this because I wanted that said it has to have data behind that justifies why they should consider it. And finally, the chair has to evaluate if this factor that it was has already been assessed. fits in other legitimate factors. And if they have a fundamental base and it is an accepted worldwide if it's not accepted worldwide that also it also has to be rejected. So, for another legitimate factor to be able to be added of the consideration of the norm, it has to go through these three steps. First has to be inside the legitimate factor has to have a basis of fundament and data and accepted worldwide. When they pass three steps, it becomes an input that we can add to the process of the elaboration of the standard. So this standard is going to be processed through with scientific data and other legitimate factors that are being are being added as an input to be able to create the standard. The committee then starts to proceed to create the standard once it is finished to the chair as there's a consensus in the approval of the standard yes or no if there's a consensus perfect. These time is created, and then goes to the next step. The process has different steps as we have seen, and this can be repeated in the different parts of the process for example the chair says okay we have finished this work, and this is the standard is approved as such. And if it's done, there's no consensus what he has to ask is this if this consensus is based in scientific data or not. If the person that this is agree says yes it is based on scientific data and the scientific data seem reasonable. The chair what he has to do is that to proceed he proceeds to gather more information to the experts that are intervening in the process of the elaboration of the standard. When the chair asks. What is the basis of your disagreement. The people disagree and they explain something without scientific basis with the chair then says the only option that you have is to. Obscene yourself. So therefore they'd have to record the reasons why they did not follow up the elaboration of the standard and the standard is still is still going to be approved anyway. This process. This is the process of the creation of a standard so up to date there are other countries, what happens if there are other countries that disagree there are other countries that disagree when in the options that the chair has in already created standard what we are debating today. One of the countries members of codex is that some countries say that when the chair asks there's any disagreement there are some countries that says yes I disagree and these disagreements if they have no scientific data. And, despite of that, the standards is on standby for us, the countries in Latin America specifically we think this is very important to be looked at because when we reinterpret the standards of codex, we do not. There is no basis on the legal aspects of codex so the issue that they're rising here that. Some countries have the right then to disagree on standards not based on scientific data but just disagreeing because they just don't like a certain standard, and that generates a lot of uncertainty in the way codex works. And this is my presentation, I hope it has not been so long for you and I hope I was clear enough. And thank you for your patience. Thank you very much, Leonardo, excellent presentation. Thank you for explaining with great detail. Thank you for everything regarding codex. We have a lot of questions, and I'm going to start reading them. Give you some time to answer them. The first question is, what are the basis for a norm to pass through the uniform steps procedure or the speed up procedure. I think that it is not, there's not a specific criteria depends on the circumstances, for example, in the case of a standard that may be required because of an emergency. Then it goes through the speeded up procedure if not it goes through the uniform procedure. The second question is, what is the exact difference between standard and guidelines to say put it simply, the standard is very similar to what then becomes a law, the standard. It is not something that the countries have to comply with is not imposed on them, but it is written in a way that not always but many of many times they can be added in a degree, for example, in a decree to be able to have to establish laws, specific laws, when somebody has to comply with the law or not. But the guidelines are just the guides. It is harder to then establish if somebody is complying with it or not because they're just guides. They're just general criteria that they're asked to maybe follow or not. Thank you, Leonardo. And the third one is how do you agree in the plenary is it by vote of the members or do you need to agree get an obtain a consensus that's a very good question. First is what one thing is what happens and what the other things what should happen, what should happen if there's a disagreement and this disagreement needs to comply with these points that I commented before. If there's a disagreement that they have to say that this is based on a scientific with scientific data and if it doesn't have scientific data, the disagreement doesn't exist. And we need to then ignore the person disagree because they don't have scientific data to follow their disagreement. The person disagree and has scientific data to come. Then we cannot negotiate because it is science. And then there's something else that is a negotiation in some cases, we negotiate to be able to establish a standard that everybody can agree on. Sometimes we don't, everybody agree. There's a specific norm of identity, for example, where the countries of Latin America we propose to create a standard, and nobody agreed. We didn't, we didn't get a consensus there were countries that didn't agree. Therefore the standard could not move forward and be approved. That's a very specific case because in normal circumstances the standards created by Codex, they are linked to the safety of food. So, therefore, in this case, it was not of safety regarding safety was regarding identity so therefore the rule on the fact that it does not disagree. If it's not based based on scientific permission doesn't work because the original standard doesn't need a scientific basis so what what do we consider something that standard that dies or not. It is linked to traditions and practices regarding each region or each country more than scientific data. There are certain standards that don't need that scientific data I can disagree. So therefore, in my region, for example, I can disagree. For example, it's something that in another country they agree on, and they don't need specific scientific data on it. And we cannot all agree. We don't approve this standard. And there is no rule with that can solve this issue then. How can a country be an active member of. It has to be a member of the file or the WHO and has to contact the director of file or WHO that they want to be an active member of Codex. Next question, the difference between member and observer apart from the countries that are not members who else can be an observer. There are certain governmental organizations and other international organisms that are observers of the Commission. Amongst observers we have different categories. One which are members of FAO and WHO that have not decided yet to be part of Codex countries that are not members of FAO or WHO, but they would like to be in the commission of Codex elementarios they could also can be observers and other international organisms that want to participate in the meetings of Codex elementaries they can also do that and also non governmental organizations. They can also be observers. Thank you the next question is Codex to evaluate a standard do they consider the scientific basis and the commercial impact and sometimes they don't agree how do you get to a statement when this happens. I think I have already explained this in part but the scientific data has to be the most important part and when let's say I'm talking about food item. Now we need scientific information and we create a standard based on the scientific information and there's a certain country that says I do not agree with this standard being approved because it would affect us in a commercial point of view. Cannot put their commercial interests before the scientific data. Although they do not agree with this standard from the point of view of Codex rules and norms. These disagreements is not considered because it is not based on scientific data. Next question please. I'm going to add two questions together in a good of practices in commerce and we let's say we are creating a standard for a certain food item. And when we're creating this standard. There's a component and the liberation of the standard is the identity there are some countries that say there's other countries where they deceive or that they deceive other consumers when they don't say what it is actually on that food item for example I'm creating a standard for mayo. And there's a certain country that says it's very important for us to establish the requirement of the presence of egg of a certain percentage. So certain things that are not male don't come out as male or labeled as male. So that has one doesn't have egg it's not a requirement of safety is quality and identity. To add this in the standard. It has to establish just basis for commerce for example so the people that elaborate male don't have to compete with other people that create another product that makes the consumer believe it is male but it is actually not male. Next question. Is there an agreement for once the standards is implemented. Does somebody need to comply with this standard depends the standard. There is no there is no sanction. I. If we are part of cortex element areas what we do then we need to put in our laws in our legislation, we have to put it a link it to these standards approved by cortex but there's with it is not an obligation for us to do this. So maybe maybe I will have some issues on the commercial side, if we don't do this. If I should do is for example an obstacle link to the commerce if I have a standard that does not agree with the norm in the cortex level. I did not. The fact of not put in if not of not taking this law of products it gives the evidence that that the the norm that I agreed on will obstruct the commerce I don't have obligation of of complying with the norm but I may I may have issues in the commerce size. On the side of commerce for not complying with the cortex norm. Why some standards are mandatory and others in a facultative matter, there are goats, goes of practice standards and guidelines. Well that's a good question. Actually, I don't have an answer for that. I'll have to review all the standards using these two forms these two drafting to see whether there is a pattern before giving you a final answer. For example, as I said, the categories are those that say something as an statement. This is the maximum limit of an additive should not exceed a given number that it will be the first category of drafting. And then you have the other the other alternative which are guidelines, general standards or where it is difficult to say a priori if the case is or not for instance, a guideline reading that in the preparation of a food item should have updated information information is traceable relative to each one of the inputs you used when implementing whether that was met or not. It's difficult because the standard is in general but then we have contingent standards where its application depends on a contingency. And that that that they will specify the type of contingency for application a contingent standard is when you say if something happens, then these standards should be applied otherwise, it is not applicable. But the question on the drafting styles I believe it's a, it's a lack of standardization in terms of the drafting itself. Once a decision is made the process for a revision that does that requires additional scientific information or has to go through a different procedure. No, it's the same one. You have to revisit the whole process. We do the whole process. If a country has that what what the codex has said omitted to the to to define the protection of consumers, if the codex sets a given level of the typical case of of an additive with the maximum limit. So let's say he said the maximum level is eight. And another country will set a limit of four. Was the codex wrong. Well, not necessarily could be to one of two things may have happened one is that such country the codex, it was wrong. Still, standards are prepared based on a standard intake worldwide. But let's say that such an additive is related to a food item that in a given country has an increase that extremely higher consumption compared to the other the rest of the world. So let's say five kilograms per year in a given country. That's because it's a traditional since it is a traditional food item that they eat 10 kilograms per per year. So the level based on a worldwide intake is not consistent with the standard intake in such countries so there is a scientific foundation why the level should be lower. So that's an explanation why levels so set by certain countries are lower than the standard and others do so without the scientific background so would you ask, tell me why you said a lower. The answer is because I wanted to, but I don't have a scientific foundation for that. Now, now, if a country were to have a scientific background to set a lower level or more even more demanding than codex. Well, then in that case, the codex standard would be wrong. I know no case in that type of situation countries with more restrictive levels are in one or other categories with the peculiarities justifying the different limitations. On the same topic. There's another question here. Codex could be technically blocking trade when setting such a restrictive levels. No, the one that could say that is a special group, which is put together at the World Trade Organization. A country should consider or may consider that this level is blocking export, should call for consultations, fail to agree, call for a special group and the special group should say that whether the standard is an obstruction for trade or not. That type of decisions can only be made by a special group of the World Trade Organization. Codex will not issue opinions on national legislations. European Union as a member, they have their own levels but without the scientific background they have reduced those levels. Therefore, they are affecting the production of fruits and vegetables. What are the alternatives of countries so that the EU will follow those limits set by the codex. They have to go to the World Trade Organization for consultation. The World Trade Organization has a system that starts with the consultation and this is binding. The topic of the consultation is the only one that I can submit to a trial. So you have to take the consultation to the European Union, the World Trade Organization, and then I say I understand that the levels you set are of technical barrier for trade. And then the matter is discussed and then the European Union will have to offer the scientific foundation. Without that, then you can kindly request a change in those levels and stop applying such barriers to the affected countries. And if not, then the country can request a special group to decide whether the limit set by the European Union has a scientific foundation or is just the trade barrier. Probably this question has been already answered but still is interesting. When changing a standard, is there any recommended time for adoption? Considering that certain countries as you said with the codex standards are binding for national legislations. As I said, codex will not sanction countries for failing to adopt the standards. Each country will adopt the standards at the pace of their preference. Some countries, when a codex standard is passed, I understand my national legislation already includes or considers what the codex is stating. So there is nothing else to be added. Other cases at the Mercosur level, for instance, Mercosur standards are approved based on codex standard and then those standards which are prepared for Mercosur are added verbatim to the national legislation. And the pace of that is all up to each country. We know codex is applied to human food. Is there a committee for pet food? Standards? No. And I don't think it's a good thing either because codex, I believe, has to keep a focus. The focus is human food items, not pets. If we were to consider the diets of the different types of animals, which are completely different to those of humans, that would require a huge amount of resources. And to give you an example, in terms of food legislation, an important reference is the normal intake of an individual. What's the structure of normal intake? How much a person will eat in terms of proteins, lipids, what type of proteins? And from there, we can set the maximum limits, for instance, for additives, pesticides, residues, veterinary products, so on and so forth. But because weight is between 70 and 130 kilograms. Now, for dogs, I mean, we can go from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, so I could set the intake by kilogram of dog, but that would be a chaos. I mean, that's not possible to address. Can an observer be chair of a committee? I don't understand the question. I remember an observer, good chair, an observer, an observer, can an observer be elected as a chair of an electronic work group? Leonardo? An observer can a chair, an electronic group, an electronic work group, why not? Somebody has to act as a chair, has to be a member. So that's why I don't understand the question. I mean, is that in a special case? One last question which I asked to be rephrased, let me read it for you. Give me a second. And for additives, are you using, considering a sweater for fermented milk, but in the specific codex for fermented milk, updated in 2018, there is no mention of its use for the same additives. The question is not, I guess you're asking if that's an inconsistency. Well, no, I'm not familiar with particular, I have no knowledge of those particular standards so as to give you a final answer. It sounds like there is a lack of consistency, but I wouldn't be so final in my answer. Which one should be taken into account? That's actually the question. But inconsistencies are inconsistency and codex, we don't have a hierarchy. I mean, remember that codex standards are not mandatory, are not legal standards. An inconsistency in a country standard is far worse. If I have a standard in the country, say something it's a crime and another standard says it's not a crime, then there is a problem. Because when somebody commits that, is that a crime or not? So those type of inconsistencies in the country's legislation are the problem. But these are facultative, non-mandatory. Inconsistencies are addressed through consultations and see what happened when they are added to the national legislation, then adopt what it corresponds to. It's not good to have inconsistency, but it's not that severe. I'd like an inconsistency in the country legislation. That specific case, my suggestion is asking the commission that prepare the standard to see what's their opinion before putting that into the national legislation. Okay, when can you get information on the allowed contaminants levels which are not in the general standard? Are there any other references or sources? I don't know. Really, I don't know. But the regional coordinator, Rommel, I believe can have a better answer. Okay, Julie noted. Thank you, Leonardo. Okay, let me offer the floor to the hats and these and maybe anything else to add. Could you please help me with this last question to see if we can answer. Thank you, Leonardo, for the suggestion. Could you help me with the question please, Dani? I want to repeat it once again. Where can we get information about the level of contaminants that are allowed for the products that are not indicated in the general standards or contaminants? Do we have any other references for this? Thank you. I think that the maximum levels that are allowed when they're not in codex, the ones that are in codex, we can find them in the web page when we go to the search button and then we upload all of the standards of codex. When they're not in codex and other countries are sent them because with those criteria of each country and they can be uploaded, then the work there is a little bit harder because the countries are the owners of their own information through their websites and then there will be available in the website of each country. I don't know if I understood quite well the question if I was able to answer it, but this would be my answer. Thank you. There was another question and Amanda could rephrase it. I didn't understand it quite well the first time. The question was if an observer can be a chair of an electronic group work? The answer is no. Why? Because an observer, he's not part of a codex. An observer is the definition of an observer is a member that is not part of codex. They cannot then therefore then be chair of one of the organizations inside of codex. So thank you Amanda for clarifying this question because I didn't understand it quite well before. The observer can propose topics, but they cannot be an active member of codex because you need to be a member to be able to actively have a role in it. That's true. And the last question is do you recommend the adopting codex as a national technical standards considering that the standard codex standards don't have a cost and the national standards usually have a cost? What I believe is that No hay que descubrir la pólvora. We do not have to invent the wheel again. Everything that was already invented by codex, we have to take advantage of it. Sometimes the standards for codex leave a gap and we have to complement it with national standards. The work at a national level is a work that cannot be avoided. Thank you, Leonardo. I don't know if anybody wants to say anything else to be able to close the webinar. I don't see any virtual hands risen so Amanda, do you have a question? Thank you Leonardo for everything your presentation was excellent. Anybody that is starting in codex so congratulations for that. Thank you, Danny. And I would just like to say something regarding a few questions that were repeating themselves in the chat and as I said, how can countries make sure that this limit established by codex linked by risk analysis that is analyzed by its group of experts. The importance of sharing these limits and these data with their countries. When the countries are debating on this establishing of, for example, limits of veterinary and drugs or maximum of contaminants and additives. These are the ones assessed by this group of experts. We always do official requirement to the countries to be able to share this data. So it is important regarding on what Leonardo explained that risk analysis done by the committee of experts can be backed by data handed by every country shared by every country with the data of our own countries of the national data. If we not don't share this national data this committee of experts cannot work. And there's therefore sometimes we have data that is not a benefit for each country for our countries. That's why it is important when data is required from us, we can share our national data because we have been working many years for the asking the countries to share their information because sometimes they're scared they're scared of sharing this data. And, but afterwards we can see the result of this because this limit that affects the interests of our own countries. So, this is all I wanted to say, thank you very much Danny. Thank you Amanda for your comment. I don't know if you will have a question of your hands raised thank you yes I raised my hand. I would like to say a few final words. I would like to thank Leonardo for your presentation, and you Amanda for your comments today, and everybody for participating, and especially because these participation led to very interesting questions. And to welcome you to the world of codex, those that are starting in this world of codex, and are taking notes of this important work that we're doing worldwide as an organization. So, thank you very much of the elementaries of food standards, link to codex, and we count with each one of you. Your participation active participation is important throughout these regional committees thank you for the organization and for the interpreters thank you very much. From the middle of the world in keto thank you. Thank you for your comments Danny. The floor is yours of course. I cannot hear you yes can I speak. Okay, my, I would like to thank Leonardo Amanda the participants. I would like to highlight this inconsistencies that you can see in the text sometimes the translations are not perfect when you find things that like these please let us know throughout your codex through your codex committee or directly with Romeo and Danny to be able to answer your question or set forth your doubt, because sometimes when you change a question one word they can change the whole sentence so I would like to ask you if you find anything there that they have a doubt, please let us know so we can correct it thank you very much. Marisa, I just put the email of the secretary of Cecilax so you can send us your comments or doubts and we can answer through the email of the secretary of codex with. Thank you for being here. And we will see you tomorrow from 10 to 12 from the hour of quarter and we have the presence of Amanda lasso, who is going to speak up about the participants of elementary codex and documents like circular letters and groups of electronic group work and how to prepare ourselves for the plenaries in the codex committee and thank you for the participants that were here today. That's it. It's through the same zoom link with the same code and please so we can wrap this up can you please turn on your camera so we can take a picture and register everybody's participation. Okay let's see you can count one, two, three so we can take a picture and everybody's ready with their cameras on. Thank you everybody for being here and we will wait for you in the next webinars. So this is a series of webinars and we have a lot of topics up yet to come and debate together. We are a lot. We are 225 participants. Thank you everyone. At least this is the number the highest number that I could identify today and please therefore I would ask for your patience for the pictures because it's a lot of pages that we have to print screen thank you very much this is the first picture. 123. The second page. One, two, three. People are shy they're not turning on their cameras, but we will still take a picture anyway. Just a couple more. And the last one. That's it. Thank you everybody and we'll see you tomorrow at the same time and the same link. Have a nice day.