Feature: the 45th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL45)

The 45th session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL45) succeeded in improving the proposed draft guidelines for countries and business operators on mandatory and voluntary labelling provisions for non-retail containers of food and food ingredients subject to business-to-business international trade significantly enough so that it agreed to send it to the forthcoming July Codex Alimentarius Commission to advance it for half way approval and expected completion at the next CCFL session. CCFL45 returned however the proposed draft guidelines defining principles and lowest common denominator criteria for public and private front-of-pack nutrition labelling schemes while keeping the discussion at a general level. CCFL45 agreed to start new work to upgrade the current allergen labelling provisions set in the core Codex standard on food labelling. It also agreed to develop a new text to frame consumer information for foods and food supplements sold via internet and through e-commerce platforms and review whether the two long-standing Codex Alimentarius definitions for “label” and “labelling” should be amended or not. CCFL45 also agreed that the two discussion papers, on (i) modern information technologies to convey accurate information to consumers regarding their foods, including other means to provide mandatory information than on the label, and (ii) on multipacks or joint presentations, be further revised to frame their scope and the expected new works. CCFL45 agreed to keep on hold for further discussion at a later stage the development of new quantitative criteria to define nutrient-content (negative) claim on “high in” fats/saturated fats, sodium/salt and sugars including the expected role of CCNFSDU in that area, such as setting Nutrient reference values (NRVs-NCDs) or elaborating on nutrition profiles. CCFL45 rejected at this point in time any new work on alcohol beverages labelling, due to lack of consensus about one of the five proposed options. CCFL45 completed its regular agenda items on endorsement and on matters referred to the Committee by the WHO, FAO and other Codex Alimentarius bodies.

Mr Christophe Leprêtre, Mrs Katia Merten-Lentz

The 45th session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling was held in Ottawa (Canada, host country of CCFL) from 13 to 17 May 2019, and was preceded by a one day pre-session working group (PWG) to advance recommendations to the CCFL45 plenary on the Proposed Draft Guidance for the Labelling of Non-Retail Containers on May 12. The next (i.e. 46th) session of the CCFL was announced to be held not before the next 18 months, i.e. In October 2020. This Canadian government decision was criticized by New Zealand noting that the timeline for several on-going or new works would require rather the CCFL to meet once a year in line with the yearly meetings of the CCNFSDU on nutritional aspects.

Proposed draft guidelines on Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling

This was by far the most important agenda item for this CCFL45. The proposed draft guidelines on FOPNL had been developed since the last CCFL (held in Oct. 2017) by an electronic working group (EWG) led by Costa Rica and an influential New Zealand on this first version of the guidelines. This Codex text is among the most impactful Codex Alimentarius “norms” developed by CCFL in the past few years.

The new CCFL45 Chairwoman insisted on keeping this first CCFL plenary review and discussion at a general level in order to clarify first and foremost their purpose, scope, definitions, exclusions and core principles to frame the future com- mon global approach to guide the development of national FOPNL schemes, regardless being government-driven (voluntary or mandatory) or industry-driven or other stakeholder-driven.

During the discussion, it was clear that countries had different views about the objectives pursued by such FOPNL (national) schemes, hence about the scope, purpose and definitions of these news guidelines. Two main visions are clearly competing. Some countries remained somehow in the middle, such as the USA.

During the discussion, it was clear that countries had different views about the objectives pursued by such FOPNL (national) schemes, hence about the scope, purpose and definitions of these news guidelines. Two main visions are clearly competing. Some countries remained somehow in the middle, such as the USA.

On the one hand, several countries believe that FOPNL schemes should be limited to provide similar information based on the nutrition labelling generally provided on the back of pack (BOP) of prepackaged foods, but easier to understand for the consumer (with graphics, GDAs, percentages compared to daily recommended values (NRVs in Codex wording), per portion or consumption unit(s) approach, etc.), These countries are of the opinion that FOPNL should be limited to fact-based information placed/printed in the principal field of vision (i.e. FOP) of the foods at their point of sale. Some countries like Mexico pushed for associating such FOPNL information close to the brand names of the food (noting that brand names and the name of foods are generally provided in the principal field of vision of such foods, as a mandatory labelling requirement).

On the other hand, other countries were rather of the opinion that consumers have often a low education level and that such FOPNL schemes should be interpretative-based and represent negative messaging (i.e. claims) to persuade consumers to limit their purchase of those foods (e.g. stop signs, red/orange/green colors, scoring letters, etc). Such schemes intend, to define “bad” foods compared to less bad or better alternatives and drive the consumers towards more balanced diet, based on questionable and very different grounds (i.e. based on nutrient-density of such foods most of the time, not based on scientifically non-ambiguous nutritional risk assessment involving intake exposure assessments).

Countries like the USA, the EU and its Member States (including the UK), Argentina and Brazil were insisting that FOPNL systems should be science-based (e.g. based on national nutrition dietary guidelines or schemes associated to nutrition profiling system) and/or evidence-based (consumer surveys on understanding such scheme).

Other countries from Central and South Americas (like Chile), from the Caribbean (with very active Dominican Republic; Thailand, the Philippines and Australia were rather in favor of more subjective and interpretative systems. New Zealand is also in favor of such interpretative system but this country has developed a national FOPNL system which also accounts for the positive attributes of foods (e.g. fibre content) in its underlying five-star rating system, while also taking into account dietary nutrition guidelines and food consumption patterns.

The two opposing visions are ranging very clearly from the freedom to choose based on its own lifestyles and personal nutrition needs to the most extreme, i.e. mandatory regulations on the composition of foods and inventive schemes to produce foods deprived from excessive amounts of sodium, saturated fats and sugars (i.e. mono- and di-saccharides). Underlying justification in favor of the most extreme schemes is also to convince consumer to go back to ‘raw’ foods (fruits, vegetables, whole grain, etc.) and educate them to avoid purchasing basically most of the ultra-processed foods (another ill-defined concept). The last stage of that extreme view is to regulate, if not standardize, the portion sizes of prepackaged foods as well as the numerical composition in nutrients by law. Partisans of these extreme views (which includes clearly the WHO itself, and so-called “public health” NGOs) would also like to expand the concept of FOP labelling to dissuasive marks going beyond nutrients of health concerns (and nobody disputes the established facts that excessive intakes of sodium, saturated fats and sugars have negative impact on human health, even within the food industry), to other food ingredients such as non-sugar sweeteners which the WHO NUGAG defines as intense sweeteners (e.g. aspartame), including steviol glycosides. But so far, these most extreme views have not been officially supported by any country during the CCFL45, but strangely enough by the World Obesity Federation representative, who seemed to be anti-sugar-free and anti- zero-calorie containing products (a bit contradictory to fighting obesity and overweight, don’t you think?)

The most important trend observed during CCFL45 and from the countries which expressed their views on this topic is to develop a Codex Alimentarius Guideline which should encompass all the already existing FOPNL systems. A large consensus exists to find the ‘lowest’ common de- nominator in all of them. Hence, it confirmed the views we expressed in last month’s WFRR article that once this Codex text is adopted it will become very difficult – if not impossible – to challenge any national system complying with these future Codex guidelines in a world trade dispute case based on the TBT Agreement of the WTO. This was also confirmed by countries stating during CCFL45 that each country is sovereign to know what is best information to provide to its own population in relation to so-called specific nutritional needs of such population (as if US citizens would be so different from Belgian citizens in terms of nutritional needs or as if each country was not hosting multiple ethnic population groups or as if countries were not welcoming thousands – millions – of tourists from all over the world each year...).

FOPNL schemes were however largely recognized for playing a positive role in helping consumers to make “healthier” food choices and may help curbing the current increase of noncommunicable diseases (e.g. obesity and overweight, high blood pressure, cardio-vascular and cerebral diseases, diabetes of type II, etc.).

The guidelines were amended to define “Front-of-pack” (FOP) as “the total area of the surface (or surfaces) that is displayed or visible to the consumer under customary conditions of sale or use.” (subject to future changes). CCFL45 also amended the definition of FOP Nutrition Labelling as “a form of science-based and evidence-based supplementary nutrition information on the front-of-pack of prepackaged foods. It may include symbols/graphics, text or a combination thereof.” (subject to confirmation). The EU28 also suggested to add ““isolated graphics or isolated textual indications on individual nutrients or the energy value, such as warnings “high in calories”, “high in sugar”, “high in salt/sodium”, “high in saturated fat”” but it is yet to be seen what part of that proposed wording may be retained in the next version of the guidelines by the drafters, given several countries’ strong objections to the last part of the phrase referring to “warnings”, especially Chile (which has developed stop-signs based on such questionable criteria defining arbitrary nutrition profile thresholds for these nutrients, based on a similar arbitrary, i.e. scientifically questionable, approach, promoted by WHO-PAHO across Latin America). The previous exclusions from the FOPNL definition referring to (i) nutrition claims, (ii) health claims, (iii) allergenic labelling, and (iv) quantitative declaration of ingredients, were deleted.

CCFL45 agreed with major changes to the scope which are meant to restrict these guidelines to FOP nutrition labelling issues only. CCFL45 also discussed the deletion of section 5 of the proposed text covering implementation of such FOPNL schemes at national and/or regional level, because this part might be outside the scope of the guidelines. Further consideration may be needed about their retention or full deletion and some aspects may also be retained in the next draft for inclusion into the section on ‘Principles’, as suggested by New Zealand.

The revised text of the proposed guidelines on FOPNL is not available, but here are the main significant changes recorded. Subject to confirmation: the purpose was changed to “provide general guidance to assist in the development of front-of-pack nutrition labelling, a form of supplementary nutrition information, as a tool to facilitate the consumer’s understanding of the nutritional value of food and their choice of food, consistent with the national dietary guidance or health and nutrition policy of the country or region of implementation”. The scope was amended considerably, but it is worth noting that an explicit cross-reference to section 5 of the Codex guide- lines on nutrition labelling was added. Alcohol and foods for special dietary uses or medical purposes are now specifically excluded (but not food supplements, nor raw food materials, nor single-ingredient foods, as clearly requested by Argentina).

Other types of exclusions have been clarified, such as foods with low nutritional significance in terms of both its composition and the quantities consumed: whereby examples of such foods, i.e. herbs and spices, tea and coffee with no other added ingredients, are for the time being still kept in the revised text, despite India’s request to add bottled waters, an observer’s request to add chewing gum or the EU’s request to delete all examples at once. Also exempted are foods in “small packages”, instead of previous “small units”. ”Small package” will need to be defined for the purpose of these guidelines, as very thoughtfully suggested by India in favor of a maximum surface area of 30 cm2 (up to 35 cm2 suggested by an observer, while another observer suggested also to consider the full surface of the pack up to 200 cm2).

A new criterion was added to exclude “foods exempted from nutrition labelling” in general (i.e. in some jurisdictions such as the EU28, many foods are exempted from nutrition labelling, e.g. herbs and spices, sugar, salt, chewing gum products, etc.)3. Principles were also amended, and it was stressed that it would be preferable to have only one FOPNL system per country or per region and where several FOPNL would exist, they should not contradict each other (and be all consistent with these future Codex guidelines, but this is not yet mentioned in the text). National and/or regional FOPNL schemes should present the in- formation as long as it would be (i) easy to be understood by the consumer and (ii) supported by scientifically valid consumer research. FOPNL should only be provided in addition to BOP nutrition labelling information. FOPNL should be accompanied by a consumer awareness and education/information program to increase consumer understanding and use. FOPNL should be clearly visible on the package at the point of purchase under normal conditions of sale and use.

CCFL45 agreed to further work out the text within a newly established EWG, chaired by Costa Rica and co-chaired by New Zealand, taking into account all written comments submitted to CCFL45 as well as all decisions taken and comments made during CCFL45 for further consideration at CCFL46. To advance the drafting and make further recommendations to CCFL46 plenary, CCFL45 also agreed to organize a pre-session PWG to consider comments which will be submitted on the report of the EWG and prepare a revised proposal for consideration by CCFL46 plenary.

Proposed draft guidance for the Labelling of Non-Retail Containers

These proposed draft guidelines (or general standard) have been the subject of a large part of the CCFL45 session in addition to a full day pre-session physical working group. 

The proposed draft text has been profoundly amended, reorganized, clarified and drastically simplified, although keeping strong cross-references with the main provisions of the Codex Alimentarius General Standard for La- belling of Prepackaged Foods (CXS 1, 2018 version)4. Indeed, defining and distinguishing what relates to labelling or to logistic marks to all the various cases of non-retail containers and container wrapping and global logistic practices, including foods in large bulk quantities (e.g. wheat flour, re- fined edible oils, etc.), was quite difficult to cover in such a text in linear format.

CCFL45 also advanced modified wording to distinguish what type of information particulars and items should be considered mandatory or voluntary, and in case of mandatory, which of those information particulars shall be on the outer stickers on containers of non-retail containers, on the prints or labels of the non-retail containers and/or in the accompanying documents. On the top of that, some of those mandatory particulars viewed to be marked up on containers and non-retail containers may also be covered by marks or codes which could then be referred to on the accompanying documents, while being considered to be mandatory, or even via other means than all the preceding when being voluntary. Are you following? Yes, it is a bit complicated. If you add to this complexity 55 countries in the meeting room, then you may realize how difficult that drafting exercise has been for a courageous and determined new CCFL45 chairwoman, searching endlessly to reach consensus, while using a constant soft, calm, conciliant and “snake-flute” charming voice tone at all times, while navigating through ‘very obscure’ or ambivalent language used and numerous examples vaguely described by delegations. Worth noting: she was also very much helped by an excellent delegate from India who chaired the pre-session PWG on this topic, and the work of that PWG was very efficient in demining the field from most of the contentious misunderstandings and misfits of the draft text, thoroughly amended during that pre-session PWG.

Scope and Purpose were simplified to reflect the various cases of labelling, marking and information to be provided by other means on non-retail containers and other containers, while leaving the final decision to next year’s CCFL46 as to whether the text should be published as a standard or as guidelines (most likely guidelines would make more sense, although prepackaged foods labelling provisions are set in a “general standard”). It also specifically excluded food additives and processing aids – as they are subject to another Codex adopted text. It is no clearly defining that the text cover new labelling provisions for foods not in- tended to be offered directly to the consumer, including the information provided in the accompanying physical documents or by other means, and the presentation thereof.

CCFL45 adjusted the definition for “Non-retail container” as “any container that is not intended to be offered for direct sale to the consumer. The food in the non-retail containers is for further food business activities before being offered to the consumer.” During CCFL45 there was sometimes the feeling that delegates were mixing up container and non-retail container concepts.

CCFL45 adjusted the definition for “Non-retail container” as “any container that is not intended to be offered for direct sale to the consumer. The food in the non-retail containers is for further food business activities before being offered to the consumer.” During CCFL45 there was sometimes the feeling that delegates were mixing up container and non-retail container concepts.

CCFL45 also had extensive discussions on the definition of “Food Business” and whether it should be replaced or supplemented by the concept of “Food Business Operator” already used (if not defined) by other Codex Committees (e.g. CCFH, CCFICS, etc.). Finally, CCFL45 agreed to retain and define only “Food Business” for the purpose of this text only as “an entity or undertaking, carrying out one or more activity(ies) related to any stage(s) of production, processing, packaging, storage and distribution (including trade) of food”. As such, CCFL decided once and for all that other terms such as container, food, consumer, etc. used in this text should be the ones defined in the main Codex General Standard for the labelling of prepackaged foods (GSLPF).

CCFL45 reached consensus on a set of principles which can be summarized as follows: (i) same labelling principles shall apply to non-retail containers as for prepackaged foods; (ii) however, information particulars (i.e. labelling requirements) should be differentiated between the two; (iii) non-retail containers should be clearly identifiable as for non-retail; (iv) the non-retail status should be determined by the food business selling or distributing the container of food (this point was heavily debated); (v) such specific labelling requirements should be established while taking into account (consideration?) the information requirements and implementation capabilities of the relevant stakeholders (food business and competent authorities) ; (vi) requirements set in this text should also foresee means other than label as allowed by the competent authority in the country in which the non-retail container of food is sold (marketed? and reference to national legislation, really?); (vii) label and information in the accompanying documents or information provided by other means shall be traceable to the food in the non-retail container and shall provide information to enable the labelling of food, intended for sale to the consumer. To this last principle, maybe CCFL should consider the definition of traceability adopted in some adopted Codex guidelines developed by CCFICS.

CCFL45 reached consensus on the following in- formation particulars that should be mandatory on the label on the non-retail container, namely (i) the name of the foods – including that of the different foods which may be contained in one non-retail container, (ii) the batch/lot identification, (iii) that the foods in not intended for direct sale to consumers, i.e. it is a non-retail container, through a specific statement such as “Non-retail container – not for direct sale to consumers” or equivalent, (iv) the Name and address of the manufacturer, packer, distributor, importer, exporter or vendor of the food (without specifying cases where whom to be picked from that long list), and (v) when the safety and integrity of the product is at stake, appropriate date marking and storage instructions, as per those applicable to prepackaged foods.

CCFL45 discussed whether the above mandatory particulars would constitute an unacceptable deviation from the CAC procedural manual provisions set for commodity standard format to cover non-retail sections in such commodity standard. Indeed, such provisions seem to be subject to interpretation: “Information on [X, W, Z labelling particulars] shall be given either on the container or in accompanying documents, except that the name of the product, lot identification, and the name and address of the manufacturer or packer shall appear on the container. However, lot identification, and the name and address of the manufacturer or packer may be replaced by an identification mark provided that such a mark is clearly identifiable with the accompanying documents.”. CCFL45 concluded then that in the light of a future final agreed text, it may instead revisit that section of the procedural manual that CCFL itself developed and made adopted by the CAC in ... 1986.

The draft text now also contains a section about those particulars, mandatory or not, which could be provided by other means than on the label (as described above) i.e., on accompanying documents and/or through other means. That section was subject to extensive explanatory discussions and was drastically simplified. It states now that the information which is allowed to be provided in the accompanying document(s), or through other appropriate means, is (i) the mandatory Information provided on the label (as described above and see remark in the previous paragraph on procedural manual framework), and (ii) if not on the label, (a) the relevant information which is sufficient to enable (a.1) the preparation and (a.2) the labelling of pre-packaged foods from the food in the non-retail container and (b) the net content of the non-retail container. A new paragraph requires also that information provided in the accompanying document(s) or through other appropriate means, shall be effectively traceable to the food in non-retail container. There is, however, at this point in time no reference made to the relevant Codex guidelines on traceability.

The draft text goes on with a section on what is called – at this point in time – “bulk transport containers”, where the same mandatory information is required but obviously can be provided in accompanying documents (since the food in not pre-packed or non-retail contained) and that information in accompanying documents should be traceable to the food shipment contained in ship- ping containers, tankers, barges, drums etc., (and what about big bags?). A similar exemption is fore- seen – but in a separate section – (and maybe the

two could be merged?) where the non-retail container outliner provides a visual and legible access to the information which is already printed on the label of prepacked foods, inside such non-retail containers. In that case, the mandatory information applicable to the non-container (section 5 of the present draft guidelines) is not required (obviously because all the mandatory information set in the Codex general standard for prepackaged foods is precisely accessible/legible on the packs of such prepackaged foods contained in the non-retail container – smart huh?).

The draft text then contains a section going into a bit more detail on how all the above described in- formation should be presented, such as kept together during transport; shall remain clear, prominent, readily legible and applied in such a manner that any tampering with it will be evident; mandatory information requirements on label shall appear in a prominent position on the non-retail container and in the same field of vision; information which is provided by means other than the label shall be readily accessible, discernible and clearly displayed. Finally, the text contains requirements about language(s), whereby if the language in the original labelling is not acceptable to the national and/or regional competent authority or the food business operator (why ‘operator’, not the food business?) in the country in which the product is sold, a translation of the information in the label- ling should be provided in the required language in the form of re-labelling, supplementary label and/or in the accompanying documents or other ap- propriate means to meet the requirements of the country in which the product is sold, and when translated, such information shall fully and accurately reflect information from the labelling in the original language.

CCFL45 has achieved a real breakthrough on this text (major breakthrough since previous project was abandoned in CCFL in 1983) so that it is forwarded to the forthcoming July Codex Alimentarius Commission to be advanced in the step adoption procedure for a likely future finalization by the next CCFL session. To that end, the CCEXEC is requested to grant to CCFL one more session extension. All Codex Commodity Committees will also be duly informed as a matter referred to them for information, about these exceptional developments at CCFL level. Congrats to all!

Discussion papers with proposals for new work

·       Allergen Labelling

CCFL45 unanimously praised the discussion paper prepared and presented by Australia with the help of the UK and the USA, based on inputs received by other countries, the food industry and other stakeholders. The discussion paper collected and collated information about the current practices, issues for competent authorities and consumers and any potential role for CCFL. The discussion paper concluded that there was room for future CCFL work to (i) clarify the listed food and ingredients known to cause hypersensitivity, and potentially update the current list of new foods and ingredients or introduce new exemptions in existing section 4.2.1.4 of the Codex Alimentarius General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods (GSLPF)4; (ii) collect further information on how allergens should be presented on food la- bels to ensure consumer protection and provide more technical specifications for the industry; (iii) address better the expansion of the use of so-called “precautionary labelling” or “advisory labelling” (i.e. the famous “may contain”) and also “free from” claims (e.g. “lactose-free” claim) not always clear for consumers, and also modernizing the CCFL text in the light of the parallel current work undertaken by the CCFH on a Draft Code of practice on food allergen management by food business operators. CCFL also noted CCFH to that effect their call for a FAO/WHO Joint Expert Consultation to get scientific advice regarding possible threshold levels for some allergens or hypersensitizing substances.

Very rapidly, CCFL45 agreed to start and submit this new work to the forthcoming July CAC42 for approval, aiming at reviewing and clarifying the provisions relevant to allergen labelling in the GSLPF and develop guidance on precautionary allergen or advisory labelling. CCFL45 agreed to establish a new EWG chaired by Australia, and co-chaired by the UK and the USA.

Very rapidly, CCFL45 agreed to start and submit this new work to the forthcoming July CAC42 for approval, aiming at reviewing and clarifying the provisions relevant to allergen labelling in the GSLPF and develop guidance on precautionary allergen or advisory labelling. CCFL45 agreed to establish a new EWG chaired by Australia, and co-chaired by the UK and the USA.

The EWG mandate is to (i) prepare a set of relevant possible amendments to the GSLPF and take due account of the outcome of the future scientific advice from FAO/WHO and from evidence based research on consumer understanding of allergy labelling and advisory statements, as necessary; (ii) request a specific scientific advice relating to the list of foods and ingredients in section 4.2.1.4 from FAO/WHO on whether the published criteria for assessing additions and exclusions to the list is still current and appropriate. Based on that advice, the EWG is also tasked to consider (a) whether there are foods and ingredients that should be added to or deleted from the list, (b) whether certain foods and ingredients, such as highly refined foods and ingredients that are derived from the list of foods known to cause hypersensitivity could be exempted from mandatory declaration, and finally (c) addressing and clarifying the current groupings of foods and ingredients in that GSLPF list.

CCFL45 also agreed to endorse the labelling provisions in paragraphs 158 and 159 of the Draft Code of practice on food allergen management for food business operators, but equally agreed to in- form the CCFH precisely that it was not in a position to provide a reply on the appropriateness of the use of a precautionary allergen labelling statement and on a definition of it at this point in time. CCFH will be informed under matter referred about this CCFL new work on allergen labelling, including guidance on precautionary labelling and the review of the list of allergens in the GSLPF. CCFH will also be made aware of the intent of CCFL to update the list of foods and ingredients in allergen section 4.2.1.4 of the GSLPF, based on scientific advice from FAO/WHO, but also that, in the meantime, CCFH should continue to use the list, currently set in the 2018 version of the GSLPF4.

·       Labelling for foods and food (dietary) supplements subject to Internet sales and e-commerce

CCFL45 praised the UK, Chile, Ghana, India and Japan for their discussion paper exploring areas of new work for the CCFL to cope with fast-growing amounts of foods ordered and traded within e-commerce or ordered by consumer through the Internet for direct delivery to them.

CCFL45 agreed with the purpose of the pro- posed new work to develop a supplementary text to the GSLPF and address labelling and food information to consumer requirements for food sold through the internet and by e-commerce. It was noted during the discussion that the two cases may require specific separate requirements and a better definition of these terms. As internet sales and e-commerce are raising transboundary issues, it requires a Codex Alimentarius global guidance to protect consumers and help ensuring fair practices in trade of foods through these new means of ordering, shipping and receiving foods directly at consumer’s home.

CCFL45 agreed to (a) start this new work on Internet sales/e-commerce and submit the project document for approval by the forthcoming July CAC42; (b) establish a new EWG chaired by the UK, co-chaired by Chile, Ghana, India and Japan to prepare proposed draft texts and amendments for consideration by the next CCFL46 session; and (c) keep open the possibility for the UK and their cochairs to hold a pre-CCFL46 PWG to prepare a revised proposal for consideration by the CCFL46.

The mandate of that EWG is to (i) assess the applicability of the current GSLPF and other Codex texts related to food labelling, to foods sold through the Internet or subject to e-commerce; (ii) develop, if deemed appropriate and necessary, a definition of internet sales and e-commerce for the purposes of this new work ; (iii) develop a supplementary text to help preventing obfuscation of Codex texts and, therefore, avoiding that consumers and businesses are misled in respect of the particularities of the Internet ; (iv) identify those mandatory labelling requirements which, because of practicalities, may be allowed to be provided only after an online sale has been concluded, though it shall be provided before or at the moment of delivery to the consumer and assess whether and how these points in an online sale (i.e. what is the “end/conclusion of an online sale” and what is the “moment of delivery”) may be defined in order to clearly identity throughout that online sale process, what would be the latest possible point(s) to convey to the consumer those mandatory labelling or information required to be provided and by whom.

During this EWG, due consideration will be given to (a) assess how loose foods should be treated within the scope of future work on internet sales/e-commerce ; (b) clarify of how far the current GSLPF definitions of a “label” and of “labelling” are meaningful and applicable to foods sold online, and whether other definitions are needed; (c) assess whether the current provisions in the GSLPF and other Codex relevant texts on “language requirements ? for internet/online-sold food labelling is adequate, without some adjustment.

CCFL45 noted that the other issues raised relating e.g. to accountability/responsibility and trace- ability may need to be referred to other Codex committees such as the CCFICS.

·       Use of new technologies to convey information to consumers

This discussion paper had been developed by Canada and contained three key areas for possible new work: (i) development of a criteria for label- ling to be made available at the point of sale; (ii) revision of the definition for “label” and “labelling” in GSLPF; and review of other Codex texts developed by CCFL and (iii) possible overlaps with the work on Internet sales/e-commerce (see previous section above).

CCFL45 discussion covered innovation and use of technology in food labelling and took note that some of the current proposals for areas of new work in the discussion paper would be already covered by the new work the Committee agreed upon internet sales/e-commerce.

CCFL45 discussion covered innovation and use of technology in food labelling and took note that some of the current proposals for areas of new work in the discussion paper would be already covered by the new work the Committee agreed upon internet sales/e-commerce.

CCFL45 identified during the discussion that the topic of innovative ways to communicate all types of information about foods to consumers may be a slightly broader scope that addressing the need for some Codex Alimentarius principles or new rules to address the use of new technologies to convey food labelling requirements to the consumer. It was also noted that standardization of the new technologies (e.g. QR codes; text messaging; mobile phone applications) is covered by other UN or international bodies.

CCFL45 will need to take into consideration that the primary objective is that, regardless the modernity of tools and technology used, consumers shall not be deceived or misled about the true nature of the foods purchased online, and to ensure that comparison between foods offered by some tools, applications or websites are also truthful and based on real science and not self-made algorithms or subjective judgements by their creators. The level of consumer awareness, familiarity, and access to new information technologies should be also taken into account, as well as the impact of such dematerialization and multiplication of those sources of information may have on consumers and how such flow could be supervised, monitored and possibly controlled in the virtual space to ensure a high level of consumer (health) protection and fair practices in virtual food trade.

CCFL45 agreed to seek further the views of Codex members and observers (a circular letter is to be issued) and that Canada will revise its discussion paper accordingly for further consideration at the next CCFL46 session in October 2020 for starting possibly new work (review a project document).

·       Criteria for the definition of “high in” nutritional descriptors for fats, sugars and sodium

Canada introduced the item on behalf of the co-drafter India and recalled that CCFL44 had identified criteria for the definition of “high in” nutritional descriptors for fats, sugars and sodium. Based on information collected from member countries and observers, it also identified issues about which CCFL could develop new work. Canada summarized the responses received and the various recommendations gathered. It was pointed out that the scope and intended application of “high in” nutritional descriptors should be further clarified before suggesting any specific new CCFL work. As possible new work, Canada underlined the development of Codex Alimentarius principles and guidelines for the elaboration of criteria and re- view the evidence on their impact, including consumer understanding of such “high in” claims and how their use in terms labelling or other purposes could be further qualified.

CCFL45, while noting the importance of the is- sue, noted the following comments from the plenary. It was probably premature to proceed with new work in the light of ongoing parallel discussions at CCNFSDU level, on possible NRV-NCDs and on nutrient profiles, whereby Costa Rica and Paraguay were currently undertaking a stock pile take away of all existing national or regional nutrient profiles for consideration at the forthcoming December CCNFSDU session. A decision could then be taken by CCFL once CCNFSDU would have finalized its discussions on nutrient profiles. The descriptors for “high in” should be considered in the context of the work on FOPNL and could be taken up at a later time after FOPNL work has further progressed (views expressed in particular by Mexico, Chile, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and to some extent Argentina), while other delegations preferred to wait for CCNFSDU’s own determination on nutrition profiles, noting CCNFSDU has already developed criteria (i.e. NRV-NCD for labelling purpose) for “high in” threshold values for saturated fatty acids and sodium (views expressed by Ecuador, Russian Federation, EU28, USA, Panama and Brazil). CCFL45 noted also that descriptors for “high in” are normally associated with positive labelling used to promote consumption of nutrients, such as “high in fiber” (views ex- pressed by Thailand and Canada). CCFL45 noted that the use of such descriptors about nutrients claimed to be of health concerns might cause false perceptions by consumers and increase the consumption of fats and carbohydrates or foods higher in energy density.

CCFL45 agreed to wait and see the outcome of the next CCNFSDU session and place this area of possible new work in the context of the general discussion paper on all areas for possible new work (including scoring for prioritization, see below).

·       Labelling rules for foods presented together or in multipack formats

The discussion paper prepared and presented by Colombia arrived too late before CCFL45 to be fully considered by delegations. Only countries from the CCLAC region expressed their view and Canada and New Zealand suggested to clarify the proposal further. 

CCFL45 agreed to consider a revised discussion paper to be further worked out by Colombia on its agenda for the next CCFL session.

·       Labelling of alcohol-containing beverages (i.e. “alcoholic beverages”)

This agenda item was actively debated by delegations attending CCFL45.

CCFL45 discussed five possible options in the discussion paper co-prepared by the Russian Federation, the European Union, Ghana, India and Senegal, ranging from doing nothing (current Codex labelling rules applicable to alcoholic beverages are sufficient) to the development of a new Codex guideline or standard text.

Issues reviewed in the discussion paper were (i) mandatory alcohol content, (ii) list of ingredients and nutrition declaration; (iii) definitions of alcoholic beverages and standard drinks, which information has to be placed on the label of alcoholic beverages and off label, and which voluntary information could be permitted on alcoholic beverages; (iv) health warnings for the general population (with warnings on excessive consumption, incompatibility with driving automotive vehicles, effect of alcohol on health, etc.) and moreover to vulnerable groups such as pregnant women (logo “not suit- able for pregnant women”); (v) advertising and claims on alcoholic beverages (especially on the recognized benefits of red wine).

The discussion paper also compiled suggestions for voluntary labelling items such as (i) Organic origin; (ii) Geographical origin; (iii) Grape variety, vintage and sugar content for wine; (iv) Production methods; and (v) other advisory statements.

The discussion paper also compiled suggestions for voluntary labelling items such as (i) Organic origin; (ii) Geographical origin; (iii) Grape variety, vintage and sugar content for wine; (iv) Production methods; and (v) other advisory statements.

Consumer protection NGOs, and only one country (Panama) expressed willingness to develop a new self-standing Codex text. Three countries only (Brazil, Nigeria and again Panama) expressed sup- port for developing new mandatory labelling provisions to address alcohol content and nutritional information, including energy value. A larger number of country delegations favored to start small by developing mandatory standardized labelling rules for the declaration of alcohol content (Ghana, Norway, the EU28, with support of France and Italy). Only one country (Chile) agreed with work on assessing applicability of existing Codex Alimentarius labelling adopted norms. A few delegations favored no work at all (Dominican Republic, Argentina, Japan, and the USA, with support from the wine and spirit industry representative observer(s)).

USA made very clear that the US Federal Government and US States’ local enforcement authorities had very protective regulations in place for consumer protection and information about alcohol beverages health and addictive risks. The USA position expressed at CCFL45 was simply to reflect it was too early based on the current pro- posed recommendations, for the Committee to take a well-informed decision on what option(s) could be undertaken first.

The WHO representative stressed the need for Codex Alimentarius to start new work about these important public health labelling measures, while encouraged all countries to continue a strict application of all WHO prevention policies and recommendations on alcohol consumption and associated risks.

The representative from the Intergovernmental organization on grapes and wines (OIV) pointed out the complexity of labelling of alcoholic beverages (i.e. variety of situations between, wines, spirits, alcopops, etc.). OIV expressed support to define at the Codex Alimentarius level a minimum alcohol content which would draw a line and define “alcoholic beverages”. He reminded CCFL45 that the OIV had already performed considerable amount of work on labelling of wines and wine spirits, which could constitute an acquis of experience that CCFL could largely benefit from, including OIV scientific expertise.

Given the lack of consensus, CCFL45 couldn’t conclude on new work. However, in the spirit of compromise and the importance of the issue, it agreed to request further comments from the Codex Alimentarius community on the existing discussion paper, and in the light of these comments, CCFL45 tasked the Russian Federation, the EU28 and India to prepare a revised discussion paper for consideration at its next CCFL46 session.

·       Wish list of possible future work for CCFL 

The discussion paper prepared by India for the CCFL45 arrived too late and delegations couldn’t consider it fully prior to their arrival in Ottawa. The discussion paper has developed a scoring system to a list of criteria that CCFL may wish to use in the future to order the priorities for possible new work. It was inspired by a similar algorithm developed by CCFH to define its own priorities and order them.

The Committee agreed that the UK would update the discussion paper further and that Codex member countries and observers would be further consulted on the above algorithm and any topic for further new labelling work by the Committee. It was recalled the CCFL45 decision that the criteria for the definition of “high in” nutritional descriptors for fats, sugars and sodium would be added to this future revised discussion paper, among any other topic resulting from the Codex Alimentarius community consultation to be carried out in the coming months. The revised discussion paper will be then considered at the next CCFL46 session. At that session, another country will be tasked to update it (rolling country responsibility agreed).

Other regular CCFL agenda items 

·       Endorsement of labelling provisions suggested in other Codex texts under development by other Codex bodies

CCFL45 endorsed the labelling provisions in the Codex commodity Standard For Quinoa, (from the CCCPL working by correspondence); and (ii) the relevant provisions of the Proposed draft Recommended Code of Practice on Food Allergen Management for Food Business Operators (from CCFH).

CCFL45 endorsed the labelling provisions in the proposed draft revised Codex commodity Standard for follow-up formula at the exception of the last sentence of section 9.6.4 regarding the (ill-defined) concept of commercial “cross-promotion”. CCFL45 requested CCNFSDU to reconsider this part. It is expected also that this decision will be one of the matters referred to CAC42 for consideration, given that in parallel CAC42 will be asked to adopt the same text at step 5. CAC42 may also consider suitable to return the overall section 9.6.4 or at least its last sentence to step 3 to CCNFSDU, so that it is consistent with CCFL45 non-endorsement decision.

CCFL45 did not endorse the labelling provisions for the proposed draft commodity standards for (a) dried or dehydrated garlic, (b) dried leaves – dried basil, (c) dried floral parts – dried cloves, (d) saffron, (e) dried roots, rhizomes and bulbs – Dried or dehydrated ginger, and (f) dried oregano. The principle reason of concern by CCFL was the lack of clarity for a smooth future implementation of these standards with regards to the provisions requiring the reference to “country of origin/country of har- vest” and especially the meaning of the “/” (is it and, or, or both?). Therefore, CCSCH is requested by CCFL to clarify and discuss further these provisions, which were not included in previous commodity standards developed by this Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (e.g. peppers).

·       Matters referred by the two Codex Alimentarius parent organizations WHO and FAO

WHO and FAO reported on various activities which may be of relevance to CCFL work. WHO shared interesting information (but did not include it in the CCFL working document) that the WHO NUGAG expert sub group on diet and health was finalizing its guidance document on saturated and trans fatty acids guidelines (WHO is of the view to ban partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and fats, since they contain neo-formed trans-fatty acids named by WHO “industrial trans-fatty acids”).

WHO also indicated that the same NUGAG sub-group was working at new guidelines on dietary patterns and on carbohydrates and non-sugar sweeteners. WHO promised these guidelines would be sent to “public” consultation (well, they never post them on their website for “real” public consultation, do they?) by the end of 2019.

WHO also indicated that the same NUGAG sub-group was working at new guidelines on dietary patterns and on carbohydrates and non-sugar sweeteners. WHO promised these guidelines would be sent to “public” consultation (well, they never post them on their website for “real” public consultation, do they?) by the end of 2019.

WHO NUGAG recent proposal is to separate carbohydrates (it calls them abusively “sweeteners” because for WHO sweeteners are all bad as they confer a sweet taste to foods) in two main families (i.e. in its view the “good” ones – if they are consumed reasonably – and the “bad” ones – in its view not needed in human diet). The published WHO article is available in the public domain (see link further below). The “good” family is called the “nutritive sweeteners”. In that family, WHO lists (i) the “sugars” (i.e. the mono- and disaccha- rides); (ii) the “modified sugars” (i.e. the other “osides”?, starches and their hydrolized version?), and the “sugar alcohols” (i.e. the polyols, some of which have laxative effects if consumed in excess, and which are regulated as food additives, as bulking agents or as sweetener (i.e. Sugar “re- placers”), some of them having some caloric value about half of that of plain sucrose or even a zero calorie energy conversion factor) and (iii) the “natural caloric sweeteners” (Honey? Fruit concentrates? The “good” sources of glucose and fructose?). The “bad” family is called the “non-sugar sweeteners”. These “Non sugar-sweeteners” are composed of (i) the “artificial sweeteners” (well, Codex Alimentarious GSFA does not make distinction between food additives exerting a sweetening technological purpose and they are all just “sweeteners”, a legal definition by the way) and (ii) the “natural non-caloric sweeteners” (i.e. steviol glycosides for example).

For readers of this article interested to know more about NUGAG experts mindset on this issue, see https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4718. More to report on this issue in the pre-CCNFSDU41 article (in WFRR October 2019 issue).

·       Matters referred for information and discussion from other Codex bodies, including the Codex Alimentarius Commission

As previously anticipated (see last month WFRR article), CCFL45 spent some time to discuss the definition for “biofortification”.

It was a major blow from many countries to the work undertaken by CCNFSDU for the past 5 to 7 years to develop such a definition at the express request of.... the CCFL (!), and most of the delegates representing those countries are also those representing these countries in the ... CCNFSDU (!). So, what happened?

Countries recognized the hard work performed by CCNFSDU to develop such definition for “biofortification”, a set of breeding and other plant improvement techniques which result in higher nutrient content in crops (e.g. “golden rice”, vitamin A enriched rice in geographical areas of the world such as Asia where rice constitutes the major staple food in the diet of the population and where at the same time the population highly suffer from Vitamin A intake deficiencies in their diet, especially in rural and poor areas).

Arguments put forward were that the currently proposed definition was too broad and thus of limited value in terms of labelling harmonization, not clear enough, did not facilitate clear understanding of which products would be considered as biofortified and therefore did not address the initial intent of identifying the true nature of the products obtained through biofortification in accordance with section 4.1.1 of the GSLPF. The definition suggest the use of equivalent terms to biofortification (some countries pointed out during CCNFSDU discussions that prefix “bio” could be confused with organic farming products in some Latin languages) that are not identified in the proposal and that the breeding and crops improvement processes and techniques covered by the definition are left to the competent national/regional authorities (as it results from a compromise found by CCNFSDU to finalize the definition, as delegations were not on the same page on what techniques shall or shall not be allowed to generate biofortified crops, such as genetic modification techniques). The need for a definition of the term “biofortification” in the context of CCFL had not been clearly identified by CCNFSDU. The term was currently not in use in any of the Codex adopted texts, or texts in the step process that are under the remit of CCFL (hum, maybe because there is no current definition?). Delegations which spoke out noted that the existing texts, in particular the GSLPF, the Guidelines on Nutrition and Health Claims (CXG 23, 2013 version) and the General Principles for the Addition of Essential Nutrients to Foods (CXG 9, 2015 version) were sufficient to address the issue of biofortification. Others or the same pointed out that the proposed definition only addressed the process by which nutrients could be obtained and not nutrient bioavailability (another issue intensively debated during CCNFSDU negotiations). Finally, some delegations were of the view that, should the definition be finalised (and endorsed by CCFL), it should be included in the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Nutrition and Health Claims.

Some observers expressed concerns about a single nutrient approach through biofortification rather than the promotion of diversified diets to address malnutrition. They pointed out that the original in- tent was to limit the scope to conventional breeding but that the current definition allowed for use of genetic modification. They strongly advocated that CCNFSDU should be requested to reconsider this aspect. One observer expressed the view that the probability that GMOs would be part of the method of production, which is not required to mention on labels, would be deceptive to consumers.

The observer from IFPRI at the origin of this work noted that lots of work had gone into the development of the definition by CCNFSDU and that many aspects raised during CCFL45 had been already raised, discussed and taken into consideration during the development of the definition by the CCNFSDU. She noted that careful examination of existing texts could be considered by CCNFSDU together with gaps identified during the discussion and emphasized that guidance on biofortification was needed and Codex was in the position to provide such guidance. She also suggested to CCFL45 to seek further inputs from the next CCNFSDU and take the time to revisit the is- sue at the next CCFL46 session.

While acknowledging the tremendous work done by CCNFSDU, CCFL45 agreed that current labelling texts were adequate for CCFL purposes and that there was no need for defining biofortification in the context of food labelling (dadaaaam...!).

CCFL45 official report is to be posted soon at https://www.fao.org/ fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings-reports/en/

[1]  Food Engineer, Regulatory and Scientific Counsellor at Keller and Heckman LLP.

[2]  Food Law Attorney & Partner at Keller and Heckman LLP.