Interestingly, CCFL also declined a proposal to initiate work related to ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

Risk-Based Precautionary Allergen Labeling Guidelines

Notably, after making revisions for clarity and consistency, CCFL completed and recommended the adoption of guidelines on the use of PAL under the General Standard for the Labeling of Pre-Packaged Foods. These guidelines incorporate a risk-based framework for PAL and recommend a systematic, uniform approach to utilizing PAL statements based on established threshold levels and reference doses for priority food allergens, including gluten.

Recognizing Codex’s progress toward the official adoption of risk-based PAL, several countries, including the U.S., UK, and EU, have already opened discussions around the possible adoption of such a framework.

During CCFL49, members of the regional Codex Coordinating Committees for Latin America, Africa, Europe, and the Near East underlined the importance of training and national capacity-building to support the adoption of risk-based food allergen labeling. On behalf of their respective Coordinating Committees, representatives from Uruguay and Gambia specifically called for expanded, region-specific capacity-building workshops held by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) on allergen risk assessment, focusing on knowledge development and the practical application of tools. FAO and WHO representatives confirmed their willingness to support such capacity-building activities.

CCFL also requested that the Codex Committees on Food Hygiene (CCFH) and on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) respectively review the Code of Practice on Allergen Management for Food Business Operators and the Standard for Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten to ensure consistency with the new PAL guidelines.

The guidelines were recommended by CCFL for adoption at Step 8 in the process of elaborating Codex Alimentarius standards, which is the last step where a draft standard is submitted to the Executive Committee for critical review. It is then forwarded to CAC for final adoption as a Codex standard.

Labeling Provisions for Multipacks

Provisions relevant to multipack foods under the General Standard for the Labeling of Pre-Packaged Foods were forwarded for adoption at Step 5/8, which expedites the adoption process by recommending that draft documents submitted at Step 5 bypass the comments and revisions cycle at Steps 6 and 7, moving directly to Step 8 for consideration before final adoption.

These provisions specify how products’ ingredient lists, net contents, and expiration dates should be labeled on multipacks or jointly presented food items, for transparency and clarity.

Emergency Flexible Labeling Guidelines 

Also advanced at CCFL49 were the Guidelines on the Application of Food Labeling Provisions in Emergencies, which outline principles and decision-making criteria for the application of flexible food labeling requirements in emergencies that cause supply chain disruptions, to help maintain an adequate and safe food supply.

Prior to CCFL49, infant and maternal health stakeholders expressed their opposition to the inclusion of infant formula products in these guidelines, arguing that flexible labeling would put vulnerable populations experiencing food insecurity at risk. This opinion was reiterated by observers during CCFL49, who called for the exclusion of infant formula from the guidelines. CCFL considered this request, but ultimately concluded that a blanket exclusion could restrict access to essential foods for vulnerable groups during shortages, and decided that the scope would remain general to cover all foods, including those intended for infants and children.

CCFL agreed to advance the text of the guidelines for final adoption by CAC.

Work on Ultra-Processed Foods Would Be ‘Premature’

Finally, CCFL declined a proposal to initiate work on UPFs during CCFL49, which had been submitted as a new potential work item for CCFL.

Committee members noted that no discussion paper or project document on UPF had been submitted to support the initiation of work, and that there is currently no clear scientific consensus on the definition of UPF. Moreover, members indicated that the relevance of UPF to the mandate of CCFL, particularly in relation to food labeling, is not yet sufficiently clear, and it is therefore premature to start new work in this area. The Codex Secretariat emphasized the importance of clearly identifying the problem to be addressed, supported by a discussion paper, before initiating new work. Therefore, CCFL agreed to remove UPF from the inventory of potential new work.