While most Americans were enjoying Thanksgiving with family and friends, the 41st Session of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) was being held in Düsseldorf, Germany. As the culmination of 12 months’ work to develop positions and advocate for the dairy industry’s interests here in the U.S. and with various governments around the world, I participated in the event as part of the International Dairy Federation (IDF) delegation. The committee worked on developing several food and nutrition standards and guidelines impacting milk products and dairy-derived ingredients produced, sold and consumed around the world. Standards, guidelines and other texts developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) serve as the basis for arbitrating international trade disputes and are used by governments around the world as foundations for national legislation and regulation. 

Building on last year’s progress, the committee continued to move forward with revisions to the Codex Standard for Follow-Up Formula and draft Guidelines for Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food. Other topics of interest discussed included the use of nutrient profiles for supporting front-of-pack nutrition labeling schemes; proposed conditions for a “trans fat-free” claim, guidelines on the use of the term “probiotic” and a proposed definition for “biofortification.” 

Codex Standard for Follow-Up Formula
Work continued this year on the development of a revised Codex Standard for Follow-up Formula (FUF), including separate sections on FUF for older infants (FUF-OI), 6-12 months of age, and FUF for young children (FUF-YC), 12-36 months of age. Three key priorities for dairy were at play: (1) preventing FUF-YC from being classified in the standard as a breastmilk substitute (BMS); (2) keeping a prohibition on “cross-promotion” out of the section on FUF-OI; and (3) ensuring Codex recognizes the full nutritional benefits dairy proteins contribute to FUF and infant formulas produced and sold around the world. 

Classification as BMS
At issue is whether World Health Organization (WHO) policies and guidance, which are targeted at restricting the marketing of BMS in order to promote continued breastfeeding up to 24 months of age and beyond, should be directly referenced and applied to FUF-YC. The danger is that should these be categorized as a BMS, WHO encourages governments to severely restrict their marketing. Numerous countries participating in the meeting already have national statues in place doing just this. Importantly, WHO’s guidance also lumps any dairy product that is “marketed as being suitable for infants and young children from the age of 6 months to 36 months”  into the BMS category. (http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA69/A69_7Add1-en.pdf?ua=1)

Fortunately, following a vigorous debate during the meeting over whether FUF-YC should or should not be a BMS, a compromise solution was found, which resulted in a footnote being added to the product definition simply noting the fact that, “In some countries these products are regulated as breast-milk substitutes.” If the committee had defined these as BMS, it would have very likely impacted sales of these products and set the stage for restrictions on fluid milk and other dairy products intended for children 12 to 36 months of age. 

Prohibition of “Cross-promotion”
At the last session of CCNFSDU in November 2018, a provision was added to the labeling section of the draft FUF-OI section stating that “cross promotion” between product categories “is not permitted” and that infant formula (0-6 months of age) and follow-up formula (12-36 months of age) should be “distinctly labeled…in particular as to the text, images and colors used.” This provision is based on an unsubstantiated claim that use of product trademarks, brands, logos, mascots and colors constitutes “cross promotion” and results in the consumption of other products that also use those same trademarks, brands, and intellectual property rights. IDFA’s efforts helped ensure the outcome was that this ambiguous term was stricken from the text and replaced with a narrower restriction that, although not ideal, is less likely to impede on the use of trademarks, brand names and other intellectual property rights. 

Benefits of Dairy Protein Ingredients
CCNFSDU agreed to establish a working group to gather data and consider how to establish nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors (NCFs) for soy-based and milk-based ingredients used in both infant formula and FUF. NCFs are used in measuring crude protein content (using the Kjeldahl test method) of finished foods for labelling compliance purposes or evaluating incoming ingredient supplies against purchaser specifications. The level at which NCFs are set for various milk-protein-containing ingredients can impact the quantity and nutritional quality necessary to meet nutritional compositional requirements for these products, so the upcoming discussions within Codex is critical for the dairy industry to be engaged in. IDFA will work with our members and external partners to gather additional data to help inform the discussion and ensure outcomes are science-based and accurately reflect dairy protein’s nutritional advantage. 

Codex Guidelines for Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Foods
The dairy industry got another win during the CCNFSDU discussions when the committee agreed to maintain a provision in the draft Codex Guidelines for Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF) stating, “High quality protein will be achieved with RUTF formulations containing a minimum of 50% of protein from milk products.” This statement will help guarantee that milk continues to be a major ingredient source for these critically important products. RUTFs are used to help manage severe acute malnutrition (SAM), particularly in areas of the world where there is high poverty and famine. These Codex guidelines are intended to provide guidance for industry, aid organizations and government authorities in ensuring a consistent supply of safe and nutritionally appropriate RUTF products across borders. Dairy-based ingredients serve as major nutritional components of many RUTFs produced today. 

Nutrient Profiles and Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labeling 
In 2017, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) began work on guidance on front-of-pack nutrition labeling (FOPNL) and forwarded a request to CCNFSDU to consider how it might contribute to this work. As a result of this year’s discussions, the committee agreed to coordinate with CCFL and, based on the direction CCFL decides to take, CCNFSDU would consider to what extent new guidance on nutrient profiling might be necessary to inform CCFL’s end product. The dairy industry continues to support Codex taking on this new work but cautioned Codex on the limitations inherent in nutrient profiling models that reduce foods to its individual (and mostly ‘negative’) nutrients and are inconsistent with national food and nutrition policies. Nutrient profiling and FOPNL systems must consider the overall nutritional content of individual foods and their contribution to global and local diets. The health benefits of consuming nutrient rich milk and other dairy foods must not be lost through the use of any system(s) promoted. 

Trans Fat: “Free of” Claims and Reduction Measures
Artificial trans-fatty acids (TFAs) are formed during the industrial production of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), but some TFAs are naturally present in relatively low levels in milk, dairy products and other ruminant-derived products, like meat. During the CCNFSDU meeting, the committee considered several options for reducing consumer exposure to TFAs in the food supply. It was decided that attempting to develop criteria for a “trans fat-free” claim was not feasible and, therefore, Codex should not continue work along these lines. However, members agreed to request the Codex Committee on Food Labeling to consider what labeling pathways might be prudent and suggest the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils look into ways to reduce TFAs or eliminate PHOs, which could include revisions to commodity standards and/or development of guidelines on oil production and processing. At this point in time, the focus appears to remain on industrially-produced TFAs and not naturally occurring, ruminant-derived products.

For more information, contact Allan at jallan@idfa.org.