|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Codex wary of ‘probiotic’ claims, starts new work on baby foods
|
|
Tuesday, 08 October, 2024, 08 : 00 AM [IST]
|
|
Dresden, Germany
|
The 44th Codex Nutrition Committee meeting began with testing a new draft prioritising system where Codex members and observers were asked to assess and score the impact new standards might have, not only on trade but on global public health and food safety. For the agri-food industries that represent 40% of participants – trade and the profits to be made from Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF), is their priority. IBFAN and ENCA were virtually the only civil society organisations there to protect the outcomes of the many items on the agenda that will have a profound impact on child health and survival.
IBFAN has been attending Codex meetings since 1995, and aware of the impact that bad Codex standards (such as the 1987 Follow-up formula standard) have had on government’s legislation, has been calling for Codex to do this type of pre-analysis ensure all its standards are in line with WHO recommendations.
The prioritising requirement seems to be prompting governments to recognise the role Codex has had, and still has, in flooding the world with plastic packaged UPF and be more alert to the risks of approving new global standards and guidelines. As a consequence, three proposals for Codex to start new work on Probiotics, synthetic fibre and Plant-based foods, that are all being used to boost the marketing of risky UPF, were not advanced for further work.
Sadly, an important proposal by the EU and Switzerland to ask the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling CCMAS to consider validating a method for taste-testing baby formulas for sweetness did not get approved. Although strongly supported by many governments the proposal was stymied by four major exporters, USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, who prioritised their fast-growing baby formula markets rather than take this opportunity to protect child health. Along with the International Special Dietary Foods Industries (ISDI) they claimed the tests would be too laborious, expensive and not validated.
IBFAN and ENCA highlighted global monitoring with Public Eye that exposed Nestlé’s double standards in marketing baby formulas and foods – selling sugar free products in Switzerland – while such products in lower income countries come with high sugar levels. IBFAN and ENCA pointed out that companies know exactly how to ultra-process raw ingredients to achieve sweetness while claiming products are sugar free. Since sweetness is addictive and sets up taste preferences in children, taste testing the final product is an important public health measure that could reduce the harm caused by these products.
On the proposal from Malaysia for new Guidelines on Probiotics, UK made a strong statement highlighting the fact that ‘Probiotic’ is a claim and that any new Guidelines should not imply a health benefit, unless such a claim is valid and backed by sound evidence. The EU and many other countries warned that a new Guidelines was not only unnecessary but would not help countries decide when the numerous claims in their markets are sound or bogus – the reason some countries were calling for help. ENCA warned that a new Guideline might in fact institutionalise the claim, forcing countries to accept it and all the subsequent misleading marketing. ENCA asked that in view of these risks, especially to babies, any new work should refer to Products marketed as Probiotic.
The risks to infants IBFAN highlighted the lack of evidence and how the baby food industry is not complying with WHO’s safety advice to reconstitute powdered infant formula with water at 70 degrees. They know that this important safeguard that aims to destroy Cronobacter pathogens, would render the Lactobacilli probiotic ineffective and the claim meaningless. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that preterm infants who are given probiotics are at risk of invasive, potentially fatal disease caused by bacteria or fungi contained in probiotics. The decision was taken not to proceed with this at Codex but instead to ask FAO and WHO to do a systematic review of current evidence and revise their 2021 Guidelines.
In recognition that standards need to keep up to date with scientific evidence, and that many are not fit for purpose, especially the old canned food standard that has no limits on sugar and the 2006 baby cereal standard that allows up to 30%, the decision was taken to bring these two together under a new standard covering all foods for children 6-36 months. At six months infants can self-regulate and eat a range of bio-diverse, healthy family foods alongside continued breastfeeding. Confidence in these foods is undermined by the promotion of commercial baby foods that are sold to families as safe and ‘value-added’, so there is a risk that any standard, unless it is very strict, will legitimise sweet, plastic packaged, harmful and wasteful products that are really not necessary. IBFAN and ENCA will call for this new standard to include strong controls on labelling and marketing in line with WHO and UNICEF recommendations and the removal of added sugars, sweeteners and synthetic additives wherever possible.
Plant-based formulas IBFAN and ENCA expressed concern that Plant-based formulas are being pushed as the sustainable, healthy option for children and that their use will help the planet. Acknowledging the valid concerns about the role of dairy products in the climate crisis, ‘plant-based’ UPFs are far from the healthy option that the term ‘plant’ implies, and these products should not be carrying health, nutrition or greenwashing claims.
Optional ingredients in Infant formula: IBFAN and ENCA highlighted industry’s misleading claims and promotion of fructans (synthetic oligosaccharides) and their use of idealising terms such as human milk oligosaccharides and HMO that falsely imply similarity with breastmilk. IBFAN and ENCA stressed that if an ingredient is proven through credible science to be important it should be mandatory in all formulas and added to the essential ingredient list. The supermarket shelf is not the place to make decisions that could fundamentally affect a child’s development. The FAO secretariat urged that Codex not waste time on optional ingredients and focus instead on ESSENTIAL ingredients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|