The WHO/FAO global standards setting body, Codex Alimentarius, met twice in October – in Dresden, Germany (2-6 Oct) and Quebec City, Canada (26 Oct-1st Nov)  IBFAN continued to raise concerns about sugar,  sweeteners and other problems with baby foods and the harmful marketing that undermines breastfeeding and biodiverse family foods.   Progress on the sugar problem was delayed yet again by the baby food industry and exporting countries and loopholes opened up in the labelling of foods for emergencies and through technology.

In the Dresden Nutrition meeting IBFAN supported a proposal from the EU and Switzerland to taste-test formulas for young children, pointing out that companies process 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.

A few weeks later, the Labelling Committee in Quebec  (final report) discussed the definition of added sugar. IBFAN highlighted the high levels of sugar and sweeteners in baby foods, the need for mandatory safeguards to protect breastfeeding and biodiverse,  unprocessed family foods and the right to full and frank information. Nestlé and the baby food industry,  represented by the International Dietary Foods Industries (ISDI)  suggested that there was no need to pay attention to IBFAN’s criticism because Codex was already dealing with the matter.

IBFAN highlighted that a wide range of mono and disaccharides and other sweeteners are added to processed foods and all need to be identified as ‘added sugars’  in the ingredient list and as a sub-total of total sugars in the nutrient declaration panel. This would distinguish them from intrinsic sugars that are naturally found in foods and are otherwise nutritious.  WHO Euro has called for a ban on added sugars and sweeteners in food products for babies and children under the age of three, and has urged industry to “be proactive” and “support public health goals” by reformulating its baby food products.(1)

Labelling Exemptions for Foods for Emergencies: IBFAN, WHO, NGOs  and several countries expressed  concerns about this proposal from the USA that leaves the door open for commercial and political exploitation, undermining decades of work attempting to ensure honest and safe labelling , including of baby foods. Declaring an emergency is a politically sensitive issue and must be protected.  We welcomed the EU’s suggestion that countries should not be allowed to unilaterally bypass mandatory labelling requirements, especially without fully informing the importing country. But what about countries that don’t have strong labelling laws? Will a Codex Guideline help or place those most vulnerable, mothers, infants and young children, at greater risk?

E-commerce and Technology Labelling: IBFAN, WHO, the EU and several NGOs and countries argued for extra safeguards to protect privacy and prevent the harvesting of information and personal data through technology.  Marketing via all manner of technology is fast becoming the predominant source of exposure to promotion of baby feeding products globally. In 2022, WHO’s report on digital marketing of breast-milk substitutes  described its cross border extent and power. It is now totally out of control and parents and carers everywhere are targeted by paid  ‘influencers’ and other deceptive schemes with information that undermines WHO and national health recommendations and disempowers parents.(2) The E-Commerce and Technology Guidelines will go forward to the Codex Commission in Geneva (CAC47) for adoption.

Sustainability labelling:  Many countries expressed concerns about ‘greenwashing’ claims and debated whether a Codex Guideline could help but this proposal was not advanced.  IBFAN pointed out that the food products most likely to carry greenwashing claims will be the packaged Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) and foods for infants and young children that should never be prohibited from carrying sustainability products (as well as  health and nutrition claims). There was no consensus to start new work on sustainability labelling claims but the topic is still open for discussion.

The need for Codex to reconsider its role and purpose. 

The Dresden nutrition meeting tested 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. This is something IBFAN has been calling for that could help ensure that standards are in line with WHO recommendations, and prevent Codex undermining government efforts to limit the global trade in plastic packaged ultra-processed products.   As a consequence, several worrying proposals were reconsidered or rejected.

The Labelling Committee in Quebec, spent far less time on  prioritisation and it showed. Far less time was spent on alcohol labelling (that has the potential to reduce the 2.6 million deaths per year) compared to the labelling of saffron. During the discussion on Technology labelling, Protection on Consumer Health was replaced with the narrower terms  “nutrition” and “food safety,” ignoring the dual mandate of Codex to protect consumers’ health and ensure fair practices in the food trade.

Probiotics:  The UK made a strong statement highlighting the fact that ‘Probiotic’ is considered 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 WHO, EU, IBFAN ENCA warned that new Guidelines were not only unnecessary but would not help countries decide whether the numerous probiotic claims in their markets are sound or bogus – the reason some countries were calling for help.

Prebiotics: IBFAN 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 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.

Synthetic fibre: WHO, IBFAN and many countries stressed the need to increase the consumption of real food, fruits, vegetables, pulses, and whole grains to enhance fibre intake,  rather than ultra-processed foods (UPF)  with synthetic fibre.

Plant-based foods, IBFAN acknowledged the role of dairy products in exacerbating the climate crisis, but warned that the many ‘plant-based’ UPFs and formulas are far from the healthy option that the term ‘plant’ implies. We called for a prohibition of health, nutrition or greenwashing claims on these products.IBFAN and Italy warned  that the proposal could lead to increased consumption of ultra-processed foods.

Taste-testing the sweetness of follow-up formulas. This important proposal from the EU was blocked by ISDI, the USA and other large formula exporting countries.

What happens now? Final decisions regarding all the Dresden and Quebec proposals will be made at the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC47) meeting in Geneva  25-30th November. CAC47 will be webcast and hybrid to enable those who register to intervene.

WHO will be hosting a side event on 29 November focusing on effective nutrition labelling within the context of Codex guidance and the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). During this event, WHO will present details of the forthcoming guidelines on nutrition labelling policies and provide an update on the WHO information brief on classifying foods for food environment policies..

The harm caused by manufacturers of sweet processed baby foods is at last being exposed and prompting calls for transparency and regulation.

• Researchers from the University of Southern California have found that cutting sugar in the first 1,000 days of a baby’s life – from conception to the age of two – appears to reduce the risk of developing significant health issues in adult life, with a 30% reduction in the risk of obesity among the sugar-rationed babies. The study took advantage of the “natural experiment” that occurred in the UK as it recovered from World War Two and food-rationing came to an end.  The impact of the end of sugar-rationing in the UK in 1953,  led to a rapid doubling in the amount of sugar consumed.
• A BBC report and investigation in the Philippines, The Sweet Divide, has prompted calls for regulation in the Philippines. Senator Imee Marcos, the sister of the current president and daughter of former president Ferdinand Marcos Snr,  is sponsoring a bill that would prohibit manufacturers of baby food manufacturers from adding sugar to  their products. A failure to comply could lead to a hefty fine, and imprisonment of producers and manufacturers for one to five years.
• The release in April of the Public Eye/ IBFAN exposé, How Nestlé gets children hooked on sugar in lower-income countries,  showed how Nestlé markets its baby food products as  beneficial for child development, despite containing high levels of added sugar. The report prompted a drop in Nestlé’s share price in India to a 3-year low on 18th May (the day of Nestlé’s Annual General Meeting in Switzerland); enquiries by regulators in India, Nigeria and Bangladesh and a formal request to the Swiss Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) to bring legal action against Nestlé under the unfair competition act for “unethical and unfair business practices” in low and middle-income countries.

(1) The 2023 WHO Guidelines on the use of non-sugar sweeteners recommends that NSS not be used to manage weight or to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases.  This warning should be prominently communicated on labels of products containing NSS.

(2) IBFAN is supporting Brazil’s Zero Draft Resolution on Digital Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes that will be tabled for adoption at the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025 2025

---

With information from Baby Milk Action