CAC49 – 49th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC49)
Geneva, Switzerland – 6 to 10 July 2026
“With 117.8 million people forced to flee their homes, facing food insecurity and scarce water and sanitation, allowing weaker product labelling – especially for formulas and baby products – is an unacceptable contradiction of human rights principles.”
The 49th Codex Alimentarius Commission will meet in Geneva next week to decide whether new guidelines and standards are ready for final adoption. Of concern to IBFAN and some countries and health advocates are new Guidelines, proposed by the United States, that will allow ‘Competent Authorities’ to grant ‘flexibility’ to food companies when labelling products for emergency situations. Because of the health and safety concerns of this idea expressed by Member States and Observers, some ‘high level’ safeguards were added during the Code Labelling Committee (CCFL) in May.
However, the Guidelines are still a compromise with no specificity and serious omissions – especially in relation to the labelling and composition of formulas and foods for infants and young children. A major problem is that they rely on ‘Competent Authorities’ in all countries having good emergency preparedness plans in place with staff able to recognise and disallow inadequate labelling. Since such systems are often missing the Guidelines are likely to open the door to double standards and dumping of sub-standard products, with the most vulnerable populations exposed to unacceptable risks.
During emergencies child deaths can be two to 70 times higher than the average rate. The risks of not breastfeeding during the first six months are greatly increased when water and sanitation are scarce and basic hygiene breaks down. All mothers have the right to decide how to feed their children so there will be a need for carefully managed formula for babies who are not breastfed. But uncontrolled donations are a lethal risk that are made even worse when labels are idealised, in the wrong language and when warnings are missing. (see below) This is why full implementation of the marketing recommendations of the World Health Assembly, the International Code and subsequent WHA Resolutions are essential. The USA, a country that has failed to implement these recommendations and has now officially left WHO, dominated the labelling discussions, ensuring that the Guidelines completely fail to make any reference these essential safeguards.(2)
IBFAN, ENCA, ILCA, NCD Alliance, WPHNA and countries such as the small island state Cabo Verde, and Burundi are all calling for the Guidelines to be returned to CCFL for further work to ensure that formulas and foods for infants and young children are EXCLUDED and the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food (CXC 20-1979) INCLUDED. This Code contains many important food safety and labelling principles and Article 4.4 refers to the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and WHA Resolutions.
For more information contact:
Patti Rundall: prundall@babymilkaction.org | +44 7786 523493
Elisabeth Sterken: elisabethsterken@gmail.com
Examples of bad labelling
During the Covid 19 Pandemic, commercial formulas falsely claimed to provide immunity against infections. In Pakistan during the 2022 floods formulas carrying misleading brand names such as ‘Recover’ were donated and distributed for use by malnourished children.
IBFAN concerns about Codex
The lack of transparency and poor conflict of interest safeguards, coupled with the dominance of food corporations and powerful exporting nations, has led to Codex adopting weak standards for many harmful foods and commodities. For many years IBFAN has advocated that for-profit industries should not sit on Government Codex delegations, as they regularly do. Kelly Weeks Manager of Abbott Nutrition, a major US baby food and pharmaceutical company sat on the US Labelling Committee delegation.
Codex standards have been regularly used in attempts to stop governments bringing in strong marketing controls. with interventions made at the WTO concerning commercial milk formula marketing, labelling or safety testing regulations of another member state, wrongly treating Codex standards as a ‘regulatory ceiling’ for trade purposes. In fact, governments have the sovereign right to adopt any legislation they consider necessary to protect child health as long as it does not violate international trade principles.
Notes
(1) Codex Alimentarius has mandate to both protect health and facilitate fair trade and its texts often serve as the basis for national food legislation and can be used as the benchmark in trade disputes.
(2) For agencies and NGOs working in emergency relief, flexible labelling can complicate the traceability and recall procedures of contaminated or unsafe food. Formula contaminated with Cereulide was exported to Ukraine, the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
(3) The latest WHO/UNICEF/IBFAN status report: Marketing of breast-milk substitutes: national implementation of the International Code, 2026 shows a clear association between legislative strength and breastfeeding practices. Countries substantially aligned with the Code report exclusive breastfeeding rates of 54%, compared with 24% in countries with no legal measures.
With information from Baby Milk Action
