Understanding the Politics of Food Regulation and Public Health: An Analysis of Codex Standard-Setting Processes on Food Labelling

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

2 Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

3 Department of Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK

4 School of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia

5 International Institute for Global Health, United Nations University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

Background 
The importance of the international food regulatory system to global health, is often overlooked. There are calls to reform this system to promote healthy and sustainable food systems centred on the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), the United Nation’s (UN’s) standard-setting body. Yet this presents a significant political challenge, given Codex has historically prioritized food safety risks over wider harms to public health, and is dominated by powerful food exporting nations and industry groups with a primary interest in trade expansion. To better understand this challenge, we examine who participates and contests Codex standards, using the development of the new Guidelines on Front-of-pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) as a case study.
 
Methods 
The study involved: (i) collecting Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) documents (2016-2023); (ii) identification, categorization, and enumeration of actors involved in the development of the Guidelines; and (iii) guided by a constructivist framework, analysis of how actors framed and contested key provisions of the Guidelines.
 
Results 
Country representation was skewed towards high-income (47.9%). Member state delegations were dominated by non-health ministries (59.8%) and industry actors (16.1%). Industry actors comprised the large majority of observers (84.2%) and civil society actors representing public health interests the least (12.2%). Commercial actors used frames supporting positive FOPNL messages (eg, low in salt) opposing negative ones (eg, “high-in” sugar warnings) and called for product exemptions (eg, sports foods and baby foods). Public health actors used frames supporting simplified FOPNL to reduce consumer confusion, that hold up public health goals, and prevent inappropriate marketing.
 
Conclusion 
Participation in the Guidelines development process suggests stronger preferences for trade facilitation and commerce over public health. Ambitions to reform the international food regulatory system may require an examination of who participates and how to address this asymmetrical representation of interests. These results suggest the need to greatly strengthen public health representation at Codex.

Keywords

References

  1. Baker P, Machado P, Santos T, et al. Ultra-processed foods and the nutrition transition: global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers. Obes Rev. 2020;21(12):e13126. doi:1111/obr.13126
  2. Monteiro CA, Lawrence M, Millett C, et al. The need to reshape global food processing: a call to the United Nations Food Systems Summit. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(7):e006885. doi:1136/bmjgh-2021-006885
  3. Moodie R, Bennett E, Kwong EJL, et al. Ultra-processed profits: the political economy of countering the global spread of ultra-processed foods - a synthesis review on the market and political practices of transnational food corporations and strategic public health responses. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(12):968-982. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.45
  4. Wood B, Williams O, Baker P, Sacks G. Behind the ‘creative destruction’ of human diets: an analysis of the structure and market dynamics of the ultra‐processed food manufacturing industry and implications for public health. J Agrar Chang. 2023;23(4):811-843. doi:1111/joac.12545
  5. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual. 28th ed. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc5042en. Accessed June 23, 2023.
  6. World Health Organization. WHO Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne Diseases: Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group 2007-2015. WHO. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/199350/9789241565165_eng.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2023.
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Strategic Priorities for Food Safety Within the FAO Strategic Framework 2022-2031. FAO. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc4040en. Accessed June 23, 2023.
  8. Hadjikakou M, Baker P. The untenable role of “junk food” in a healthy and sustainable food system. In: Lawrence M, Friel S, eds. Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems. Routledge; 2020:160-172.
  9. Anastasiou K, Ribeiro De Melo P, Slater S, et al. From harmful nutrients to ultra-processed foods: exploring shifts in 'foods to limit' terminology used in national food-based dietary guidelines. Public Health Nutr. 2023;26(11):2539-2550. doi:1017/s1368980022002580
  10. Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S, et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ. 2024;384:e077310. doi:1136/bmj-2023-077310
  11. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Lawrence M, Costa Louzada ML, Pereira Machado P. Ultra-Processed Foods, Diet Quality, and Health Using the NOVA Classification System. FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2023.
  12. Fiolet T, Srour B, Sellem L, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. BMJ. 2018;360:k322. doi:1136/bmj.k322
  13. Martínez Steele E, Baraldi LG, Louzada ML, Moubarac JC, Mozaffarian D, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e009892. doi:1136/bmjopen-2015-009892
  14. Nardocci M, Leclerc BS, Louzada ML, Monteiro CA, Batal M, Moubarac JC. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2019;110(1):4-14. doi:17269/s41997-018-0130-x
  15. da Costa Louzada ML, Baraldi LG, Steele EM, et al. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Brazilian adolescents and adults. Prev Med. 2015;81:9-15. doi:1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.018
  16. Popkin BM, Ng SW. The nutrition transition to a stage of high obesity and noncommunicable disease prevalence dominated by ultra-processed foods is not inevitable. Obes Rev. 2022;23(1):e13366. doi:1111/obr.13366
  17. Monteiro CA, Astrup A. Does the concept of "ultra-processed foods" help inform dietary guidelines, beyond conventional classification systems? YES. Am J Clin Nutr. 2022;116(6):1476-1481. doi:1093/ajcn/nqac122
  18. Popkin BM, Barquera S, Corvalan C, et al. Towards unified and impactful policies to reduce ultra-processed food consumption and promote healthier eating. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021;9(7):462-470. doi:1016/s2213-8587(21)00078-4
  19. Touvier M, da Costa Louzada ML, Mozaffarian D, Baker P, Juul F, Srour B. Ultra-processed foods and cardiometabolic health: public health policies to reduce consumption cannot wait. BMJ. 2023;383:e075294. doi:1136/bmj-2023-075294
  20. Thow AM, Jones A, Schneider CH, Labonté R. Global governance of front-of-pack nutrition labelling: a qualitative analysis. Nutrients. 2019;11(2):268. doi:3390/nu11020268
  21. Silva KC, de Castro IR, de Carvalho CM, de Camargo KR Jr. Baby food industry interference with infant feeding international regulation-a case study on the standard for follow-up formula. Front Public Health. 2022;10:984385. doi:3389/fpubh.2022.984385
  22. Boatwright M, Lawrence M, Russell C, Russ K, McCoy D, Baker P. The politics of regulating foods for infants and young children: a case study on the framing and contestation of Codex standard-setting processes on breast-milk substitutes. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(11):2422-2439. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.161
  23. Russ K, Baker P, Byrd M, et al. What you don't know about the Codex can hurt you: how trade policy trumps global health governance in infant and young child nutrition. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(12):983-997. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.109
  24. Jones A, Neal B, Reeve B, Ni Mhurchu C, Thow AM. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling to promote healthier diets: current practice and opportunities to strengthen regulation worldwide. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(6):e001882. doi:1136/bmjgh-2019-001882
  25. Russell C, Baker P, Grimes C, Lindberg R, Lawrence MA. Global trends in added sugars and non-nutritive sweetener use in the packaged food supply: drivers and implications for public health. Public Health Nutr. 2023;26(5):952-964. doi:1017/s1368980022001598
  26. Baker P, Friel S. Food systems transformations, ultra-processed food markets and the nutrition transition in Asia. Global Health. 2016;12(1):80. doi:1186/s12992-016-0223-3
  27. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling, CXG 2-1985. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXG%2B2-1985%252FCXG_002e.pdf. Updated 2021. Accessed June 16, 2023.
  28. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL), Related Standards. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/committee/related-standards/en/?committee=CCFL. Accessed June 6, 2023.
  29. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU). FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/committee/en/?committee=CCNFSDU. Accessed June 6, 2023.
  30. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL), About. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/committee/pt/?committee=CCFL. Accessed June 3, 2023.
  31. Golan E, Kuchler F, Mitchell L, Greene C, Jessup A. Economics of Food Labeling. Report No. 793. Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41203/18885_aer793.pdf?v=0. Accessed July 23, 2023.
  32. Baker P, Russ K, Kang M, et al. Globalization, first-foods systems transformations and corporate power: a synthesis of literature and data on the market and political practices of the transnational baby food industry. Global Health. 2021;17(1):58. doi:1186/s12992-021-00708-1
  33. Thow AM, Jones A, Huckel Schneider C, Labonté R. Increasing the public health voice in global decision-making on nutrition labelling. Global Health. 2020;16(1):3. doi:1186/s12992-019-0533-3
  34. Nestle M. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. 10th ed. University of California Press; 2013.
  35. Pomeranz JL, Harris JL. Federal regulation of infant and toddler food and drink marketing and labeling. Am J Law Med. 2019;45(1):32-56. doi:1177/0098858819849991
  36. Roache SA, Gostin LO. The untapped power of soda taxes: incentivizing consumers, generating revenue, and altering corporate behavior. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(9):489-493. doi:15171/ijhpm.2017.69
  37. Mialon M, da Silva Gomes F. Public health and the ultra-processed food and drink products industry: corporate political activity of major transnationals in Latin America and the Caribbean. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(10):1898-1908. doi:1017/s1368980019000417
  38. Mediano F, Fierro C, Corvalán C, Reyes M, Correa T. Framing a new nutrition policy: changes on key stakeholder's discourses throughout the implementation of the Chilean food labelling law. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(9):5700. doi:3390/ijerph20095700
  39. Townsend B, Johnson TD, Ralston R, et al. A framework of NGO inside and outside strategies in the commercial determinants of health: findings from a narrative review. Global Health. 2023;19(1):74. doi:1186/s12992-023-00978-x
  40. Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:100. doi:1186/1471-2288-11-100
  41. Benford RD, Snow DA. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol. 2000;26(1):611-639. doi:1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
  42. Goffman E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press; 1974.
  43. Shiffman J. A social explanation for the rise and fall of global health issues. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(8):608-613. doi:2471/blt.08.060749
  44. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. About Codex, Members. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/members/jp/. Accessed May 30, 2023.
  45. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. About Codex, Observers. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/observers/observers/about/jp/. Accessed May 30, 2023.
  46. World Trade Organization. Understanding the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htm. Accessed June 16, 2023.
  47. Downes C. The Impact of WTO SPS Law on EU Food Regulations: Is Codex Alimentarius All Talk? The Importance of Standards in Transnational Food Governance. Springer; 2014:205-246. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04373-9_7. Accessed July 20, 2023.
  48. Veggeland F, Borgen SO. Negotiating international food standards: the World Trade Organization's impact on the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Governance. 2005;18(4):675-708. doi:1111/j.1468-0491.2005.00297.x
  49. Thomas CI. Politicization, deadlock, and dispute: the impacts of post-1995 linkages between Codex Alimentarius Commission and the World Trade Organization. Spectra. 2011;1(1):104-137. doi:21061/spectra.v1i1.193
  50. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization. Trade and Food Standards. FAO/WTO. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tradefoodfao17_e.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2023.
  51. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Agenda Item 9, Codex Committee on Food Labelling, FL/43 CRD/6 (Comments from Costa Rica Supported by Dominican Republic and Uruguay), Discussion Paper on Codex Harmonisation Principles and Labelling. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-43%252FCRD%252Ffl43_CRD6e.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2023.
  52. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Agenda Item 9, Codex Committee on Food Labelling, FL/43 CRD/17, Proposal for New Work Concerning a Global Standard for Front of Pack Interpretive Nutrition Labelling (Comments from IACFO). FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-43%252FCRD%252Ffl43_CRD17x.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2023.
  53. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Agenda Item 9, Codex Committee on Food Labelling FL/43 CRD/20, Proposal for New Work on Front of Pack Nutrition Labelling (Project Document from Costa Rica and New Zealand). FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-43%252FCRD%252Ffl43_CRD20x.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2023.
  54. Greenhalgh T. How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine and Healthcare. 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2017:164-176.
  55. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the Forty-seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, REP23/FL. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-47%252FFINAL%252520REPORT%252FREP23_FLe.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2023.
  56. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the Forty-sixth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, REP21/FL. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-46%252Freport%252FREP21_FLe.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2023.
  57. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the Forty-fifth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, REP19/FL. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-45%252FFinal%252520Report%252FREP19_FLe.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2023.
  58. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the Forty-fourth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, REP18/FL. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-44%252FREPORT%252FREP18_FLe.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2023.
  59. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the Forty-third Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, REP16/FL. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-43%252FReport%252FREP16_FLe.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2023.
  60. The World Bank. World Development Indicators. The World by Income and Region. The World Bank Group; 2023. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-region.html.
  61. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Information Guide for First-Time Delegates to a Codex Session. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/3/au690e/au690e.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2023.
  62. Harvard Law School. International Public Interest Law Practice Setting: Types of IGOs. The President and Fellows of Harvard College. https://hls.harvard.edu/bernard-koteen-office-of-public-interest-advising/about-opia/what-is-public-interest-law/public-service-practice-settings/international-public-interest-law-practice-setting/types-of-igos/. Accessed June 19, 2023.
  63. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Understanding Codex. FAO/WHO. http://www.fao.org/3/CA1176EN/ca1176en.pdf. Accessed June 19, 2023.
  64. Rocha C, De Schutter O, Campeau C. Framing the nutrition problem: the political-economic obstacles to healthier diets. UNSCN News Bulletin. 2018;40:25-32.
  65. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL), Related Meetings. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/committee/related-meetings/en/?committee=CCFL. Accessed March, 2024.
  66. La Trobe University. NVivo 12 for Windows: About Coding. La Trobe University. https://latrobe.libguides.com/. Accessed August 15, 2023.
  67. Koon AD, Hawkins B, Mayhew SH. Framing and the health policy process: a scoping review. Health Policy Plan. 2016;31(6):801-816. doi:1093/heapol/czv128
  68. Kwan S. Framing the fat body: contested meanings between government, activists, and industry. Sociol Inq. 2009;79(1):25-50. doi:1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00271.x
  69. Russell C, Lawrence M, Cullerton K, Baker P. The political construction of public health nutrition problems: a framing analysis of parliamentary debates on junk-food marketing to children in Australia. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23(11):2041-2052. doi:1017/s1368980019003628
  70. Edelman MJ. Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail. Institute for Research on Poverty Monograph Series. Academic Press; 1977.
  71. Entman RM. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun. 1993;43(4):51-58. doi:1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
  72. Weiss JA. The powers of problem definition: the case of government paperwork. Policy Sci. 1989;22(2):97-121. doi:1007/bf00141381
  73. Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e77404. doi:1371/journal.pone.0077404
  74. Parkhurst J. The Politics of Evidence: From Evidence-Based Policy to the Good Governance of Evidence. Taylor & Francis; 2017.
  75. Smith KE. Beyond evidence-based policy in public health: the interplay of ideas. In: Palgrave Studies in Science, Knowledge, and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
  76. The World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups Country Classification. The World Bank Lending Group. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups. Accessed September 19, 2023.
  77. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Agenda Item 1, Codex Committee on Food Labelling, CX/FL 16/43/1, Provisional Agenda, Forty-third Session. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-43%252FWD%252Ffl43_01e.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2023.
  78. World Health Organization. Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity. WHO. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/204176/9789241510066_eng.pdf;jsessionid=F6F5A722711A9D44868BE18C8BC1B1BB?sequence=1. Accessed June 18, 2023.
  79. World Health Organization. Guiding Principles and Framework Manual for Front-of-pack Labelling for Promoting Healthy Diets. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/guidingprinciples-labelling-promoting-healthydiet. Accessed June 22, 2023.
  80. World Health Organization. International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241541601. Accessed June 4, 2023.
  81. World Health Assembly. Agenda Item 11.6, Sixty-third World Health Assembly (WHA63.23), Infant and Young Child Feeding. WHA. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA63/A63_R23-en.pdf. Accessed May 13, 2023.
  82. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204-1222. doi:1016/s0140-6736(20)30925-9
  83. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Agenda Item 6, Codex Commttee on Food Labelling, CX/FL 19/45/6 Add 1 Rev 1, Proposed Draft Guidelines on Front-of-pack Nutrition Labelling (Replies to CL 2019/14-FL). FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-45%252Fdocuments%252FFL45_06_add1e_rev1.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2023.
  84. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Proposed Draft Guidelines on Front-of-Pack Nutrtion Labelling. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-46%252Ffl46_06e.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2023.
  85. Dickie S, Woods JL, Baker P, Elizabeth L, Lawrence MA. Evaluating nutrient-based indices against food- and diet-based indices to assess the health potential of foods: how does the Australian Health Star Rating System perform after five years? Nutrients. 2020;12(5):1463. doi:3390/nu12051463
  86. World Cancer Research Fund International. Building Momentum: Lessons on Implementing a Robust Front-of-Pack Food Label. WCRF. https://www.wcrf.org/buildingmomentum. Accessed October 1, 2023.
  87. Anderson M. Comparing the Effectiveness of Structures for Addressing Hunger and Food Insecurity. In: Civil Society and Social Movements in Food System Governance. 1st ed. Routledge; 2019. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9780429503597-7/comparing-effectiveness-structures-addressing-hunger-food-insecurity-molly-anderson.
  88. McKeon N. Food Security Governance: Empowering Communities, Regulating Corporations. 1st ed. Routledge; 2015.
  89. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Proposed Draft Guidelines on Front of Pack Nutrition Labelling, Comments in Reply to CL 2021/19-FL. FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-46%252Ffl46_06_Add1e.pdf. Accessed April 2024.
  90. Crosbie E, Gomes FS, Olvera J, Rincón-Gallardo Patiño S, Hoeper S, Carriedo A. A policy study on front-of-pack nutrition labeling in the Americas: emerging developments and outcomes. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2023;18:100400. doi:1016/j.lana.2022.100400
  91. Pereira TN, Bortolini GA, de Freitas Campos R. Barriers and facilitators related to the adoption of policies to reduce ultra-processed foods consumption: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(6):4729. doi:3390/ijerph20064729
  92. Scrinis G. Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition-an essay by Gyorgy Scrinis. BMJ. 2020;371:m4601. doi:1136/bmj.m4601
  93. Nestle M. Conflicts of interest in the regulation of food safety: a threat to scientific integrity. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2036-2038. doi:1001/jamainternmed.2013.9158
  94. Nestle M. Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat. 1st ed. Basic Books; 2018.
  95. Adams J, Hofman K, Moubarac JC, Thow AM. Public health response to ultra-processed food and drinks. BMJ. 2020;369:m2391. doi:1136/bmj.m2391
  96. Sundar A, Kardes FR. The role of perceived variability and the health halo effect in nutritional inference and consumption. Psychol Mark. 2015;32(5):512-521. doi:1002/mar.20796
  97. Chapple CI, Russell CG, Burnett AJ, Woods JL. Sports foods are not all they shake up to be. An audit of formulated supplementary sports food products and packaging in Australian retail environments. Front Nutr. 2023;10:1042049. doi:3389/fnut.2023.1042049
  98. Scrinis G, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed foods and the limits of product reformulation. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):247-252. doi:1017/s1368980017001392
  99. Gilmore AB, Fabbri A, Baum F, et al. Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1194-1213. doi:1016/s0140-6736(23)00013-2
  100. World Health Organization. Guidance on Ending the Inappropriate Promotion of Foods for Infants and Young Children: Implementation Manual. WHO. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/260137/9789241513470-eng.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2024.
  101. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Standard for Processed Cereal-based Foods for Infants and Young Children: CXS 74-1981. FAO/WHO. http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FStandards%252FCXS%2B74-1981%252FCXS_074e.pdf. Updated 2019. Accessed May 15, 2023.
  102. World Health Organization. WHO/UNICEF Information Note. Cross-Promotion of Infant Formula and Toddler Milks. Technical Document. WHO/UNICEF. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-NMH-NHD-19.27. Accessed June 16, 2023.
  103. George A. An unwelcome seat at the table: the role of big food in public and private standard-setting and its implications for NCD regulation. QUT Law Review. 2018;18(1):156-168. doi:5204/qutlr.v18i1.726
  104. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Codex Strategic Plan 2020-2025. FOA/WHO. https://www.fao.org/3/ca5645en/CA5645EN.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2023.
  105. Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. Agenda Item 6, Codex Committee on Food Labelling, CX/FL 19/45/6, Proposed Draft Guidelines on Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (Prepared by the Electronic Working Group Chaired by Costa Rica and Co-chaired by New Zealand). FAO/WHO. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-714-45%252Fdocuments%252Ffl45_06e_final.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2023.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 October 2023
  • Revise Date: 06 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 22 September 2024
  • First Publish Date: 23 September 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics