The 48^th session of the Codex Alimentarius Com­mission addressed all the topics on its agenda and covered three more topics as other businesses (e.g., high quality cassava flour and related products, cashew kernels, and food classifications based on the intensity of processing, so-called highly- or ultra-processed). CAC48 approved about eight hundred new or revised standards (including maximum levels for residues or for regulated substances), guidelines and recommended codes of practice. Areas covered ranged from spices and culinary herbs to pesticide residues, food additives and flavorings, contaminants (e.g., lead, aflatoxins), adapted cross-references to the labelling provisions of non-retail containers for sev­eral existing regional standards, a new international standard on fresh dates, as well as a new regional standard for Latin America and the Caribbean for Castilla lulo; new international Codex Guidelines for monitoring the stability and purity of reference materials and related stock solutions of pesticides during prolonged storage; new and revised Maxi­mum residue limits (MRLs) for different combina­tions of pesticide/commodity(ies). CAC48 agreed to start new work on liquid pasteurized camel milk by the Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products (CCMMP), working by correspondence, under New Zealand lead. CAC48 decided to reactivate formal­ly the Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP), working by correspondence, under the lead of Norway to work on laver products. CAC48 also agreed with the proposal of South Korea to host (and chair) the Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables (CCPFV) from the USA which hosted it since 1964. CAC48 held intense discussions on new ‘food protein sources – food production systems’ (NFPS). CAC48 also adopted proposed amendments to its Procedural Manual resulting from the work of the Codex Committee on General Principle (CCGP) and proposals from the Codex Committee on Pes­ticide Residues (CCPR), with a few more editorial amendments and corrections proposed by the Codex Secretariat. CAC48 approved the monitoring tool and its key indicators for an effective implementation of its Strategic Plan 2026-2031.¹

See more information available about CAC48 working documents quoted in this article², as well as in the official report of the CAC48 meeting.³ Codex stan­dards, guidelines, codes of practices and related miscel­laneous texts quoted in this article are readily and freely available.⁴

CAC48 DECISIONS ON CODEX STANDARDS AND RELATED TEXTS

Approval of new or revised Codex Standards and related texts

CAC48 adopted all the provisions brought forward to its approval by the Codex Committees, including the Codex Regional Coordinating Committees. Several texts were subject to some discussions and, for only a few of them, some countries expressed some res­ervations. CAC48 adopted the inclusion of labelling provisions for non-retail containers in the Regional standards for the Near East for canned humus with tehena (CXS 257R), canned foul medames (CXS 258R), tehena (CXS 259R), harissa (red hot pepper paste) (CXS 308R); halwa tehenia (Near East) (CXS 309R), and date paste (CXS 314R); a new Regional standard for Latin America and the Caribbean for Castilla lulo; new international Codex Guidelines for monitoring the stability and purity of reference materials and related stock solutions of pesticides during prolonged storage; new and revised Maximum residue limits (MRLs) for different combinations of pesticide/commodity(ies) (see WFFR October 2025 issue); a revised Code of practice for the prevention and reduction of aflatoxin contamination in peanuts (CXC 55); two new MLs for lead in dried culinary herbs at 2.0 mg/kg (with the reservations of Egypt, India, and the Russian Federation) and in dried bark spices at 2.5 mg/kg (with the reservations of China, Egypt, India, and the Russian Federation); addition of the collection of existing “Nitrogen to protein conversion factors” in existing Codex texts, as an Annex to CXS 234 (with some amendments) (see WFRR July 2025 issue); various methods of analysis, performance criteria, sampling plan for provisions in Codex standards (with amendments) (see WFRR June 2025 issue); a large number of new or revised MLs for food additives in foods with corresponding amendments in several commodity standards as well as addition to compi­lation of specifications of identity and purity of food additives for inclusion in CXA 6 and of food additives functional classes and technological purposed for in­clusion into CXA 6 and new ‘INS’ numbers allocated to food additives for inclusion into CXG 36 (see WFRR April 2025 issue); and a standard for fresh dates. On the latter, the European Union and its Member States (EUMS), plus Norway and Switzer­land, expressed their reservations on the inclusion of a 1% tolerance for decay in the Extra class of fresh dates, by recalling that CAC41 had confirmed that such a tolerance might not be necessary depending on the nature of the product. These countries reaffirmed accordingly that an Extra class represented an ex­ceptionally high quality and it should not be allowed any tolerance on the level of decay, and that would be in line with the provisions of the relevant UN/ ECE standards. Other codex Members expressed the view that the 1% tolerance for decay in the Extra class reflected current trading practices and had been used in other fresh fruit and vegetable standards similarly. Otherwise, the CAC48 expressed its broad support for the adoption of the standard for fresh dates ac­knowledging the nutritional, economic, and cultural importance of the commodity and emphasizing the value of harmonizing trade practices. The standard was recognized as scientifically sound and inclusive, reflecting longstanding trade traditions and relevant technical requirements. It was further noted that the standard would contribute to enhancing product quality, facilitate trade, and support sustainable agri­cultural development. CAC48 noted that the standard had been extensively discussed, and its finalization was a significant achievement. Also, in response to a suggestion to refer the matter of cold chain main­tenance for fresh dates to the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH), the Codex Secretariat clarified that Section 6.2 (Packaging) of the standard required fresh dates to be packed in accordance with the Code of practice for packaging and transport of fresh fruits and vegetables (CXC 44), which included provisions for refrigerated transport. Furthermore, Section 10 (Hygiene) contained cross-references to the General principles of food hygiene (CXC 1), the Code of hygien­ic practice for fresh fruits and vegetables (CXC 53), and other relevant Codex texts. The Secretariat empha­sized that the inclusion of such cross-references was a well-established practice in the development of Codex commodity standards and could be used to address this matter.⁵

Approval of amendments to existing Codex standards and related texts

Editorial amendments were made to the General standard for contaminants in food and feed (CXS 193) to remove an outdated content from Annex X about the scientific justification for the guideline levels for radionuclides in foods contaminated following a nuclear or radiological emergency; and the inclusion of the MLs for marine biotoxins contained in Section 5 of the Standard for live and raw bivalve molluscs (CXS 292) into CXS 193 and requested CCFFP to consider the removal of the MLs for marine biotoxins from that CXS 292 standard and replace them with a cross-reference to CXS 193 reinforcing that CXS 193 remained the single authoritative reference for the safety levels for contaminants in foods and feeds, as per the Codex Procedural Manual provisions (see WFRR July 2025 issue). CAC48 also noted corrections made to five Codex standards (CXS 199, CXS 234, CXS 322R, CXS 60 and CXS 236) and one Codex guidelines (CXG 98) and noted the ongoing alignment of published Codex texts with the FAO standards for official publishing.⁶

Approval of new work

CAC48 agreed to start new work on (a) a Regional standard (for Africa) for braised or boiled, salted and unsalted, dried fish; (b) two Regional standards (for North America and the South West Pacific) for galip nut (from Canarium indicum, also called “Pili nut”) and for breadfruit flour; (c) two standards for fresh turmeric and for fresh broccoli under the CCFFV; (d) substances for evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and a new work on proposed draft food additive provisions of the General standard for food additives (GSFA, CXS 192), as proposed by CCFA55; (e) the revision of the Codes of practice for weed control to prevent and re­duce pyrrolizidine alkaloid contamination in food and feed (CXC 74) and for the reduction of Aflatoxin B1 in raw materials and supplemental feeding stuffs for milk-producing animals (CXC 45); and a new Code of practice for the prevention and reduction of tropane al­kaloids in food and feed; by CCCF; (f) the priority list of pesticides for evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) as proposed by CCPR56; (g) the conversion of the Regional standard (for Asia) for laver products (CXS 323R) into an inter­national standard, under the remit of the reactivated CCFFP working by correspondence; (h) a standard for pasteurized liquid camel milk by reactivating the CCMMP, working by correspondence with the flex­ibility given to convene an EWG as appropriate, and by following the Section 2.6 of the Codex Procedural Manual on “Format for Codex commodity standards” and with cross-references to relevant Codex texts including, in due course, the guidelines on prevention and control of food fraud currently under develop­ment in CCFICS; and consulting CCMAS on the iden­tification and/or development of methods of analysis to support the implementation of quality parameter provisions; and complete the work within no more than three sessions of CCMMP.⁷

On the proposal for new work for the development of guiding Principles for the Risk Analysis of New Food (Protein) Sources and Production Systems (NFPS), the European Union explained that such guidelines would help countries to develop national regulatory frameworks covering risk assessment, risk manage­ment and risk communication about NFPS and would mirror the goal and approaches set in the existing Codex Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods De­rived from Modern Biotechnology (CXG 44). CAC48 noted the interest in NFPS and highlighted the need for a review and further development of the new work proposal, in particular with regard to the scope and definition of NFPS and noted that a gap analysis should be first conducted on existing Codex texts and experiences of Members in this area should be sought to clearly identify the gaps in the risk analysis of NFPS and avoid duplication and inconsistencies. CAC48 requested the European Union to revise the new work proposal taking into consideration the comments made at CCEXEC89 and CAC48 and, in line with an inclusive approach, CAC48 requested the Codex Secretariat, upon receipt of the revised new work proposal, to issue a CL to seek comments from all Codex Members and Observers to facilitate the further consideration of the new work proposal. CAC48 further highlighted that consideration of the new work proposal should not delay consideration of other work on NFPS in other Codex subsidiary bodies (such as CCFA).⁸

Approval of amendments to the CAC Procedural Manual

CAC48 noted that the 30^th edition of the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Procedural Manual had been published in six official languages, and contained the updates adopted by CAC47 and several editori­al changes made by the Codex Secretariat. CAC48 adopted the amendments forwarded by the CCGP34 and the CCPR56 for inclusion in the 31^st edition of the Procedural Manual.⁹

CAC48 also noted the willingness of the Codex Executive Committee (CCEXEC) to monitor the implementation of the revised Section 2.1, Part 7 on the “Guide to the procedure for the amendment and revision of Codex standards and related texts”. CAC48 also requested CCGP to review and revise paragraph 23 (b)(ii) in Section 2 of the Codex Procedural Manu­al and review other sections as appropriate, in light of recent experiences and practices in reactivating com­mittees that had been adjourned sine die to work by correspondence, in order to identify and address any other potential inconsistencies within the Procedural Manual. Finally, CAC48 expressed its appreciation to the outgoing chairperson of CCGP (Jean-Luc Angot) for his commitment, neutrality and achievements and looked forward to working with the incoming chair­person (Loïc Evain) (see also WFRR May 2025 issue).

Revocation of existing Codex standards and related texts

CAC48 noted the revocation of existing maximum limits (for food additives by CCFA) or maximum residue limits (for pesticides residues by CCPR), or of specified methods of analysis for provisions in Codex standards (with amendments) by CCMAS, conse­quential to the adoption or the revision of other limits in the same food and food commodities, or of more recent methods of analysis.¹⁰

Discontinuation of on-going subsidiary work on Codex standards and related texts

CAC48 noted the discontinuation of work on draft and proposed draft maximum limits (for food addi­tives by CCFA or for lead in dried culinary herb by CCCF) or maximum residue limits (for pesticides residues by CCPR), consequential to the adoption or the revision of other limits in the same food and food commodities or lack of justification for such uses. CAC48 also noted the discontinuation of the work on an ML for total aflatoxins (AFT) in ready-to-eat (RTE) peanuts, and its associated sampling plans as decided by the CCCF. In view of the concerns expressed by Members about discontinuing the work on an ML for AFT in RTE peanuts and associated sampling plan, CAC48 noted that CCCF had agreed on a definition for RTE peanuts, which would assist with future data collection and data processing and in differentiating data for RTE peanuts from data for peanuts for further processing (FFP) and requested Members to generate data on RTE peanuts, based on the implementation of the revised Codex Code of practice on the prevention and reduction of aflatoxins in peanuts (CXC 55) and submit the data to GEMS/Food to support a future consideration of MLs for aflatoxin in RTE peanuts.¹¹

Initiative on a Joint Electronic Working Group between CCRVDF and CCPR and extensive discus­sion on the work of JMPR for CCPR

CAC48 agreed to establish a joint electronic working group (EWG) between CCRVDF and JMPR with the following terms of reference: (a) to review work already done cooperatively between the Codex Com­mittees on Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) and on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and identify, and if possible, prioritize areas of possible further collaboration between CCRVDF and CCPR and how it may be carried out (e.g. jointly, in parallel, etc.) to facilitate the consideration of compounds with dual uses by both committees and the possible harmoni­zation of maximum residue limits (MRLs). This may include improved synchronization of work between CCPR and CCRVDF as well as collaboration between CCPR/CCRVDF and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meetings on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and on veteri­nary drugs (JECFA); (b) to provide an update on their preliminary findings to CCRVDF and CCPR; (c) to develop a list of compounds with dual use as a pes­ticide and veterinary drug for which no or only one Codex MRL has been established and that member countries will provide the information to populate this list; (d) to identify dual-use compounds that have dif­ferent Codex MRLs for a similar edible commodity of animal origin and recommend, on a case-by-case ba­sis, a single harmonized MRL(s) for the compound(s) and affected commodity(ies). The EWG might rec­ommend that CCRVDF/CCPR consider selecting the higher MRL value; and (e) to consider the matter related to harmonized food descriptors to be used by JECFA/JMPR.¹²

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, BUDGETARY MATTERS, ELECTIONS, AND CHANGE IN HOST COUNTRY FOR THE CO­DEX COMMITTEE ON PROCESSED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES (CCPFV)

Monitoring framework for the implementation of the 2026-2030 Strategic Plan

CAC48 approved key performance indicators for the implementation of its strategic plan, as a monitoring framework.¹³

Budgetary matters and temporary termination of the WHO-led Codex Trust Fund

CAC48 noted the Codex budgetary progress report for the 2024-2025 biennium, the budget proposal for the 2026-2027 biennium, and the additional budget requirements; endorsed the recommendations of CCEXEC89 and confirmed the work priorities for 2026-2027; thanked FAO and WHO for their con­tribution to Codex, including the allocation of FAO of USD 500 000 to the CAC budget; and, noting the discussions on any potential additional contribution of FAO to Codex work, encouraged Members to advo­cate in FAO Governing Bodies for these to be equita­bly allocated across the CAC scientific advice bodies; and, encouraged WHO to adequately fund scientific advice. The WHO Representative further informed CAC48 that due to recurrent financial challenges, FAO and WHO had decided to phase out Codex Trust Fund in 2026. It was also noted that the GEMS/Food database remained an unfunded priority for WHO, but, nevertheless, remained operational. CAC48 expressed regrets regarding the phasing-out of the CTF, highlighting the excellent progress that had been achieved under CTF and reiterated the encourage­ment to FAO and WHO to identify alternative mecha­nisms that enable the continuation of the much-need­ed capacity development; and reiterated the critical role of scientific advice provided by the Joint FAO/ WHO scientific advisory bodies to underpin the work of Codex.

Elections and Appointment of Coordinators

CAC48 reelected its Chairperson Mr Allan Azege-le (Kenya)and its vice-Chairpersons Mrs Jing Tian (China), Mr Khalid Alzahrani (Saudi Arabia), Mrs Betul Vazgecer (Türkiye), by general consent. CAC48 re-elected Morocco (for Africa), India (for Asia), Costa Rica (for Latin America and the Caribbean), Australia (for the South-West Pacific), and elected the Netherlands (for Europe), the United Arab Emirates (for the Near East), the United States of America (for North America), as members elected on geographical basis (hence, entitled to attend CCEXEC meeting in their own capacity but in the interest of their originat­ing region). As per regional coordinators (i.e., coun­tries hosting/chairing the ‘Codex’ (i.e., ‘FAO/WHO’) Regional Coordinating Committees (RCC)) and based on the nominations made by the various RCCs, CAC48 reappointed Japan (as host of CCASIA), the Sultanate of Oman (as host of CCNE) and appointed Gambia (as host of CCAFRICA) and the Cook Islands (as host for CCNASWP). Germany remains the cur­rent host of CCEURO and Uruguay the current host of CCLAC.

South Korea, new host country of the CCPFV

The USA informed CAC48 that, after serving for 61 years as the host country of CCPFV, it would conclude its tenure as host to allow another country to take the lead and emphasized its ongoing commitment to the committee’s work and its readiness to provide support to the new host through the sharing of knowledge and experience. The Republic of Korea expressed their willingness to assume the role of host country for CCPFV, which was welcomed by Codex Members. It was proposed to seize this opportunity for reviewing the terms of reference of the committee. It was fur­ther proposed that such a review could be conducted and presented at CAC49. CAC48 thanked the United States of America for over 60 years of support to CCP-FV and designated the Republic of Korea as the new host country for CCPFV; and CAC48 agreed to review the terms of reference of CCPFV at CAC49.¹⁴

OTHER DISCUSSIONS
Cashew kernels

Upon a comprehensive discussion paper and revised project document presented by India, CAC48 noted the ongoing interest of members of the CAC in this area of work but, given the recent designation of a new host for CCPFV, the transition period needed to the new host country (South Korea), and that there would be further consideration of the terms of reference of the CCPFV at the next session of the CAC (CAC49, July 2026), it would be premature to take any decision to change the status of the committee at CAC48, or decide on starting new work on cashew kernel at this time. CAC48 further recommended that a circular letter be issued to seek comments from all Codex Members and Observers, to facilitate consideration of the new work proposal by the CCEXEC90 and CAC49 (June/July 2026).

Proposed Standards for High Quality Cassava Flour, Yam Flour, Sweet Potato Flour

Upon proposals from Nigeria to develop Codex commodity standards for High Quality Cassava Flour, Yam Flour, Sweet Potato Flour, CAC48 noted the strong interest in this area of work. CAC48 also noted that the proposals from Nigeria had not un­dergone any review, including the critical review (by the CCEXEC), and that there was an existing Codex standard for edible cassava flour and hence the rela­tionship between the proposed and existing standards needed to be further clarified. CAC48 noted the past CCEXEC recommendation to prefer adopting an horizontal approach for new commodity standards, and therefore that a further consideration was needed to possibly group the proposed standards for these commodity’s flours into one standard with specific annexes. CAC48 recommended to Nigeria and all the interested Members to review and update the proposal for new work, noting that this could then be submit­ted for review to the Codex Secretariat and written comments requested from all Members and Observers via a circular letter for consideration by CCEXEC90 and CAC49 (June/July 2026).

Classification of Foods according to their level of ‘pro­cessing’ (‘super-’, ‘highly-’, ‘ultra-’; ‘mega-’, g‘iga-’, etc., processed foods)

In advance to the meeting, IUFoSt submitted a discus­sion paper as CRD26. The 30-minute discussion was the last substantive point discussed during the CAC48 plenary. CAC48 noted the general interest in this area of work; the ongoing work of WHO on UPFs; the relevance of this issue to several Codex committees; and that, if interested, Codex members could prepare more detailed proposals for dedicated new work for future discussion in the relevant Codex Committees.

In his intervention, Pr Samuel Godefroy, President of IUFoST, highlighted the need for Codex to pro­vide clear guidance on how discussions related to food classification(s), particularly on ultra-processed foods (UPFs), should be initiated within the Codex structure. Pr Godefroy cautioned that parallel termi­nology and processes developed outside a mandate of the CAC would have the potential to create incon­sistencies in definitions, methodologies, and could have regulatory implications, ultimately increasing confusion among regulators, industry, and consumers. Pr Godefroy reiterated that food classification(s) was a cross-cutting issue, intersecting within the terms of reference of multiple Codex Committees (e.g., CCNFSDU, CCFA, CCFL, CCFICS), and therefore would warrant a CAC-level direction. Such direction provided by CAC would set the stage for continued discussion across the Codex system, and help ensure that (a) classification models are scientifically substan­tiated and methodologically sound; (b) approaches avoid misclassification or the stigmatization of safe and beneficial technologies; and, (c) dietary guidance does not rely on processing alone as the defining parameter. IUFoST also reaffirmed its readiness to collaborate with any interested Codex Member and Observer organization, to support this important and evolving area of food regulatory science.¹⁵

The publication will be posted to World Food Regulation Review soon. Find the full WFRR library here.

ENDNOTES

1. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is the governing body which adopts, amends, updates, or revoke international food standards and related texts (guidelines, codes of good practices, and statements) which are recognised as reference points in case of trade disputes relating to SPS or TBT measures brought to the attention of WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism. CAC48 was chaired by Dr Allan Azegele (Kenya) and co-chaired in part by chairpersons Dr Jing Tian (Chi­na), Mr Khalid Alzahrani (Saudi Arabia) and Dr Betul Vazgecer (Türkiye). CAC48 was attended by about 122* countries, one regional economically integrated orga­nization (the European Union), and Observers from 9* International Governmental Organizations and 11* In­ternational Non-Governmental Organizations (*exact count to be confirmed in the official report), and repre­sentatives of parent UN agencies (from FAO, WHO and the joint FAO/IAEA division). The next plenary session (CAC49) is tentatively scheduled to be held in July 2026 in Geneva (Switzerland). See also Codex website news page about CAC48 outcome at https://www.fao.org/ fao-who-codexalimentarius/news-and-events/news-de-tails/en/c/1754808/. ↩︎
2. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CAC&session=48& ↩︎
3. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/en/ ↩︎
4. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ codex-texts/en/ ↩︎
5. See Appendix III of the official CAC48 report. The Russian Federation expressed its reservations to the provisions for amaranth (INS 123), caramel III – am­monia caramel (INS 150c), and for methylacrylate copolymer, basic (BMC, INS 1205), in specific food categories for the reasons explained in CAC48s’ CRD5. On the methods of analysis, performance criteria and the sampling plan for inclusion in CXS 234, a correction was brought to the method for quick frozen fish sticks (fish fingers), fish portions and fish fillets — breaded or in batter, by the addition of a reference to Appendix VI to CXS 234 and a correction to the principle. For the inclusion of “Nitrogen to protein conversion factors” as an Annex to CXS 234, a correction was brought to the Nx value for wheat protein products as it was covered by the value for vegetable protein products and so the entry for wheat protein products and the Nx of 5.71 for wheat flour were deleted. The Nx of 5.71 for Tehena was added (as recommended by CCNE). CAC48 also noted that other inconsistencies for soy products would be addressed in the future. The Russian Federation also stated that the proposed MLs of lead in dried bark spices and fresh culinary herbs were neither permitted nor specified in the documents of the Eurasian Union regulations and reserved its position on the adoption of both MLs. Egypt and India also expressed reservations to the adoption of these MLs, for reasons explained in CAC48 CRD28 and CRD07 rev.1 respectively. On the proposed MLs for pesticide residues, CAC48 noted the reservations of (a) Colombia on etofenprox (184) in rice (GC 0649); fenpropidin (340) in banana (FI 0327); novaluron (217) in rice (GC 0649); prochloraz (142) in avocado (FI 0326); and tebufenozide (196) in rice (GC 0649) as these MRLs were not sufficiently protective of consumer health in its country; (b) Egypt on fipronil (202) in wheat (GC 2086) and propiconazole (160) in rice (GC 0649), for reasons as indicated in CX/CAC 25/48/7 Add.1 and in CAC48s’ CRD28; and, (c) the European Union, and Norway and Switzerland, and the observer of NHF, on specific pesticides/commodity(ies) combinations for the reasons indicated in CAC48s’ CRD08. With regards the standard for fresh curry leaves, CAC48 decided to wait for the endorsement of the labelling section by CCFL, before it approves the standard entirely (the next CCFL meeting being held prior the CAC49 meeting in 2026). On the level of lead in dried bark spices, China expressed their reservation to the adoption of the ML of 2.5 mg/kg, as explained in CRD07 rev.1, and requested clarification on: (i) why regional data had not been considered, which was essential for global applicability, and (ii) whether the adoption of 2.5 mg/kg was procedurally consistent with Codex practice, given that the EWG had recommended 3.0 mg/kg. China stressed the need for a science-based and transparent decision-making process. The Codex Secretariat clarified that the CCCF had reviewed all available data from GEMS/Foods and had found no issues with the methodology used to assess the data and calculate the MLs. The Secretariat explained that the procedures for considering these MLs had been outlined at CCCF18 (2025) and CCEXEC89 (2025), and both committees had accepted these explanations. MLs were numerical standards—definitive values that might vary depending on the dataset from which they were derived. Therefore, the CCCF could not revise an ML based on a dataset using a value derived from a different dataset. Instead, each ML was considered separately, technical justifications were reviewed, and the value that best balanced consumer health protection with trade facili­tation was selected. Although CCCF has not commonly used this approach, it has previously been applied. It has also been used occasionally by CCRVDF and regu­larly by CCPR. ↩︎
6. See Appendix VII (amendments to existing codex texts) and Appendix VIII (amendment to the Standard on Kimchi) of the official CAC48 report. The amend­ment to the Standard for kimchi (CXS 223) related to the botanical sources of cabbage used: “Kimchi is the product: (a) prepared from varieties of Chinese cabbage (type Pe-tsai), Brassica rapa L. subsp. pekinensis Rupr (Lour.) Hanelt, also known as kimchi cabbage and napa cabbage; such Chinese cabbages shall be free from significant defects, and trimmed to remove inedible parts, salted, washed with fresh water, and drained to remove excess water; they may or may not be cut into suitable sized pieces/parts;”. ↩︎
7. See Appendix V of the official CAC48 report. CAC48 indeed agreed that “CCFFP would continue to work by correspondence, with the flexibility to establish EWG(s) as needed, with the following terms of reference to be undertaken within 2 to 3 sessions of the CCFFP: convert the Regional standard for laver products (Asia) (CXS 323R-2017) into a worldwide standard; consider new work proposals on other seaweed spe­cies and/or other aquatic species; (c) consider replacing the MLs for marine biotoxins in Section 5 of CXS 292 with a general reference to CXS 193, in accordance with the Codex Procedural Manual; (d) review the standards for fish and fishery products to ensure they are up to date in terms of format, taxonomic accuracy, and relat­edness to more recently developed Codex texts; and (e) respond to specific queries from other committees relat­ed to fish and fishery products as appropriate.”. Norway, as host country of CCFFP encouraged CCAFRICA to closely liaise with them to prevent any potential overlap or inconsistencies when undertaking this work, noting the existence of other standards for similar fish products and the broad nature of this new work proposal. ↩︎
8. The part of the report referring to the views expressed on this topic was the most disputed during the adoption of the draft CAC48 report. Views were recorded as follows: (i) the new work proposal was considered overly broad, and the scope and definition were not clear. (ii) the risk analysis principles should address specific types and/or aspects of NFPS with no history of safe consumption worldwide, it should be science-based, in­clusive, non-duplicative and practical, and help to avoid lengthy or duplicative approvals in different markets and, given the diversity of NFPS, developing a single set of risk analysis principles could present challenges; (iii) there was a need for a harmonized, science-based framework developed by Codex to assist Members in addressing NFPS; (iv) a step-by-step approach, support­ed by further research and discussion, would be more appropriate to identify specific types and/or aspects of NFPS that could be addressed by Codex in the future; (v) there was a need to conduct a gap analysis to refine the new work proposal, this analysis should take into account existing Codex texts, as well as Members’ experiences and scientific information related to the assessment and regulation of NFPS and could provide clarity on the scope and definition of NFPS, the prob­lem statement, and specific gaps and/or regulatory needs which could be addressed by the development of the risk analysis principles; (vi) careful consideration should be given to developing a definition of NFPS, as foods considered new in one country or region may not be new in another, and careful consideration should be given to avoid classifying such foods as NFPS, noting that novel foods developed through technological in­novation should be distinguished from foods with long history of safe consumption; (vii) some Members had already applied the working principles for risk analysis for food safety for application by governments (CXG 62) to address foods without a history of safe consumption, so there might not be sufficient justification to develop a separate set of risk analysis principles for NFPS at this time; (vii) Since Codex had established its principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotech­nology (CXG 44), there were differences in the context and scientific basis for developing this text and hence, the existence of CXG 44 did not, by itself, justify the development of a separate set of principles for NFPS; (viii) other legitimate factors, such as ethical or so­cio-economic aspects, should not be included in Codex work on NFPS, as they were considered as beyond the mandate of Codex; (ix) it was important to consider ongoing discussions on NFPS within Codex (e.g. the on­going work in CCFA to refine the new work proposal to develop guidelines for food safety assessment of cell cul­ture media components in cell-based food production), and the elaboration of any risk analysis principles on NFPS should not impede or delay such work; (x) issues of transparency, risk communication, and international exchange of information should be addressed in any risk analysis principles on NFPS; (xi) any new work in this area should not stifle innovation; (xii) caution should be taken on how “One Health” is included in any work proposal. While Codex can contribute to the overall One Health approach, Codex was not a One Health standard-setting body; (xiii) CAC46 had noted that the current working meth­ods of Codex were sufficient to address any new work proposals on NFPS; (xiv) the Observer of IBFAN strong­ly supported the EU proposal and noted that innova­tions in NFPS had been moving rapidly and this could have contributed to the proliferation of new claims in baby foods and that, in her view, should Codex initi­ate new work to address NFPS, careful consideration should be given to ensure due diligence in the scientific process to avoid possible conflicts of interest. ↩︎
9. See Appendix II of the official CAC48 report. ↩︎
10. See Appendix IV of the official CAC48 report. Several countries expressed reservation on some proposed revo­cation of MRLs for pesticides residues (e.g., Colombia on carbendazim in coffee beans and mango; Thailand on amitraz for the reasons indicated in CAC48’s CRD08; and, Tanzania on amitraz and fenthion for the reasons indicated in CAC48s’ CRD30). ↩︎
11. See Appendix VI of the official CAC48 report. On the discontinuation of the work for a ML for AFT in RTE peanuts, CAC48 held significant discussions but opted for a “permanent” discontinuation of the work, noting that members were encouraged to generate and submit data to the GEMS/Foods database in line with the revised Code of Practice (to prevent/reduced AFT in RTE peanuts) to support a future new work on an ML for RTE peanuts. ↩︎
12. See Appendix IX of the CAC48 official report. ↩︎
13. See Appendix X of the official CAC48 report which includes the full monitoring framework. CAC48 noted the work undertaken since CAC47 on the proposed monitoring framework for the Codex Strategic Plan 2026-2031 and acknowledged the additional comments provided and agreed to adopt the monitoring frame­work for the Codex Strategic Plan 2026-2031 as pro­posed by CCEXEC89, noting that it may be reviewed after two years when initial data is available, and some experience has been gained on its use. CAC48 requested the Codex Secretariat to ensure that the Codex Strategic Plan 2026-2031 and its monitoring framework are both published, disseminated, and brought to the attention of all Codex committees and requested that the FAO/ WHO regional coordinating committees ensure that their regional workplans are reflective of the goals and outcomes of the Codex Strategic Plan 2026-2031. CAC48 further encouraged Members to engage with the WTO SPS Committees for ongoing discussion on transparency and possible update of notification systems which may contribute to improved information on the use of Codex and other international standards by Members. ↩︎
14. See Appendix XI of CAC48 official report, with all the appointed host countries for Codex Committees and Regional Coordinating Committees. ↩︎
15. CAC48 also noted different views as follows: (a) there was no clear, science-based, and globally harmonized definition for UPFs, and any definition and/or guidelines should be based on robust scientif­ic evidence; (b) there should be transparency in the selection of experts involved in this process, and these should also include food science experts; (c) food classification(s) should be systems-oriented and apply an evidence-based approach; (d) there was a need for a common reference point to facilitate productive discus­sions and effective policy development; (e) Codex should consider establishing harmonized definitions for related terms such as novel ingredients and functional foods. The WHO Representative reas­sured CAC48 of the scientific basis of its ongoing work to develop the operationalized definition of UPFs and related guidelines with dietary recommendations for their consumption.The FAO Representative noted there was no easily available common reference point available and en­couraged Members to await further information from WHO and FAO, which could serve as a common point of reference to be able to work on a shared understand­ing of UPFs. ↩︎