Photo of Christophe Leprêtre
Codex Alimentarius Banner image

The 55th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commit­tee on Food Hygiene addressed all the topics on its agenda. In particular, it finalized revised guidelines on measures to (a) control of Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat and (b) control of Listeria Monocytogenes in foods, including interesting discus­sions on ready-to-eat foods; and on (c) two revised annexes on fish and fishery products and on water fit-for-purpose assessment, safety management, and technologies for recovery and treatment of water for reuse, as well as consequential amendments to the general section, annex I and annex III of the Guide­lines for the safe use and re-use of water in food pro­duction and processing (and finalized them) and sent them to CAC49 for final approval and publication in the Codex Alimentarius compendium on the revised guidelines on measures. It also aligned three existing guidelines (on Taenia saginata in domestic cattle meat; Trichinella spp. in Suidae -pork – meat; and on foodborne parasites) with the Codex general princi­ples on food hygiene. It agreed to return for redraft­ing the proposed draft revision of the guidelines on the application of general principles of food hygiene to the control of viruses in food. CCFH55 didn’t reach a consensus to start new work on a proposal for a code of practice on cell-based foods.1

See more information about the references quoted in this article available freely in endnotes (ii) to (iv) respectively on CCFH55 working documents2, the of­ficial report of the CCFH55 meeting3, and Codex texts developed by the Committee (standards, guidelines, codes of practices, and related miscellaneous texts, and statements)4.

REVISED CODES ADOPTED

Revised Guidelines for the control of Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat (CXG 78)

Noting that all pending issues had been addressed, CCFH55 agreed to forward the revised guidelines to CAC49 for final adoption. CCFH55 was able to achieve this incredible result in only one reading session of the document, thanks to the outcome of the intersessional work of the electronic working group (EWG) and the pre-CCFH55 session physical working group (PWG) coordinated by the USA. The previous version of the guidelines was published in 2011.5

Revised Guidelines on the application of general principles of food hygiene to the control of Listeria monocytogenes in foods (CXG 61)

Noting that all pending issues had been addressed, CCFH55 agreed to forward the revised guidelines to CAC49 for final adoption. CCFH55 was able to achieve this incredible result in only one reading session of the document, thanks to the outcome of an intersessional EWG coordinated by the USA with the secondment of Canada, China, and France. CCFH55 also agreed to consider at its next session a harmo­nized definition for ready-to-eat (RTE) foods across all hygiene texts, as well as its potential inclusion in the general code of practice on food hygiene (CXC 1), in view of the concerns raised during CCFH55. CCFH55 also requested the Codex Secretariat to prepare a background document on all occurrences referring to RTE foods in all food hygiene texts, in advance to CCFH56, to support such a discussion. The previous version of the guidelines was published in 2009.6

Guidelines for the safe use and re-use of water in food production and processing (CXG 100): finalization of Annex II on fish and fishery products and Annex IV on water fit-for-purpose assessment, safety manage­ment, and technologies for recovery and treatment of water for reuse, and the consequential amendments to the General Section and to the Annex I and Annex III of these Guidelines

Noting that all pending issues had been addressed, CCFH55 agreed to (i) forward the agreed Annex II and Annex IV to CAC49 for final adoption and inclu­sion in the Guidelines (CXG 100) for the safe use and re-use of water in food production and processing; (ii) submit the corresponding amendments to include cross-references to Annex IV, in the General Section and Annexes I and III of CXG 100; (iii) inform the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) about the completion of the Annex II and suggest to CCFFP that it may consider whether the Codex Code of practice for fish and fishery products (CXC 52) – as well as other Codex texts under CCFFP remit – would need to be updated; (iv) inform other relevant committees about the completion of that work on the entire Guidelines for the safe use and re-use of water in food production and processing (CXG 100), as amended after CAC49; and, (v) ensure that the texts developed by CCFH in the future would be aligned with the Guidelines for the safe use and re­use of water in food production and processing (CXG 100) in relation to water provisions.7

Amendments to the Guidelines for the control of Taenia saginata in meat of domestic cattle (CXG 85), the Guidelines for the control of Trichinella spp. in meat of Suidae (CXG 86) and the Guidelines on the application of general principles of food hygiene to the control of foodborne parasites (CXG 88), resulting from the alignment work of these texts with the General Principles of Food Hygiene (CXC 1)

Based on the outcome of an intersessional EWG work coordinated by China, with the secondment of the UK and Kenya, as presented in the working docu­ment CRD22, and noting that all the pending issues had been addressed during the its plenary meeting, CCFH55 agreed to forward the proposed amendments to CXG 85, CXG 86, and CXG 88, resulting from this alignment work with the general principle of food hy­giene (CXC 1) to CAC49 for final adoption. CCFH55 further noted that while the proposed amendments to the Guidelines for the control of Trichinella spp. in meat of Suidae (CXG 86) were primarily of an edito­rial nature, the definition of “compartment” had been recently revised by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH/ex-OIE) and therefore substantively changed in the guidelines. It was also highlighted that chapter titles rather than numbers were used when referencing WOAH texts to support the longevity of the references, noting that the chapter numbers in the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code were subject to change with future updates to the Code.8

NEW WORK AND PENDING WORK

Continue the alignment of those texts prioritized in the forward workplan (focusing on CXC 47, CXC 48, and CXC 33)

CCFH55 agreed to re-establish a new EWG, coor­dinated again by China with the secondment of the United Kingdom and Kenya, to continue the align­ment exercise on the other Codex food hygiene-relat­ed texts prioritized during the discussion on CCFH work plan. It was also agreed that the EWG should propose a way to document the alignment approach, through a decision-tree or other appropriate means, to be determined. As such, the EWG was tasked to work on the alignment of (a) the Code of hygienic practice for the transport of food in bulk and semi-packed food (CXC 47); (b) the Code of hygienic practice for bottled/packaged drinking waters (other than natural mineral waters) (CXC 48); and, (c) the Code of hy­gienic practice for collecting, processing and market­ing of natural mineral waters (CXC 33).

Based on the experienced learnt from this year intersessional work from both USA and Canada as coordinators of the two EWGs, it was highlighted that alignment was more manageable when undertak­en in parallel with technical revision, but remained challenging for texts with complex structures, such as those containing extensive process flow diagrams. It was emphasized the need for a strategic and flexible approach to ensure Codex texts continued to provide clear and effective guidance to users. It was further emphasized the need for transparency, whether through a decision tree or other means, and proposed that the identification of specific texts and the ap­proach for continuing this work be further considered under the forward workplan. As such, experience gained suggested that structural alignment should prioritize texts unlikely to be revised in the medium term and emphasized the importance of integrating the alignment workplan with the forward workplan to ensure consistency in CCFH’s work planning.

Revision of the Guidelines on the application of the general principles of food hygiene to the control of pathogenic Vibrio species in seafood (CXG 73), following the completion of Annex II on Fish and Fishery Products of the Guidelines for the safe use and re-use of water in food production and process­ing (CXG 100) – Consideration of parts of the text in square brackets

Based on the extensive work undertaken already on the draft revised guidelines between CCFH53 and CCFH54 sessions and as validated by CAC47’s de­cision to advance the text of the guidelines on the application of the general principles of food hygiene to the control of pathogenic Vibrio species in seafood (CXG 73) for finalization by CCFH55, CCFH had agreed to wait for the full completion of the revision of the Annex II, before considering the remaining part in square brackets referring to “water” in CXG 73. As such, CCFH55 established a new EWG, coordinated by Japan, with the secondment of Honduras, Morocco and New Zealand, to prepare and present a report how it would address the texts of the guidelines remaining in squared brackets (as included in the Appendix V of the CCFH54 report) in advance to the CCFH56 session and for its consideration.

Revision of Guidelines on the Application of General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Control of Viruses in Food

CCFH55 considered the outcome of an intersessional work led by Canada and agreed to return the pro­posed draft guidelines for further elaboration with the view to update the prevention and intervention mea­sures based on the Part 2 of the still-to-be-published JEMRA virus report and then seek further comments on the redrafted text. To help in that redrafting, CCFH55 established a new EWG coordinated by Canada, with the secondment of the Netherlands. The EWG is to continue with the revision of the guide­lines based on written comments already submitted, CCFH55 plenary discussions, and the future com­ments to be sought on the revised draft and shared a revised draft proposed guidelines text for further con­sideration by CCFH56. CCFH55 further encouraged JEMRA to continue to develop the risk assessment tool in a manner that would support implementation of the revised guidelines.9

Request to CAC to return the work to develop the ap­propriate sampling plans for histamine for the 11 fish and fishery product commodity standards to CCFFP

CCFH55 discussed the outstanding work on sampling plans for histamine for 11 fish and fishery product commodity standards, which had previously been suspended pending updates from the Codex Commit­tee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS). Following information provided by the Codex Secre­tariat, CCFH55 considered two options (i.e., whether to restart the work within CCFH or request CAC to return it to the Codex Committee on Fish and Fish­ery Products (CCFFP), noting that CCFFP had been reactivated to work by correspondence). While there was general support for the second option, challeng­es of working by correspondence on complex issues were pointed out. The Codex Secretariat recalled that recent revisions to the Codex Procedural Manual by CAC48 included the possibility for committees working by correspondence to hold virtual meet­ings as deemed necessary to facilitate discussions on specific matters. The Codex Secretariat further noted that CCFFP would need to be engaged in the work regardless of which committee would take the lead and that the decision should be based on technical competence rather than the working modality of the committee. CCFH55 agreed to request CAC49 to return the work to develop the appropriate sampling plans for histamine for the 11 fish and fishery product commodity standards to CCFFP; and inform CCFFP of this request, as well as the existing work of CCFH and related electronic working group (EWG) on this issue, as presented and discussed during CCFH50 in November 2018.

Risk Assessment Work allocated to FAO/WHO JEMRA

CCFH55 agreed to task JEMRA to conduct a risk as­sessment on spore-forming pathogens including Clostridium botulinum and Bacillus cereus in powdered infant formula; update the existing risk assessment and scientific advice on environmental pathogens; provide other relevant scientific advice on control measures for powdered infant formula that would inform a revision of the Code of hygienic practice for powdered formu­lae for infants and young children (CXC 66). CCFH55 also tasked JEMRA to develop the risk assessment tool in support of the revised Guidelines on the application of general principles of food hygiene to the control of viruses in food (CXG 79).

OTHER ISSUES AND FUTURE POSSIBLE WORK

Consequential amendments to the Code of practice on food allergen management for food business opera­tors (CXC 80), proposed for CAC49 adoption, and preparation of a discussion paper containing a proj­ect document for the more comprehensive revision of the Code of practice on food allergen management for business operators (CXC 80) once CCFL56 concludes on its proposed Guidelines on precautionary allergen labelling (PAL)

CCFH55 considered the proposal to align the Co­dex Code of practice on food allergen management for food business operators (CXC 80) with the latest version of the General standard for the labelling of prepackaged foods approved in 2024 (CXS 1, called “GSLPF”), given the significant changes introduced in the GSLPF to the list of foods and ingredients known to trigger food allergy or coeliac disease or allergenic foods and other relevant definitions. CCFH55 agreed with the consequential amendments presented in the CCFH55’s CRD05 with the following modifications: (i) correction of typographical errors in the cross-ref­erenced section numbers from 4.2.1.4 and 4.1.2.5 to 4.2.1.4 and 4.2.1.5; (ii) deletion of the phrase “on a global basis” in the “Scope” to ensure consistency with the Hazard Characterization section; and (iii) removal of the new definition for “food allergen” at this stage, to avoid any conflict with the existing definition for “allergen” noting that a discussion on the most appro­priate definition for the Code of Practice (i.e. allergen or food allergen) could be considered in any future revision of CXC 80.

CCFH55 further noted the progress made at the last CCFL meeting on precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) and the expectation that this work would be completed as of May 2026 (by CCFL56), CCFH55 considered it would possibly result in a more substan­tive revision of CXC 80 to be considered by CCFH56. As such, CCFH55 agreed that China, in collaboration with Australia and Ghana, would prepare a discussion paper containing a project document presenting the work plan for a revision of CXC 80 subject to CCFH56 further consideration on PAL, pending the completion of work undertaken the PAL guidelines by CCFL.10

Revision of the Code of practice for the processing and handling of quick-frozen foods (CXC 8)

CCFH55 considered and discussed a proposal to revise the Code of practice for the processing and handling of quick-frozen foods (CXC 8), revised and adopted in 2008 (based on an initial version adopted in 1976). CCFH55 agreed that Chile, in collaboration with Australia and Brazil, would revise that proposal for new work on the revision of CXC 8 to broaden the scope of the revision work in line with the current commodities covered by the Code and submit a re­vised proposal for consideration by CCFH56.CCFH55 further requested the FAO and the WHO to provide scientific advice on the holding frozen temperature threshold to guarantee food safety for a range of different food commodities as indicated in CXC 8, also considering the related impact on quality and for products that had been both quick frozen or subject to normal freezing processes, noting that this might require a stepwise approach and that products of ter­restrial and aquatic animal origin could be addressed as the first priority.11

Proposal for a new work for the development of a Code of good hygienic practices for cell-based foods.

CCFH55 discussed a proposal for new work on a code of hygienic practice for the manufacturing of cell-based foods, introduced by Singapore in collaboration with China, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom. CFH55 noted the different views expressed and a lack of sufficient support to send this new work proposal for approval at this session. It also noted interest in continuing to collect data and learn from experiences with this topic before guidelines were to be developed and welcomed any updates or on-going work by FAO and WHO on trends and/ or concerns related to cell-based foods. to CCFH55 agreed that the proposal would remain listed in the Forward Workplan and that it could be reconsidered at a future session of CCFH.12

Forward workplan

Members and Observers were invited to submit discussion papers /new work proposals in response to the relevant Circular Letter by its announced deadline of September 1st, 2026. CCFH55 agreed to establish a PWG on CCFH Work Priorities, chaired by the USA, to be held in conjunction with CCFH56 to consider the proposals received in response to the Circular Letter for new work proposals.13

Other matters arising from FAO, WHO, WOAH and ISO. See endnote 14.

The publication is posted in the January 2026 World Food Regulation Review: https://cloud.3dissue.com/170388/199109/233437/WFRR-Vol35nr08-Jan2026/index.html. Find the full WFRR library here.

ENDNOTES

  1. The Codex Alimentarius’ Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) is the specialised body which develops rec­ommended codes of good hygienic practices which are used by countries to prevent microbiological pathogens contamination of the food chain. CCFH is responsi­ble of food hygiene provisions applicable to all foods and assigns work to the risk assessment body JEMRA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on Microbiological Risk Assessment – MRA). The term “hygiene” includes, where necessary, microbiological specifications for food and their associated methodology (e.g, sampling plans). CCFH55 meeting was chaired for the first time by Dr Evelyne Mbandi, Director of Microbiological & Chem­ical Hazards Staff (MCHS), Office of Public Health Science U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington, D.C; USA). CCFH55 was attended by 50 countries, one regional economically integrated organization (i.e., the European Union), and 13 Observers, from two Inter­national Governmental Organizations (i.e., the African Union and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)) and 11 International Non-Gov­ernmental Organizations (including ISO and ICMSF), as well as representatives of the two parent UN agencies of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the FAO and the WHO), as well as from the PAHO. The next session of the Committee (CCFH56) was tentatively scheduled to be held 16-20 November 2026. See also Codex web-site news page about CCFH55 outcome at https://www.  fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/news-and-events/ news-details/en/c/1756110/ . ↩︎
  2. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCFH&session=55& ↩︎
  3. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/en/ ↩︎
  4. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ committees/committee/related-standards/en/?commit-tee=CCFH ↩︎
  5. See Appendix VI of the CCFH55 report. CCFH55 considered the outcome of an intersessional EWG work completed with a pre-session PWG work, both led by the USA with the secondment of Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Honduras, and India, since the CCFH54 meeting. CCFH55 reviewed the report of the PWG published in CCFH55s’ CRD03. The PWG was able to find alignment on the scope, antimicrobial resistance, risk profiles of free-range and controlled-environment chickens, and temperature recommendations for storage and distribution, as well as on a hybrid alignment approach, which included technical updates, partial structural alignment with the general Code of Practice on Food Hygiene (CXC 1), revised headings, updated definitions, and a modernized flowchart to facilitate ease of use. On the scope, the PWG recommended limiting the guidelines to raw chicken meat from broiler carcasses and parts, with targeted guidance on chick­en liver in view of recent reports of foodborne illness. Future annexes might address other preparations. Recommendations were also included for free-range systems, where appropriate, recognizing differences in risk profiles. Although AMR was outside the scope of the guidelines, the PWG acknowledged its importance and added text referencing the prudent use of antimi­crobials in accordance with the Codex Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistance (CXC 61, 2021 version). Regarding stor­age temperatures, the PWG agreed to remove specific values and recommended maintaining less than 5°C where applicable. Members expressed broad support to advance the revised Guidelines for adoption, noting that the revisions were comprehensive and reflected the latest scientific advice provided by JEMRA (see more about JEMRA work published in December 2023 and May 2024 on these matters at https://www.who.int/ groups/joint-fao-who-expert-meetings-on-microbiolog-ical-risk-assessment-(jemra)/microbiological-risk-as-sessment-series). In addition to editorial corrections and amendments aimed at improving clarity (e.g., replacing the word “mitigate” with “minimize or elim­inate” in Section 9), reflecting flexibility (e.g., specific control measures for flock management to address Sal­monella), ensuring consistency, and aligning with other Codex texts (e.g., definitions of water fit-for-purpose and potable water) and WOAH texts (e.g., definition of flock), CCFH55 took a few more substantive decisions on (a) revising the statement concerning viable but non-culturable (VBNC) states for both Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp., and to also include informa­tion highlighting some of the challenges associated with their control to read “Both Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. can survive diverse environmental con­ditions and can persist in chicken production systems. It should also be emphasized that these microorganisms can exist in viable but non-culturable (VBNC) states, which makes their control and detection difficult by traditional methods. VBNC states induced by some con­trol measures may limit their apparent effectiveness.”; (b) a text recognizing that testing might be carried out now and then for verification purposes and revised the sentence to read “Reused litter should be subjected to treatments that inactivate pathogens (e.g., composting, chemical treatments). These control measures should be validated and treated litter tested on occasion for verification purposes.”; (c) on bullet a relating to flock control for Salmonella, CCFH55 retained the second sentence, with a reference to cleaning and sanitizing measures but with a qualifier to provide flexibility, as it was consistent with the relevant requirements in the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code and that its deletion could create potential conflicts with WOAH guidance, and amended the first sentence to reflect that and read “The use of Salmonella-infected eggs will most likely result in the flock being infected.” A member noted however that, in its view, the risk of infection during hatching was high due to conditions such as humidity and temperature. Such Member also stated that clean­ing and sanitizing hatching eggs was not recommended in the JEMRA (MRA 45) report, as contradictory opin­ions existed regarding its effectiveness for Salmonella control and because such practices may damage the egg cuticle; (d) on bullet d relating to General depopulation and transport control measures for Campylobacter and Salmonella, it was clarified that, when partial depop­ulation had occurred in one house, total depopulation should first be completed in other houses before re­turning to finish the partially depopulated house. This approach was considered important to reduce the risk associated with repeated handling, but CCFH55 did not agree that there was evidence that partial depopulation increased the risk of development of immune-sup­pressive conditions; however, it did agree that partial depopulation increased the risk of introducing infection and thus added the following sentence: “Considering that partial depopulation increases the risk of infection, it is advisable to complete the depopulation of these birds after depopulation of flocks that are less likely to be infected.”; (e) with regards to the competent body to ensure the verification of the control measures in place, CCFH55 noted the views of one observer that trade associations should not be included among the options for competent bodies to undertake specific verification activities in relation to the industrys’ process control systems as this could result in industry verifying its own compliance and such verification should normally be conducted by independent entities, such as academia or professional societies, to ensure credibility and impar­tiality. ↩︎
  6. See Appendix VII of the CCFH55 report. CCFH55 reviewed the report of the PWG published in CCFH55s’ CRD06. USA, as chair of the PWG, provided some background and noted that the revised guidelines incorporated the advice and recommendations from JEMRA found in JEMRA scientific expert reports MRA 38, 47 and 48 and ensure further consistency with other Codex texts such as CXC 1 (general code on food hy­giene) and CXG 21 (on the principles for guidelines for the establishment and ap-plication of microbiological criteria related to food). Key issues were (a) an updated definition for ready-to-eat (RTE) foods to include the concept of “reasonably foreseeable” which was not a new terminology in these Guidelines and, in general, was a risk-based concept; (b) the structural alignment of the guidelines with CXC 1, (c) a full revision of its annex I, (d) the reversal order of annexes II and III for a better logical flow, clarity and usability by the reader, and (e) the addition of recommendations for characterizing isolates and text on microbiological studies to deter­mine whether RTE foods support growth of Listeria monocytogenes. CCFH55 noted the general support for the revised Guidelines acknowledging the latest scien­tific developments and recommendations of JEMRA being considered. In that regard, CCFH55 had lengthy discussions on the updated definition for “Ready-to-eat” (RTE) food and as a more general definition of ready-to-eat food was warranted for other hygiene texts and/ or hazards and be incorporated into CXC 1. CCFH55 agreed with an amended definition to read “Any food (raw or processed) for which it is normally eaten with­out further validated treatment sufficient to achieve food safety, or for which it is reasonably foreseeable* based on evidence of consumer habits or practices that it will be eaten without such treatment” with the note reading “ * ‘Reasonably foreseeable’ means a frequency that can be anticipated as likely to occur because of data or other information showing habits within a popula­tion, supply chain, or region (even though such habits may not be intended for the food). Instructions for stor­age and preparation on the product label can inform the expected use of the product. Reasonably foreseeable does not mean any conceivable use (or misuse) of the food.” ↩︎
  7. See Appendix III and Appendix IV of the CCFH55 report. Based on the outcome of the work of an inter-sessional EWG and pre-session PWG coordinated by the European Union with the secondment of Honduras, India, Mauritania, Morocco, and the technical inputs of the International Dairy Federation (IDF), CCFH55 considered the proposed text of the revised Guidelines’ Annex II covering fish and fishery products and the further developed Guidelines’ Annex IV on water fit-for-purpose assessment, safety management and tech­nologies for recovery and treatment of water for reuse as presented in the CCFH55 CRD02. The EWG/PWG Chair (from the EU) explained that the text presented in CRD02 resulted from two rounds of consultations, took into consideration the JEMRA scientific advice and its practical implementation. CRD02 also contained important proposed consequential amendments to the General Section and the other Annexes of the Guide­lines (CXG 100) mainly to include a cross-reference to that new Annex IV. Remaining points for discussion fo­cused on differences in views about suggested Figure 4. CCFH55 agreed on several changes to Appendix II, including the replacement of “potable (drinking) water” with “drinking water” to better reflect the content of paragraph 11 which referred to water sources, rather than water quality. The paragraph 12 about the use of water was substantially revised to ensure there was a clear distinction as to when an in-depth water fit-for-purpose assessment was required in contrast to when a simple identification of the water source linked to an analysis of its microbiological quality was sufficient for use of clean water and potable water. The last sentence was also revised to refer to prerequisite programs as the commonly used and defined term. The concept of “artificial seawater” (under the ‘clean water’ section) and the associated footnoted example was deleted due to a lack of clarity of the source of the base-ingredient water. CCFH55 also finally agreed to retain the heading “Other sources of water”. Discussions occurred on the differences between “in-depth water fit-for-purpose as­sessment” and “water fit-for-purpose assessment”, high­lighting the need for consistent terminology across the document. It was clarified that the concept of an “in-depth water fit-for-purpose assessment” was introduced, discussed and agreed during the PWG as a means of describing the nature of the risk assessment required when applying a risk-based approach to determine if water was fit for purpose. This was described in detail in paragraph 36 of the Annex. While a fit-for-purpose assessment of water for a specific use should always be undertaken, this distinction recognized that the nature of the assessment can vary according to water source. For example, water that was already categorized as clean or potable would not require an “in-depth water fit- for-purpose assessment” while water from other sources would. Noting this explanation, it was acknowl­edged that in some places the term “in-depth water fit-for-purpose assessment” would be used whereas in others, when the context was more general or specific to clean or potable water, the term “water fit-for-purpose assessment” would be the most suitable. Therefore a proposal to add “in-depth water fit-for-purpose assess­ment” to the third bullet of this paragraph was not accepted, based on the above explanation. Changes were made to paragraphs 32, 65 and 69 and Figure 2 (Question 6) to clarify the need for an “in-depth water fit-for-purpose assessment”. Coastal water and offshore water were considered both OK if of suitable quality and meet its specific conditions. Under the section “Water Use or Reuse Fit-for-Purpose Assessment”, the second sentence was revised by replacing “It is impossi­ble” with “It may be impossible” to avoid a categorical statement. Concerns were expressed regarding the ambi­guity of the term “undercooked”. The EWG/PWG Chair clarified that the terminology was in line with JEMRA reports, had also been used in other Codex texts, and was important to reflect consumption practices where fish may be eaten raw or undercooked. To provide fur­ther clarity, the term “adequately” was included before “cooked” in the subsequent sentence to clarify the degree of cooking being referenced. With regards to the pro­posed draft Annex IV on water fit-for-purpose assess­ment, safety management, and technologies for recovery and treatment of water for reuse, CCFH55 agreed with most of the revisions as presented in CRD02. In addition to further editorial corrections, and amend­ments for clarity and consistency, CCFH55 decided to introduce a new paragraph before paragraph 20 on development of a water safety management plan noting that it may comprise prerequisite programs or a full HACCP-based program, therefore clarifying that a full HACCP-based plan was not always needed. It was also clarified that a water safety management plan could be part of an overall food safety management plan. With this new paragraph, the last sentence of paragraph 20 was deleted, being redundant. Paragraph 21 was tailored to those situations when a full HACCP-based water safety management plan should be developed and shortened to remove content now covered in the previ­ous two paragraphs. With these modifications, consen­sus was reached on the text. In Paragraph 29, “foresee­able hazard” was replaced with “potential hazards” and “potential severity” was amended to “severity of associ­ated adverse health effects” in line with language used in the General principles of food hygiene (CXC 1), and for greater clarity. In Figure 2, the second bullet ques­tion of the left-hand box was revised to “Which water supply sources are used?” to ensure it was complete and well understood. In Paragraph 30, the term “high-risk hazards” was replaced with “hazards not controlled by prerequisite programs only” to better reflect that a full HACCP-based approach applies where prerequisite programs are insufficient. In Paragraph 31, it was agreed to split the bullet combining the microbiolog­ical profile and the use of disinfectant chemicals into two separate bullets, and to add a new bullet on “the presence of nutrients for microorganisms in the wa­ter”, noting that particularly in water reuse, nutrients present may represent an important risk factor for the establishment and growth of microorganisms. With the completion of that Annex IV, CCFH55 agreed to add cross-references to Annex IV in Section 1 of the General Section of the guidelines (CXG 100), and in Sections 7 and 8 of Annex I and in Sections 7, 8 and 9 of Annex III. ↩︎
  8. See Appendix V of the CCFH55 report. ↩︎
  9. It was highlighted that the revision considered avail­able scientific advice especially the one from JEMRA (published in Microbiological risk assessment of viruses in foods: Part 1: Food attribution, analytical methods and indicators – Meeting report – Microbiological Risk Assessment Series, No. 49. Rome, FAO & WHO, 2024, see https://doi.org/10.4060/cd3396en), while noting that the report of its second meeting (Part. 2, expected “to be published early 2026,” the FAO representative indicated) on the prevention and intervention measures was still pending. The work included updated and modified definitions, alignment with CXC 1, and the addition of Annex 3 on controlling hepatitis E virus (HEV) in pork and wild game meat. Extensive feedback had been gathered over two rounds of consultations of the EWG. CCFH55 discussed several pending issues on e.g., a frozen produce definition, harmonization of water re­lated terminologies, guidance around employees staying out of work when ill, and aspects related to Annex 3, such as about product labelling. It was made clear that CCFH55 should focus on these aspects and that the text would need to be returned for further elaboration, integrating information from the second JEMRA report on viruses, and addressing further all the comments made with the goal to provide clear and consistent guidelines, for a possible completion at CCFH56. The WHO Representative also updated CCFH55 on the on-going review of risk assessment models for foodborne viral disease and informed CCFH55 that following an extensive literature review, eight models had been identified for in-depth review, and while noting that each had some advantages, none of the models were fully suitable for adoption as simplified risk calculators. Nevertheless, data in the related papers, when combined with information from recent JEMRA meetings (MRA documents) and inputs from JEMRA experts could be useful in the development of a simplified risk calculator. The FAO Representative presented a conceptual proto­type of a commodity-based simplified risk calculator and sought feedback from CCFH55 on whether this was in line with CCFHs’ expectations. The FAO Represen­tative noted that upon entry of a minimum number of data points, the calculator would provide an assessment of risk, highlight areas of vulnerability (e.g. pre-harvest management, processing, etc.) and provide tips or refer­ences on how to address these risk factors. See CCFH55 report for more information about the detailed discus­sions on points highlighted above. ↩︎
  10. See Appendix II of CCFH55 report. ↩︎
  11. CCFH55 discussed a proposal for new work to revise CXC 8 to allow poultry, pork, offal, and by-products to be frozen, stored, transported, and sold at a temperature equal to or below -15°C, instead of the current – 18°C, provided effective cold chain control was ensured. There was general interest in this work, and it was noted that during the PWG, participants discussed expanding the scope of this proposal to include a broader range of products (including other terrestrial animal meat, fish and fishery products) and discussed whether CCFH should consider impacts on product quality alongside food safety. Members supporting the proposal noted that -15°C was scientifically recognized as sufficient to inhibit the growth of foodborne pathogens and that allowing this flexibility could reduce energy consumption and facilitate trade without compromising safety. Howev­er, other Members raised concerns regarding the scope and the potential for temperature abuse if the baseline were raised, suggesting that JEMRA could evaluate the temperature threshold required to guarantee food safety (inhibiting metabolic activity), noting that -12°C and – 15°C were suggested for evaluation. It was further noted that certain national jurisdictions already used -12°C as a safe holding temperature and it was suggested that scientific advice should evaluate the safety implications of both -12°C and -15°C. Furthermore, it was noted that the issue of frozen temperature was relevant to several food hygiene texts, and it would be useful to have a harmonized science-based approach to addressing this issue. In response to a request for clarification on wheth­er the quality related aspects were beyond the remit of the terms of reference of CCFH, the Codex Secretariat noted that the ad hoc intergovernmental task force that undertook the work on the revision of the 1976 version of the CXC 8 had been dissolved. The Codex Secretariat further clarified that there were no strict limitations on what CCFH could request in terms of scientific advice to support its decision-making. If safety and quality issues were interlinked, it might be difficult to separate them, and the Codex Secretariat noted that the committee had the flexibility to move forward if the membership was agreeable to do so and engaged the necessary expertise in their delegations. ↩︎
  12. Members in favor of the new work noted that it represented a unique opportunity for Codex to provide timely, science-based guidance for an emerging technol­ogy before significant regulatory divergence occurred. Those Members also noted that the 2023 FAO/WHO re­port on cell-based foods already offered actionable guid­ance on mitigating hazards and that sufficient scientific information existed to develop a flexible, broad frame­work based on CXC 1. These Members also emphasized that international guidance would facilitate safe trade and support jurisdictions currently developing regula­tory frameworks and promote harmonization in that regard. Members expressing concerns about approving the new work proposal noted that it was too premature, citing a lack of agreed terminology and international food trade, insufficient data on food safety and consum­er health risks, and that the industry was in its nascent stage in most countries. These Members highlighted that only a few countries had national regulatory experience or technical infrastructure to contribute to standard-set­ting in that area. Some Members, including the EU, called for the establishment of a risk analysis framework for new food production systems rather than devel­oping product-specific standards. Concerns were also raised about potential claims related to these products. The FAO Representative informed CCFH55 that FAO and WHO maintained several programs dedicated to monitoring emerging trends, diseases, and food produc­tion practices. Specifically, within the FAO Division of Agrifood Systems and Food Safety, a dedicated foresight group was tasked with looking at new trends and track­ing potential emerging threats, including in the area of biotechnology. The FAO Representative also noted that FAO would continue monitoring these activities regard­less of the CCFH decision on new work and offered to provide an update to CCFH next year, or to informal working groups as needed, regarding any new trends or concerns that arise to help the committee crystallize its future discussions. ↩︎
  13. See the revised workplan included in Appendix VIII of the CCFH55 report. CCFH55 noted that there had not been sufficient time to fully review the forward workplan. CCFH55 further noted the limitations on its work prior­itization process in particular the assessment of proposed work on new or emerging issues. It was noted that the forward workplan would be updated to reflect the deci­sions taken during the meeting and availability of scien­tific advice. The forward workplan was attached to the report for consideration by CCFH56. The USA, as chair of the pre-CCFH56s’ PWG, indicated his willingness to review the workplan and the prioritization process, based on the experience at the CCFH55 session, and present some recommendations for consideration by CCFH56. ↩︎
  14. The FAO Representative recognized the importance of timely responses by JEMRA, FAO and WHO to Codex requests for scientific advice to support efficient stan­dard-setting and encouraged CCFH to identify upcom­ing scientific advice needs as early as possible. The FAO Representative also noted that an expert consultation on the use of omics-based technologies in microbiolog­ical risk assessment was planned to be held in 2026. Following an intervention by the Observer of IBFAN on the recent illnesses in infants caused by Clostridium botulinum in powdered infant formula (PIF), the FAO Representative indicated that FAO had considered Clostridia in PIF in its recent expert meeting on food-borne toxigenic Clostridia, the report of which would be published early 2026. However, the Representative noted that data were limited, and the meeting had been convened prior to the current outbreak, but that JEMRA would provide further advice on C. botulinum and other pathogens in PIF if requested by CCFH. The WHO Representative updated CCFH55 on the web-based listeriosis risk assessment tool, new guidelines for traditional food markets, the Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022-2030, and the 2025 Foodborne Disease Burden Estimates. The WHO Representative encour­aged Codex Members and Observers to use and provide feedback on the listeriosis tool. The Codex Secretariat also read out a statement provided by the WOAH (ex-OIE) Representative updating CCFH55 on relevant activities of the organization, highlighting the revisions to the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals and the Terrestrial Animal Health Code regarding infection with Trichinella, which were adopted by the WOAHs’ ‘World Assembly of Delegates’ in May 2023 and May 2024, respectively. WOAH also launched a new work on its Standards Navigation Tool in April 2025, designed to streamline access to digitized standards, and the publication of the second Observa­tory monitoring report, which provides insights into the implementation of WOAH standards by its members. The ISO Representative provided an overview of the activities of ISO Technical Committee 34, Subcommit­tee 9 (TC 34/SC 9 – Microbiology of the food chain) highlighting that the subcommittee had published over 100 standards. These standards primarily dealt with horizontal reference methods for the detection and enu­meration of microorganisms (including bacteria, toxins, viruses, and parasites) applicable across the entire food chain, from primary production to the food production environment. The standards also covered general as­pects such as good laboratory practices, method valida­tion, and the use of whole genome sequencing. The ISO Representative also welcomed the referencing of ISO methods in CCFH guidelines to ensure a coordinated approach to global food safety challenges. ↩︎