The 49^th session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL49) successfully addressed all the topics on its agenda, including two proposals for new work (on alcohol beverages labelling and on a definition for small packs). CCFL49 indeed final­ized (i) new guidelines on precautionary allergen labelling (to reduce the overuse of “may contain” statement); (ii) proposed amendments to the Gener­al Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged foods (GSLPF) to address foods in multipacks or in joint presentations; (iii) new guidelines introducing flex­ibility in mandatory labelling in cases of domestic supply chain disruptions or due to global emergen­cies; and, (iv) found a consensus on the mandatory provisions for “country of harvest” for inclusion in the commodity standard for dried saffron. The pro­posal for new work on a definition for “small packag­es” for inclusion in the Codex guidelines on nutrition labelling is to be considered again at its next session (CCFL50), based on a consultation and revision of the discussion paper and project document by Pana­ma. No consensus was found on the proposal for new mandatory labelling provisions on alcohol beverages, which is for now parked in the inventory of possible future work. CCFL49 also agreed that Australia and New Zealand prepare a discussion paper on a for­ward-thinking work plan for the Committee’s consid­eration at its next session.¹

See more information are available about CCFL49 working documents quoted in this article², as well as in the official report of the CCFL49 meeting.³ Dr Parthi Muthukumarsamy, CCFL49 Chairperson, said: “Beyond the technical outcomes, I would like to high­light what truly defines this committee: the spirit and the cooperation, characterized by opened dialogue, re­spect for differing perspectives, and a willingness to find common ground. This is not easy, particularly when addressing issues that intersect with national priorities, public health considerations and trade interests. Yet, ‘time and again’, CCFL49 has demonstrated that con­sensus is possible when working together in good faith.”

FOOD ALLERGEN – Guidelines on the Use of Pre­cautionary Allergen Labelling (PAL).

CCFL49 finalized the review of the draft Guidelines on Precautionary Allergen Labelling (PAL), as an outstanding complement to the revised section of the GSLPF on food allergens and allergenic foods⁴, already reached at its previous meeting (CCFL48). The new guideline will also have to be put in perspective of the revised Codex Code of Practice on Food Allergen Management for Food Business Operators (CXC 80), as amended by the last Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (see Appendix II of REP26/FH). Both the text of these new Guidelines on PAL and the revise Code of Practice are put forward for a formal final adoption by the forthcoming Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC49), to be held on July 6 to July 10, 2026 in Geneva (Switzerland).⁵ CCFL49 agreed to inform CCFH and CCFNFSDU so that they would ensure further consistency with the new guidelines on the use of PAL, respectively of the Code of Practice (CXC 80) and the Codex Standard for Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten (CXS 118).⁶

CCFL49 further agreed to request FAO, WHO and the Codex Secretariat to consider requests from Codex Members to receive training and further capacity de­velopment on the implementation of the guidelines on the use of PAL, particularly with regards to food allergen risk assessment and the possibility to orga­nize workshops in the margins of the upcoming CCAFRICA, CCEURO, CCLAC, CCNASWP, and CCNE. FAO and WHO were also invited to make available the relevant digital tools on risk analysis for allergens to these Codex Members.

Methods of analysis on the presence of food allergens – CCMAS feedback acknowledged

CCFL49 acknowledged the feedback received from the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS). It confirmed that several meth­ods for the determination of the presence of food allergens from accidental cross-contain with allergenic food(s), were available to detect and quantify unin­tended allergen presence (UAP) in foods (resulting from such cross-contact).⁷

JOINT PRESENTATION/MULTIPACKS – Amendments to the GSLPF finalized.

CCFL49 finalized its amendments to the GSLPF (CXS 1) on ingredients list, net contents (including the numbers of units), and date marking, for approval by the forthcoming CAC49.⁸

LABELLING FLEXIBILITY IN EMERGENCIES – One single reading and finalized.

CCFL49 finalized in a single plenary reading the pro­posed draft Guidelines on Application of Food Labelling Provisions in Emergencies and forwarded it to the forthcoming CAC49 for final adoption. CCFL49 agreed to inform all the other Codex Committees of the completion of the work on these new guidelines.⁹

OTHER CCFL49 DECISIONS

ENDORSEMENT – Country of harvest for dried saffron resolved

CCFL49 agreed to (a) inform the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) on the outcome of the discussions and recommend CAC to share the nine conclusions agreed by CCFL49 with the Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH), to be used as guiding principles by CCSCH when determining origin-related labelling provisions for SCH commod­ities (See Appendix II, Part A, REP26/FL); (b) inform the CCSCH that any request for endorsement by CCFL regarding mandatory labelling provisions that are inconsistent with the GSLPF shall be clear and fully justified; (c) recommend that the Codex Secre­tariat consider organizing a workshop or side event for CCSCH to enhance coherence and consistency in the application of CCFL labelling texts and that would contribute towards improving the efficiency of the endorsement process; and (d) forward the final agreed draft labelling provisions for the entire Section 8.2 of the Dried Saffron standard final adoption and incorporation into CXS 351 (See Appendix II, Part B, REP26/FL). The final text would read “8.2 Country of origin and country of harvest a) 8.2.1 Country of origin shall be declared*. b) 8.2.2 Region of harvest and year of harvest (optional). *Footnote: for this standard the country of origin is the same as the country of harvest.”¹⁰

ENDORSEMENT – Other standards, trade name, name of the food, deviations to be duly justified

CCFL49 also endorsed the labelling provisions pro­posed by Codex Commodity and Regional Coordinat­ing Committees (CCFFV, CCASIA, CCNE, CCSCH, CCFO and CCFA) for the following standards for final approval at CAC49: fresh curry leaves; quick-frozen dumplings (Regional, Asia); Maamoul (Regional, Near East); spices in the form of dried fruits and berries – requirements for large cardamom; spices in the form of dried seeds – requirements for coriander; herbs – requirements for sweet marjoram; microbial omega-3 oils; baker’s yeast. CCFL49 also agreed to amend the provision 8.1.3 of the Draft standard for spices derived from dried or dehydrated fruits and berries – Require­ments for vanilla, noting the reservations of the USA and Madagascar. In the light of these discussions for Vanilla, CCFL49 further agreed to inform the CCSCH about the discussion held by CCFL49 on the intent of the category “Trade name” and consider where the trade names aligned with those types of names provided for in the provisions regarding name of the food in section 4.1 of the GSLPF, whether they were considered synonyms of name of the food, a com­mon or usual name existing by common usage as an appropriate descriptive term, a “coined”, “fanciful”, “brand” name or “trade mark” or whether they were something different, as this would inform how they should be applied. It also reminded the CCSCH that any mandatory provisions in commodity standards shall align with the GSLPF, and any exemption shall be clear and fully justified. CCFL49 further advised all committees development food standards to care­fully review the application of the GSLPF provisions related to the name of the food and incorporate these as appropriate.

PROPOSALS FOR NEW WORK – Small packs: for further consideration at CCFL50; Alcohol beverages labelling: parked in the inventory list, for now; Strategic forward plan: to be discussed at CCFL50.¹¹

SMALL PACKS – New proposal from industry supported by many countries this time

CCFL49 agreed to keep this item in the inventory table under the agenda item on future work and direc­tion for CCFL, noting the general support from Mem­bers for new work; and request the Codex Secretariat to issue a Circular Letter (CL) seeking comments from Members on the project document. CCFL49 agreed with the offer of Panama, in collaboration with ICGA, to update the CCFL49 discussion paper and project document included in CX/FL 26/49/8 Add. 2, taking into consideration comments made at CCFL49 during the plenary and provided in writing in the CRDs, as well as written comments to be received in reply to the future CL, for further consideration at CCFL50 as a possible new work.¹²

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LABELLING – Tanzania did a great job, but no consensus, so parked.

Based on a proposal put forward by the United Republic of Tanzania, with the support of a few other countries and of the WHO, aiming at updating relevant Codex standards and guidelines to ensure transparent, accurate consumer information, prevent misleading claims that could lead to health implica­tions, and ensure fair practices in trade for alcoholic beverages by addressing identified gaps in such Codex texts for clearer and more consistent labelling pro­visions, CCFL49 noted that there was no consensus to begin new work on alcohol labelling at this time. CCFL49 agreed that the topic will be retained in the CCFL “Inventory of Future Work”, and that would not preclude the possibility of Members to prepare a discus­sion paper and project document, taking into account discussions held at CCFL48 and CCFL49, for further consideration by CCFL at any point in the future.¹³

ULTRA-PROCESSED FOODS (UPFS) – Too premature, in the context of the CCFL mandate.

In the absence of a formal discussion paper and a well-identified work endpoint work not presented in a formal project document, CCFL49, considering the views expressed by Codex Members, agreed to remove the UPFs topic from the inventory table included in the Appendix of the working document and noted, however, that the topic could be reconsidered in the future should a well-presented discussion paper and project document be submitted and supported by a Codex member.¹⁴

STRATEGIC FORWARD PLAN – For consideration at the next session.

CCFL49 agreed to develop a discussion paper on a strategic forward plan for CCFL, including elements such as the need for and prioritization of the review of existing texts, identification of future work and emerg­ing issues, and potential capacity building approaches and activities to enhance implementation of the Codex food labelling standards and related texts. For that purpose, CCFL49 requested the Codex Secretari­at to issue a Circular Letter (CL) requesting Members and Observers to provide input to inform the devel­opment of the discussion paper on proposals for new work (e.g. new and emerging issues and revisions of existing text). ‘CCFL49 agreed that New Zealand and Australia would co-develop the discussion paper “Consideration of a strategic forward plan including an update of the CCFL future work inventory table”, based on input from the CL, and with the assistance of the CCFL host country (Canada) and from the host country and the Codex secretariats.¹⁵

As Dr Parthi Muthukumarsamy, CCFL49 Chairper­son, concluded: “We must recognize that the work of CCFL is not yet done. Several important issues of inter­ests remain before the Committee, with the nature of the food production systems evolving, CCFL will continue to address emerging labelling issues. Based on a shared recognition on the need to develop a strategic forward plan for CCFL, to guide the Committee on future work and help prioritize, let’s look forward with enthusiasm to the next CCFL session, which will mark the 50^th meeting of the Committee, a significant milestone. Not only to reflect on the past achievements, outcome and on how far CCFL has come, but also renew the commit­ment to important work that lies ahead.”

The publication is posted in the May 2026 World Food Regulation Review. Find the full WFRR library here.

ENDNOTES

1. CCFL49 was held in hybrid format (in person and remotely) in Ottawa (Ontario, Canada) from Sunday May 10th to Friday May 15th, 2026. The next CCFL meeting (CCFL50) will be held in (October or Novem­ber) 2027, in a venue still to be determined. CCFL49 was chaired for by Dr Parthi Muthukumarsamy, Executive Director of Canadas’ Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), unanimously praised again for his leadership in helping the Committee finalizing all the outstanding texts which were under elaboration. CCFL49 was at­tended by about 300 delegates from 69 Member coun­tries, one Member Organization (the European Union and its 27 Member Countries) and 29 Observer Orga­nizations (final count to be confirmed). See Codex news page at https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentari-us/news-and-events/news-details/en/c/1758798/ ↩︎
2. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCFL&session=49& ↩︎
3. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/en/ ↩︎
4. “Allergenic Food” means a food (including ingredi­ents, food additives and processing aids) that can elicit immunoglobulin class E (IgE)-mediated or other specific immune-mediated reactions in susceptible individuals. “Coeliac disease” means a chronic immune-mediated intestinal disease in genetically predisposed individu­als induced by exposure to dietary gluten proteins that come from wheat, rye, barley and triticale (a cross be­tween wheat and rye). “Food allergen” means the sub­stance in an allergenic food, usually a protein or protein derivative that can elicit IgE-mediated or other specific immune-mediated reactions in susceptible individuals. “Food allergy” means a reproducible adverse health effect arising from an IgE antibody or non-IgE antibody immune-mediated response following oral exposure to a food. ↩︎
5. See CAC49 Agenda and working documents: https:// www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/de-tail/en/?meeting=CAC&session=49 ↩︎
6. See the text of these new guidelines in Appendix III of the CCFL49 report (REP26/FL). CCFL49 considered the outcome of the work of an intersessional electronic working group (EWG) under the leadership of the USA with the help of the United Kingdom (UK) and Austra­lia, as well as the outcome of a virtual working group (VWG) which met on May 5, 2026. As such, CCFL49 reviews of the revised draft guidelines based on the recommendations and the text presented in CCFL49-CRD02. The discussions are summed up in paragraphs 63 to 86 of the CCFL49 report (REP26/FL). ↩︎
7. See CCMAS45 response in CX/FL 26/49/2 Add.2 at https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ sh-proxy/jp/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252F-workspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeet-ings%252FCX-714-49%252FWorking%2Bdocuments% 252Ffl49_02%2BAdd.2e.pdf ↩︎
8. See Appendix IV of REP26/FL. CCFL49 based its discussions on the recommendations and outcome of the intersessional EWG led by Colombia with the help of Canada, India and Jamaica, as presented in CCFL49-CRD06 which included further written comments received on the report of the EWG which was presented in the working document CX/FL 26/49/6. To resolve further highly technical discussions to cover all the pos­sible existing cases where information on individually packaged units could not be readily legible through the outer package, CCFL49 formed an In-Session Working Group (IWG) and considered the outcome of its work as presented in CCFL49-CRD39. CCFL49 discussions are summed up in paragraphs 93 to 114 of the CCFL49 report (REP26/FL). The formal outcome of the de­tailed CCFL49 discussions presented in Appendix IV of REP26/FL are reproduced below:
   “4.2.1(bis) For pre-packaged foods subject to Section 8.1.3.1, where the information is provided on the outer packaging, either separate lists of ingredients for each type of individually packaged food that makes up the container, or a combined list of ingredients shall be de­clared, as appropriate to the nature of the food such as whether the individually packaged foods are intended to be consumed separately or together.
   “4.3.4 For pre-packaged foods that are subject to Section 8.1.3.1, where the information is required to be pro­vided on the outer packaging, or where the number of individually packaged foods in the container cannot be easily counted, the net contents shall be declared on the outer packaging by indicating: 1. the total net contents of the pre-packaged food sold as a single unit; and/or 2. the number of individually packaged foods per type and their respective net contents.”
   “4.7.1(vi)(bis) For pre-packaged foods subject to Section 8.1.3.1, where the information is provided on the outer packaging, at least the earliest best-before date, best quality-before date, use-by date, or expiration date shall be declared. If the individually packaged foods have more than one type of date marking, the earliest date of the foods that fall under Section 4.7.1(i) must be declared.”
   “8.1.3.1 A container of pre-packaged food that is sold as a single unit and consists of more than one identical or different individually packaged foods, whether intended to be consumed together or separately, shall include on the outer packaging the mandatory labelling informa­tion for that container, as set out in Sections 4 and 5, unless the mandatory labelling information is readily legible and discernible on at least one of each type of the individually packaged foods that make up the container.” ↩︎
9. See the text of these new guidelines in Appendix V of REP26/FL. CCFL49 based its discussions on the rec­ommendations and outcome of the intersessional EWG lead by the USA, as published in working document presented in the working document CX/FL 26/49/7, well as the outcome of a virtual working group (VWG) which met on May 10, 2026. As such, CCFL49 reviewed the revised draft guidelines on emergencies, based on the recommendations and an amended text presented in CCFL49-CRD03. CCFL49 discussions are summed up in paragraphs 116 to 138 of the CCFL49 report (REP26/FL). ↩︎
10. See Appendix II of REP26/FL. CCFL49 considered the outcome of an intersessional Electronic Working Group (and clarifications discussed at the CAC47 meeting) contained in the CCFL49-CRD05 document, including its nine main interpretative conclusions, as well as three proposed revised wording options of the Section 8.3.2 of the Codex Standard for dried floral parts – dried saffron (CXS 351). During the discussion, CCFL49 discussed in particular some aspects relating to (a) interpretations of what constitutes a change of the nature of the food, (b) conditions for the determination of the country of origin when the country of harvest differs (specific to spices and culinary herbs), (c) the declaration of multiple cuntries of origin for blended spices (especially in cases where, like for dried saffron, mixing of the spice from different countries may be forbidden in some jurisdictions); and, (d) more general questions about the scope of Codex labelling provisions and the CCFL mandate. CCFL49 found a consensus around the third option, whereby “the country of origin shall be declared, while the region of harvest and the year of harvest may be declared optionally, and that the accompanying footnote should reflect that “for this standard the country of origin is the same as the country of harvest”, thereby ensuring consistency with the agreed conclusions and avoiding duplication. While there had been a proposal to also include the country of harvest as optional in section 8.2.2, it was agreed that this would be confusing and contradictory with the current footnote added to the provision in section 8.2.1 (on country of origin). ↩︎
11. Kenya, as the authors of the working document, introduced the item and summarized the key find­ings based on the updated discussion paper, taking into account the comments received in response to CL 2025/42-FL. It was explained that the paper present­ed areas of (i) potential work for CCFL; (ii) emerging issues of relevance to CCFL; (iii) proposals regarding work areas previously considered by CCFL; and (iv) an inventory table of potential CCFL future work. CCFL49 was further informed that three Members and three Observer Organizations had replied to the CL and that a new potential work for CCFL and two new work proposals, accompanied by project documents, had been submitted for consideration by CCFL49. No new emerging issues of relevance to CCFL were raised. ↩︎
12. The Observer from the International Chewing Gum Association (ICGA), as the author of the document, in­troduced the item and highlighted that this work would be focused on the development of a definition of “small packages” covering a wide range of foods and beverages, with the objective of ensuring a more uniform applica­tion of existing Codex labelling provisions and related exemptions, in particular the ones included in the Co­dex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CXG 2). ICGA clarified that the proposal aimed to develop a single, overarching definition applicable to references already included in Codex texts, without revisiting the existing definition of “small unit”. ICGA further clarified that, in their view, the main objective of the proposed new work would be to develop (a) a description of what constitutes a “small pack” (qualitative criteria of the definition), (b) a relevant set of metrics / sizing referenc­es (quantitative criteria of the definition); and, (c) a set of recommendations for a full flexibility on how Codex members may decide to implement such a definition at national and/or regional levels (implementation criteria of the definition). The Chairperson asked for any Member to support the work before the initiation of discussion, as this proposal had been submitted by an Observer and, in accordance with the Codex Proce­dural Manual, a Codex Member should take the lead for the work to proceed. Panama expressed its willing­ness to lead the work should it be approved. Delegates expressed appreciation for the proposal and generally supported the new work, noting that the absence of a clear definition for “small packages” in Codex texts had led to different interpretations, potential inconsisten­cies, and possible barriers to trade. Many Members and Observers in favor of this proposal (i.e., Brazil, Mexico, Panama, Colombia, the 8 member countries of the East African Community, Nigeria, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Iran, and Jamaica; and ICA/IOCCC, ALAIAB, FDE, ICGMA, FIVS) considered that the development of a definition would provide clarity and improve consis­tency in the application of labelling provisions, while maintaining flexibility for national implementation. Only two members (New Zealand and Chile) did not support the proposal for new work and argued that (a) there was no demonstrated technical or public health need to justify initiating new work; (b) existing national definitions and regulatory frameworks already covered the concept, making further Codex elaboration unnecessary; (c) there was insufficient evidence to show that the absence of a Codex definition was creating concrete trade barriers; (d) the issue appeared to stem from divergent national implementation rather than from a lack of definition at the Codex level; and, (e) in this context, concerns were raised about the added val­ue of introducing a new definition, particularly given that an existing definition of “small unit” was already in place but applied inconsistently across jurisdictions. The Chairperson, noting the general support expressed by Members, suggested reviewing the project document with a view to forwarding the new work for endorse­ment by CAC if consensus could be reached. However, due to the lack of time to review the full project docu­ment, it was agreed to keep the item in the inventory of possible future work and to issue a CL to facilitate revisions to the project document for further consider­ation at the next session. ↩︎
13. Members and Observer(s) in support of the proposal expressed the following views: (a) need for harmo­nization and clarity: divergence of existing national regulations would lead to inconsistencies and barriers to trade. Clarification of how existing Codex provisions apply to alcoholic beverages would support consis­tent implementation. and prevent trade disputes over national alcohol law; (b) gaps and lack of clarity in ex­isting Codex texts: while alcoholic beverages fall within the definition of food, current texts did not sufficiently address alcohol specific aspects (e.g. alcohol content, nutrition and health claims), leading to inconsistent application by countries; (c) consumer protection and public health: alcohol consumption posed significant health risks including cancers and clearer, more consistent labelling would improve consumer informa­tion, transparency and informed decision making, consumer information: noting existing knowledge gaps, there was a role of labelling in providing clear information to consumers. This was a matter relevant to the Codex objective on protecting health of consumers; alignment with Codex mandate: the proposal would be timely and consistent with objectives of protecting consumer health and ensuring fair practices in food trade; (f) progressing the work in a stepwise approach through an EWG: Establishment of an EWG would be appropriate mechanism to further refine the scope and develop draft provisions.
    Members and Observer(s) not in support of the pro­posal expressed the following views: (a) lack of demon­strated need and sufficient existing framework: existing Codex standards already applied to alcoholic beverages and provide adequate guidance, and no clear evidence was provided that differences in national regulations create significant trade barriers. Therefore, the proposal was not considered a priority and was viewed as not reflecting Members’ needs or an efficient use of limited Codex resources; (b) risk of duplication and overlap: the proposal could duplicate or overlap with existing Codex texts, WHO instruments and international standards such as OIV; (c) concerns about scope and mandate: the proposal could go beyond the Codex technical mandate, potentially touching upon public health policy matters or interpretations that might not be aligned with Codexs’ objectives; (d) regulatory and trade concerns: risks of over regulation, increased administrative burden and creation of technical barriers to trade were highlighted, including possible inconsistencies with national regulatory systems and impacts on industry. It was highlighted that there were known impediments to trade. It was also explained that, in some nation­al contexts, alcoholic beverages were not considered as “food” for regulatory purposes; (e) preference for national level regulation: labelling of alcoholic bever­ages is more appropriately regulated at national level should remain under national authorities, particularly for health warning labels and should remain under national authorities responsibility; (f) process-related concerns: concerns were raised regarding the reference to the WHO recommendations as a justification for the work, the role of WHO in developing and promoting the proposal and the potential implications for the Codex Member driven process; (g) consideration of previous CCFL discussions: the proposal misrepresented and did not fully consider the previous discussions at previous sessions of CCFL, especially CCFL48. ↩︎
14. CCFL49 noted the recommendation from Kenya to remove the item on ultra processed foods (UPFs), which had been submitted as a new potential work item for CCFL, from the inventory of items “previous work identified by the committee” as this had not been discussed previously at CCFL and to consider whether it should be included in an inventory of potential new work. CCFLs’ Chairperson invited Members to express their views on whether the topic of UPFs should be included in the inventory table. Members noted that no discussion paper or project document on UPFs had been submitted to support the initiation of work, and that there is currently no clear scientific consensus on the definition of UPFs. Further it was also indicated that the relevance of UPF to the mandate of CCFL, partic­ularly in relation to food labelling, was not sufficiently clear at this point and it was therefore premature at this stage to start new work in this area. The Codex Secre­tariat emphasized the importance of clearly identifying the problem to be addressed, supported by a discussion paper, before initiating new work in Codex. ↩︎
15. CCFL49 Chairperson noted that the Committee agreed at its present session to forward three items for final adoption and therefore would have a capacity to consider additional topics at its future session(s). In this context, the Chairperson suggested that this would be an appropriate time to consider the development of a discussion paper on a strategic forward plan for CCFL. The forward plan could enable CCFL to prioritize its future work; undertake a systematic, potentially multi­year review of existing Codex texts developed by CCFL to assess their continued relevance; and identify ways to strengthen the implementation of standards to support the effective use of CCFL texts.148. The Codex Secre­tariat informed CCFL49 that other Codex Committees had also begun similar reflections to prioritize work and enhance the impact and use of Codex standards, highlighting the importance of identifying partners (e.g. FAO, WHO and Observers) to support capaci­ty-building activities to enhance understanding and implementation of Codex standards. Members generally supported the proposal to develop the strategic forward plan and to consider a discussion paper to guide such work at CCFL50, highlighting the establishment of a structured framework to undertake a review of existing Codex texts, which required being updated in the light of evolving scientific knowledge and regulatory develop­ments and to prioritize future activities. A clarification was sought regarding the responsibility for reviewing existing Codex texts and the Codex Secretariat ex­plained that, in general, the review of existing texts is undertaken collaboratively between the relevant Codex Committee and the Codex Secretariat. The Codex Secretariat further clarified that it might take a more direct role only in cases where a committee has been adjourned sine die. ↩︎