|
On behalf of the Codex-accredited, international health-freedom organization the National Health Federation, I flew to Geneva, Switzerland in early July 2026, where I was met by NHF Board member Matt Warnock and local NHF member Amanda Dubaic, who with me – and then, later, Serbian member Nina Matijašević – comprised our NHF delegation to the 49th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC49). The meeting was held from July 6th-10th and was populated by several hundred member-state and other delegations.
The first meeting day on Monday was the most contentious, but that was not much by historical standards. Early on in the meeting, my attempt to change some wording in vet-drug applications for Codex science review so that manufacturers would have to submit more supporting data was shot down in flames because the CAC Chairman could not be bothered to slightly alter wording that he considered already baked-in. The wording that was approved said (in part) “5. Additional information (optional), such as an initial assessment of whether the nomination is likely to meet the agreed approach for extrapolation of MRLs of veterinary drugs to one or more species.” [1] I had suggested that the word “optional” be replaced by “where applicable” so as to remove the option for manufacturers to withhold possibly pertinent and important information. No country supported my proposed word change.
The Old “Emergency” Trick
Later in the day, the Commission considered a proposal for new work on a Guideline that had floated up from the Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) called “Guidelines on application of food labelling provisions in emergencies.” It would loosen labeling requirements on packaged foods during “emergencies.” Some brainiac somewhere had decided that during an emergency the most important thing to do was not to rush emergency supplies to the scene of the emergency but rather to take the time to design and print new labels with less information on them, apply them to the product, and then send them to the site. I am not making this up.
Since this would also affect infant-formula labeling, the trio of consumer organizations focused on such formulas – the International Lactation Consultants Association (ILCA), the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), and ENCA – jumped on this part of the Guidelines without mercy.
ILCA started first, followed by ENCA and then IBFAN. All three made telling points. ENCA, in particular, argued that “the Guidelines on the Application of Food Labelling Provisions in Emergencies should be strengthened before adoption to ensure that formulas and foods for babies are specifically excluded and that the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food including concessional and food aid transactions is included in the text.”
NHF argued against the proposed new work, stating among other things that “medical emergencies are great excuses for ditching consumer protections” and that “if you have time to change a label, then it’s not an emergency!” NHF argued this and more both at the plenary session and at a side event on Thursday when the topic flared up again.
The country of Cape Verde Islands was the only country delegation brave enough to speak up against this nonsensical guideline, followed by the WHO Science Officer who powerfully argued against the guideline as well. The CAC Chairman, obviously disturbed by this opposition, turned to the Canadian chairman of the CCFL, Parthiban Muthukumarasamy, for support and to see if he could put lipstick on this pig.
But what followed out of Muthukumarasamy’s mouth was not a coherent, well-reasoned reply but rather a sloppy word-salad of bureaucratese and buzz words that were complete nonsense and non-responsive. It was so bad that in comparison it makes Kamala Harris look like the most articulate orator since Demosthenes. Seizing on the Codex catch-phrase of “capacity building,” Muthukumarasamy repeatedly threw that phrase out to the delegates as if capacity building was the answer to the many innate problems with the emergency labeling guidelines, including an absence of important label warnings.
Capacity building wasn’t even close to being the answer, but the CAC Chairman readily accepted that so-called explanation without any apparent discernment and then turned to the Cape Verde delegate to ask if she would “reserve her country’s right” to not implement this guideline. That subtle manipulation is the old trick that Codex chair people are trained to pull on naïve delegations. Instead of standing on their opposition to any standard, guideline or other work of Codex, the delegates succumb to the gentle offers of chairmen and -women to “reserve their rights,” which means that the standard or guideline can continue to advance up the 8-step ladder to adoption. |
