<i>Codex Alimentarius</i>: What Has It To Do With Me?

Arendt, Maryse

doi:10.1177/0890334418794658

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… CodexAlimentarius Commission Contesting revisions to Codex standards on infant, specialised and follow-up formulas Contestations of the Codex Standard for Infant Formula and Formulas for Special Medical Purposes Intended for Infants, have included how The Code is referenced in the Standard, whether in the main text or as a lesser footnote; allowable ingredients, and minimum and maximum nutrient ranges; and the allowable nitrogen conversion factor for determining infant formula protein levels, with the IDF, supported by some dairy-producing member states, advocating for a higher value than the one proposed by leading expert groups [ 105 , 106 ]. Contestations of the Codex Standard for Follow-Up Formula have included the definition of products for ages 1236months, with pro-industry stakeholders arguing these are not BMS; advocating the use of the term formula for products for young children, hence implying nutritional adequacy; whether to reference The Code and resolutions (like WHA 69.9) in the Preamble, with pro-industry stakeholders arguing sources external to Codex should not be referenced; that neither additives with sweet taste, types of sweeteners, or sugar content should be restricted in the Standard; and that cross-promotion is not clearly defined and should be excluded [ 105 ]. World Trade Organization Countering country-level implementation of The Code, and fostering regulatory chill Between 1995 and 2019, there were 110 interventions made in the WTO concerning existing or proposed BMS marketing, labelling or safety testing regulations of a member state.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Big Formula and the baby food industry have also influenced standard-setting processes at CAC, the UN food standard-setting body jointly administered by WHO and FAO, with a dual mandate to protect public health and safety, and to facilitate international food standards harmonisation and trade [30,105,107]. Codex standardsincluding specific 'commodity standards' for infant and specialised formulas, and follow-up formula, and 'general standards' on labelling, additives and others that apply to all commodities within scopeare developed by committees comprising voting member states, with technical input from observers, including industry trade associations and civil society organizations [105,107]. Table 3 details several examples of how dairyproducing member states, and industry trade associationsmainly ISDI and the International Dairy Federationhave contested these standards.…”

Section: Codex Alimentarius Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…infant formula protein levels, with the IDF, supported by some dairyproducing member states, advocating for a higher value than the one proposed by leading expert groups [105,106].…”

Section: Targeted Organization Objective (Inferred) Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contestations of the Codex Standard for Follow-Up Formula have included the definition of products for ages 12-36 months, with pro-industry stakeholders arguing these are not BMS; advocating the use of the term 'formula' for products for young children, hence implying nutritional adequacy; whether to reference The Code and resolutions (like WHA 69.9) in the Preamble, with pro-industry stakeholders arguing sources 'external to Codex' should not be referenced; that neither additives with sweet taste, types of sweeteners, or sugar content should be restricted in the Standard; and that 'cross-promotion' is not clearly defined and should be excluded [105].…”

Section: Targeted Organization Objective (Inferred) Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Globalization, first-foods systems transformations and corporate power: a synthesis of literature and data on the market and political practices of the transnational baby food industry

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The global milk formula market has ‘boomed’ in recent decades, raising serious concerns for breastfeeding, and child and maternal health. Despite these developments, few studies have investigated the global expansion of the baby food industry, nor the market and political practices corporations have used to grow and sustain their markets. In this paper, our aim is to understand the strategies used by the baby food industry to shape ‘first-foods systems’ across its diverse markets, and in doing so, drive milk formula consumption on a global scale. We used a theoretically guided synthesis review method, which integrated diverse qualitative and quantitative data sources. Results Global milk formula sales grew from ~US$1.5 billion in 1978 to US$55.6 billion in 2019. This remarkable expansion has occurred along two main historical axes. First, the widening geographical reach of the baby food industry and its marketing practices, both globally and within countries, as corporations have pursued new growth opportunities, especially in the Global South. Second, the broadening of product ranges beyond infant formula, to include an array of follow-up, toddler and specialized formulas for a wider range of age groups and conditions, thereby widening the scope of mother-child populations subject to commodification. Sophisticated marketing techniques have been used to grow and sustain milk formula consumption, including marketing through health systems, mass-media and digital advertising, and novel product innovations backed by corporate science. To enable and sustain this marketing, the industry has engaged in diverse political practices to foster favourable policy, regulatory and knowledge environments. This has included lobbying international and national policy-makers, generating and deploying favourable science, leveraging global trade rules and adopting corporate policies to counter regulatory action by governments. Conclusion The baby food industry uses integrated market and political strategies to shape first-foods systems in ways that drive and sustain milk formula market expansion, on a global scale. Such practices are a major impediment to global implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, and other policy actions to protect, promote and support breastfeeding. New modalities of public health action are needed to negate the political practices of the industry in particular, and ultimately to constrain corporate power over the mother-child breastfeeding dyad.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Codex Alimentarius Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…infant formula protein levels, with the IDF, supported by some dairyproducing member states, advocating for a higher value than the one proposed by leading expert groups [105,106].…”

Section: Targeted Organization Objective (Inferred) Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Targeted Organization Objective (Inferred) Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Globalization, first-foods systems transformations and corporate power: a synthesis of literature and data on the market and political practices of the transnational baby food industry

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They provide clinicians and others with ways to become involved in international advocacy. Arendt’s (2018) Advocacy column in this issue explains an essential international policy making process (the Codex Alimentarius ) that influences clinicians and parents.…”

Section: Evaluating the Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

The State of the Journal 2018: A Report to Our Readers

Dodgson¹

2018

J Hum Lact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The editorial team at JHL measures how well we are doing at meeting the needs of our readers in a number of ways, which I will share with you in this editorial. The best way to make this sort of determination is by directly asking each of you, which we would enjoy doing; however, it is not feasible. The ways we evaluate our work and its relevance for our readers include (a) publication metrics (e.g., articles most often read, articles most often cited by others, and author characteristics and their submissions); (b) consulting with our experts, the Editorial Review Board (ERB); and (c) feedback from our readers (e.g., members' survey results, Letters to the Editor, and people who talk with us at conferences or by email). We gather information from each of these sources, review it, and set goals for the journal for the next year. We have completed the process of evaluating 2018 data and have formulated our goals for 2019, which I am sharing with you in this editorial.

show abstract