- RUTF are necessary in some circumstances, but they are just one option. Stronger safeguards are needed to prevent the commercial exploitation of vulnerable children and the undermining of “the UN Strategy to build capacity within countries.’
- Codex decisions are geared towards global trade, and are made on the basis of political consensus rather than on convincing evidence. Unless the Guidelines clearly ban general sale and promotional claims public funds will be diverted from healthier, less sweet and more sustainable solutions: breastfeeding and locally sourced, culturally appropriate, bio-diverse family foods.
3. Revision of Codex Follow-up Formula Standard. See IBFAN comments
- At the last Nutrition meeting there was no transparency or evidence to support the rushed decision to allow the intrinsic nutrient content claim, ‘with added nutrients’ to the name “Drink for Young Children.‘ The claim falsely suggests added nutritional value (see examples above) and will lead to the growth of ultra-processed products that undermine breastfeeding, risk human health and increase the environmental burden. Many are sold in single use plastic and contain non-food ingredients, palm oil and other ingredients derived from deforestation.
- The text fails to forbids cross promotion between product categories. Drink [s] for Young Children should not ‘ resemble’ infant formula, FSMPs or other drinks or foods marketed for infants and young children.
- There needs to be a prohibition on health and nutrition claims for all products marketed for children 0-36 months. Products that function as breast milk substitutes (BMS) should be covered by one Codex standard with one overarching preamble forbidding any promotion.
4. Discontinuation of work on the definition of Biofortication. IBFAN has opposed this highly promotional term and is relieved that this work will be discontinued.