54) The Committee recalled that the Proposed Draft Amendment requiring labelling of sugars, fibre, saturated fats and sodium when a nutrition claim is made for one or more of these nutrients, had been returned to Step 3 by the 23rd Session of the Commission, since there was no consensus on its adoption at Step 5.
55) The Delegation of Malaysia proposed to defer consideration of this question until the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses could provide advice on the public health need for nutrition labelling. The Committee recalled that the CCNFSDU had not come to a final conclusion on this question at its last session and had agreed to consider it further. The Committee agreed that this should not hold the progress of the revision of the Guidelines, which had been approved as new work under its responsibility.
56) The Delegation of Brazil, supported by other delegations, expressed the view that the necessity for nutrition labelling should be determined by national authorities, taking into account the specific needs and situation of the country, and that the present Guidelines should be retained. The Observer from CIAA supported the current Guidelines as they provide flexibility and stressed the need to consider other means of information besides food labelling.
57) The Observer from the EC, supported by several delegations, indicated that nutrient declaration for sugars, fibre, saturated fat and sodium, should not only be required when a claim is made but also when a manufacturer voluntarily provides information on one of the four nutrients, since it would provide important information to the consumer.
58) The Committee noted a proposal to include a reference to the source of protein. The Committee however recalled that the purpose of the Guidelines was to provide information on the nutrient contents while the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods provided the relevant information on the source of nutrients through the declaration of ingredients, which was always included in the labelling.
59) The Committee noted several proposals to provide further detail on the nutrients which should be included: the declaration of cholesterol; monounsaturated and trans-fatty acids, in addition to saturated fat and polyunsaturated fatty acids; and a reference to total dietary fibre to clarify the term ‘fibre’.
60) The Committee agreed to introduce some changes to the current text, as proposed by the delegations of Brazil, New Zealand, United States, and EC with the understanding that they would require further comments and consideration. The text of section 3.2.1.2 of the current Guidelines was retained; additional nutrient declaration (sugars, fibre, saturated fatty acids and sodium) was included in a new section 3.2.2 (in square brackets) referring also to voluntary declaration. The text of section 3.2.2 of the current Guidelines (now numbered 3.2.3) was reintroduced. In section 3.2.3 (renumbered 3.2.4) on fatty acids, the declaration of cholesterol was included in square brackets, as well as a reference to ‘other fatty acid constituents’.
61) The Delegation of Malaysia expressed the view that if a claim was made in relation to saturated fatty acids, the text should include a reference to trans-fatty acids in view of the link between trans-fatty acids and coronary heart disease, as recognized by the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Fats and Oils in Human Nutrition. The Secretariat recalled that the Guidelines for Use of Nutrition Claims include a footnote specifying that for claims concerning cholesterol and saturated fat, trans-fatty acids should be taken into account where applicable.
62) The Observers from IACFO and CI stated that they support mandatory comprehensive nutrition information on all foods regardless of whether manufacturers choose to make marketing claims or to report the amounts of specified nutrients. The Observer from IACFO encouraged the Committee to consider the benefits of setting a mandatory nutrition labelling Codex standard that leaves the selection of nutrient lists to national authorities and noted that several countries were currently considering national mandatory labelling laws.
63) The Committee recognized that there was no consensus at this stage to advance the revised text to Step 5, and that the amendments proposed at the session required further discussion. Member countries were invited to provide detailed comments prior to the session in order to clarify the debate and facilitate further progress.
Status of the Proposed Draft Amendment to the Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling
64) The Committee agreed to return the Proposed Draft, as amended at the current session, to Step 3 for further comments and consideration at the next session (see Appendix VII).
