The 55th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commit­tee on Food Additives, Flavorings, Enzymes, Yeasts, and Processing Aids (CCFA55) successfully ad­dressed all topics on its agenda during three full days of plenary meeting discussions. As a landmark first time in recent times, CCFA55 reviewed a draft com­modity standard, i.e., on baker’s yeasts, but decided to return it to an intersessional EWG to address outstanding issues (e.g., pre-alignment with GSFA of food additive provisions). CCFA55 also reviewed a path forward for a future prioritization mechanism to sort possible new areas of work, e.g., secondary food additives, processing aids, other biotechnologi­cal aspects, for further discussion at its next session. CCFA55 also considered, exhaustively, and for the first time, a proposed new work project on guidelines for assessing potential risks associated with grow­ing media used in cell-based food production, but recommended a revision of the discussion paper to refine the project document.

In addition, CCFA55 covered its traditional agenda in full and adopted proposed, new, and revised pro­visions for food and additives – and revoked others – resulting from (a) the endorsement of provisions from commodity Committees; (b) the alignment of provisions between GSFA food categories and corresponding commodity standards; (c) the review of new and revised provisions for inclusion into the GSFA into the step process; (d) the revised INS catalogue and related functional classes and techno­logical purposes for food additives; and, (e) the list of priorities for JECFA future evaluations and reeval­uations of food additives, flavorings, enzymes and other processing aids. CCFA55 decisions on these five core components of CCFA activities were based on recommendations from four different in-person working groups, held immediately before or during the plenary session [ii].

More information is available about CCFA work­ing documents quoted in this article [iii], as well as in the official report of the CCFA55 meeting [iv].

UPDATED FOOD ADDITIVE PROVISIONS IN TABLES 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE GSFA (CXS 192)

Newly adopted and revised provisions

CCFA55 considered the outcome of the PWG on GSFA held immediately prior to its session and endorsed all its 22 recommendations. All final pro­visions were sent to the next session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC48) for final adoption and publication into the next version of the GSFA (CXS 192, 2025 version), expected to be published during the first quarter of 2026. All those provisions are included in Appendix VI of the CCFA55 official report (REP25/FA) [v].

Revocation of already adopted provisions in the GSFA

CCFA55 agreed to revoke only two adopted provisions this year, namely the GSFA adopted provision for Annatto Extracts, Bixin Based (INS160b(i)) listed in Food Category 01.2.1 (Fermented milks (plain), and the GSFA adopted provision for Caramel IV – Sulfite Ammonia (INS 150d) in Food Category 04.2.2 Pro­cessed vegetables (including mushrooms and fungi, roots and tubers, pulses and legumes, and aloe vera), seaweeds, and nuts and seeds.

Discontinuation of draft provisions

About another hundred draft provisions for (mostly synthetic) colors in various food categories (e.g., rip­ened cheese; fruits and vegetables subcategories) were discontinued as presented in Appendix VIII of the CCFA55 report (REP 25/FA).

New provisions added and other provisions for future consideration

CCFA55 agreed with the inclusions of new and revised provisions as included in Appendix IX of the CCFA55 report (REP 25/FA) [vi].

New mandate for the GSFA EWG and PWG

CCFA55 agreed to reestablish the EWG and the PWG on the GSFA (see more details in REP 25/FA).

ENDORSEMENT AND ALIGNMENT OF GSFA PROVISIONS WITH FOOD ADDITIVE PROVISIONS SET IN COMMODITY STANDARDS, AND REVERSELY

ENDORSEMENT

CCFA55 endorsed the revised proposed food ad­ditives provision in the regional draft standard for Castilla lulo (Naranjilla), noting that the provision had been revised to ensure language consistency with the similar provision in other standards. CCFA55 also endorsed the proposed food additive provision in the standard for fresh curry leaves and the consequential exclusionary Note (XS362) to the food additive provi­sions of FC 04.2.1.1 of the GSFA. CCFA55 noted that the corresponding changes to the GSFA were also sub­mitted for adoption by CAC48 alongside the adoption of the commodity standard, but the standard will only be published after the endorsement of the labelling provisions by CCFL49 (Spring 2026). CCFA55 noted that it was the first time that it successfully concluded both endorsement and alignment concurrently (with this fresh curry leaves example). CCFA55 congratu­lated the PWG on alignment/endorsement for this outcome and encouraged it to follow the same practice for future reviews.

ALIGNMENT

Discussion paper to avoid further divergence between the GSFA, Commodity Standards and other related Codex texts: validation of the options presented in the working paper and of the engagement plan

CCFA55 considered the revised discussion paper prepared by Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Senegal, and the USA. CCFA55 further agreed to request China as author, Australia, Brazil, Canada, El Salvador, EU, Japan, USA as co-authors, to prepare a stand-alone document on working practices, keeping the two options identified in the CCFA55 working document as alternative routes, for the development of GSFA food additive provisions relating to com­modity standards; including a communication and engagement plan; and developing dedicated templates to be used by the Codex Commodity and Regional Coordinating Committees to ensure submission of comprehensive information. CCFA55 also agreed to inform accordingly all Codex regional coordinating Committees and all active Commodity Committees about the ongoing work in this regard [vii].

Alignment – Main decisions

CCFA55 agreed to forward to CAC48 for final adop­tion the revised food additive sections of three (3) CCASIA Standards (namely Fermented Soybean Paste (CXS 298R), Non-Fermented Soybean Products (CXS 322R), and Cooked Rice Wrapped in Plant Leaves (CXS 355R)); three (3) CCNE Standards (Canned Humus with Tehena (CXS 257R), Canned Foul Me-dames (CXS 258R), and Tehena (CXS 259R)); eight (8) CCSCH Standards (Dried Oregano (CXS 342), Dried or dehydrated ginger (CXS 343), Cloves (CXS 344), Dried Basil (CXS 345), dried or dehydrated gar­lic (CXS 347), saffron (CXS 351), Nutmeg (CXS 352), and Dried or Dehydrated Chilli Pepper and Paprika (CXS 353)); and, the standard for rice (CXS 198). These were included in Appendix V of the CCFA55 report (REP25/FA). CCFA55 also agreed to revise the Stan­dard for pickled cucumbers (Cucumber Pickles) (CXS 115) to replace the entry on “oleoresin of paprika” with “Paprika extract (INS 160c(ii))” in the section for coloring matters and submit the revised standard for adoption by CAC48. See Appendix V of REP25/FA.

CCFA55 also agreed to forward to CAC48 for adop­tion consequential revised provisions of the GSFA in relation to five (5) CCASIA standards, three (3) CCNE standards, eight (8) CCSCH standards, the standard for edible fats and oils not covered by individual stan­dards (CXS 19) (whereby note 509 was deleted and note 508 was amended to read “For use in products, excluding virgin or cold pressed oils and vegetable oils, conforming to the Standard for Edible Fats and Oils not Covered by Individual Standards (CXS 19-1981) only for the purposes of restoring natural colour lost in processing, or standardising colour only”), the amend­ments of the food additive provisions due to the align­ment of the Codex standard for rice (CXS 198) on BMC; and, the important revision to the reference to commodity standards for the GSFA Table 3 Additives for Food Category 12.2.1 “Herbs and Spices (ONLY SPICES)”. See Appendix VI-PART A&B of REP 25/FA.

Alignment/Endorsement – New EWG Mandate

CCFA55 re-established the EWG on endorsement and alignment to be chaired by Canada, and co-chaired by the USA and Japan. The EWG was tasked to align the food additive provisions set in standards and regional standards under the purview of CCAFRICA regional standards (fermented cooked Cassava-based products (CXS 334R), fresh leaves of Gnetum spp. (CXS 335R), Dried Meat (CXS 350R)), CCLAC regional stan­dards (Culantro Coyote (CXS 304R), Lucuma (CXS 305R)), CCNASWP regional standards (kava products for use as a beverage when mixed with water (CXS 336R), Fermented Noni Fruit Juice (CXS 356R)), CCCPC commodity standard (Cocoa Butter (CXS 86)); CCFFP commodity standard (Quick Frozen Raw Squid (CXS 191), Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs (CXS 292), Live Abalone and for Raw Fresh Chilled or Frozen Abalone for Direct Consumption or for further Processing (CXS 312)), and CCPFV commod­ity standard (Fruit Juices and Nectars (CXS 247)). The EWG will also aim at developing a stepwise approach for Table 3 Notes, including (a) deleting provisions for Table 3 additives in FCs not listed in the annex to Ta­ble 3 but included in Tables 1 and 2; and importantly (b) revising the fifth column of Table 3 Notes.

Future Alignment Work

CCFA55 also agreed that, pending response from the relevant committees, at CCFA56 or later, the CCFA will task the Endorsement and Alignment working group(s) to complete alignment of (i) Fermented Soybean Paste (CXS 298R) and Non-Fermented Soybean Products (CXS 322R), pending response from CCASIA; (ii) mixed zaatar (CXS 341R), pending response from CCNE; and (iii) dried roots, rhizomes and bulbs: Dried or dehydrated ginger (CXS 343) and consequential changes to CXS 326, pending response from CCSCH. It was also noted that although the workplan for alignment endorsed by CCFA54 (See REP24/FA, Appendix IV) included alignment of the CCNFSDU commodity standards (Special Dietary Foods with Low-Sodium Content (Including Salt Sub­stitutes) (CXS 53) and Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten (CXS 118), a further review demonstrated alignment was not required and therefore were not included in the proposed terms of references of the EWG and PWG for CCFA56.

NEW, REVISED, OR REVOKED SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOOD ADDITIVES AND FLAVOURINGS AND OUTCOME OF JECFA MEETINGS HELD SINCE CCFA53 MEETING

CCFA55 agreed to forward the full specifications de­veloped by JECFA99 for food additives and flavorings to CAC48 for final adoption and make all consequen­tial amendments to the List of Codex Specifications for Food Additives (to be published in CXA 06) [viii].

FIRST DETAILED REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT COMMODITY STANDARD FOR BAKER’S YEASTS

For the first time since the split from CCFAC in 2007 and the development of the Codex standard on food grade salt (CXS 150), CCFA55 held detailed discus­sions on a proposed draft Codex commodity Standard, i.e., for Baker’s Yeasts. The draft text under consideration resulted from an intersessional work led by China and co-led by France and Türkiye with the support of an EWG, and further discussions held during and on the side of the plenary session. CCFA55 succeeded to review all the sections of the proposed Codex commodity standard, but recognized the need for additional technical discussions to fine-tune some sections in advance to CCFA56 and in par­ticular the section on food additives, bearing in mind that CCFA was also responsible to ensure at the very early stage of the drafting process that such section should be aligned de recto with the GSFA provisions set for the (not 1-to-1) corresponding food category 12.8 in the GSFA (and reversely), and how functional classes of food additives set in Table 3 would be appli­cable to each types of these yeasts. CCFA55 noted that further justification was needed to allow only some functional classes of food additives listed in Table 3 in yeasts, noting the absence of food additive provisions for semi-dried yeast. As semi-dried yeast was consid­ered as a subset of dry yeast, no separate food additive provision was needed. The section on food additives was kept in square brackets as a further review of the functional classes of antioxidants, emulsifiers, stabiliz­ers, and a few others from Table 3 was needed. Regarding the processing aids section, CCFA55 couldn’t conclude, at this stage, whether a reference to the Codex Guidelines on substances used as process­ing aids (CXG 75) would suffice or further specific technological purposes, e.g., as lubricant, filtering aid, or fermentation nutrients, should be included in the provision. CCFA55 agreed to re-establish a dedicated EWG, chaired by China and co-chaired by France and Türkiye, to revise the text of the proposed draft standard for baker’s yeasts in the light of the outcome of the session, and suggest possible draft amendments to the GSFA, for further consideration by CCFA56. Other sections discussed were subject to changes [ix].

PRIORITY LIST FOR JECFA SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF FOOD ADDITIVES, FLAVOURINGS, AND PROCESSING AIDS (including ENZYMES)

CCFA55 considered the recommendations from an in-session physical working group (IWG) chaired by Kenya, as presented in CRD5, while the proposals and other information received were collated in CRD 25 to support the discussion during the in-session PWG. CCFA55 agreed to forward the amended Priority List of Substances Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA for endorsement by CAC48 and to FAO and WHO (i.e., JECFA joint secretariats) for relevant follow-up. A new circular letter (CL) would be issued to request information and comments on additional inputs on the Priority List of Substances proposed for Evalua­tion by JECFA (deadline expected to be 15 January 2026). With regards to Potassium bisulfite (INS 228), CCFA55 noted the discussion by the IWG on whether to re-evaluate the whole group of sulfites or undertake a re-evaluation only for potassium sulfite (INS 228). It confirmed that INS 228 was not included in the group of sulfites listed in the GSFA, so it was agreed to maintain the entry for INS 228 only. With regards to Phycocyanin produced from Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli, CCFA55 noted the request from Chile to include phycocyanin derived from these microorganisms on the JECFA priority list to evalu­ate its similarity with the phycocyanin derived from Spirulina (i.e., already permitted in Table 3 of GSFA as Spirulina extract (INS 134)) and recommended to Chile to resubmit such a proposal by filling in the de­tailed reply form attached to the regular circular letter for further consideration at CCFA56. With regards to Brazil’s request to include Erythrosine (INS 127) (i.e., US FD&C Red #3) on the Priority List for safety re-evaluation, given the recent ban announced by the US-FDA, CCFA55 noted the advice from the WHO JECFA Secretariat that no new data was available for this substance and that the current evaluation con­ducted in 2018 remained valid and CCFA55 therefore agreed not to include INS 127 on the Priority List until new data became available. It was further noted that in the absence of future confirmation of any data sponsor or data availability for sucroglycerides (INS 474) and for the Enzyme Xylanase from Bacillus li-cheniformis expressed in Bacillus licheniformis (initial­ly proposed by Puratos), they would be removed from the JECFA Priority List by CCFA56 (and in the case of sucroglycerides, it could also mean a deletion from the entire GSFA system) [x].

JECFA secretariats also indicated that while the activ­ities of JECFA were supported by WHO, they relied on extra-budgetary resources from governmental institutions from WHO’s member countries. Given the recent significant reduction from some donor contributions for scientific advisory activities, includ­ing those related to JECFA, WHO indicated it would be unable to secure the necessary resources, leading to a need to reduce the JECFA operations. Conse­quently, WHO would need to evaluate the possibility of assessing fewer food additives in 2026 and may also consider a reduction in the frequency and duration of future JECFA meetings. WHO and FAO made clear they were looking for extra-budgetary funding from other WHO and FAO member donors or from the private sector, so as to maintain JECFA support to CCFA at a nominal level.

PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR OTHER CHANGES TO THE CLASS NAMES AND INTERNATIONAL NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR FOOD ADDITIVES

CCFA55 considered the recommendations from an in-session working group (IWG) chaired by Bel­gium, building on those of an intersessional EWG and comments received on that report to amend the International Numbering System for Food Additives (CXG 36). Proposed changes once adopted by CAC48 will be reflected in these Codex Guidelines CXG 36. CCFA55 also reestablished a new EWG on the INS, chaired by Belgium, to consider future replies to a circular letter requesting proposals for change and/or addition to Section 3 of the Class Names and Interna­tional Numbering System for Food Additives (CXG 36), including a further consideration of the « nisin A » issues, and prepare a proposal subject to comments, to prepare relevant recommendations to CCFA56 [xi].

ISSUES OF FURTHER INTEREST

New work proposal on guidelines for food safety assessment of cell culture media components in cell-based food production

CCFA55 spent half a day reviewing the discussion paper presented in CRD06 and courageously defended by Singapore and China as co-drafters. It was by far the most discussed and disputed topic on the agenda of this CCFA55 meeting. CCFA55 overal acknowl­edged the efforts invested by Singapore and China in preparing the new work proposal. CCFA55 noted support (described as “general” or only as “some”) on the establishment of such a Codex guideline to ensure consumer safety and to facilitate fair practices in the trade of cell-based foods. CCFA55 also noted the lack of sufficient support to start new work at this point in time based of the current wording presented in the project document, which required further consulta­tions to improve it. The FAO representative reminded CCFA55 that FAO had already developed reports that provide a comprehensive inventory of food safety haz­ards, as well as more detailed descriptions on the prin­ciples of the various production processes, and that, in his view, there were no fundamental scientific gaps to prevent CCFA to undertake new work to establish a risk assessment framework. The WHO representative pointed out the need to gather insights from countries that were exploring cell-based foods to get a better understanding of the risk assessment requirements specific to cell-based media components and high­lighted some budgetary constraints to be overcome to provide the necessary FAO/WHO expertise that would be required by CCFA in this field.

CCFA55 agreed to establish a new EWG chaired by Singapore and co-chaired by China, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, tasked to revise the draft project document on the development of a guideline for the conduct of food safety risk assessment of cell cul­ture media components used in the production of cell-based food for consideration on the agenda of CCFA56; in particular by developing a categorization framework for cell culture media components and corresponding evidence needed for safety assessment in each category, and, by determining specific areas requiring further FAO and WHO scientific advice for the purpose of developing risk assessment frameworks for cell culture media components. The revised discus­sion paper would be considered as a formal item on the provisional agenda of CCFA56 [xii].

CCFA55 reviewed the project document and suggested changes as follows: (a) the list of substances in Appen­dix 1 should not be part of the project document and it was agreed to delete it; (b) a reference to “cultivated meat” and “cultured meat” was included in footnote 5, whereas it was advised that the document retain gen­eral and generic explanations as to the reasons why the culture media were employed; (c) Section 6 covering the relevance of the proposal with the Codex strategic objectives should included Goal 1 and Goal 4 with amendments to make the section more neutral and replace the word “regulations” with “risk assessment framework”; (d) reference to the Codex General prin­ciples of food hygiene (CXC 1) was added in Section 7; and, (e) the provision in Section 8 was broadened to additional expert bodies governed by FAO and WHO, in addition to the joint FAO/WHO ones (such as JECFA), for providing scientific advice to Codex.

Future work of CCFA and prioritization mechanism

CCFA55 agreed to request the Codex Secretariat to issue a CL requesting the international food additive community further inputs on (a) a further review of the proposals presented in the CCFA55 document (CRD 7); (b) additional topics for possible future work; and, (c) a more systematic approach to deal with these topics (inventory list). Based on these responses, China, as the host country of CCFA, would prepare a revised discussion paper for further consid­eration by CCFA56. This new discussion paper could help CCFA56 to further develop its Forward Work Plan by focusing on secondary food additives, the management of processing aids, the further review of the GSFA structure and operability, as well as ad­dressing new challenges posed by emerging new food sources and production systems. A new and more systematically streamlined and prioritized reevaluation program by JECFA could also be part of that future plan [xiii].

Views expressed confirmed that (a) the work on GSFA should remain the top priority with a focus on improving the GSFA, particularly by simplifying the GSFA to make it more accessible and user-friendly; (b) the harmonization of notes and the revisiting of the food categories’ descriptors for consistency would help users, taking into account the impacts of emerg­ing technologies, such as precision fermentation on food additives leading to a possible reclassification of foods based on new food processing technologies; (c) a systematic approach referencing practices in other Committees (CCFICS in particular) should be estab­lished; (d) discussions on outstanding topics such as secondary food additives, processing aids including enzymes, etc. should be reinitiated due to ongoing challenges, and that would entail a (re)evaluation of their safety and justifications for sound use; (e) CCFA work should remain within the current terms of ref­erence of CCFA (although this point may be debated depending on the outcome of the upcoming interses-sional work); and (f) CCFA should prioritize issues while ensuring that future work aligns with its core mandate to help ensuring food safety and fair practic­es in international food trade.

Mapping exercise of food categories set in the Codex GSFA with the EU FoodEx2 Database

Japan updated CCFA55 with their ongoing task of mapping food categories listed in the FoodEx 2.0 food categorization system used in the European Union, with food categories set in the GSFA, as decided by CCFA53. Japan indicated that, due to the complexity of FoodEx 2.0 (and also due to a domestic restruc-turation of the services in charge of the work), further communication would be required to achieve a better alignment with the one-to-one mapping. That work had been undertaken in collaboration with Australia, Canada, and the EU. Japan indicated that the first draft of the initial 1-to-1 mapping was submitted to the WHO JECFA Secretariat for review in January 2025. WHO confirmed that the WHO Global environmen­tal Monitoring System (GEMS)/Food administrator acknowledged that such GSFA – FoodEx2 mapping was quite challenging. It should be noted that this work may also have other implications on the databas­es of food categories used by WHO’s FOSCOLLAB (e.g., contaminants).

Endnotes:

[i] Food Production Systems Engineer; Food Standards, Safety and Regulatory Specialist; Counsellor at Keller and Heckman LLP Brussels office.

[ii] CCFA55 was held in person in Seoul (Republic of South Korea) from 24 to 28 March 2025 and was preceded by two pre-session working groups (PWG), held on 21 and 22 March, on (a) pending draft, new or proposed revised provisions for adoption in the GSFA or inclusion in the step process and on (b) alignment between the Codex Commodity Standards and the GSFA (and reversely) and endorsement of provisions from Commodity Committees. Two inSession work­ing group (IWG) meetings advanced the proposed conclusions on (a) the revised JECFA priority list and (b) revisions to the INS list and to functional classes and technological purposes for several food additives. CCFA55 was attended by about 230 delegates from 46 Member Countries, one Member Organization (the EU), 27 Observer Organizations, and representatives of the FAO and the WHO. The session was chaired by Mr Yongxiang Fan, Deputy Director of the National Centre for Food Safety Risk Assessment of the People’s Republic of China (C-CFSRA) and co-chaired by Mrs Hae Jung Yoon, Professor at the Chung-Ang University of Seoul. The next CCFA meeting (CCFA56) was scheduled from 13-17 April 2026, and preceded by two PWGs, (on GSFA and alignment) on 10 and 11 April 2025 in a not-yet determined location (in China or perhaps in Africa).

[iii] Seehttps://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCFA&session=55&

[iv] Seehttps://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/en/

[v] Among all the provisions discussed and adopted (see REP 25/FA Appendices), CCFA55 agreed to revise the current provision set for aspartame in the GSFA in food category (FC) bread and ordinary bakery wares (FC 07.1) by adding the horizontal note 398 stating that “Some Codex Members allow the use of additives with sweetener and colour functions in this food category while others limit this food category to products without these additives”. Many revised and draft color provi­sions were approved in FCs based on fruit and vege­tables, included in Jams, Jellies and Marmelades (FC 04.1.2.5), with some provisions having a permitted use set at a lower level in products conforming to the Codex Committee Standards for Jams, Jellies and Marmelades (CXS 296). Some provisions were approved for 4-hexyl-resorcinol (INS 586), whereas at the same time CCFA55 agreed to request guidance from the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP) regarding the technological needs for its use in foods conforming to the Standard for quick frozen shrimps or prawns (CXS 92) and to the Standard for quick frozen lobsters (CXS 95). During the GSFA PWG, an interesting discussion occured on the proposed provisions for colors in Edible casings (e.g., sausage casings) (FC 08.4) and CCFA55 agreed to keep them on hold and recirculate for com­ment on all colour provisions in FC 08.4 (both adopted and in the step process) so as to make the reporting ba­sis consistent on the weight of the casing, and to incor­porate notes necessary to allow conversion to a maxi­mum level in the final food. A suggestion was made to add a note suggesting a use level of the colour reported on the whole food basis to be approximately one percent (1%) of the use level when reported on the casing basis. Taking these comments into consideration, the PWG drafted a proposed note which included these consid­erations (i.e., up to 1.5%). While the drafted note was considered helpful by some PWG members, there was no clear consensus on a way forward, and it appeared that additional discussion would be helpful.

[vi] As part of these proposals, the following examples could be noted: (a) proposed revision of the adopted provision for sucrose esters on FC 4.1.1.2 of surface treated fresh fruits simply to add the note 453 (For use as a glaze where such surface treatment is allowed for application to the surface of fresh fruit) and a proposed new note to restrict it further to “Sucrose esters of fatty acids (INS 473) and Sucrose oligoester, Type I and Type II (INS 473a) only” in addition to existing note 454 and same max level (1500 mg/kg); (b) new proposed note applicable to all provisions set in FCs 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5 to read “Products in food category 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5 are available in multiple formats (e.g., liquid ready to consume and powder which requires mixture with water before consumption). In all cases, consistent with the language in Section 6 of the Pream­ble of the GSFA, the maximum level listed in the GSFA is for the final product as consumed.”; (c) sorbates, as sorbic acid, on surface-treated fresh fruits (FC 04.1.1.2) at 20 mg/kg; and, (d) permission of the use of Glycerol (INS 422) as a Table 3 additive to be allowed in Com­modity Standard on Instant Noodles (CXS 249).

[vii] The discussion paper proposed two options – (a) Commodity/Regional Committee prepares the first draft provisions; (b) CCFA prepares the first draft provisions, along with two annexes entitled “Key Considerations for the development of the Commodity Standard and for the amendment of the GSFA” and “Communication and Engagement Plan”. CCFA55 overall agreed with the proposed approach and retained the two identified options on possible approaches to ensuring minimi­zation of divergence, as alternative routes that would depend on the level of expertise about how GSFA works within Codex Commodity and Codex Regional Coordi­nating Committees. They should be used to develop the next steps on the possible way forward. It was empha­sized the need for further communication through the engagement plan to implement these future working practices to be fully utilized by the Commodity and Regional Coordinating Committees. It was further em­phasized that Codex member’s CCFA delegates should work collaboratively with their colleagues delegated to attend to Commodity and Regional Coordinating Com­mittees to help elaborating food additives provisions for these foods having GSFA alignment in scope from the very beginning.

[viii] JECFA new and revised specifications were ap­proved as follows: for food additives, natamycin (INS 235), nisin A and polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (INS 475); for flavourings, S-methyl thioacetate (FL. 482), S-methyl 3-methylbutanethioate (FL. 487), 4,5-dihy-dro-3(2H) thiophenone (FL. 498), 2-methyltetrahy-drothiophen-3-one (FL. 499), 1-butanethiol (FL. 511), o-toluenethiol (FL. 528), bis(methylthio)methane (FL. 533), 3-mercaptohexyl acetate (FL. 554), 3-mercapto-hexyl butyrate (FL. 555), and 3-mercapto-2-pentanone (FL. 560); and for processing aids, endo-1,4-3-xylanase from Bacillus subtilis expressed in Bacillus subtilis (JECFA99-2), endo-1,4-3-xylanase from Rasamsonia emersonii expressed in Aspergillus niger (JECFA99-3) and glucosidase from Aspergillus niger expressed in Trichoderma reesei exhibiting α-glucosidase and trans-glucosidase activity (JECFA99-4a, JECFA99-4b).

[ix] CCFA55 considered the text of the proposed draft standard as revised during the session in CRD34. CCFA55 agreed on the sections of the proposed draft standard as presented in Section 5 (Contaminants); Section 6 (Food Hygiene); Section 7 (Labelling); Sec­tion 8 (Packaging, Transportation, and Storage); and Section 9 (Methods of Analysis and Sampling). CCFA55 confirmed that the scope should be aligned with that of the Standard for food grade salt (CXS 150) devel­oped by CCFAC and there was no need to replace the existing phrase “for direct sale to the consumer and for food manufacturer” with “for domestic and industri­al use” as proposed by a Member. CCFA55 amended the text in various instances. For example, on Product definition (Section 2.1), it debated on the inclusion of a reference to the Codex Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology (CXG 44). CCFA55 clarified that baker’s yeasts should derive from species of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts only (despite of proposals from El Salvador to expand the list to many other species). CCFA55 debated the scope of “semi-dried yeast”, commonly distributed worldwide in a freeze-dried form, with a moisture content fall­ing within a range of 18-22%, and CCFA55 agreed to include a third classification for “semi-dry yeast” under “dry yeast” to read “c) The semi-dry yeast needs to be stored frozen and can be added directly to the flour and other ingredients during mixing. The product consists of porous cylindrical particles with a diameter of about 0,5 mm”. On Essential composition (Section 3.1), CCFA55 (a) amended the chapeau to read “For the pur­pose of this standard, the following composition shall apply”; (b) inserted the word “preamble” the first line of the provision 3b to ensure clarity, i.e., “In accordance with Section 4.2 of the preamble to the General Stan­dard for Food Additives (CXS 192-1995)”; (c) noted the concerns expressed regarding what constituted “other ingredients” under 3b, and whether the paragraph mak­ing reference to the GSFA should be included under the section on food additives. The provision referring to the carry-over principle was retained but further consid­eration would be needed for other ingredients such as vitamin C and enzymes which are used/added during the processing of the yeasts for ensuring a better quality of the Baker’s dough and noted that these ingredients and additives were not added to exert a function in the baker’s yeast itself.

[x] Revised priority list for JECFA evaluation would be found in Appendix XI of the CCFA55 report (REP25/ FA). Worth noting the addition of couple of new pro­posals, notably monk fruit extract, Butterfly pea flower extract (INS 163(xi)), Neohesperidin Dihydrochalcone (also proposed for evaluation as a new flavouring by IOFI under FEMA 3811), Potassium bisulfite (INS 228) in wine making. For polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (INS 475), CCFA55 identified the need for a safety eval­uation including a revision of the existing specifications to include limits for neoformed chemicals 3-MCPD and Glycidyl esters of fatty acids (GEs) and their respective dietary exposure assessment. In addition to the need to collect real use data for INS 475 to refine the dietary exposure assessment by the end of 2026, JECFA also advised CCFA to work on the current maximum levels approved in the GSFA for INS 475 and align them al­ready on the same use levels JECFA would receive. It was noted that some Codex Codes or Practice exist to mitigate the formation of 3-MCPD and GEs in vegeta­ble oils used as raw material for the manufacture of INS 475. For Black carrot extract (INS 163(vi)), NATCOL indicated data availability by December 2027. For pro­pylene glycol (INS 1520), ICBA indicated be working at generating new data, the date of data availability was to be re-affirmed at CCFA56, as confirmed by IFAC.

[xi] CCFA55 endorsed the recommendation to modify Section 3 and 4 of CXG 36 as follows: adding Jagua blue as a synonym of Jagua (genipin-glycine) blue (INS 183) and clarify the use of parentheses via a footnote; deleting ortho-phenylphenol (INS 231) and sodium ortho-phenylphenol (INS 232); and adding oxidised polyethylene wax (INS 914) as a glazing agent. It also agreed to amend Section 1 of CXG 36, to clarify that the use of parentheses in additive names may be explained by using footnotes, where necessary. The “Information document/table on deleted and re-used INS numbers” is to be amended to reflect the deletion of INS 231 and INS 232. CCFA55 agreed not to delete azodicar-bonamide (INS 927a) from the INS at this stage, given that national authorization(s) were still in place, and agreed that a possible deletion would be reconsidered in the future (e.g., by 2030), after reassessing its continued relevance. CCFA55 agreed to delete 2-phenylphenol entry in CXA 6 (list of Codex approved JECFA spec­ifications). CCFA55 assigned INS 1211 to Carbomer, despite acknowledged concerns expressed on the use of a trade name in the INS. CCFA55 agreed to further con­sider how Nisin A and potentially other types of nisin should be handled in the INS under a parent category entry for Nisin (current INS 234). CCFA55 encouraged Members to respond to the CL if they wished to propose additional variants of nisin.

[xii] The main differing views were on whether to embark into the new work at this session or to allow more time for Members to have some further consultations, not necessarily on the need for Codex guidance in this area.

Those in support of the new work proposal indicated that (i) cell-based food had the potential to improve material and energy efficiency in food production and could play a role in future food systems; (ii) the pro­posal was aligned with Goal 1 of the upcoming Codex Strategic Plan 2026–2031; (iii) developing Codex guide­lines would be beneficial and not imped countries to perform food safety risk assessments at domestic level; (iv) further delays to start this new work could lead to countries having different protocols and regulatory frameworks in place to perform safety assessments of these cell-based food growing media and then make it more difficult for Codex to achieve consensus at a later time (i.e., harmonization towards a single international Codex guidance point), as this Codex work would take several years to be completed anyway; (v) such a Codex text would provide a balanced approach combining risk assessment framework for ‘novel’ product-specific standards, while helping to discuss a broader NFPS framework; (vi) such a Codex text could serve as a single point of harmonized reference, hence preventing potential divergences among national regulations, as current domestic frameworks for cultivated meat and seafood were evolving fast and in different directions.

Those not in support of sending the new work proposal to the Codex Commission or requesting more time for undertaking additional inputs to the project document were of the view that (i) additional clarification on the objectives and scope of the proposal was needed; (ii) the Appendix 1 of the CRD06 was including a list of sub­stances with no known history of consumption as food additives or ingredients, which might be misinterpreted as an endorsement of their safety and a kind of ap­proval for their use; (iii) the project document was in a preliminary stage and presenting a more refined version at CCFA56 would ensure a clearer direction that may facilitate easier progresses during future discussions; (iv) given that implementation of Codex standards largely depended on capacities of Codex Members to incorporate them into their national frameworks, CCFA should prioritize the work that would support the devel­opment of broader national regulatory framework on NFPS at large, rather than work on Codex texts relating to specific products such as growing media for cell-based foods; (v) the term “processing aids” used for cell-cul­ture media was of great concern since processing aids were not required to be labeled and that could lead to cell-based food being presented as “near natural” foods and eventually could mislead the consumers about their true nature; (vi) working on this matter was premature given that only few countries had experience in assess­ing and regulating these products and no consensus currently existed on the best regulatory approach or on primary safety concerns to assess; (vii) given only a few of these products have obtained an authorization, there was no available experience in large-scale production or significant trade and, as that industry would scale up in the future, possible evolving methods and formulations might introduce new and different safety concerns; (vii) Codex members should first gain more experience with these products and share their findings through scien­tific publications and food safety evaluations before de­veloping a Codex guideline; (viii) given that cell-based foods were still in the early stages of commercialization, concerns were expressed about the availability of data to assess current and projected global trade of these products and further consideration should be given on how such information would shape the nature and the scope of future Codex texts or recommendations; (ix) efficient coordination between this proposal to CCFA and the related proposal to be submitted to the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) was needed.

[xiii] See CCFA55 CRD07 working document at https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1burl=https%253A%252F%252F-workspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252F-Meetings%252FCX-711-55%252FCRDs%252F-CRD06%252C%2B07%252Ffa55_crd07.pdf. While pointing out that the Codex GSFA would always remain the core of the CCFA work — supported by the three other key pillars (alignment, INS, and the priority list for JECFA evaluations), CCFA host country’s discussion paper listed a series of topics for a further forward-look­ing work plan that could cover secondary food additives (i.e., carried over food additives); processing aids; sim-plifi cation of the the GSFA tables and improvements to navigate into it (by e.g., reducing redundant footnotes, clarifying definitions and functions of additives, devel­oping a more streamlined digitally accessible version of the PDF document); revisions and/or amendments to food categories; emerging challenges related to food additives used in some new food fources and production systems (NFPS); other new or improved biotechnol­ogy techniques, including through advanced genetic modification or through nanotechnologies, resulting in enhanced functional properties, such as improved solubility, stability, or bioavailability; revisit the reliance on INS for approval of new food additives; a JECFA re-evaluation program for reassessing the need for specific food additives in the GSFA; and, exploring sustainability aspects for new food additives (lifecycle analysis and environmental footprints). The proposal would also include establishing mechanisms to identify and prioritize future work similar to what has been developed by other Codex Committees already (namely CCFICS and CCFL).