/>iThe 27th session of the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food Import Inspection and Food Export Certification Systems (CCFICS27) made noteworthy progress on a future international guidance on food fraud (including food authenticity and food integrity). It also advanced its consolidation work of existing Codex texts about equivalence in national measures pursuing same safety objective (leading to similar level of protection) as well as on an enhanced international guidance on traceability/product tracing in the context of national FICS, while returning them both for further redrafting by intersessional work. It agreed also to start new guidance work on (a) the standardization of the representation of sanitary measures, (b) an appeal mechanism to decisions by an importing country to reject a food consignment, (c) principles and guidelines to harmonize the use, development and implementation of (food production) establishment listing (Annex to CXG 89), and (d) high-level guiding principles for the digitalization of national food control systems. Returned and new work will be subject to intersessional electronic working groups.
CCFICS27 was held in person in Cairns (Australia) from 16 to 20 September 2024, and was preceded by a pre-session working group (PWG), held on 15 September, on the proposed revised guidance on equivalence. CCFICS27 was attended by about 200 delegates from 70 Member Countries, one Member Organization, and 11 Observer Organizations. It was chaired by Mr. Tom Black, First Assistant Secretary of Australia’s Exports and Veterinary Services at Australia’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The next CCFICS meeting (CCFICS28) will be held in October 2026 in a venue still to be determined. More information about CCFICS27 supporting documents remain available[ii] and official proceedings would be available soon[iii].
FOOD FRAUD
Guidelines on its prevention and control (at Borders)
Given the significant progresses made to many sections of the document, CCFICS27 agreed to send the proposed draft guidelines on the prevention and control of food fraud to CAC47 for advancing it in the adoption step process and offer a second reading at CCFICS28. Future comments to be received and all outstanding issues as well as CCFICS27’s comments made on sections 3, 6, 7 and 8 will be considered by a new EWG created by CCFICS27 led by the United States and by China, EU, Iran, Panama, and the UK. The EWG was tasked in particular to review whether the reference made to feed for food producing animals in the purpose/scope was consistent with the other parts of the draft guidelines and the extent to which proportionated to them. CCFICS27 kept open the possibility to hold virtual intersessional meetings, and if needed, hold a physical working group immediately prior to CCFICS28 to address any outstanding issues.
CCFICS27 reviewed extensive part of the document which resulted from the work of an intersessional EWG led by the USA. The draft guidelines were structured around eight sections (Preamble; Scope/Purpose; Definitions; Types of food fraud; Principles; Roles and Responsibilities of Competent Authorities and Food Business Operators; Relevant Activities for Competent Authorities; and Cooperation, Collaboration, and exchange of Information Between Competent Authorities). It includes working definitions of food fraud, food integrity and food authenticity, noting that they are not yet approved, nor would they remain in the document once finalized[iv]. Detailed comments were discussed section by section[v].
TRACEABILITY/PRODUCT TRACING
Modernization of existing Codex principles in the context of food inspection and certification system (CXG 60)
After some extensive exchanges and the conclusion that the proposed revised guidance needed further substantive clarification, CCFICS27 returned the revised draft text aiming at updating the current Codex text on traceability/product tracing as a tool within a national food control system (NFCS) for further crafting. To help with this task, CCFICS27 established a new EWG, led by the United States and Australia, Ecuador, Honduras, and the United Kingdom to continue the revision of the guidelines, by using an edited text resulting from the work of CCFICS27 as a basis that will be circulated for further comments.
CCFICS27 also kept open the option to hold an intersessional hybrid or virtual working group meeting to address any outstanding issues. The revised text will be proposed for another first reading discussion at CCFICS28.
CCFICS27 considered the proposal for revising the existing Codex guidelines on Traceability/Products Tracing (CXG 60) coming out from the report of an
intersessional EWG, led by the USA. CCFICS27 considered the text paragraph by paragraph on about two-thirds of the document (i.e., Title, Preamble, Purpose/Scope, Definitions and Principles) but due to lack of time, only general comments were provided on the rest of the document (Responsibilities, Legal Requirements, Good Practice).
It was noted that the guidelines should remain (a) general in nature; (b) the diversity of national legislative frameworks or structures when reviewing legal requirements; (c) technology-neutral to allow for both paper-based and electronic systems to coexist, to recognize large array of different capabilities among countries; and (d) each principle should be expressed through a single detailed statement or description and remain factual and consistent with the editorial line used in other Codex CCFICS texts.
As part of the changes on the first part subject to paragraph by paragraph review, it should be noted that the title should refer to Principle and Guidelines, Traceability/Product Tracing was only one among many other tools used by national competent authorities within their NFCS, a preference to the original text relating to the Context (paras 4 – 6) and Rationale (paras 7 – 10) for traceability/product tracing should continue to be reflected in the future guidelines. Recognizing also that when used as a tool within an NFCS, Traceability/Product Tracing, is not able by itself to identify food safety risks nor fraudulent/deceptive practices, nor provide confidence in the safety and suitability of imported foods and the future text should avoid overstating what such Traceability/Product Tracing can achieve. Clarification should be made when using the term “Risk.” Digital systems and/or technology for Traceability/Product Tracing should remain optional to provide flexibility to competent authorities and food business operators, noting that the inter-operability between digital systems, and even between digital and manual systems, should be considered. Notably, CCFICS27 agreed that the concept of “one step back” and “one step forward” mentioned in Legal requirements section should be moved as a main
Principle.
EQUIVALENCE
Consolidated Codex guidelines returned for further
drafting
Equivalence is the process by which an importing country would recognize a sanitary measure put in place by an exporting country which is different than one used at domestic level to achieve the same safety objective (as therefore viewed as equivalent to such a domestic measure), and hence would agree with the conformity of a food shipment coming from that importing country.
Based on the outcome of an intersessional work (via an electronic working group – EWG) and a pre-session preparatory discussion (via a physical working group – PWG) led by New Zealand and the broad consensus on the structure of the document, CCFICS27 decided to return the proposed draft consolidated guidelines related to equivalence for redrafting to address still significant outstanding issues despite the very extensive exchange of views during the plenary. CCFICS27 established a new EWG led by New Zealand and by Kenya to address these outstanding issues and build on all the comments received already at the session. CCFICS27 kept open the possibility of virtual or physical WG meeting(s) as well as, if required, a PWG to be held immediately prior to CCFICS28. The EWG was tasked to take into consideration the existing Codex Alimentarius Guidelines on Recognition and Maintenance of Equivalence of National Food Control Systems (NFCS) (CXG 101), adopted in 2023, to frame future discussions on the draft guidelines on equivalence.
CCFICS27 reaffirmed the support to this consolidation work while it emphasized the critical importance for the wording relating to equivalence to be as close as possible to that used in the Guidelines on Recognition and Maintenance of National Food Control Systems (CXG 101). The objective of the work being a consolidation it should be faithful to the compromise reached in the existing Codex texts subject to the consolidation (CXG 101 on the recognition and
maintenance of equivalence of national food control systems (NFCS), CXG 34 on equivalence agreements regarding food import and export inspection and certification systems, and CXG 53 on the judgment of equivalence of sanitary measures associated with food inspection and certification systems) as they are the cornerstones and a reflection of the mutual understanding on equivalence developed by Codex in the past 20 years. It seemed that the EWG and PWG had
not been entirely successful in reflecting the entire set of concepts from these three original texts in the draft consolidated document. A further side to side analysis would facilitate to make future progress on the consolidation, and the result of the consolidation exercise should not create unnecessary burden for competent authorities to establish and maintain equivalence agreements. Further simplification and clarification of the wording used (conditions of trade, requirements, requirements for trade, specified measures, and specific measures) would be needed. These documents being intimately related to the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements and their own work on equivalence, it may be possible to discuss such WTO references, as long as it is done in a transparent manner. CCFICS reviewed the proposed draft consolidation paragraph by paragraph until paragraph 12, bullet point 5[vi].
REJECTION OF IMPORTED FOOD
New work on a guidance on appeal mechanism(s)
Based on a proposal by India, CCFICS27 agreed to start new work on a new Guidance on appeals mechanism in the context of rejection of imported food, aiming at helping further uniform approaches for such appeal mechanism around the world to help ensure fairer practices in food trade. It was agreed that the new work would result in an amendment and/or an annex to the existing Guidelines for the Exchange of Information between Countries on Rejections of Imported Foods (CXG 25) or of the Guidelines for Food Import Control Systems (CXG 47). The proposed new work was sent to CAC47 for a formal approval and CCFICS27 agreed to establish a new EWG led by India and Nigeria, Australia, Chile, and Kenya. CCFICS27 left open the option to hold virtual meetings of the EWG and/or a PWG meeting immediately prior to the next CCFICS session.
CCFICS27 noted general support to the work with some elements to be taken into further account: (a) appeals related to laboratory tests and sampling protocols, (b) preventive actions and mechanisms for dealing with information from the national food control competent authorities, as the guidelines should avoid to conflict with existing national regulations; (d) exporting country to be included as one of possible stakeholders that may file an appeal against a rejection decision; (e) address not only appeal mechanism but also the option foreseen in para. 29 of CXG 47 that “there should be an appeal mechanism and/or opportunity for review of official decisions on consignments”, itself referring to provisions in para. 6 of CXG 25 (“information should be exchanged to advise relevant parties of the rejection, to enable relevant parties to attain any necessary clarifications, and where appropriate implement corrective and preventative measures”).
SANITARY REQUIREMENTS
New work on guidance to standardize their representation
Based on a proposal by Brazil, CCFICS27 agreed to start new work on a new Guidance on the Standardization of the Representation of Sanitary Requirements. The proposed new work was sent to CAC47 for a formal approval and CCFICS27 agreed to establish a new EWG led by Brazil and Australia, the EU, India, Kenya, Spain, and Uganda. CCFICS27 also kept open the possibility to hold virtual meeting(s) of such EWG in advance to CCFICS28 and, if required, hold a meeting in person (PWG) immediately prior to CCFICS28.
The new proposal is resulting from the identification of issues that competent authorities struggle with in relation to the use of electronic certification, including non-unique requirements, repetitive information, and lack of consistency and transparency in exchange of communications. The proposed new work aims at defining criteria and methods to evaluate existing attestations, and enable the creation of a harmonized list of common requirements. The proposal would aim to enhance the simplification and use of electronic certification systems. This new work would require cooperation within CCFICS, and between CCFICS and other international organizations already working on e-certificates for their own purposes. The use of electronic certificates would simplify clearance processes and thereby promote food safety.
NEW WORK PROPOSALS ARISING FROM THE REVIEW OF EMERGING ISSUES
Existing guidelines on exchange of information (CXG 89): New work on principles and guidelines to harmonize the use, development and implementation of (food-producing) establishment listing
Based on a project document prepared by Norway, CCFICS27 agreed to prepare a draft Annex to amend the existing Codex Alimentarius Principles and guidelines for the exchange of information between importing and exporting countries to support the trade in food (CXG 89) to include new principles and guidelines to
harmonize the use, the development and the implementation of « establishment listing ». The proposed new work was sent to CAC47 for a formal approval and CCFICS27 established a new EWG led by Norway and Australia, India, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Spain. CCFICS27 also kept open the possibility of convening virtual meetings and/or a PWG on this topic (noting Norway’s proposal to host such event).
Digitization of national food control systems: New work on high-level guiding principles
Based on a project document prepared by Australia, CCFICS27 agreed to start new work suggesting the development of high-level flexible guiding principles capturing relevant universal themes and providing an overarching framework, identifying existing digital-related international standards and guidance, and establishing relevant digital-related definitions. The proposed new work was sent to CAC47 for formal approval and CCFICS27 established a new EWG led by Australia and Canada, Jamaica, the Netherlands, and the UK to prepare a first draft for its further consideration by CCFICS28. CCFICS27 also kept open the option to hold virtual meetings between CCFICS27 and CCFICS28 as well as a pre-session PWG immediately prior to CCFICS28.
Other emerging issues
CFICS27 agreed to the list of other emerging issues (as listed in CX/FICS 24/27/9 Appendix A, such as the use artificial intelligence; the evolving role(s) of competent authorities and increased interactions between a variety of different governmental entities; preventative and outcome-based systems among other new food safety analysis practices; Improved analytics, testing technologies, and surveillance; new (and evolving) food production (and processing, trans-
port, and distribution) systems and related emerging technologies, such as NFPS). CCFICS27 agreed that it should remain a standing agenda item in forthcoming
CCFICS sessions. CCFICS27 agreed that the EU, with the support of Australia, be the next custodian of the maintenance of Appendix A. A virtual intersessional workshop would be held to discuss the remaining listed emerging issues (and possible newly proposed ones) and submit a revised Appendix A for CCFICS28
further consideration, based on responses to a future Circular Letter to be issued by the Secretariat.
Miscellaneous
The proposal put forward by Norway suggesting a proposed amendment to the existing Codex Alimentarius Principles and Guidelines on the Use of Remote Audit and Inspection in Regulatory Frameworks (CXG 102), adopted in 2023, was not addressed in detail, due to lack of time, and it was agreed that Norway and CCFICS’ Chairperson to discuss it further, while it was also noted that Norway’s proposed amendment was not simply editorial. Norway’s amendment aimed at deleting the words “they understand” in paragraph 6a of the Principles to simply read “Ensure they understand the availability of and have access to necessary technologies to facilitate remote audit and inspection activities when there is a stipulated reasonable requirement from a competent authority. They should clearly indicate their ability to engage in remote auditing or inspection, otherwise physical audit or inspection would be the preferred option”. Norway believed that the language on necessary technologies should be clearer for entities to be audited or inspected, given the experience gained on remote audits and challenges connected to technology.
Endnotes:
[i] Food Production Systems Engineer, Food Standards & Food Safety Regulatory Specialist, Counsellor at Keller and Heckman LLP Brussels office
[ii] See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCFICS&session=27&
[iii] See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/en/
[iv] See Appendix II of REP 24/FICS. For now, the draft working definitions would read as follows:
- [Food Fraud: Any deliberate practice intended to deceive others in regard to the characteristics of food to gain an unfair economic advantage.]
- [Food Integrity: The status of food in which it is not altered or modified with respect to characteristics expected by the consumer, including food safety, quality, composition, nutritional properties and authenticity.]
- [Food authenticity: Conformity between the food product characteristics and the corresponding information provided through food product labeling or other information associated with food trade.]
[v] Preamble/Introduction – reference to “safety, authenticity, integrity, suitability and quality of food” was replaced by “Regulatory frameworks” in para. 3. Given the possible differences in interpretation of what an “anti-food fraud culture” would entail in para. 6b is (generally a culture of change of human behavior,
through e.g., awareness raising), the term was deleted and the paragraph was edited to emphasize the importance of preventative measures and collaboration of the stakeholders.
Purpose/Scope – The reference to feed for food producing animals in the scope was questioned (in Para. 7) as part of the scope, but reference was rephrased as “including, as appropriate, feed for food producing animals”. The newly formed EWG will give further consideration to how feed for food producing animals should be reflected and referenced throughout the future guideline. Footnote 3 referring to the exclusion of intellectual property (IP) issues, specifically referring
to geographical indications (GIs) was deleted and the footnote reworded to make clear that issues related to intellectual property were not included in the guidelines, while the reference to GIs was deleted as they were considered as a type of intellectual property. Accepting the compromise, the EU noted that IP issues including GIs ones, may be considered as a source of possible food fraud by national authorities and they were subject to applicable national legislation. Paragraph 7b was deleted as it referred to investigation and prosecution of food fraud offenses, considered to be outside the scope of the guidelines.
Definitions – Food and food products were considered as both covered under the Codex definition of “food.”
Food Fraud: the EWG will revisit the definition of food fraud as it was not clear whether it should refer to prescribed specifications or not, and what was the meaning of “expected characteristics.”
Food integrity and Food authenticity: there were divergent views on whether to keep these definitions or not, as some would consider that these concepts were broader than food fraud, while others argued that these concerns were relevant to food fraud.
Types of food fraud – all descriptions had to be read in conjunction with the chapeau that was referring to “intentional act for economic gain.” Substitution was reworded as the act to “Replacing a food or a food ingredient, in whole or in part, with another ingredient, in whole or in part (most often of lower value) without declaring it.” The bracket was included to indicate that usually the substitution was of lower value than the original food/food ingredient, but not always.
Principles – The entire section was reworded to read as follows: “Competent authorities and FBOs should be guided by the following principles to prevent, detect, mitigate, and control food fraud: Principle 1: The occurrence of food fraud can be reduced by having measures in place, proportionate to the level of risk Principle 2: Cooperation among competent authorities within or between countries, as well as with FBOs, can help reduce food fraud.”
Roles and responsibilities – Points c and d in Para. 9 were merged to read: “Communicate, coordinate and collaborate with other competent authorities within and between countries, industry, academia and stakeholders as needed” and proposal to use the content of Paragraph 10 as a separate section addressing FBOs to be further work out by the EWG. Sections 7 and 8. It was agreed that the new section should only deal with relevant roles, responsibilities and activities of competent authorities, while a further re-shuffling of the text should be addressed by the EWG on the merge of Sections 7 and 8 with paragraph 9 of Section 6 (that addressed competent authorities).
[vi] Title of the principles and guidelines –“specified measure” was clarified to cover both sanitary measures and technical requirements. The proposed title was amended as “Principles and guidelines for the recognition of equivalence of sanitary measures, technical regulations or the whole or a part of national food control systems.”
Section 1: Preamble – In addition to some redrafting, paragraph 2 was amended to replace the term “specified measures” with “sanitary measures and technical regulations, as appropriate”, with an explanatory note to read “Technical regulations can include technical regulations, conformity assessment procedures or standards.” A new paragraph mimicking one of the preamble of CXG 101 was added to read “The consideration, assessment, recognition, and maintenance of the equivalence of one country’s NFCS in whole or the relevant part is independent of any reciprocal process occurring. Reciprocal considerations, where requested, may have different scopes and durations, and may also arrive at different conclusions.”
Section 2: Purpose – Paragraph 1 from CXG 34 referring to less formal agreements was included and footnote deleted to read: “This document provides practical guidance for governments desiring to enter into bilateral or multilateral equivalence agreements concerning sanitary measure(s) or technical regulations or the whole or a part of a NFCS. Such agreements may be binding instruments taking the form of “international agreements” under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, or they may be other less formal arrangements such as exchange of letters or memoranda of understanding.”
Section 3: Scope – Editing work.
Section 4: Definitions – The definition for « Appropriate Level of Protection » contained in CXG 53 was added in square brackets: “[Appropriate level of sanitary protection (ALOP): The level of protection deemed appropriate by the country establishing a sanitary measure to protect human life or health within its territory. (This concept may otherwise be referred to as the “acceptable level of risk.”)].” “Requirements” definition was amended as: “Requirements are the criteria set down by the competent authorities relating to trade in food covering the protection of the health consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade.” Proposed definitions for “measure”; “NFCS objective”; “Sanitary measure” and “Technical measure” were deleted.
Section 4: Principles – On the Scope of the request and assessment, it was clarified that the result of the assessment “should be agreed between importing and exporting countries.” On the Demonstration of Equivalence, the word “recognition” is added to the title (“Demonstration and Recognition of Equivalence”) and a new first sentence is added to the explanatory text of the principle (“The exporting country should objectively demonstrate that its measures, technical regulations, NFCS or relevant part, achieve the importing country’s objectives”).
Section 6: Initial Discussions – Paragraphs 10 and 11 were deleted to avoid repetition with paragraphs 9 and 12.
Appropriateness of an equivalence process — bullet points were amended including an explicit reference to “which of the importing country’s measures would be met by compliance and for which measures would the exporting country seek equivalence”. Two new bullet points imported from para. 5 of CXG 34 were added (in square brackets for further consideration): [As agreed by the parties, an equivalence agreement covering control and certification systems may relate to any aspect of food safety or other relevant requirement for food. Such agreements may be limited to specific areas of trade or specific products. Such agreements may be entered into where equivalence has been established in respect of some or all requirements]; and, [Equivalence agreements may include provisions for certificates or other forms of certification of particular traded products or may provide for dispensing with certificates and other forms of certification].
[vii] See Annex A at https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%252FCX-733-27%252FWorking%2Bdocuments%252Ffc27_09e.pdf
