METHODS: The study involved: (i) collecting Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) documents (2016-2023); (ii) identification, categorization, and enumeration of actors involved in the development of the Guidelines; and (iii) guided by a constructivist framework, analysis of how actors framed and contested key provisions of the Guidelines.
RESULTS: Country representation was skewed towards high-income (47.9%). Member state delegations were dominated by non-health ministries (59.8%) and industry actors (16.1%). Industry actors comprised the large majority of observers (84.2%) and civil society actors representing public health interests the least (12.2%). Commercial actors used frames supporting positive FOPNL messages (eg, low in salt) opposing negative ones (eg, "high-in" sugar warnings) and called for product exemptions (eg, sports foods and baby foods). Public health actors used frames supporting simplified FOPNL to reduce consumer confusion, that hold up public health goals, and prevent inappropriate marketing.
CONCLUSION: Participation in the Guidelines development process suggests stronger preferences for trade facilitation and commerce over public health. Ambitions to reform the international food regulatory system may require an examination of who participates and how to address this asymmetrical representation of interests. These results suggest the need to greatly strengthen public health representation at Codex.
METHODS: Fifty-two internationally recognized bariatric experts from 28 countries convened for voting on 90 consensus statements over two rounds to identify those on which consensus could be reached. Inter-voter agreement of ≥ 70% was considered consensus, with voting participation ≥ 80% considered a robust vote.
RESULTS: At least 70% consensus was achieved for 65 of the 90 questions (72.2% of the items), 61 during the first round of voting and an additional four in the second round. Where consensus was reached on a binary agree/disagree or yes/no item, there was agreement with the statement presented in 53 of 56 instances (94.6%). Where consensus was reached on a statement where options favorable versus unfavorable to OAGB-MGB were provided, including statements in which OAGB-MGB was compared to another procedure, the response option favorable to OAGB-MGB was selected in 13 of 23 instances (56.5%).
CONCLUSION: Although there is general agreement that the OAGB-MGB is an effective and usually safe option for the management of patients with obesity or severe obesity, numerous areas of non-consensus remain in its use. Further empirical data are needed.