The World Health Organization’s Capacity to Improve the Meat and Animal Byproduct Industry as well as the Industry’s Impact on Consumers and the Environment

By: Jessica A. Chapman

The World Health Organization’s (“WHO”) purpose is to “direct international health,  within the United Nations’ system and to lead partners in global health responses.”[1] WHO established the Codex Alimentarius Commission (“CAC” or “Commission”)  to provide food regulation guidance to member nations in order to “protect consumer health and encourage fair practice in international food.”[2] CAC focuses on food authenticity to ensure consumers throughout the world receive quality ingredients from legitimate and sustainable sources, as CAC exemplifies in its publication on the world trade of fats and oils.[3] CAC has also published research regarding its concerns about food safety.[4] In turn, CAC promotes new innovations to ensure food manufacturers protect their products from contamination and sell products that preserve the environment and natural resources.[5] Furthermore, CAC established voluntary front-of-package labeling (“FOPL”) standards for member nations to adopt that prevent manufacturers from including “false, deceptive, or misleading” information on their products’ labels, in order to empower consumers to make informed decisions about their food purchases.[6] However, member nations retain authority to decide which of these guidelines their countries adopt into legislation.[7] Therefore, member nations retain jurisdiction to determine whether food manufacturers violate their countries’ CAC-adopted policies.[8]

CAC’s various publications illustrate the Commission’s concern for sustainable and quality food production.[9] However, in order to improve sustainability measures, CAC should publish more, in-depth reports regarding the environmental degradation and health risks certain food industries promulgate, namely animal agriculture (meat and animal byproduct production). These publications would be impactful because livestock comprises approximately 40% of “the global value of agriculture output”;[10] the meat and animal byproduct industry is one of the leading producers of greenhouse gases that perpetuate climate change;[11] the industry is a leading cause of natural resource depletion and destruction;[12] researchers have found consumption of meat and animal byproducts cause or exacerbate myriad diseases and health risks;[13] and most large scale meat and animal byproduct operations facilitate horrific animal abuse to all animals that exist within their systems.[14] Unfortunately, many consumers throughout the world are unaware of these issues,[15] and meat and animal byproduct manufacturers include labels on their products that often mislead consumers into believing their products are healthy, sustainable, and emulate gold standards for animal care.[16] CAC is one of the leading sources of information on food development and manufacturing throughout the world; nations’ leaders and citizens can read its reports and guidelines to educate themselves if they have internet access.[17] Therefore, the Commission has a responsibility to produce comprehensive literature that educates leaders and the general population about meat and animal-based production methods, literature that transcends political barriers and could influence the longevity of this planet and the beings on it.

Additionally, CAC could publish voluntary guidelines for member nations to adopt that require manufacturers to include informative labeling on their meat and animal-based products regarding environmental, health, and animal welfare risks. As previously mentioned, CAC’s voluntary FOPL guidelines ensure manufacturers do not include information that is false, deceptive, or misleading.[18] However, those guidelines focus on specific nutrients (i.e. protein, calcium, fats, sugar), rather than food categories (i.e. vegetables, fruit, meat, animal byproducts).[19] Research shows that countries that implement FOPL regulations have had manufacturers create food products that contain healthier levels of nutrients.[20] If CAC proposed similar labeling requirements for meat and animal byproducts, and member nations adopted those requirements, manufacturers may change their operations to reduce their negative impact on the environment, consumer health, and animal abuse, to comply with their countries’ new labeling laws. The meat and animal byproduct industry envelops and directs politics throughout the world,[21]  and for this reason countries may choose not to enforce labeling requirements on meat and animal byproducts.[22] However, consumers can also influence manufacturers’ practices. By producing focused reports about the impacts of meat and animal byproducts, CAC could educate interested consumers. In turn, consumers could impact manufacturers by choosing not to buy products that seem to disregard care for the environment, consumer health, or animal abuse (i.e. by purchasing products from local farms rather than factory farms).[23] Alternatively, consumers could choose not to purchase meat or animal byproducts at all.

Consumers are concerned about their health, their communities, Earth’s future, and the animals that co-exist with them.[24] CAC should respond to these public policy concerns by producing literature that informs its member nations and consumers about strategies they can use to positively impact and preserve the planet and its natural resources. Furthermore, CAC should increase its impact by offering guidelines that make food manufacturers accountable for their actions that harm consumers, animals used in agriculture, and non-renewable resources.[25] If member nations choose not to implement these guidelines in order to shield manufacturers from increased production costs or to avoid political repercussions, consumers can influence the marketplace through their purchases. Employing CAC’s apolitical authority and resources to improve the meat and animal byproduct industry could be one method to encourage positive change and longevity for future generations of all beings. No matter what method makes the change possible, conscientious, strategic, and compassionate meat and animal byproduct operations are the only way people will be able to continue consuming these food types for the time being.

Author’s note: Though this author supports innovative and new methods of meat and animal byproduct production and labeling in this opinion piece, this author believes the ultimate method to prevent the environmental risks and ecological destruction, health risks, and especially animal abuse associated with the meat and animal byproduct industry is to completely cease consuming animal-derived meat[26] and animal byproducts. For more information on this topic, several books and films explain these concerns in further detail.[27]

#WorldHealthOrganization #WHO #Codex Alimentarius Commission #Meat #Animalbyproducts #Animalagriculture #Environment #Sustainability #Labeling #Labelling #Consumervote #Health #Animal #Naturalresources

[1] What is the World Health Organization (WHO), IGI Global (last visited Dec. 22, 2019), https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/social-telerehabilitation/32827. The WHO is supposed to support all interests of the UN’s member nations. See Our Values, World Health Org. (last visited Dec. 26, 2019), https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/our-values.

[2] Corinna Hawkes, Nutrition labels & health claims: the global reg. env’t V (World Health Org. 2004), available at https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42964/9241591714.pdf;sequence=1. See also Codex Alimentarius Int’l Food Standards, http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/ (last visited Nov. 11, 2019).

[3] Codex Alimentarius, A drop of oil, a tonne of value: Codex Committee on Fats and Oils 1 (Food & Agric. Org. & WHO 2019), available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca3361en/CA3361EN.pdf.

[4] Codex Alimentarius, Food hygiene at 50: A Codex Alimentarius journey from small beginnings to stories of success 2, 10 (Food & Agric. Org. & WHO 2019) available at http://www.fao.org/3/CA2323EN/ca2323en.pdf.

[5] Id.

[6] Hawkes, supra note 2, at V. A FOPL is a “form of supplementary nutrition information, [used] as a tool to facilitate the consumer’s understanding of the nutritional value of the food and their choice of food, consistent with national dietary guidance or health and nutrition policy of the country or region of implementation.” U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Rep. of the U.S. Delegate 45th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling 6 (2019), available at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/delegates-report-0513-17-2019.pdf.

[7] World Health Org., Guiding principles & framework manual for front-of-pack labelling for promoting healthy diet 7 (2019), available at https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/policies/guidingprinciples-labelling-promoting-healthydiet.pdf?ua=1 [hereinafter WHO FOPL Manual].

[8] Id.

[9] See, e.g., Codex Alimentarius, The Science of Food Standards: The road from Codex Alimentarius Commission 39 to 40 18 (Food & Agric. Org. & WHO 2017), available at http://www.fao.org/3/i7521en/I7521EN.pdf.

[10] Bibi van der Zee, What is the true cost of eating meat?, Guardian (May 7, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/07/true-cost-of-eating-meat-environment-health-animal-welfare (internal citations omitted).

[11] See, e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change and Land 1-2 (WMO & UNEP 2019), available at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/Fullreport-1.pdf [hereinafter IPCC]. See also Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food 166 (Penguin Group 2008) (“A 2006 report issued by the United Nations stated the world’s livestock generate more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation industry.”) (internal citations omitted).

[12] James Cameron & Suzy Amis Cameron, Animal agriculture is choking the Earth and making us sick. We must act now, Guardian (Dec. 4, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/animal-agriculture-choking-earth-making-sick-climate-food-environmental-impact-james-cameron-suzy-amis-cameron. See also, generally, IPCC, supra note 10.

[13] See, e.g., Erik Mathijs, Exploring future patterns of meat consumption, 109 Meat Sci. 112, 112 (2015), and Animal Products, NutritionFacts.org (last visited Dec. 23, 2019), https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/animal-products/.

[14] See, e.g., Rachel Hosie, The Undercover Investigators Exposing Animal Abuse in Factory Farms, Independent (Jan. 4, 2017), https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/animal-abuse-factory-farms-undercover-investigators-pigs-chickens-cows-turkeys-mercy-for-animals-a7501816.html, and Factory Farming: Misery for Animals, PETA (last visited Dec. 23, 2019), https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/.

[15] See, e.g., Phil Lempert, Why Factory Farming Isn’t What You Think, Forbes (June 15, 2015), https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillempert/2015/06/15/why-factory-farming-isnt-what-you-think/#5ca55b806065.

[16] See, e.g., Farm Animal Welfare, ASPCA (last visited Dec. 23, 2019), https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare, and How False Advertising Lawsuits Help Animals, ALDF (last visited Dec. 23, 2019), https://aldf.org/article/how-false-advertising-lawsuits-help-animals/.

[17] Main Releases, Codex Alimentarius (last visited Dec. 23, 2019), http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/publications/en/.

[18] Hawkes, supra note 2, at V.

[19] Kanter et al., Front-of-package nutrition labelling policy: global process and future directions, 21 Cambridge U. Press 1399, 1399-1401 (2018).

[20] Ellis L Vyth et al., Front-of-pack nutrition label stimulates healthier product development: a quantitative analysis, 7 Int’l J. Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity 1, 7 (2010).

[21] See, e.g., Alana Rizzo, Spoiled Meat Scandal Reveals the Influence of Business and Media on Brazil’s Politics, ProMarket (July 10, 2017), https://promarket.org/spoiled-meat-scandal-reveals-influence-business-media-brazils-politics/.

[22] See, e.g., Carolyn Heneghan, How international trade agreements factor into the food industry, Food Dive (Aug. 31, 2015), https://www.fooddive.com/news/how-international-trade-agreements-factor-into-the-food-industry/404420/; Steve Johnson, The Politics of Meat, Frontline (last visited Dec. 23, 2019), https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/.

[23] However, meat production even on local farms is environmentally unsustainable. See, e.g., Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret (A.U.M. Films & Media 2014) [hereinafter Cowspiracy].

[24] See, e.g., Sean Liu, The Food Industry Responds to Consumer Demands, AIChE ChEnected (Nov. 28, 2018), https://www.aiche.org/chenected/2018/11/food-industry-responds-consumer-demands.

[25] For more information on resource depletion associated with factory farming, see Factory Farming & Food Safety, Food & Water Watch (last visited Dec. 23, 2019), https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/problems/factory-farming-food-safety. For information on non-renewable resource depletion related to any animal husbandry practices, see generally Cowspiracy, supra note 23, and Bitrus Dogo Ajeye, Effects of Animal Husbandry on Soil Physical Properties in Zango Kataf Local Government Area, Kaduna State, Nigeria, 12 IOSR J. Envt’l. Sci., Toxicology & Food Tech. 33 (2018).

[26] A new alternative to animal-derived meat is cell tissue-cultured meat. For more information on this food development, see e.g., Mark J. Post, Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects, 92 Meat Sci. 297 (2012).

[27] See, e.g., Howard F. Lyman with Glen Merzer, Mad Cowboy (Scribner 1998); Dr. Richard Oppenlander, Food Choice & Sustainability (Langdon Street Press 2013). See also Cowspiracy, supra note 23.