Codex 2025: New MRLs and guidelines to strengthen global food safety

Codex-2025-new-MLRs-guidelines-global-food-safety

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC48) approved more than 700 new normative texts, including 340 Maximum Residue Limits and 377 additive provisions to safeguard global food safety. The Strategic Plan 2026-2031, with its focus on One Health and digitalization, was adopted, along with new standards for products such as camel milk and lulo. The meeting underscored the urgent need to ensure sustainable funding for international scientific advice.

The Codex Alimentarius is being updated in 2025 with new Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and guidelines to strengthen global food safety. During the 48th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC48), held in Rome, Italy, from November 10 to 14, the 189 member countries approved one of the most extensive sets of regulations in the last decade.

This body—established jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1963—endorsed more than 700 new or revised texts, including 340 Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and 377 provisions for food additives.

It should be noted that this was not the Commission’s only meeting throughout the year; according to the calendar on its website, there were 16 meetings in 2025, although some were regional and others did address topics of common interest to all members, such as:

• Codex on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CCFFV23). Held in Mexico City, February 25–March 1.

• Codex on Food Additives (CCFA55). Seoul, South Korea, March 24–28.

• Codex on Cereals, Pulses, and Legumes (CCCPL11). Correspondence, April 7–30.

• Codex on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS44). Virtual, May 5–14.

• Codex on General Principles (CCGP34). Lille, France, June 2–6.

• Codex on Food Contaminants (CCCF18). Bangkok, Thailand, June 26–27.

• Codex on Pesticide Residues (CCPR56). Santiago, Chile, September 8–13.

• Codex on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH8). Guwahati, Assam, India, October 13–17.

• Codex on Food Hygiene (CCFH55). Nashville, Tennessee, USA, December 15–19.

The difference between these meetings and the one held at FAO headquarters in Rome last November is that the former were directed to specific committees and the latter was of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC48) attended by 122 Member States and 36 observers, where new standards, work, reviews, discontinuations, financing issues and adoption of the 2026-2031 strategic framework were approved.

La diferencia entre estas reuniones y la celebrada en la sede de la FAO en Roma, el pasado noviembre, está en que las primeras estaban dirigidas a comités específicos y la última fue de la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius (CAC48) a la que asistieron 122 Estados Miembros y 36 observadores, donde se aprobaron nuevas normas, trabajos, revisiones, discontinuaciones, temas de financiamiento y adopción del marco estratégico 2026-2031.

What is the importance of the Codex Alimentarius?

The Codex Alimentarius, or “Food Code,” is a set of international standards and guidelines that serves as the global reference body for standardizing food safety and quality. Its relevance rests on four essential pillars:

1) Protecting consumer health. The Codex defines safe limits for additives, pesticides, and contaminants through scientific assessments conducted by expert bodies of the FAO and WHO (such as JMPR and JECFA). In 2025, for example, 340 new MRLs and limits for lead in spices were adopted, reducing exposure risks and contributing to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 on health.

2) Facilitation of international trade. Codex standards are the reference for the World Trade Organization (WTO) under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), which prevents unjustified sanitary barriers and allows for the resolution of trade disputes. This harmonization opens markets to smaller countries; an exemplary case is the standard for black cardamom, promoted by Bhutan, India, and Nepal, which strengthened regional competitiveness.

3) Global legislative harmonization. Codex texts guide national regulatory frameworks, reduce costs, and foster coherence among countries. According to the new strategic framework, 92% of members use its standards to update laws and policies. Recent international events, such as the 2025 World Summit of Food Regulators, recognize it as a central element of the global food safety infrastructure.

4) Adaptability to new challenges. The Codex evolves to regulate emerging technologies, new production systems, and digital labeling practices. Its work also promotes food sustainability and contributes to SDGs 2 and 12. The scale of its work was demonstrated at CAC48, where approximately 720 new and revised standards were adopted.

Using an analogy with the metric system, before the Codex existed, each country measured safety with its own standards, making it nearly impossible for a farmer in one country to sell their products in others without facing conflicts or risks. This Code provides a universal and scientific unit of measurement, so that when one nation declares a food product to be “safe” or “of the highest quality,” everyone else understands exactly what characteristics define it as such, ensuring food safety and smooth international trade.

Why was the last meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC48) relevant?

It is important to note that, given the magnitude of its impact on public health and international trade, the Codex is constantly being updated, with revisions occurring annually through the Commission’s annual sessions. However, there is also a “Strategic Plan” that defines objectives, goals, and priorities for a specific period; for example, the most recent one covers 2020 to 2025.

The significance of this latest meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC48) lies not only in the approval of new updates but also in the adoption of a monitoring framework for the “Strategic Plan 2026-2031. But what will be the differences between this version and the “Strategic Plan 2020-2025“?

The most significant changes are concentrated in four key areas: structure, international cooperation, technological modernization, and health approach.

1) Restructuring of goals: from 5 to 4 with greater integration. The most visible structural change is the consolidation of strategic goals:

2020–2025. 5 separate goals, including “member participation” and “work management” as distinct objectives, in addition to separating the identification of new issues from the scientific development of standards.

2026–2031. 4 goals.

2020–2025. Five separate goals, including “member participation” and “work management” as distinct objectives, as well as separating the identification of new issues from the scientific development of standards.

2026–2031. Four goals.

Participation is no longer an isolated objective: it is now integrated into Goal 2, dedicated to improving management systems and practices.
The former goals on emerging issues and science are conceptually merged into Goal 1, focused on developing science-based standards that meet members’ needs.

Result: A more compact, coherent Codex oriented towards integrated processes.

2) New Goal: International Relations. The 2026–2031 plan incorporates for the first time an explicit goal for international coordination:

Goal 3: “Strengthen relationships with relevant international organizations to address global challenges.”

Its purpose is to improve coherence among FAO, WHO, OMSA, WTO, and other technical agencies, identify global regulatory gaps, and strengthen joint action against cross-border risks. Observers welcomed this goal as an important structural advance.

3) Technological approach: digitization and artificial intelligence. The new plan incorporates modern management tools that did not exist in the previous cycle; for example:

Goal 2.1 (2026–2031). Modernize systems by leveraging digital technologies. It also proposes:

Use of AI to generate narrative reports.
Automated analysis of the Codex’s online presence.
Performance monitoring with digital tools.

In contrast, the 2020–2025 plan only mentioned operational efficiency without naming specific technologies.

4) Integration of the One Health approach. Although the previous plan was aligned with the SDGs, the new plan explicitly incorporates the One Health approach:

2020–2025. Emphasis on SDGs (2, 3, 12, and 17).

2026–2031. One Health is formally included in Target 4.2, measuring:

• The use of Codex texts in global health policies.

• Coherence between human, animal, and environmental health.

• Alignment with FAO, WHO, and OMSA.

With this, the Codex recognizes that food safety depends on interconnected health systems.

5) Evolution of the monitoring framework: greater rigor and flexibility. The new framework introduces substantial changes:

SMART indicators. More specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
Continuity and renewal. Some indicators from the previous cycle are maintained (e.g., timeliness of documents), but others require new baselines due to changes in goals.
Biannual review. The framework can be adjusted after the first two years of implementation, making the Codex a more dynamic and adaptive regulatory body.

Overall, the Strategic Plan 2026–2031 represents an evolution towards a more modern, interconnected and data-driven Codex, characterized by greater internal integration (fewer targets, better alignment), international cooperation as a central objective, explicit adoption of technological tools and artificial intelligence, an expanded health focus under the One Health framework and a more rigorous and reviewable monitoring system.

Codex Milestone 2025: New Chemical Safety Standards

Now that we have mentioned the importance of the Codex and what the updates to the Strategic Plan 2026-2031 are, let’s return to another objective of this article: Reviewing what the 720 new and revised standards consist of, most of them focused on chemical limits and technical guidelines, approved at the last CAC48.

The more than 700 “Codex texts” that were approved include complete international standards, codes of practice, guidelines, methods of analysis, maximum levels of contaminants and residues, additions and revisions to the GSFA (General Standard for Food Additives), revisions of existing standards, new approved works, and revocations or discontinuations of obsolete standards.

Among the approved guidelines are 340 Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and 377 provisions for food additives. The reason for its unprecedented size, considered its biggest regulatory leap in a decade, is explained by four factors:

a) Backlog of pending work due to limited scientific capacity. For years, the JMPR, JECFA, and JEMRA operated with insufficient scientific resources, generating a growing list of assessments requested by Member States. In 2025, several opinions were finally completed.

b) Emergence of new food risks. Mycotoxins increased by climate change, new pathogens, emerging chemicals, novel ingredients, as well as new production models (alternative proteins, cellular agriculture).

c) Need for accelerated harmonization. With the increase in SPS/TBT trade disputes at the WTO, countries pressed to update rules that reduce friction and rejections at the border.

1. d) Systematic review of the Codex’s normative corpus. The Codex reviewed, refined, or updated numerous ancient texts to avoid duplication and ensure consistency with modern methodologies.

New MRLs: science, trade and consumer protection

The 340 Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) adopted by CAC48 are a direct product of the work of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) which assesses: Toxicity, dietary exposure, metabolism of the compound in plants or animals, residues after applying Good Agricultural Practices and cumulative or chronic risk.

This process integrates short- and long-term toxicological studies, field reports from different countries, food consumption data, and region-specific risk analyses.

Contrary to public perception, MRLs are not toxicological safety limits, but regulatory thresholds designed to ensure that residues present in a food are compatible with Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and with the intake intended by the population.

This implies that:

They do not represent the threshold at which a food becomes toxic.
They do not imply a direct risk to the consumer.
They do not correspond to the dose that causes harm.
They do not reflect dangerous accumulation.

And they do not indicate the presence of illegal contamination, but simply the maximum level that can appear even after correct use of the pesticide.

To ensure these limits are protective, JMPR scientists calculate the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) from animal and epidemiological studies, applying extremely conservative safety factors. In practical terms, the ADI is 100 times lower than the lowest dose that produced no adverse effects in toxicological studies, and it is on this ultra-protective basis that the MRLs are calculated.

The Codex, FAO, and WHO emphasized during CAC48 that even if foods contain the maximum permitted amount, an extraordinary and unrealistic level of consumption would be required to approach the ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake). Therefore, exceeding the MRL (Maximum Residue Limit) does not mean the food is dangerous, but rather that Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) were likely not followed correctly, triggering corrective measures in production, traceability, or trade.

A widely cited example, consistent with analyses by the Institute for Scientific Cooperation in Environment and Health (ICCAS), is the mathematical demonstration that an adult would have to consume 150 kg of pears in a single day to approach the ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) of a reference substance. This type of data clearly demonstrates that MRLs operate within a very wide safety margin.

The approval of 340 new MRLs in 2025 has direct implications for foreign trade because it harmonizes criteria between countries, reduces border rejections, provides certainty to producers and exporters, and strengthens traceability in global agri-food chains.

Furthermore, it makes it easier for importing countries, including Mexico, to update their national lists, maintaining consistency with international standards and preventing regulatory differences from becoming technical barriers.

Why so many MRLs in 2025?

In the words of the FAO, MRLs act as a bridge between science and trade, ensuring that products circulate in global markets with verifiable, interpretable, and consistent parameters. Therefore, their widespread adoption by 2025 represents not only a scientific advancement but also a fundamental step toward more efficient, secure, and transparent supply chains.

The adoption of a large number of LMRs is due to several factors:

New pesticides and agricultural uses. The agricultural industry has developed more selective molecules with more benign toxicological profiles. Each requires evaluation and the establishment of global MRLs.
Re-evaluations due to scientific updates. Compounds approved 20 or 30 years ago now require more refined data based on new risk assessment methodologies.
International trade pressure. Countries seek to reduce rejections due to incompatibility between national limits. Harmonization through the Codex Alimentarius Commission reduces the risk of non-tariff barriers.
Increased transparency requirements. The WTO requires that SPS decisions be based on science. Countries strengthen their confidence when the MRL is supported by a Joint Monitoring Programme (JMPR) ruling.

It is worth noting that the new LMRs cover:

Fungicides and Herbicides: Prochloraz, Propiconazole, Folpet, Tebuconazole, Acibenzolar-s-methyl, and Pydiflumetofen.
Insecticides and Acaricides: Fipronil, Etofenprox, Novaluron, Phosmet, Methoprene, Fenpyroximate, Flubendiamide, and Tetraniliprole.
Growth Regulators: Chlormequat (in animal tissues, eggs, and milk).

Existing MRLs were also revoked, notably the limits for Carbendazim (in coffee beans and mango, with Colombia’s reservation due to the impact on production), as well as the limits for Amitraz and Fenthion.

They also made editorial amendments to facilitate the future harmonization of MRLs for dual-use compounds (pesticides and veterinary medicines). This included adjusting the definition of “fat” in the Food and Feed Classification and adding a regulatory note to the MRLs for milk and milk fats, indicating that whole milk should be tested for fat-soluble pesticides.

Not everyone agreed with the new MRLs; the adoption of some of these limits (especially Chlormequat, Folpet, Fipronil, and Prochloraz) met with reservations from the European Union, Norway, and Switzerland, who raised concerns about protecting consumer health.

Provisions for additives: GSFA update and technological modernization

The 377 new and revised provisions for food additives adopted at CAC48 consisted mainly of updating the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA, CXS 192-1995) and harmonizing specific product standards with this general standard.

To provide context, the GSFA is one of the most complex normative tools in the Codex Alimentarius. Each revision involves changes in permitted levels, inclusion or removal of substances, adjustments to food categories, modifications to usage notes, and the incorporation of new technologies and food matrices.

Returning to the topic, the key components of these provisions on additives are:

1) Inclusion and review in the GSFA. The Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) adopted the core of the new provisions within the GSFA. However, the Russian Federation expressed reservations regarding the provisions for amaranth (INS 123), caramel III – ammonia caramel (INS 150c), and basic methacrylate copolymer (BMC, INS 1205) in specific food categories.

2) Harmonization of Product Standards. A significant portion of the 377 provisions focused on aligning product standards with the GSFA, encompassing:

Regional Standards: Alignment with five standards from the Coordinating Committee for Asia (CCASIA) and three from the Coordinating Committee for the Near East (CCNE).
Spices and Herbs: Alignment with eight standards from the Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH).
Other Standards: Inclusion of alignments with standards for Fats and Oils (CCFO) and Cereals, Pulses, and Legumes (CCCPL).

3) Specific revisions to product standards. Revisions to the additives sections in individual standards were approved.

Processed Products: The provisions for pickled cucumbers (CXS 115-1981), preserved stone fruit (CXS 242-2003), and jams, jellies, and marmalades (CXS 296-2009) were revised.
Rice and Salt: The additives sections of the Standard for Rice (CXS 198-1995) were revised, and an amendment to the Standard for Food-Grade Salt (CXS 150-1985) was adopted.

4) Technical Updates. Essential technical texts were adopted:

Identity and purity specifications for inclusion on the CXA 6-2024 list.
Revision of the Generic Names and International Numbering System (INS) for Food Additives (CXG 36-1989).
An editorial amendment was made to correct the usage notes for advantame (INS 969) in the cream analogues category.

Standards by product: from the Arabian Desert to the Andean región

In addition to the new MRLs and additive provisions, CAC48 approved a set of product-specific standards that reflect Codex’s ability to respond to a highly diverse global food system.

These regulatory texts not only address established markets, but also emerging supply chains, regional crops, and foods that require clear parameters to participate in international trade.

Pasteurized camel milk, essential in arid regions of North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, is experiencing sustained growth due to its cultural value, nutritional composition, and commercial potential. However, it lacked a harmonized standard defining pasteurization requirements, microbiological parameters, minimum fat, protein, and solids content, sensory and organoleptic criteria, and specific hygiene practices for camelid livestock.

The new regulation allows producing countries — such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kazakhstan — to market this product with greater regulatory certainty, reducing variability among national regulations and facilitating expansion into markets where the product is still unknown or poorly regulated.

Fresh dates are a key food source in the agricultural economies of the Middle East, North Africa, and desert regions. Before CAC48, there were significant differences between countries regarding moisture requirements, defect tolerance, post-harvest handling, permissible contaminant levels, and classification by maturity and variety.

The new standard addresses the need to standardize quality and safety in a product whose international trade has grown significantly in the last decade. For countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, this standard represents a tool that strengthens the sector’s global competitiveness, simplifies export compliance, improves consumer confidence, and establishes a common language among producers, importers, and distributors.

Lulo de Castilla. The lulo—or naranjilla—is an emblematic fruit of the Andes, especially in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Its cultural and gastronomic value is high, but its commercial potential was limited by the lack of international quality definitions, limits for defects, maturity requirements, physicochemical parameters, and post-harvest handling criteria.

The adoption of this standard within the Codex opens the door for Andean producers to compete in global markets, standardizing quality expectations and enabling greater integration into regional value chains. It also serves as a reference for certification programs and value-added strategies (juices, pulps, functional ingredients).

Aflatoxins in corn. Corn, one of the most widely produced and consumed cereals globally, is particularly vulnerable to the development of aflatoxins, toxic metabolites produced by fungi of the genus Aspergillus. Climate variability—increasing temperatures, prolonged droughts, and irregular humidity—is increasing the risk of contamination in regions that previously did not face this problem.

The revised Code of Practice includes recommendations for field management, moisture parameters at harvest and in storage, drying strategies, infestation control, best practices for transport and processing, as well as monitoring and sampling requirements. This regulatory adjustment responds to the urgent need to reduce mycotoxin outbreaks, which can lead to millions of dollars in economic losses and border rejections, in addition to serious risks to human health.

The structural challenge: funding the science that underpins the Codex

Although CAC48 was hailed as one of the most productive Codex meetings in recent years, delegates were clear on one critical point that ran through much of the political and technical agenda: the financial sustainability of international scientific advice.

This is the pillar on which all Codex decisions are built — from the new MRLs and additives approved in 2025 to the guidelines for addressing emerging risks — and yet it is also the weakest link in the chain.

During the sessions, several countries warned that the accelerated pace of innovation in food, the increase in microbiological and chemical risks, and the complexity of global supply chains have increased the demand on the three core scientific bodies of the Codex:

The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) evaluates food additives, contaminants, and veterinary drug residues, and establishes tolerable intakes and reference levels. The dairy, meat, aquaculture, and infant food industries rely critically on its work.

The Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) analyzes toxicity and dietary exposure to establish pesticide MRLs. Without its assessments, Codex committees cannot approve new limits or revise existing ones, directly impacting farmers, exporters, and laboratories.

Joint FAO/WHO Meetings on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA). Assesses microbiological risks, including emerging pathogens, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and hygiene criteria for ready-to-eat foods.

Without sufficient funding:

Scientific and technical assessments are delayed.
Codex committees are unable to adopt or revise standards.
Exporting countries face regulatory uncertainty.
New risks—such as emerging toxins, contaminants resulting from climate change, and resistant microorganisms—cannot be addressed in a timely manner.
Approval of innovative additives and technologies (e.g., enzymes, processing aids, functional ingredients) is slowed.
Monitoring of infant foods, one of the most sensitive sectors, is compromised.

In other words: if science stagnates, the Codex comes to a standstill. This concern was therefore expressed at the official presentation of CAC48, where it was warned that “the scientific foundation of the Codex is threatened by the unsustainable provision of resources.”

FAO and WHO call for protecting the backbone of the food system

Both organizations were categorical that the Codex needs timely, independent and adequately funded scientific advice to continue operating as a global reference.

This requires stable, multi-year funding, strengthening of regional laboratories, investment in microbiological surveillance, infrastructure for toxicological and exposure testing, integration of digital tools and artificial intelligence for data analysis, and new platforms for scientific cooperation between countries.

The adoption of the Strategic Plan Monitoring Framework 2026–2031 responds, in part, to this concern: now the Codex will have clear indicators to measure whether normative advances match available scientific capabilities.

Source: thefoodtech.com