Institute for Food Laws and Regulations

The U.S. membership in the World Health Organization (WHO) includes the U.S.‘s agreement to give a year’s advance notice before withdrawal. In principle, President Trump’s order withdrawing the U.S. from the WHO should not take effect for a year. Nevertheless, Trump ordered an immediate stop to all U.S. funds going to the WHO and an immediate halt to all engagement with the WHO in any way, including meetings and emails.

International agreements are like contracts—contracts that everyone expects to be binding. These agreements are not statements of intention or aspiration. They are formal pacts.

With a U.S. president unilaterally ignoring this agreement, you have to ask, how will other countries trust the U.S. on other agreements and promises? What’s the point of negotiating with the U.S., if a U.S. president can simply decide to ignore an agreement whenever he feels like it? Undoubtedly, this will reduce the influence of the U.S. in negotiations of any kind.

But back to how this affects the U.S. involvement with Codex Alimentarius. In the joint WHO-FAO expert committees, U.S. scientists often provided important leadership in areas of evidence and sound science. Without U.S. participation, other nations will have more influence, particularly the EU, Russia, and China.

Altering the nature and quality of the review in the expert committee could result in determinations that undermine U.S. companies’ competitive positions. For example, what if the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)—without U.S. scientists—issues a determination that titanium dioxide is an unsafe food additive? Or what if the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) issues a determination that a veterinary hormone permitted for livestock in the U.S. is no longer recognized as safe?

Codex Alimentarius relies on the expert committee determinations in setting Codex Alimentarius standards. In turn, the Codex standards are adopted by numerous countries. These changes in Codex standards could adversely affect U.S. food manufacturers that use titanium dioxide or farmers that use that hormone by closing global markets to U.S. products.

It is unclear if the U.S. withdrawal will affect U.S. participation in the Codex Alimentarius committees or the Codex Alimentarius Commission. However, being a joint WHO organization, there is a possibility that the prohibition on communicating with the WHO will extend to Codex meetings. Without U.S. participation, the EU, China, and Russia will have greater influence. Some decisions would likely have outcomes unfavorable to U.S. business interests. For example, the U.S. headed off bans on the use of animal hormones and genetically modified organisms by presenting sound science.

By the way, the Withdrawal of U.S. Funding is Illegal

The U.S. Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress, not the President. That is a key point in the separation of powers in our Constitution’s creation of the three co-equal branches of government.

The President cannot cancel or withhold funding that Congress has appropriated to the WHO. The Constitution is clear, but this is also a flagrant violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The violation of the law and the Constitution is an intentional feature of this action rather than a mistake. This is a power grab - the executive branch is attempting to usurp the power of Congress.

Disclaimer.

Learn more about global food regulatory organizations and how they impact the U.S. food industry with MSU's online graduate courses, particularly:

• International Food Laws and Regulations
• International Food Standards, Codex Alimentarius 
• Global Animal Health, Food Safety, and International Trade