Model Strategies in Global Food System Law & Policy

UCLA Law School’s  Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy  developed this Model Food Law Strategies Initiative to identify and amplify positive systems-thinking approaches to food law and policy by showcasing select model strategies derived and synthesized from best practices worldwide.  The model strategies will be written and featured in online strategy briefs.  The briefs will focus on law and policy and present demonstrated potential to advance more sustainable, equitable, and inclusive food systems in the coming decade.  To complement the strategy briefs, this initiative includes this companion interactive web tool, an ArcGIS StoryMap, which uses illustrations and condenses the detailed and developed strategy briefs for the busy reader. 

This project is made possible due to a generous gift by the non-profit Seeding the Future Van Lengerich Foundation (“Foundation” or “Seeding the Future”).  The Foundation seeds and accelerates innovative, multidisciplinary, and scalable approaches to create solutions that sustainably improve the food supply and reduce chronic hunger. The Resnick Center has been honored to partner with Seeding the Future on different projects and is pleased to have founder Dr. Bernhard van Lengerich on its outside advisory board.

This project is an integral part of the emerging role on the global stage by the Resnick Center. This role covers the three major activities of the Resnick Center – research and scholarship, teaching, and collaboration – in pursuit of its mission to provide cutting-edge legal research and scholarship in food law and policy to improve the quality of life for humans and the planet. Activities include publishing books and reports on international food law; teaching and presenting on global food law topics at UCLA and globally; and collaborating with international food governance institutions, including a partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. 

The Resnick Center acknowledges the contributions of Melissa Shapiro, a former International Food Law and Policy Fellow for UCLA Law, who helped convert the vision of this project by the Resnick Center directors into a scholarly, inspiring platform for change. Shapiro also authored the first three model strategies, which have set the parameters of future model strategies, and led the development of the StoryMap.

The recommendations in this project do not necessarily represent the views of Seeding the Future or UCLA. 

The  Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy  at the UCLA School of Law is committed to "performing cutting-edge legal research and scholarship in food law and policy to improve health and quality of life for humans and the planet." In keeping with this commitment, and with support from the  Seeding the Future (STF) van Lengerich Foundation , the Resnick Center presents: "Model Strategies in Global Food System Law and Policy," an issue brief series designed to democratize sustainable, equitable, and inclusive systems-thinking approaches to food governance.

Drawing from laws, policies, and research from around the world, the series makes the case for a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize and govern food: Rather than adopt narrowly-defined and siloed laws and policies, public and private policymakers should advance food system laws and policies , i.e., solutions that are holistic, multi-disciplinary, and which account for the diverse set of actors, activities, and feedback loops that comprise the food system.

The Resnick Center invites policymakers and other stakeholders to explore the featured model strategies and accompanying issue briefs to learn how countries around the world are successfully leveraging laws and policies to respond to the most pressing and complex food system challenges.   

Recognizing that there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution, the Resnick Center has defined adaptable "model strategies" that provide a basis for legal or policy responses to hunger, food insecurity, malnutrition, food loss and waste, and other food system challenges. This list is not exhaustive, but offers a sampling of practical and concrete food system law and policy interventions.

Read the issue briefs for a comprehensive analysis of each model strategy and detailed best practices for successful implementation. Keep scrolling to explore highlights and case studies.

No 1. Agricultural insurance to promote resilience and recovery in response to climate change and shocks.

No 2. Front-of-pack nutrition labels to improve consumer health and environmental outcomes.

No 3. Reducing food loss and waste through prevention, diversion, and recovery.

Climate and disaster risk insurance and other finance mechanisms have emerged over the past decade as a potential systems-response to widespread environmental shocks. Governments and private sector actors are increasingly promoting agricultural insurance as a systems-based legal and policy solution that can help stabilize food supply chains following a disaster and prepare producers for future shocks.

Agricultural insurance refers to the reimbursement of an individual or business [engaged in the agricultural sector] for all or part of the financial loss caused by an unpredictable event or risk.” ¹  Upon the occurrence of a disaster, shock, or other covered event, insured parties may file a claim for payment to compensate for the lost crops, livestock, or other agricultural input, which the insurer will provide consistent with the insurance policy.

There are several types of agricultural insurance products (available at either the macro-, meso-, or micro- level), which are commonly distilled into three categories: ² 

1. Indemnity-based insurance is based on actual, measurable losses of the policyholder. This form of insurance includes multi-peril insurance, which addresses yield shortfalls that are difficult to measure or which occurred over time, rather than from a particular triggering event. Indemnity-based insurance may also refer to named-peril insurance, i.e., policies that identify localized hail, frost, and fire as the insured event.
2.  Index-based insurance provides protection based on the projected impact of an observable index rather than an actual incurred loss. ³ 
3. Revenue insurance guarantees the policyholder a certain level of revenue based on past production, is only available in the United State pursuant to the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act (“Farm Bill”). ⁴ 

For several decades, governments in developed countries supplied agricultural insurance to protect farmers from financial ruin caused by extreme and unpredictable weather events, such as hail, hurricanes, and other external risks that could significantly diminish production or even wipe-out the agricultural sector.  ⁵  With these triggering events increasing and intensifying over the past fifty years, the landscape of agricultural insurance has evolved and expanded. ⁶  Since 2004, the volume of global agricultural insurance premiums has increased from US$ 8 billion to US$30 billion, ⁷  with national governments and private insurers offering an extensive range of policies to individual producers, groups, businesses, and municipalities Contributing to this expansion is the emergence of the micro-insurance market, which is rapidly growing in LIC and LMIC. ⁸  Micro-insurance retains the same legal structure as typical agricultural insurance but it is scaled to better serve low-income populations who have restricted access to insurance products but who are more vulnerable to disasters and shocks. Ten years ago, there was an estimated half a billion customers, with 85% of policies delivered in Asia, 10% in  Latin America, and 5% in Africa. ⁹  By 2027, micro-insurance is expected to reach a projected market value of US$111.84 billion. ¹⁰  Governments will need to ensure that the regulatory environment is supportive of innovative, equitable, and inclusive insurance policies, including those that are administered through private actors and public-private partnerships.

To account for power asymmetries that undermine access to financial tools and resources, ¹¹  some countries have designed agricultural insurance policies that explicitly prioritize the most vulnerable populations, including small-scale producers and women. Governments can tailor legislative and policy frameworks to afford private insurance firms, NGOs, and international financial institutions the flexibility to administer and expand micro-insurance to new markets. ¹²  Regulatory mandates can establish quotas for private insurers and ensure that certain segments of the population that face greater risk of environmental shocks are able to access insurance products. 

To support participation of private insurers, governments can help to offset the perceived or actual risk, acting as a reinsurer or offering subsidies to reduce covariant risk (the emergence of multiple claims as a result of a single triggering event). ¹³  Despite concerns about market distortion, ¹⁴  subsidies are permitted under the Agricultural Agreement of the World Trade Organization, ¹⁵  and can incentivize participation from private insurers and future policyholders. Recognizing that most countries do not have the resources to subsidize insurance programs to this extent, governments can seek out public-private partnerships to help cover premiums, especially for micro-insurance systems in LIC and LMIC.

Increasingly, microinsurance is delivered to small-scale rural producers through community-based mutual aid schemes. ¹⁶  Local NGOs and farmer associations help to strengthen the relationships between policyholders, private insurance companies, international reinsurance companies and governments, as studies have found that smallholders are more likely to engage with microinsurance policies if the package is presented by a trusted third-party. ¹⁷  Community-based mutual insurers may have a better sense of how to approach local programmatic coordination, promote understanding and awareness of the available policies, and assess potential risk. Developing supportive regulatory environments will ensure the reach and impact of these local insurance associations.

Recent global discussions climate change, the ongoing pandemic, and development goals present an opportunity for governments to recommit to these targets and reignite investments in agricultural insurance solutions. ¹⁸  But governments are not alone in this endeavor. International financial institutions, regional development banks,  and non-governmental organizations that are not limited by jurisdictional reach or public finance restrictions can help governments establish micro-insurance policies and coordinate the design and delivery with public and private food system actors.  The World Food Program and the World Bank, for example, have played an essential role in expanding micro-insurance to LIC and LMIC. ¹⁹ 

1. Adopt index-based insurance to reduce moral hazard and administrative costs.

Index-based insurance helps to eliminate some of the challenges associated with indemnity insurance, including high administrative costs, as index-based insurance payouts  do not require  the assessment of individual claims on a case-by-case basis. Since policyholders cannot influence the publicly-observable index on which the insurance is based, the risk of moral hazard is lower, and there is greater transparency for both the insurers and the insured.

2. Lower basis risk through new investments in data collection and technology.

Inherent in any index-based insurance policy is some level of uncertainty or inaccuracy, which is difficult to eliminate altogether. Relying on indices to speculate actual loss instead of assessing each claim creates what is referred to as “basis risk”—the deviation of loss at the individual producer level from the regional average. Thoughtful policy design in conjunction with technology and scientific innovation, however, can  mitigate basis risk . Selecting indices that are within a close physical proximity to policyholders, for example, can help improve accuracy of payouts.

3. Sustain low premiums through group contracts and bundled services.

To help promote uptake and improve cost effectiveness of micro-insurance, micro-finance institutions, NGOs, cooperatives, and other delivery channels can  bundle insurance  with other financial tools and agricultural technology, such as drought-resistant seeds. Contracts can condition payouts on the adoption of resilient practices and provide for technical assistance to help policyholders implement these changes. Grouping policyholders under a single contract can also incentivize smallholders to share knowledge and resources, reduce transaction costs, and increase inclusion of women.

1. Expand access to tools to and services for improved livelihoods and resilience.

Agricultural insurance has the potential to  positively impact  the food security of policyholders and can further raise awareness about risks and vulnerabilities facing these individuals. It is likely to have the greatest social impact if it is part of a larger portfolio of policies and programs that are designed to build rural resilience, e.g., business literacy and training, internet access, and grants for research and agricultural extension services. These supports can help policyholders avoid negative coping strategies and increase risk-retention and management capacity.

2. Prioritize insurance policies and social protections for women.

While there are  16.7 million women  who work in the agricultural sector and who contribute to nearly half of global food production, women are disproportionately burdened by environmental shocks and disasters as they tend to have less access to land and other assets that enable resilience. Policymakers should create a space for participatory and inclusive consultations with women engaged in the agricultural sector, design and administer insurance products that are gender-inclusive and available to women, regardless of land-ownership status, and adopt complementary policies to support decent employment and empowerment.

3. Monitor health and food safety risks arising from climate change and environmental shocks.

Fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, and other biophysical and environmental drivers create demand for insurance, but also  contribute to  the rise of food-borne pathogens, parasites, and pests that are resistant to agrochemicals. Insurance can help to safeguard food from these potential health risks: first, insurance stabilizes the agricultural sector for additional investment in quality control and assurance systems, food safety and traceability technology, etc.; second, insurance provides a financial safety net that allows producers to experiment with new nature-positive production methods.

1. Integrate insurance into greater climate adaptation and resilience-enhancing strategies. Pilot programs and country-specific case studies are revealing that insurance is most effective when it is integrated as part of a greater climate adaptation plan. Developing agricultural insurance as part of a larger framework allows space for other systems-based resilience strategies, including investments in hazard-resistant technology, such as irrigation systems and pest-resistant seed varieties, and other programs that will help rural producers to diversify income sources, including through off-farm employment.

2. Boost research, investment, and regulation for agro-ecology and nature-positive production.

Preparing for disruptions means encouraging " nature-positive " production practices that are regenerative, non-depleting, and responsive to multiple-risks. This includes agro-ecology, which prioritizes ecological processes to boost resilience to shocks and stresses, facilitate adaptation, and promote more stable and flexible production. Government support and funding for research and innovation in  agro-ecology  and other nature positive production practices can help resolve questions about the potential benefits, encourage producers to make appropriate changes, and justify legal and administrative reform.

3. Implement biodiversity, ecosystem-health, and animal welfare standards.

Countries to leverage agricultural insurance as a means to promote  greater genetic diversity  in agriculture, which is critical for sustainable land use, pollination, nutrient retention and disease control. Governments or private insurers can condition insurance on conservation compliance or biodiversity requirements, develop good farming practices and provide additional incentives for farmers who diversify production and seek whole farm coverage. Insurers can also deliver technical assistance and training for new policyholders that are diversifying production.

[1]  Jim Roth & Michael J. McCord, Agricultural Microinsurance: Global Practices and Prospects (2008) .

[2]  Oliver Mahul & Charles J. Stutley, The World Bank, Government Support to Agricultural Insurance: Challenges and Options for Developing Countries (2010) .

[3]  The World Bank Group, Innovative and Inclusive Social Enterprise Models: Index-based Agricultural Microinsurance (2017) .

[4] See  7 U.S.C. § 1508  [United States]; See also  Crop Insurance Program Provisions Title XI, USDA Econ. Res. Serv.  (last updated Sept. 27, 2021).

[5]  Thérèse Sandmark, Jean-Christophe Debar & Clémence Tatin-Jaleran, The Emergence and Development of Agriculture Microinsurance: A Discussion Paper 10 (2013) .

[6] See  Celia Reyes et al., Agricultural Insurance Program: Lessons from Different Country Experiences, PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2017-02, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) (Quezon City, 2017) .

[7]  Oliver Mahul & Charles J. Stutley, The World Bank, Government Support to Agricultural Insurance: Challenges and Options for Developing Countries 6 (2010) ;  Shalika Vyas et al., Mapping global research on agricultural insurance, Environ. Res. Letters (Oct. 2021) at 1 .

 [8]   Univ. of Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership, Insurance Regulation for Sustainable Development: Protecting Human Rights Against Climate Risk and Natural Hazards 19 (2015) .

[9]  ILO, Microinsurance Network, Munich Re, Protecting the Poor: A Microinsurance Compendium Vol. II, 12, 36 (Churchill and McCord, eds., 2012) .

[10]  Microinsurance Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2022-2027 IMARC Group  (last visited Apr. 26, 2022).

[11] See Gracelin Baskaran and Barry Maher,  Agricultural Insurance: The Antidote to Many Economic Illnesses , Brookings Inst. (May 26, 2021).

[12] Id.

[13] Thérèse Sandmark, Jean-Christophe Debar & Clémence Tatin-Jaleran,  The Emergence and Development of Agriculture Microinsurance: A Discussion Paper  63 (2013)

[14] Anton Kostadinov,   Subsidies – food security or market distortion 4 Univ. of National and World Economy (2013).

[15]  Agriculture: Explanation, World Trade Organization  (last visited Nov. 14, 2021).

[16] Univ. of Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership, I nsurance Regulation for Sustainable Development: Protecting Human Rights Against Climate Risk and Natural Hazards  24 (2015).

[17]  Jim Roth & Michael J. McCord, Agricultural Microinsurance: Global Practices and Prospects  40 (2008).

[18] See  G7 Cornwall UK 2021, Eur. Invest. Bank , (June 14, 2021).

[19] See WFP,  R4 Rural Resilience Initiative 2020 Annual Report  (2021), ;  Agriculture Finance & Agriculture Insurance , The World Bank (Oct. 8, 2020).

*For all cited sources, please see issue brief.

Rising rates of obesity, malnutrition and non-communicable diseases around the world reflect the increased availability of and access to nutritionally-deficient foods. Countries are exploring front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labels as a systems-wide communication tool that may help to slow and eventually reverse this "nutrition transition." Not only can FOP labels help consumers make healthier purchasing decisions, but they can also encourage reformualtion and inspire innovative procurement and retail practices.

Front-of-package (FOP) labels refer to a broad category of text- or symbol-based rating systems that summarize key nutritional aspects and characteristics of the food product, and which are featured on package fronts. The World Health Organization (WHO) has endorsed FOP labels as a “form of supplementary nutrition information which serves as an important policy implementation tool to promote healthy diets through facilitating  the consumers’ understanding of the nutritional values of the food and making healthier food choices and drive reformulation by the food industry.” ¹    

FOP labels may be mandatory, i.e., required by law or regulation, or voluntary, i.e., privately administered and/or encouraged by government. FOP labels may use text or symbols to refer to specific nutrients, e.g., fats, saturated fats, sodium, sugar/added sugar, calories/energy value; some labels rely on certain nutrient thresholds that are pre-determined by industry or adhere to national guidelines; and some labels simply generalize information through text, symbols, colors, or images.

Reductive FOP labels, also called “informative” labels highlight select nutrition information featured elsewhere (but less prominently) on the package. Food industry actors have historically favored reductive FOP nutrition labels, as they reduce complex nutrient information without making an evaluative judgement about the product’s healthfulness. Examples include:  “Facts Up Front” or Daily Value labels in the United States, Daily Intake Guidelines (DIG) in Australia and New Zealand, and Reference Intake labels in the United Kingdom.

Interpretive FOP labels not only distill complex nutrition information but offer an evaluative judgement as to whether the food is “healthy” according to pre-determined criteria. The typology of “interpretive labels” may be further reduced to (1) nutrient-specific labels and (2) summary labels. ² 

1. Nutrient-specific labels evaluate the level of individual nutrients in a particular food product. Examples include Traffic Light Labels used in  Ecuador  and the  United Kingdom , or “nutrient content claims” (e.g.“low in sodium”).
2. Summary indicator labels assess the overall healthfulness of a product. Examples include the  Health Star Rating System  used in Australia and New Zealand, the “ Nutri-Score ” rating system used in various EU countries.

Globally, there are at least 32 government-endorsed FOP labeling systems, varying both in legal status (voluntary vs. mandatory) and in form. ³  The proliferation of FOP labels demonstrates that governments and private businesses alike are leaning into FOP labeling interventions as a consumer communication tool—driving a noticeable shift from “reductive” labels to “interpretative labels” and pursuing some similarities within regions.

The global diversity and multitude of FOP nutrition labels currently in effect, however, has created a fragmented policy landscape that makes it more difficult for governments, industry actors, and consumers to respectively implement, adhere to, and understand labels. This fragmentation also makes it difficult for researchers to accurately assess the extent to which FOP labels actually nudge consumers towards healthier choices. ⁴  Momentum is therefore building for national governments to actively advance coherent and consistent FOP labeling policies.  

Mounting evidence suggests that multiple labels in a single jurisdiction fuels consumer confusion and decreases the effectiveness of each label. ⁵  National legal frameworks that are negotiated through participatory processes present the most effective vehicles to impose a uniform FOP nutrition label that advances policy goals. Support for a mandatory label has been expressed by the World Health Organization and by Codex Alimentarius; these entities also recognize that government-led development is more credible among consumers and more likely to be adopted by industry actors. ⁶ 

An expanding body of evidence suggests that color-coded interpretive FOP nutrition labels are more likely to convey an accurate impression of product healthfulness and ultimately empower consumers to purchase more nutritious food options. ⁷  The research is less conclusive with respect to the type of interpretive label that is most effective for communicating with consumers. Nutrient-specific labels, such as the  Multiple Traffic Light system adopted in the UK , are considered less likely to oversimplify the healthfulness of food thereby misleading consumers; alternatively, summary indicators, such as Nutri-Score, and Health Star, may better enable consumers to identify healthier options. ⁸  Conversely, warning labels are most effective at alerting consumers to, and discouraging the purchase of, unhealthy food products. ⁹ 

Endorsing FOP labels that feature an evaluative judgement of nutritional quality, warning labels, or other categorization requires an initial decision as to how food products will be sorted under the labeling system. Developing a clear nutrient profile—i.e., the classification or ranking of foods according to their nutritional composition—is an intensive process that involves both consideration of the latest nutrition science, existing nutrition limits or disclosure requirements, and testing among consumers. ¹⁰  Governments can rely on evidence-based thresholds that have been internationally-endorsed (by WHO, for example), ¹¹  and national dietary guidelines that inform other public policies--provided such guidelines are developed through an independent scientific review process and reflect the latest developments in nutrition science.

Monitoring and evaluating the impact of FOP nutrition labels post implementation is necessary to allow for improvement of the system. Specifically, governments should be prepared to monitor, inter alia (1) industry uptake and compliance with the labeling system; (2) consumer understanding and awareness of labels; (3) effects of the FOP labeling system on consumer purchases; (4) effects of the FOP labeling system on product reformulation; and (5) the effects of the FOP labeling system on dietary trends. ¹²  Private research institutions and industry groups can help governments to collect relevant information through self-reporting, surveys, retail data, and modeling.

1. Identify cost-saving opportunities and benefit for supportive businesses. Actively engaging with governments to endorse a FOP nutrition labelling system is ultimately a  smart investment and a cost-saving activity  for food industry actors. Businesses may cite to costs associated with adopting the FOP label, ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations, and the time and expense of conducting research and development once FOP labels take effect. Yet these are initial and one-time costs that will ultimately be diluted through phased-implementation (governments can permit businesses to slowly transition to an endorsed and mandatory FOP nutrition label). Many businesses  already account for these costs  as part of domestic marketing and trade requirements.

2. Account for FOP label impact on price and adopt interventions that  promote greater health equity.

Consumers may assign a  monetary value  to clear messaging about a product’s healthfulness, and demonsrate a willingness to pay more for products featuring a FOP labels. Certain FOP labels have been found to engender a  price premium , thereby making healthier food options less accessible to lower-income consumers. Governments may consider adopting alternative  FOP label designs  that do not carry this premium. Alternatively, governments can consider supplementing FOP labeling systems with cross-cutting interventions that will help to make healthier food options more affordable and available to those facing greater risk of NCDs. This may include offering incentives or imposing requirements for retailers as part of an FOP labeling policy. 

3. Incentivize product reformulation as a top policy goal.   FOP labels are an effective vehicle for incentivizing  product reformulation , which is one of the most cost-effective measures for improving population health and preventing NCDs. If FOP nutrition labels are effectively implemented, manufacturers may reformulate products to achieve higher rating or to avoid a negative-leaning label. Studies confirm that reformulation is more likely if FOP labels are mandatory and governments are  progressively lowering thresholds  of problematic nutrients within the labeling profile—as has been done in Chile, Israel, and Peru.

1. Develop education and awareness campaigns to promote FOP label and nutrition literacy.

Time pressure, income, gender, household size and composition, and geographic location may all impact whether a  consumer actually considers  the FOP nutrition label at the point of purchase. Even among the most nutritionally-aware and educated consumers,  low nutrition literacy  may prevent consumers from purchasing healthier products.There is an apparent need for additional education and awareness campaigns surrounding endorsed FOP nutrition labels, as well as on the nutritional principles and guidance on which the label is based.

2. Dedicate additional research and resources to expand FOP nutrition labels in the Global South.

Despite the expansion of FOP nutrition labeling systems, globally, there are still several regions in the world that have yet to develop labeling interventions.  Only 13% of African countries  have adopted food labeling regulations, and Iran, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates are the  only countries in the Middle East  with some form of FOP nutrition label. The lack of FOP nutrition labeling systems in the  Global South  is mirrored by a dearth of relevant studies and research available from these regions—and which make it more difficult for policymakers to discern how consumers across different demographics and in different contexts respond to various labels.

3. Adopt comprehensive food and nutrition security policies featuring FOP labels among other upstream legal interventions.

Achieving a healthier food system that advances economic goals of industry actors, policy goals of government, and empowers consumers requires more holistic approach to nutrition. Resources are readily available to support this approach. For example, the Committee on World Food Security has recently published  Voluntary Guidelines on Food and Nutrition Security  that are designed to help countries develop targeted interventions that promote healthy food environments. Such interventions may include those that focus on downstream behaviors of consumers and retailers, as well as upstream legal interventions, such as taxes and subsidies, that are cost-effective solutions to NCDs.

1. Adopt a FOP label to communicate environmental impacts of food choices.

It is estimated that  one-third of our environmental footprint  is related to harmful food production, prompting experts to call for more sustainable diets. Existing environmental labels are failing to effectively drive this dietary shift; most labels are subject to third-party verification or self-certification—referred to as “ eco-labels .” Increasingly, countries are considering government-regulated environmental disclosures, similar to FOP nutrition labels, that would identify foods that are not only nutritionally beneficial, but which promote more  sustainable and positive interactions  with the natural environment.

2. Broaden the scope of FOP nutrition labels to promote healthier and more sustainable diets.

An alternative approach to developing a distinct environmental label is to endorse an FOP nutrition labeling intervention that encompasses a broader conceptualization of “healthfulness”—specifically, one that takes into account both nutritional composition and environmental impacts. Existing dietary guidelines, and other recommendations that inform nutrition labels do not necessarily account for agroechemical useage, resource depletion or other environmental degradation associated with food production. Governments should therefore consider a more expansive nutrient profile model—a “ sustainable food profiling model ,” (SFPM), for example, is  the scientific basis for labeling foods according to both environmental impact and nutritional composition. To date, there is no nationally or internationally agreed-upon  SFPM, but several food system actors are  building and testing  models.

[1]  HLPE, Nutrition and Food Systems: A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, Report No. 12 (2017)  at 98.

[2] See  Univ. of North Carolina, Global Food Research Program, Countries with Mandatory or Voluntary Interpretive Labels on Packaged Foods (2022) .

[3]  WHO, Guiding Principles and Framework Manual for Front-of-Package Labelling for Promoting Healthy Diets (2019) .

[4]  Iina Ikonen et al., Consumer Effects of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling: An Interdisciplinary Meta-Analysis 48 J. of Academy of Marketing Sciences 360 (2021) .

[5]  J. Craig Andrews, Scot Burton & Jeremy Kees, Is simpler always better? Consumer evaluations of front-of-package nutrition symbols, 30 J. of Pub. Pol’y & Marketing 175 (2011) .

[6]  Alexandra Jones et al., Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling to Promote Healthier Diets: Current Practice and Opportunities to Strengthen Regulation Worldwide 4 BMJ Global Health 10 (2019) ;  Codex Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CXG 2-1985 (Rev. 2021) .

[7]  James C. Hersey et al., Effects of Front-of-Package and Shelf Nutrition Labeling Systems on Consumers 71 Nutr Rev.1 (2013);  Kristy L. Hawley et al.,  The Science on Front-of-Package Food Labels  16 Public Health Nutr. 430 (2013).

[8]  Iina Ikonen et al., Consumer Effects of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labeling: An Interdisciplinary Meta-Analysis 48 J. of Academy of Marketing Sciences 360 (2021) .

[9]  Jing Song et al., Impacts of Color-Coded and Warning Nutrition Labeling Schemes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis, Plos Medicine (2021).  

[10]  WHO, Manual to Develop and Implement Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling: Guidance for Countries on the Selection of Testing and Evidence-Informed Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling Systems in the WHO European Region (2020). 

[11] See  WHO, Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases (2003) ;  WHO, Guideline: sodium intake for adults and children (2012) ;  WHO, Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children (Geneva, 2015) .

[12]  WHO, Manual to Develop and Implement Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling: Guidance for Countries on the Selection of Testing and Evidence-Informed Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling Systems in the WHO European Region (2020). 

*For all cited sources, please see issue brief.

Global attention to FLW have exponentially increased in recent years, largely due to the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, which calls for countries to “halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses” by 2030. ¹  Public and private sector actors alike recognize that reducing FLW will promote a more circular economy, one that is associated with greater economic, social, and environmental outcomes for all food system actors.

Food loss and waste (FLW) commonly refers to food that is produced for human consumption (excluding animal feed and inedible products), but which does not fulfil this intended purpose. FLW may occur due to supply chain disruptions, inadequate storage or cold-chain infrastructure, market demands, consumer behavior, or other external drivers. It encompasses both food that is “lost” along the supply chain, and food that is “wasted.” ² 

• Food loss refers to food that is produced for human consumption, but which does to advance beyond the production, post-harvest, or processing stages of the supply chain. Losses may result from: mechanical failures, spillage, sorting, or other harvest/breeding/ fishing practices; from handling, storage, packaging and transportation between the points of production and distribution; and from spillage or degradation while the food is treated or prepared for distribution and retail.

• Food waste refers to “food loss” that occurs in the final stages of the food chain (e.g., distribution, retail, and consumption). Waste may be derived from: movement through the market system (involving wholesale markets, supermarkets, retailers, and wet markets); surplus or unmarketable food that does not reach a final consumer (due to fluctuations in pricing, sales practices, consumer demand, or to faulty packaging, late deliveries, etc.); and discarded food in restaurants, retail spaces, and households.

Over the past decade, governments have launched a plethora of initiatives to prevent and recover FLW along specific points of the food supply chain. The most successful interventions are those that adopt a Target-Measure-Act” approach, i.e., policymakers set a reduction target that will increase attention to and awareness of FLW as an urgent priority (“target”); policymakers measure and analyze FLW at the specific point of the supply chain to identify opportunities for interventions and monitor success of those interventions (“measure”); and policymakers instruct various food system actors to take actions that will reduce FLW, including adopting new technologies, practices, and behavioral changes (“act”). ³ 

Recognizing that FLW occurs in a complex policy environment (informed by food safety laws; date labeling, quality and packaging standards; tax incentives; agricultural subsidies; and trade regulations, among other laws and policies), countries are starting to take a more holistic approach to FLW. Increasingly, this approach culminates in a "national strategy," or a suite of voluntary plans, programs, and partnerships designed to prevent and reduce FLW. ⁴  Evidence suggests that national strategies can effectively encourage FLW reduction and provide a basis for coordinated and comprehensive action. ⁵  However, these strategies are not legally-binding by nature and are not uniformly adopted across regions.

As countries continue to advance legal and policy responses to FLW,  pursuing a systems-based approach will help government policymakers scale-up successful FLW responses and identify new opportunities for investment, innovation, and partnerships with private actors.

A national FLW law offers a legal vehicle for implementing national strategies, policies, and other public-private partnerships designed to achieve national FLW targets. Compared to a national strategy, which may lack enforceable or mandatory targets, ⁶  a national FLW law provides a basis for equitable participation among all food system actors and can help to harmonize existing and future laws and policies that impact FLW. FLW is a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary issue, implicating food safety authorities, tax agencies, and other government ministries that regulate food and agriculture. A national FLW law can reconcile these various sources of authority to avoid policy fragementation, legal uncertainty, and duplicative or contradictory policy appraoches.

One of the leading causes of food waste at the retail and consumer level is misunderstanding and confusion about date labels affixed to packages. ⁷  Most consumers presume that all dates refer to safety, while manufacturers often use dates to indicate peak quality or marketability. ⁸  To address this confusion, many international organizations, national governments and industry actors, such as the Consumer Goods Forum, have endorsed a “dual-date labeling system.” ⁹  This system restricts the use of safety-based labels (expressed as "use-by" and "expiration date") to foods that are highly perishable from a microbiological perspective. ¹⁰  For all other foods, manufacturers have the option of featuring a quality-based label (expressed as “best before date” or “best quality before date”). This quality-based date indicates the last date on which a product is marketable, provided stated storage conditions are met; food products remain fully acceptable for human consumption after this date. ¹¹ 

In high-density urban centers and countries with extensive transportation infrastructure, encouraging food donations as an alternative to discarding safe, surplus food is an effective waste-reduction strategy. ¹²  Food safety risks associated with donated food are minimal (as are allegations of harm); however, businesses recognize that donated food changes hands several times before it is consumed, and express concern about facing civil or criminal liability if an end consumer ultimately becomes ill from donated food. Governments can offer liability protections as a regulatory solution to this concern. ¹³  Liability protections are not absolute, but extend a presumption of legality for food donors and intermediary organizations that demonstrate compliance with food safety regulations and other relevant laws. Such protections may assuage concerns of potential donors and ultimately increase food donations.

Some governments are setting aside substantial funds to support the adoption of sustainable production practices and to inspire downstream supply chain actors to recover and redistribute food to alternative destinations. ¹⁴  Countries also offer direct tax benefits to incentivize food recovery and redistribution, often for human consumption. ¹⁵  Policymakers should ensure that these and other financial incentives provide a measurable competitive advantage in favor of food recovery and redistribution; the benefit should be inclusive of all food system actors and all associated costs associated with the FLW reduction measure.

1. Increase private investments in the circular economy of food.

Most food is currently produced through a linear model—one that relies on the intensive withdrawal of natural resources and heavily relies on agro-chemicals to increase yields. Over time, these practices cause resource depletion, soil erosion, and land degradation—all of which undermines long-term agricultural productivity and costs over  US$1 trillion  annually. Promoting a circular economy to food will enable businesses to eliminate externalized costs of FLW and save up to  US$365 billion  by 2030 in the process. FLW reduction can also generate economic benefits through new and innovative investment opportunities, including those focused on alternative uses of FLW and byproducts.

2. Close the FLW “data deficit” to identify the most effective prevention, mitigation, and recovery measures.      

An assessment of cost-benefit data from 1,200 business sites across 700 companies in 17 countries found a return of at least  US$14 for every US$1  invested in FLW prevention measures. Where to direct these initial investments, however, requires additional information about how food is lost and wasted, and whether existing interventions are proving successful. In most countries, this data is readily available retail and service provider stages, but it becomes increasingly sparse and less reliable moving up the supply chain. Multi-stakeholder initiatives, like the  Food Loss and Waste Protocol , are helping to highlight and close the information gaps that exist within and between countries. But there is a need for greater attention to this "data deficit."

3. Promote more flexible retail standards and innovative contracts with supply chain actors.

Certain cosmetic standards imposed by private retailers often contribute to the rejection of perfectly safe, if not blemish-free, produce. In many countries,  social enterprises  are challenging this wasteful practice and creating successful secondary markets for "ugly fruit" that fails cosmetic standards, but which is still safe to consume. Noting that the European Commission  eliminated marketing standards  for more than two dozen types of produce,  some governments  are prohibiting overly-stringent retail standards. Flexible, rather than fixed, contracts between producers, suppliers, and retailers can also help to avoid accumulation of FLW along the supply chain. For example, some retailers are promoting “ whole crop/farm purchase ” contracts (an agreement to purchase the entire yield at a reduced price) and those with stipulations for the return or resale of surplus food products.

1. Expand integrated approaches to post-harvest food loss management.

Smallscale farmers may lose  up to 40%  of their own production due to inadequate storage solutions, limited capacity, and restricted market access. Such post-harvest losses (PHL) undermine earning potential and perpetuate food insecurity. In sub-Saharan Africa, (where PHL of grains alone are estimated at  US$4 billion ), countries have signed onto the  Malabo Declaration  (2014), which sets PHL reduction targets by 2025, and the  Continental Post-Harvest Loss Management Strategy  (2018), which encourages AU member States to adopt national strategies on FLW to reach these targets. In  South Asia , the FAO has collected case studies evaluating efforts to reduce PHL in fruit and vegetable supply chains, providing a knowledge base for future policy action. Government policymakers and private sector actors can help to build on these efforts and enhance policy support for PHL reduction.

2. Encourage food system actors to donate safe, surplus food to those who face hunger and food insecurity.

Certain FLW prevention measures are designed to provide immediate relief to undernourished populations, including food donation requirements, and other incentives to support organizations that recover and redistribute food to vulnerable populations. A handful of countries, including  France ,  Italy,  and  Spain , have implemented these measures on a national scale through laws that require or encourage certain food system actors to donate all safe, surplus food. Locally-focused policy solutions, including those focused on procurement and school meals, can also effectively strengthen the relationship between FLW-prevention and hunger-mitigation.

3. Launch awareness and education campaigns to change behaviors of consumers and other downstream actors.

National and local education and awareness campaigns can help improve recognition of FLW, the associated costs, and its root causes. Global platforms have already set the stage for such initiatives: The UN General Assembly designated the first annual  International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste  on September 29, 2020; a year later, at the 2021 Food System Summit,  game changing propositions  related to FLW garnered significant support among multi-lateral institutions and national policy makers—global NGOs, and other private sector actors, actively supported interventions to deliver more circular food systems, build national public-private partnerships, and mobilize other actions to reduce FLW along the supply chain.

1. Divert food from landfills using recycling laws, waste bans, disposal taxes, service fees, and compost programs.

Landfills are considered to be one the  lowest value destinations  for food, as sending food to these disposal sites also means wasting the natural resources used to produce, process, and distribute the food. Waste diversion solutions can take  several forms , and are often paired with a financial deterrent, which converts the environmental costs of FLW into economic costs or penalties that are ultimately paid by waste generators. For example, some countries have explored  local bans on food waste  which carry penalties for non-compliance; other countries, including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Norway, Poland and Slovenia, have introduced  disposal taxes  on organic waste (some explicitly reference food waste). Countries may also adopt food " recycling " and compost laws to facilitate partnerships between waste generators and recovery organizations.

2. Support local procurement and regenerative agricultural practices for more sustainable production and consumption.

Policies that shorten food supply chains will reduce the number FLW “hot spots” and thus, reduce the environmental footprint associated with food products. Urban agricultural zoning laws and local food procurement policies in cities and schools, for example, can promote greater access to nutritious foods and help to advance a  circular economy . Countries are also exploring  regenerative agriculture  as a vehicle for returning food outputs and byproducts as valuable inputs for agri-food production or other sectors. Experts estimate that initial costs of adopting regenerative are US$78-$116 billion, in exchange for US$135-206 billion in net profit gains, 22 gigatons of sequestered carbon dioxide, and US$2.4-3.5 trillion in operational savings.

3. Include FLW reduction targets as part of climate change response strategies and GHG reduction commitments.

FLW reduction is critical to achieving climate change commitments made by national governments, pursuant to the  Paris Agreement , as  8% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions  from agriculture are generated by FLW.  Models project  that halving FLW by 2050 will reduce GHG emissions by 1.5 gigatons/year. However,  most countries  have not explicitly included FLW reduction targets in their nationally determined contributions (NCD) under the Agreement. Identifying FLW “hot spots” along the supply chain may help policymakers to select the most effective interventions, and there are currently  several tools  available to help food system actors calculate and communicate the GHG emissions associated with FLW.

[1] United Nations General Assembly,  Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , Goal 12.3, A/RES/70/1 at 2 (2015).

[2] See FAO,  Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent, Causes, and Prevention 4 (Rome 2011).

[3] Katie Flanagan, Kai Robertson, & Craig Hanson, World Resources Institute,  Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting the Global Agenda  3 (2019).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] See e.g., US EPA,  Federal Interagency Food Loss and Waste Collaboration  (last updated May 29, 2020) (setting out an inter-governmental approach to FLW without specific regulatory action or enforceable requirements).

[6] HLPE,  Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems  47-48 (2014).

[7] Id.

[8] Companies Commit to Simplify Food Date Labels Worldwide by 2020, Reducing Food Waste,  Consumer Goods Forum  (Sept. 20, 2017).

[9]  Codex Alimentarius,  General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods CXS-1985 (Revised 2018).

[10] Id.  

[11] Katie Flanagan, Kai Robertson, & Craig Hanson, Word Resources Institute  Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Setting the Global Agenda  (2019); Craig Hanson et al., World Resources Institute,  Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Ten Interventions to Scale Impact  20 (2019).

[12] See Public Health Law Center,   Liability Protection for Food Donation  (2013); Zero Waste Europe,  France’s Law for Fighting Food Waste: Food Waste Prevention Legislation  (2020).

[13] See  2.8 million euros for a faster realisation of healthy and sustainable food systems in the Netherlands  NWO (Nov. 2, 2020); Liv Lemos,  Top 3 Reasons why Denmark became a champion in food waste reduction,  Winnow (Apr. 7, 2017).

[14] See e.g.,  KPMG, A National Food Waste Tax Incentive: Boosting Food Relief Through Australia’s Tax System  (2020).

*For all cited sources, please see issue brief.

This project is ongoing and iterative. Global policymakers, academics, and other experts are invited to offer insights and contributions to the issue brief series and Story Map. To help identify model strategies, author issue briefs, identify case studies, field notes, and innovation spotlights, please contact the Resnick Center at UCLA School of Law.