C Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Simon Moutquin, rapporteur
1 Introduction
and working methods
1. On 10 October 2022, the Committee
on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development received two
motions for resolutions entitled “Healthy and sustainable food”
and the “Consequences of the aggression of the Russian Federation
against Ukraine of Russia on world food security”, which the Bureau
of the Assembly wished the committee to deal with in a single report
entitled “Ensuring a healthy, sustainable and secure food supply”.
Note I was appointed rapporteur by the
committee on 2 December 2022.
2. At its meeting on 19 September 2023, the committee considered
an introductory memorandum and changed the title of the report to:
“Ensuring safe, healthy and sustainable food for all”. The implementation
of the work programme presented to the committee was subsequently
readjusted given the committee’s workload and in the light of swift
developments in geopolitical events linked to the impact of the
Russian Federation’s war of aggression against Ukraine on the agricultural
context in Europe. My plans to visit Ukraine were also subject to
some uncertainty given security measures surrounding official travel.
I have therefore re-oriented my workplan and activities regarding
the preparation of this report.
3. To provide input to enrich the explanatory memorandum, I have
focused on exchanges of views with recognised experts from academia
and research institutions. Ms Magali Ramel, a Doctor of Public Law
and Moderator of the
Conseil national
de l'alimentation consultation group on “Preventing and
combating food precarity”, Paris (France), spoke about the challenges
of a human rights-based approach and the concrete political ideas
that can be drawn from this to better protect the right to healthy
food. Ms Pauline Scherer, Sociologist, Research & Experimentation
Centre, Montpellier (France), presented her experience and views
on various aspects of food democracy (measures to combat food precarity,
reconsideration of the current production model and the systemic
issues of redistribution). Mr Timothée Parrique, research economist
at the Faculty of Economics and Management of the University of
Lund (Sweden), shared his macro-economic thoughts on the possibilities
for changing the dogma of growth in the food sector. The Network
of Contact Parliamentarians for a Healthy Environment hearing
Note with these experts on 4 June 2024
gave me a chance to explore several key points of the introductory
memorandum from angles that raise numerous cross-cutting questions
about food systems.
Note
4. In terms of working methods, I encouraged the committee to
be a pioneer by involving a group of young people from a working-class
neighbourhood at every stage of the report-writing process. This
was the first time the Assembly had opted for such an arrangement,
which is, furthermore, in line with Resolution 2553 (2024) “Strengthening
a youth perspective in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly”.
On 26 March 2024, members of the Network of Contact Parliamentarians
for a Healthy Environment travelled to Bagnolet on the outskirts
of Paris to meet with the Young Ambassadors for Food Resilience.
This is an educational project run by the association MakeSense,
with Banlieues Climat and Unis-Cité, and which offers young people
performing civic service opportunities to speak out and take action
to help the ecology. The Young Ambassadors then attended the Network
meeting on 4 June 2024 to familiarise themselves with its work and
meet the General Rapporteur of the Assembly on child participation,
Elena Bonetti (Italy, ALDE), before taking part in an awareness-raising activity
on food waste with some members of the Network. Finally, they came
to Strasbourg on 25 June 2024 for a hearing before the committee,
where they shared their experiences and made proposals on several issues,
in response to statements from experts: precarity (problems and
obstacles), values (deconstruction and opportunities), and consumption
(solutions and participation).
5. All these hearings confirmed my initial intention, which was
to start with the basics. The experiences and proposals made by
the Young Ambassadors resonated with my own conviction that in today’s
western world marked by abundance, any endeavour to ensure healthy,
adequate and sustainable food for all requires us first to understand
the social, cultural and political causes of the barriers to access,
and to refrain from reducing it to a question of balance between
volume of food and population, or between production and ecosystems.
Note
6. When the Council of Europe was still in its infancy, it initiated
activities making the connection between human rights and food.
Once considered a low priority at European level, the human rights-based
approach is now making a strong comeback across the continent, thanks
in particular to developments in the international right to food.
By putting people at the centre of the debate, this approach flips
the way we view the challenges associated with food systems, from
a “field to fork” to a “fork to field” perspective. In effect, a
holistic, human rights-based approach can correct inequalities and
ensure sustainable practices at all stages of the food chain: production,
transport, processing, distribution and consumption. It is the condition
for a just transition that benefits all citizens and operators and
combines social justice and ecological concerns.
Note Consequently
I propose that the title of the report be changed, to focus on “Ensuring
the human right to food”.
7. The human rights framework aligns food with the core values
of the Council of Europe and is a key lever that it is up to our
Organisation, and other international organisations, to (re)activate
in order to ensure the right to food for all. I propose to initiate
this development now in order to guide Council of Europe member
States down the path to a just transition to sustainable and inclusive
food systems and so obviate the need for them to deploy heavy-handed
policies and radical measures later on, in response to social, ecological
and economic or even humanitarian emergencies.
2 The human right to food, a reality
in international law
2.1 Introductory remarks: food, a subject
of law?
8. The link between food and law
is not self-evident. Food is about that simplest, most natural of
acts, feeding, and is, at the same time, an example of what sociologists
term a “total social fact”, that is to say, a phenomenon so complex
that it has implications throughout society and its institutions.
Note As
everyone can see, however, law is inextricably linked to social
rules, in the sense of necessary behaviours imposed by collective life
on members of society that make it possible for people to live side
by side, and has the distinctive feature of “being able to appropriate
any other social rule”.
Note In the case of
food, identifying the legal parameters has the advantage, then,
of going beyond traditional issues related to the physiological
needs of the human body and the limits of ecosystems to discover
the social rules at play and broaden the debate to include the political and
cultural factors that influence food. As for elevating the right
to food to the rank of a fundamental right, this makes it possible
to understand it from an ethical perspective – and not solely in
terms of individual choices or handouts – that can legitimately
be prioritised over other, competing issues. As E. Lambert rightly
points out, such an approach allows us to take the responsibilities
of States and non-State actors seriously when the values embedded
in the right to healthy and sustainable food are not respected.
Note
9. That being said, in the case of food, my work and the hearings
conducted have shown that delineating its legal contours is a complex
exercise. The right to food, as a human right, certainly has an
individual dimension but it can also be claimed for future generations.
With it comes not only a responsibility on the part of the State
to realise it at national level, but also a collective responsibility
on the part of States internationally. It is generally referred
to as an economic, social and cultural right in connection with
decent living standards, health protection or consumer protection.
But it ties into civil and political rights, too, when construed
in terms of the right to life, protection of dignity or equality
in the conditions of access to food. It also dovetails with “third generation”
human rights in areas such as development, combating poverty or
the environment. In addition, the legal protection afforded varies
greatly, moreover, depending on what is at issue: while food safety
and consumer protection are highly regulated (through food legislation),
the social and humanitarian qualitative aspect of food is infinitely
less so. To further complicate the picture, the right to food may
bump up against other branches of law such as the provisions advocating
free trade in economic law, or against certain aspects of environmental
law. This complexity is nothing to be afraid of; it is part of the
normative content of the right to food which, as we will see, ranges
from a minimal obligation (essentially the right to be free from
hunger) to the obligation to progressively incorporate as much meaning
as possible, so as to encompass all the issues of availability,
accessibility, sustainability and adequacy of food.
Note
10. The evolution of the recognition of the right to food as a
human right in international law is a perfect illustration of these
paradigms. We now have at our disposal a single conceptual framework
that is grounded in international human rights requirements and
the practical aim of which is to promote and protect the right to food.
Note Logically, that should
also be the approach adopted by the Council of Europe, as Europe’s
foremost human rights organisation. As I will show, however, at
European level in general and in our Organisation in particular,
much work still remains to be done.
2.2 Robust standards and tailored implementation
policies
2.2.1 Normative content
11. The right to food is widely
recognised in international law as a fundamental right. In its most
general terms, it appears in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (1948) which recognises that “everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food”. The right to food is
also enshrined, in fairly similar terms, in Article 11.1 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article
11.2 of the Covenant describes the – individual and collective –
right to be free from hunger as “fundamental” and, in so doing, differentiates
it from the right to food. This Covenant is an example of “hard
law”, namely law that is binding on the States that have ratified
it.
NoteNote
12. The tipping political point came in 1996 when, at the World
Food Summit in Rome, more than a hundred Heads of State and Government
recognised in the Declaration on World Food Security “the right
of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent
with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone
to be free from hunger.”
Note The
Summit Action Plan states that “food security exists when all people, at
all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe
and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences
for an active and healthy life.” Echoing these definitions, with
their focus on the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of food,
the World Health Organisation (WHO) then proclaimed that “access
to enough safe and nutritious food is key to sustaining life and
promoting good health”
Noteand the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) defined what
was meant by food security.
Note
13. In 1999, the monitoring body of the ICESCR, the United Nations
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), adopted
General Comment No. 12 on the right to adequate food.
Note This
normative interpretation gives practical meaning to the right set
forth in Article 11 of the ICESCR and is regarded by the international
community as being authoritative. According to this definition,
the right to food means the minimum that is protected by the fundamental
right to be free from hunger and the obligation on States to move towards
full realisation of the right to food, whose scope is intended to
protect all the elements surrounding access to food (availability,
accessibility, sustainability and adequacy of food).
14. Availability implies ensuring that people have permanent access
to reliable and sufficient sources of supply, taking into account
and protecting the various channels, including self-production,
which States are obliged to safeguard. Distribution, processing
and marketing systems must also be fair, stable and competitive, and
the rights of food producers must be protected, respected and fairly
remunerated. It is also necessary for workers in all areas of food
systems to have healthy and safe working conditions.
15. Accessibility requires economic and physical access to food.
Individuals must be able to afford an adequate diet without having
to sacrifice other basic needs such as school fees, medicines or
rent. Physical accessibility means that food must also be accessible
to physically vulnerable people such as children, the sick, people
with disabilities and the elderly.
16. The requirement of sustainability refers to the dual meaning
of the word sustainable. It is intrinsically linked to that of sufficient
food or food security and implies conditions of production, processing,
distribution and consumption that respect human rights and the environment
throughout the food chain, for present and future generations. This
sustainability extends to several dimensions: it is environmental,
protecting and preserving the ecosystem so that food production
is not harmful to it; it is economic, by supporting fair trade and
local economies; it is social, by guaranteeing equitable and inclusive
access to food to respond to the problems of poverty and inequality;
it is cultural, preserving traditional food practices and cultural
preferences to maintain a diverse and healthy diet; and finally,
it is linked to health, promoting food systems that provide healthy
and nutritious options, in order to prevent malnutrition and diet-related
diseases. On the other hand, the requirement of sustainability also
implies that consumers have access to food in the long term, and
not one-off or emergency access, which refers to the requirement
of accessibility.
17. Finally, the CESCR has added another requirement, adequacy,
which is about the properties that food must have. Food must be
available “in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary
needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable
within a given culture”. This requirement thus harks back, in part,
to the imperatives of a healthy and sustainable diet and to the
area of food products safety, whose supervision and transparency
the public authorities and the private sector have a responsibility
to ensure, in order to protect the interests of consumers. It means
recognising that the principles governing food systems are a matter
of subjective values related to acceptability that have nothing
to do with nutrition, food safety or environmental issues: it is
also necessary to take into account and protect values relating
to the social and cultural dimensions inherent in the way food is
produced.
18. Another major step towards defining the right to food emerged
from the 1996 World Food Summit. In its Resolution 2000/10 of 17
April 2000, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights decided
to appoint a special rapporteur on the right to food. Since then,
each of the four Special Rapporteurs has focused on a different
aspect, adding to the richness of the definition of the right to
food. Of particular note is the contribution made by the current
Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mr Fakhri, who stresses
that the right to food is a key element of community life and sovereignty
and emphasises the need for sensitivity to the social and cultural dimensions
of food when defining these requirements. He also calls for consideration
to be given to the capacity of the people concerned to participate
in the processes that shape food system policies and governance.
Note To have
the fundamental right to food means to be endowed with the capacity
(cognitive, financial, institutional, etc.) to have access to healthy
and sustainable food.
Note
2.2.2 Policy and practice
19. Drawing on and complementing
this pioneering work to define the right to food, other innovative approaches
in international law have been pursued at policy-making level.
20. In 1999, the CESCR also responded to the request from Heads
of State and Government to suggest ways in which they could incorporate
the right set out in Article 11 of the ICESCR into the human development process
and make it workable. To this end, General Comment No. 12 articulates
the normative content around three levels of obligations: the obligations
to respect, to protect and to facilitate and to fulfil the right
to food, namely to give effect to it.
Note It is to be
realised for the benefit of “every man, woman and child, alone or
in community with others”,
Note meaning that specific
measures must be taken to support vulnerable groups, to combat the
structural causes of hunger and malnutrition, and to create an environment
in which food rights can be realised in full. It is inseparable
from respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, as the
right to food is not “a right to be fed, but primarily the right
to feed oneself in dignity”.
Note
21. On that basis, governments proceeded to devise concrete measures
to implement the right to food. On 23 November 2004, this led to
the 187 member States of the FAO Council adopting Voluntary Guidelines
(that is to say non binding) to support the progressive realisation
of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security.
Note Drawing on the definition provided
by General Comment No. 12, these provide States with a practical
guide on how to build human rights into food security policies.
Within the FAO, a Right to Food Team was formed. In partnership
with the CESCR and the Committee on Food Security (CFS), the special rapporteurs
and civil society, the team helps to devise, raise awareness about
and further develop tools to support States and stakeholders in
implementing policies and programmes, in the legal process, in budgetary analysis,
governance, evaluation, monitoring and capacity building.
Note The FAO guidance work is based
on seven principles (with the first letter of each principle forming
the acronym PANTHER
Note) that should be integrated
in the work with the right to food.
22. Following the food crises of 2007-2008, a major development
occurred in the global governance of food security when the CFS,
set up in 1974, was expanded beyond the member States of the FAO,
which continues to provide it with administrative, logistical and
technical support. The CFS has been transformed into a major international
and intergovernmental platform, open to all the stakeholders concerned,
with the aim of achieving greater coherence in the actions and solutions
advocated by everyone in the field of food security. The CFS develops
and approves recommendations and guidelines based on the reports
of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition
(HLPE).
Note
23. In a remarkable study conducted in 2018, the HLPE proposes
a systemic approach to food security and nutrition. It highlights
the role of diets, the decisive importance of the food environment
in helping consumers make food choices, and the impact of agriculture
and food systems on sustainable development. Drawing on these points,
the HLPE highlights the wide range of policy areas involved, as
well as the interactions linking them around the issue of human
nutrition.
Note On this basis,
the CFS formulated in 2020 the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems
and Nutrition that integrate elements of the conceptual framework
developed by the HLPE in the form of practical guidance with a view
to progressively realising the right to adequate food and achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Note
24. Within the HLPE framework, we find the more recent quest to
define diets that are both healthy and sustainable. In line with
the WHO’s One Health approach,
Note sustainability dictates that human
health cannot be dissociated from the health of ecosystems. This
environmental dimension was introduced by the FAO in its definition
of sustainable diets.
Note Recently, too, there has been a
general trend towards recognising the right to healthy food as part
of the right to a healthy environment. Because of this obvious interdependence,
the right to food is acquiring a “new place in our Anthropocene”.
Note I
refer here, in this very widely explored field, to the work of the
former Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations
relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable
environment, David R. Boyd,
Note and
to Resolution No. 50/9 “Human rights and climate” change of 7 July
2022 in which the UN Human Rights Council took a close look at the
impact of climate change on the full realisation of the right to
food.
Note
3 The human right to food: strangely
absent in Europe
3.1 Hunger and malnutrition, what are
the issues in Council of Europe member States?
25. The contrast between the international
and European levels
Note is
striking. The developed countries of the European continent do not
imagine that the right to food can be so flouted in the context
of abundance that we have in Europe, where hunger and malnutrition
coexist with sufficient supplies.
3.1.1 Food precarity: a widely documented
European reality
26. Worldwide, some 2.3 billion
people, namely about 29.6% of the global population, were moderately
or severely food insecure in 2023. This figure is similar to that
for 2020, a sign that the situation is not improving, not least
because of the ongoing effects of conflict, climate change and economic
slowdowns. At the same time, a study of the cost of healthy diets
(namely diets that comply with global nutrition guidelines) in relation to
poverty lines shows that more than 3 billion people cannot afford
the cheapest healthy diet, and that 1.5 billion people cannot afford
a diet that meets only the required levels of essential nutrients.
Note In 2020, about one in four people did
not have access to safely managed drinking water at home, and by
2030 it is estimated that billions of people will not have regular
access to safe drinking water.
Note
27. While the situation is often most serious and acute in so-called
developing countries, combating hunger and malnutrition is very
much an issue in so-called developed countries, too. More specifically,
in North America and Europe, the prevalence of moderate or severe
food insecurity
Note increased
slightly in 2022 to 8%, while severe food insecurity remained stable.
In northern Europe, moderate or severe food insecurity increased by
around 2 points to 6.6% in 2022, while in southern Europe it fell
by 1 point to 7.5 %.
28. In France, the Ipsos/Secours Populaire 2023 poverty barometer
reveals that 32% of French people have difficulty affording fresh
fruit and vegetables every day, 35% have difficulty affording a
healthy diet that would allow them to eat three meals a day, and
one person in five is forced to skip meals during the month. In
2023, to get by in France, you had to earn an average of €1 377
net per month (compared with €1 175 in 2021).
Note This figure reflects inflation in
the cost of living, in particular food and energy, which is placing
an increasingly heavy burden on household budgets.
29. Even though the issue of food sovereignty is once again to
the fore following the pandemic and the consequences of the war
of aggression against Ukraine, these worrying figures are not chiefly
or directly attributable to the factors that account for food insecurity
in other parts of the world (consequences of conflicts, climate
change, natural disasters).
Note As in many countries
across Europe, nor is it a question of there not being enough food
to feed the whole population due to low domestic productivity or
inefficient food chains. The causes lie elsewhere: in the accessibility
of this food supply.
30. The work of Amartya K. Sen has shown the limits of approaches
that focus solely on issues relating to agricultural production
methods and food supply, without also looking at inequalities in
access to food between different population groups, once that food
has been produced and made available. Even if all the challenges associated
with food systems were overcome, the problem of access to this ready-made
supply of food, particularly in the case of people in precarious
situations, would remain intact.
Note
31. Among the consequences of food precarity, the health impacts
of "junk food" are among the most well documented. Unhealthy diets
are the main risk factor for the overall burden of mortality and
morbidity in the European Union. They are responsible for numerous
diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, which
account for 85% of mortality and 75% of the burden of disease in
Europe. Obesity has been identified as the main cause of 80% of
cases of type 2 diabetes, 55% of hypertensive disease among adults and
35% of heart disease. The economic costs are commensurate: worldwide,
obesity has roughly the same economic impact (around €1.75 trillion
or 2.8% of global GDP) as smoking or armed violence, war and terrorism,
and chronic diseases already account for up to 80% of healthcare
expenditure in the European Union.
Note
3.1.2 A legal approach that is failing to
keep pace at national level in the member States
32. None of the constitutions of
the Council of Europe member States explicitly recognises an autonomous right
to food,
Note and few constitutions provide
indirect protection for healthy food as part of the right to dignity, health
or the environment.
Note
33. Yet as far back as 1999, in Comment No. 12, the CESCR clearly
stated that “States should consider the adoption of a framework
law as a major instrument in the implementation of the national
strategy concerning the right to food.” In the same vein, the FAO's
Voluntary Guideline 7.1 recommends that States undertake a constitutional
(or legislative) review to facilitate the progressive realisation
of the right to adequate food. The former Special Rapporteur on
food put it very clearly: “[a] constitutional right to food is the
strongest possible basis the right to food can have [...] The insertion
of the right to food into the constitution is thus not of mere symbolic
significance. It imposes on all branches of the State [the obligation]
to take measures to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food
by adopting adequate laws, and by implementing policies and programmes aimed
at the progressive realisation of the right to food.”
Note As we saw
in the first part, the conceptual and strategic framework exists,
is well developed and has been aligned by the HLPE report on achieving
the SDGs.
Note
34. Despite the lack of recognition of the right to food at the
constitutional level, several initiatives have been taken in this
direction at the legislative level, which show the extent to which
the fundamental rights approach to issues of health, dignity and
the right to a healthy environment is gaining new support. Promoting
a global vision of the food chain based on the law and on a cross-sectoral
approach was the ambition of the framework bill on the right to
food in the Walloon Parliament (Belgium) in 2014.
Note In
Portugal, in 2018, a parliamentary group presented a bill to create
a framework law in favour of a human right to adequate food and
nutrition.
Note
35. There is also real progress. The fundamental rights approach
of the Regional Law of Lombardy (Italy) of 6 November 2015 is an
exemplary case in Europe. The objectives of this law are to recognise,
protect and promote a universal and fundamental right of access
to safe, healthy and nutritious food in sufficient quantities. On
the constitutional front, in Geneva (Switzerland), after a referendum
in 2023, the canton’s constitution was amended to introduce Article
38A: “The right to food shall be guaranteed. Everyone shall have
the right to adequate food and shall be free from hunger”. Drawing
on this recognition, a parliamentary initiative proposes to include
the right to food in Switzerland’s federal constitution.
Note
36. In Scotland, the government has been committed since 2015
to an approach based on the human right to food, as a way to combat
hunger and malnutrition. The Good Food Nation Act 2022 requires
Scottish ministers and authorities to have regard to the right to
food in the preparation of national food plans. In 2024, a proposal
for a bill on the right to food to incorporate the right to food
into Scots law and provide for a body to be responsible for oversight
secured enough support to allow a Member’s Bill to be introduced
in the Scottish Parliament.
Note
37. Finally, in the same vein, I noted the very recent initiative
of a French senator to propose the enshrinement of the right to
food as a fundamental right by anchoring it in the French Constitution.
Note
3.1.3 How do the causes of this failure
to keep pace provide a case for change?
38. While the main focus on the
quantitative challenges of food for developing countries – where
the “lack and scarcity of food” is clearly the most worrying – partly
explains the reductive vision of the right to food in Europe, other
considerations have the effect of overshadowing the added value
that recognition of the right to food as a lever in the fight against
precarity would bring.
39. Two points are worth noting here. First, the inversely proportional
development of positive food law (namely the rules applicable to
the agrifood sector and which govern our eating habits) and, second,
the fact that none of the branches of this law seeks to ensure access
to food for all. A prime example of this can be seen in the legislation
around food safety and consumer protection issues. These are concerns
related to the “fear of food” that prompted our Assembly to take
up the subject very early on (see below). They first emerged in
rich countries against the backdrop of food crises, notably mad
cow disease, and then grew as reports spread of the link between
food additives and cancers, dioxins in chicken, the risks associated
with pesticides and genetically modified organisms, and so forth.
They shifted the focus of attention to the scientific expertise that
creates food standards and technical controls, which have proliferated
at national and European Union level.
40. Guided more recently by the UN's One Health agenda, which
recognises the interconnection between the health of people, animals
and ecosystems, this legislation also encourages the inclusion of
environmental issues. While promoting and guaranteeing healthy eating
for all is an essential goal, my meeting with the Young Ambassadors
for Food Resilience showed me that the way this approach is translated
into social discourse around “healthy eating”', organic farming,
local sourcing or the treatment of farm animals creates social inequality
and stigma around the behaviour of those whose eating habits do
not fit this dominant discourse. The fact is, however, that there
is no universal prescription for “healthy eating” and our attention
would be far better directed at the food environment that is examined
in the above-mentioned HPLE report,
Note and
hence at the social, identity and cultural construction of food,
if we are to avoid narratives of exclusion and social control.
Note
41. Another paradoxical reason, highlighted by the sociology of
food, lies in the institutionalisation of food aid, which is aimed
at the poorest members of society and sourced from society's leftovers
in line with policy to combat food waste. In many countries, “food
aid masks and obscures and has captured the public debate”.
Note Yet introducing
a distribution channel specifically for the poor raises a number
of questions. The pernicious effects have been widely documented
by associations, researchers and interested parties: loss of decision-making
autonomy and freedom of expression, stigmatisation and shame, and
the risk of creating a vicious circle of dependency on charity.
Note Such considerations led
to a reworking of the Food Aid Convention
Notewhile in
the European Union, the new European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived
(FEAD) links food aid not, as in the past, to a Common Agricultural
Policy objective but rather to poverty eradication, cohesion and
social inclusion.
Note The aforementioned Scottish
experience is another example; the group of independent experts accompanying
the Scottish process has clearly identified this by insisting on
the fact that food aid providers are responding to clear and pressing
needs but that they are not a long-term solution to hunger.
Note Added
to that is the fact that in most developed countries and at European
level, legislation has encouraged the practice of redistributing
agricultural surpluses and unsold items from supermarkets and restaurants
as food aid and tied it in with the fight against food waste, putting
food aid in the paradoxical position of being dependent on waste and
having to compete with schemes that seek to reduce it.
Note
42. The disconnect between legislation and the needs of consumers
is also due to the power imbalance around retailing in particular.
The role played by private actors in creating unequal access to
healthy, sustainable and affordable food is another well-documented
fact. The Young Ambassadors conveyed a powerful message about the
geographical inequalities in the distribution of healthy food induced
by supermarket marketing strategies, with one describing their home
town as “a healthy food desert, the New York of junk food”.
Note Where they exist, promotional policies
are geared towards ultra-processed, cheap and unhealthy food items,
Note not
to mention the impact of aggressive advertising of low-cost processed
food on freedom of choice, or the opportunistic behaviour by major
retailers, which is helping to delay the fall in inflation.
Note
43. The approach outlined above emphasises the many areas of public
policy that have an impact on the issue of food and highlights the
need for consistency. In so doing, it reveals the importance of
providing a broad framework for the “right to food” in order to
best organise responses to the multi-faceted challenges posed by food
precarity. This legal framework should cover respect for dignity,
non-discrimination with regard to access to food, the participation
of the people concerned, and State responsibility over and above
the responsibility of individuals or associations alone. The right
to food is not “a right to be fed, but primarily the right to feed
oneself in dignity”.
Note
3.2 The patchwork of European Union law
44. There is no question that the
European Union has built its food legislation entirely around food
safety and consumer protection. European Union law – whose cardinal
principles in matters relating to food are the market, the precautionary
principle and the scientific assessment of health risks – leaves
little room for other considerations that reflect the complexity
of the issues thrown up by the right to food. Nor is this right recognised
in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
45. What the European Union's market-oriented approach does do
is give pride of place to the commercial and agricultural aspects
of food, which may themselves clash with the realisation of the
right to food. To quote the current United Nations Special Rapporteur
on the right to food, Mr Fakhri: “The Agreement on Agriculture, which
came into force as part of WTO in 1995,
Note has been
a barrier to fully realising the right to food. Rather than focus
on people as rights bearers, the Agreement frames people in terms
of their economic potential and activity (…) In this respect, the
current trade system treats food security as an exception and commercial transactions
as the rule, and leaves out the broader right-to-food perspective.”
Note Mr Fakhri was speaking globally but the
same could be said for the European Union.
46. In late 2023 and early 2024, farmer protests erupted all over
Europe. The trigger was different in each country, but European
farmers everywhere complained of tough working conditions, the difficulty
of making a living from farming and the lack of consistency in European
agricultural policies.
Note
47. European farmers have long felt trapped in a productivist
free-trade model that forces them to expand and intensify their
production in order to qualify for sufficient subsidies from the
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and remain economically viable.
Note European farmers
also fear the green transition. The Farm to Fork Strategy,
Note the agricultural
version of the Green Pact launched in 2020, called for a 50% reduction
in the use of pesticides by 2030, a 20% reduction in nitrogen fertilisers,
a reduction in the use of antibiotics, and a greater proportion
of farmland given over to organic farming, yet the CAP and the subsidy
system have not adapted to these new constraints. Farmers thus find
themselves caught between soaring production costs due to the energy
crisis and spiralling input prices, and the buyers to whom they
have to sell their produce on agricultural markets. At the start
of 2024, their harvests had lost 40% of their value compared with
2023 as a result of the bursting of the speculative bubble in agricultural
produce that formed after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.
48. It is clear that clinging to the principles of free trade
and competitiveness is based on the belief that cheap food and productivity
will secure the European Union's position in the global food system,
a subject that extends far beyond the compass of this report. It
is equally clear from the absence of effective public policies to
combat food speculation and prevent big groups from making excessive
profits “who” is failing in its obligations.
49. From this viewpoint, what is required is an approach based
on human rights as obligations on States (and perhaps one day private
actors
Note)
together with a legislative framework that ensures policy coherence
at European Union and member State levels, and that places food
availability, accessibility, sustainability and adequacy at the
centre of these policies.
Note So
far, however, the European Union has not filled this gap. While it
is true that in line with the “Farm to Fork” strategy, the European
Union began working in 2020 on a proposal for a legislative framework
for sustainable food systems (FSFS),
Note nothing
seems to have come of it, despite the outstanding contribution made
by civil society to guide the drafting of the FSFS towards a human
right to food approach.
Note
50. That is unfortunate. As pointed out by David R. Boyd: “A rights-based
approach, focused on the right to food and the right to a healthy
environment, is an essential catalyst for accelerating the transformation
from today’s unsustainable food systems to a future where everyone
enjoys healthy and sustainable food, workers are treated fairly
and degraded ecosystems are restored. This is an obligation for
States, not an option.”
Note
3.3 The Council of Europe, a driver of
change?
51. In terms of European law, it
was the Council of Europe that initiated activities in the food
sphere with the Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health
Field adopted on 16 November 1959 to improve quality of life in
Europe and boost consumer health protection and food safety.
Note The
task of following up on this ambitious dual mandate was entrusted
to the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition,
to whose meetings the European Commission and the WHO were invited.
52. At the same time, as early as the 1960s and especially in
the 1990s, its Assembly warned of the rapid growth of agrifood technologies,
the marketing of food products before the necessary information
had become available, shortcomings in regulations and controls,
and the lack of sufficient harmonisation at European level. The
Assembly accordingly recommended that the Committee of Ministers
draw up a European framework convention on food safety in co-operation
with the European Union and other competent organisations such as
the FAO and WHO. Also, in view of the risks to food safety arising
from the globalisation of the economy and the liberalisation of
trade, it invited the European Union to set up, in co-operation
with the Council of Europe, a European food safety agency along
the lines of the now European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines
& Healthcare. The Assembly also relayed consumers' growing awareness
of the importance of healthy food and information to enable them
to make informed choices, and stressed that governments are the ultimate
guarantors of healthy food.
Note
53. All these proposals went unheeded. In the late 1990s, the
European Union grabbed the lead and the Committee of Ministers of
the Council of Europe acknowledged the risk of duplication, noting
that the European Commission and WHO were better equipped technically
and financially.
Note After the enlargement, the Assembly made
another unsuccessful attempt to demonstrate the added value that
the Council of Europe could bring with its pan-European dimension.
Note Eventually, in 2007, the Committee
of Ministers decided to discontinue the Council of Europe's activities
in the field of nutrition and the Partial Agreement was dismantled.
54. Food-related issues are not mentioned in the Final Declaration
of the Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Reykjavik
in May 2023. In contrast to the tendency at international level
to see the right to food as a component of the right to a healthy
environment, therefore, early glimpses of the Council of Europe's new
environmental strategy announced in 2024 on the basis of Appendix
V of the Declaration provide no indication of any desire to re-engage
with the subject for now.
Note
55. As discussed and explained in the work of the various United
Nations Special Rapporteurs on the right to food, the HLPE and the
FAO, the realisation of the right to food must be conceived in synergy
with that of other interdependent human rights. While the Council
of Europe has a number of mechanisms for the indirect protection
of certain aspects of the right to food, the treaties protecting
human rights – the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5, 1950)
Note and the (revised)
European Social Charter (ETS No. 163, 1996)
Note – do not include the right to
food
per se. To support implementation
of the right to food, therefore, recourse may be had to the cross-cutting
principles of interpretation relating to dignity, non-discrimination, individual
participation and the rule of law employed by the Council of Europe’s
human rights treaty bodies.
56. Developing and promoting a robust and binding right to food
framework based on a human rights-based approach to guide a socially,
environmentally and economically just transition to sustainable
and inclusive food systems seem to me to be fully aligned with the
mandate of our Organisation and within its reach on the basis of
a normative framework already well worked and developed in international
law
4 Conclusion
57. Contrary to my initial ambition,
this report cannot not satisfy all appetites. Indeed, if I may continue
the analogy, I see this first report on the right to food as an
introductory morsel, an invitation to sit down together, see what
we can bring to the table and cultivate a taste for the subject
of food through human rights under the expert guidance of the Council
of Europe, a veritable master chef in the field. The ultimate goal
of adopting an ambitious European instrument to guide the transition
to sustainable and inclusive food systems based on the right to
food is a real opportunity. This objective is in line with the stance
taken by many Council of Europe member States and European Union
institutions on the international stage since 1996. And as regards
content, the Council can refer to the many tools and works that
have been produced at international level to define and raise awareness
of the right to food and to guide States in the strategies that
are needed to make this right a reality.
58. Looking ahead to the future, I would stress the crucial importance
of co-operation between the Council of Europe and the FAO. Initial
discussions could focus on a landmark event in 2024: the 20th anniversary
of the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on the right to food. Let us hope
that this collaboration will help to follow up on our initial work
and encourage the creation of synergies for future Assembly reports
on the subject of food, based on the guidelines proposed here.
