Content uploaded by Jose Luis Vivero Pol
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jose Luis Vivero Pol on Jun 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
No right to food and nutrition in the
SDGs: mistake or success?
Jose Luis Vivero Pol,
1
Claudio Schuftan
2
To cite: Vivero Pol JL,
Schuftan C. No right to food
and nutrition in the SDGs:
mistake or success? BMJ
Global Health 2016;1:
e000040. doi:10.1136/
bmjgh-2016-000040
JLVP and CS highlight the
implications and
consequences of this
absence as a fait accompli
and explain the domestic and
foreign positions of influential
actors.
Received 10 February 2016
Revised 6 April 2016
Accepted 7 April 2016
1
BIOGOV Unit, Centre for
Philosophy of Law and Earth
and Life Institute, Université
Catholique de Louvain,
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
2
People’s Health Movement,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Correspondence to
Jose Luis Vivero Pol;
jose-luis.viveropol@
uclouvain.be
ABSTRACT
Although the recently approved Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly mention access to
water, health and education as universally guaranteed
human rights, access to affordable and sufficient food
is not given such recognition. The SDGs road map
assumes that market mechanisms will suffice to secure
nutritious and safe food for all. We question how and
why the right to food has disappeared from such an
international agreement and we will provide insights on
the likely causes of this and the options to make good
on such a regrettable omission. Analysis of political
stances of relevant western stakeholders, such as the
United States (US) and the European Union (EU), is
also included.
If we are to follow the guidance provided
by the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) recently approved,
1
the fight against
malnutrition and the achievement of the
United Nations (UN)’s‘Zero Hunger
Challenge’
2
will not be guided by the human
right to adequate food (and nutrition).
3
Although the SDGs explicit access to water,
health and education as universally guaran-
teed human rights, access to affordable and
sufficient food is not given such recognition.
The SDGs road map assumes that market
mechanisms will suffice to secure nutritious
and safe food for all. We question how and
why the right to food has disappeared from
such an international agreement and we will
provide insights on the likely causes of this
and the options to make good on such a
regrettable omission.
NO COMPASS FOUND IN THE SDGS TO
ELIMINATE HUNGER
The latest UN General Assembly (September
2015) approved this non-binding road map
to guide the world’s development towards
prosperity and well-being for the next
15 years. The SDGs were drafted in extenuat-
ing diplomatic negotiations. In order to
reach a consensus document, concepts that
were deemed unacceptable to some member
states were either disposed of, polished with
softening adjectives, reworded or simply
avoided during the final negotiations in July
2015—even those that had previously
attained a broad consensus in binding inter-
national agreements. The right to food
serves as a striking example.
The ample consensus reached in the
second half of the 20th century over universal
access to healthcare
4
and education
5
as a
means to address wealth inequalities did not
cover the universal access to food. The 190
Key questions
What is already known about this topic?
▸The right to food, so closely linked to the funda-
mental right to life, is a formal human right,
increasingly recognised in many countries, juris-
prudence in the field is growing, and the links
developed with other constituencies (food sover-
eignty and nutrition) reinforce its mandate and
political priority.
What are the new findings?
▸And yet, contrary to the international consensus
reached during the past 50 years, food is not
regarded as a human right in the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) document. This
article denounces this omission which indeed
has important political and legal implications.
▸The full realisation of this human right is not
favoured by the openly adamant US opposition
as well as the dual EU attitude: promoting its
applicability for the others in international nego-
tiations and being lax at domestic level with no
reference in legal frameworks.
Recommendations for policy
▸In human rights-friendly countries, develop
national legal frameworks that include the right
to food; further conceptualise and implement
Universal Food Coverage schemes similar to
those guaranteeing universal access to health
and education; human rights-friendly countries
and public interest civil society organisations to
keep a vigilant attitude so as to defend the
agreed minimum standards of the right to food
in international negotiations; and de-construct
the dominant narrative of food as a commodity
so as to replace it by a human rights narrative
placing food squarely as a human right, a
commons and a public good.
Vivero Pol JL, Schuftan C. BMJ Glob Health 2016;1:e000040. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000040 1
Analysis
plus countries that approved the SDGs document had a
unique chance to do the same for the right to food, but
chose, or were resigned, not to do so. As a consequence,
food is not given the status of a human right
6
in the docu-
ment, implying that the existing market mechanisms are
good enough to address the food needs of every human
being (see box 1). This is clearly a legal and diplomatic
regression from previous international agreements such
as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
7
and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights
8
with its very specific General Comment.
9
This is evidently intentional as the SDGs do reaffirm the
human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Why has universal access to food, the right that has to
be met before being able to enjoy other civil, political,
social and economic rights,
10
not been awarded the
same level of importance as education, health or water?
The explanations, collected informally by the authors,
are that several influential countries and institutions
were adamantly opposed to the consideration of food as
a human right. Yet many of those opponents did sign
and ratify the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, the binding agreement that
indeed includes this right in its provisions. Moreover, a
growing number of countries are explicitly protecting
the right to food by either including it in their constitu-
tions,
11
enacting food security laws
12
or pursuing
rights-based food and nutrition security strategies and
policies.
13
This proves the lack of coherence that often
comes to the fore during international negotiations:
human rights commitments are pitched against eco-
nomic interests.
THE OPPONENTS TO THE RIGHT TO FOOD
Although it is difficult to find official government state-
ments that categorically deny or oppose the rights-based
approach to food (the US government’s position being
an exception), several countries, regional organisations
and international institutions have consistently and
openly not been sympathetic to the right to food provi-
sions. Countries like Canada,
14
the US
15 16
and several
EU members have never considered incorporating the
right to food into their Constitutions or national legal
frameworks. This position vis-a-vis the right to food is
encouraged and complemented by the lack of support
for this right (except for mere lip service) by inter-
national organisations such as the G-8, G-20, the World
Economic Forum, the World Trade Organisation, the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
17 18
Moreover, most transnational corporations and philan-
thropic foundations do not feel bound by binding
human rights principles either.
19
So, although the US
may behave as an outlier in the emerging global consen-
sus on economic and social rights, its hegemonic power
in international institutions and fora results in a regular
and predictable blocking of any attempt to insert social
rights-based provisions in global discussions.
Additionally, other countries, although not publicly
voicing their opposition, quietly obstruct the realisation
of the right to food in areas of their own jurisdiction.
20
With so many foes, it is understandable, but not accept-
able, that no mention of the right to food is found in
the SDGs document.
THE RECURRENT US POSITION: ‘FOOD IS NOT A RIGHT’
The US has steadily opposed any internationally agreed
document that considers food as a human right. It is the
only nation that has neither ratified the Convention on
the Rights of the Child nor the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Moreover, it
was the only nation that refused to sign the final declar-
ation of the 1996 World Food Summit and it stood alone
in opposing the right to food being included in the
2002 World Food Summit declaration.
21
Actually, the US
included an official reservation to the paragraph refer-
ring to the right to food
22
(see box 2), arguing that the
Box 1 The first paragraph of the Sustainable
Development Goals vision states the following:
(Para 7) In these Goals and targets, we are setting out a supremely
ambitious and transformational vision. We envisage a world free of
poverty, hunger, disease and want, where all life can thrive. We
envisage a world free of fear and violence. A world with universal
literacy. A world with equitable and universal access to quality
education at all levels, to healthcare and social protection, where
physical, mental and social well-being are assured. A world where
we reaffirm our commitments regarding the human right to safe
drinking water and sanitation and where there is improved
hygiene; and where food is sufficient, safe, affordable and nutri-
tious. A world where human habitats are safe, resilient and sustain-
able and where there is universal access to affordable, reliable
and sustainable energy. (emphasis added)
Box 2 What was the US Official Reservation to the 2002
World Food Security Declaration regarding the Right to
Food?
The US believes that the issue of adequate food can only be
viewed in the context of the right to a standard of living adequate
for health and well-being, as set forth in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which includes the opportunity to secure food,
clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services.
Further, the US believes the attainment of the right to an adequate
standard of living is a goal or aspiration to be realised progres-
sively that does not give rise to any international obligation or
any domestic legal entitlement, and does not diminish the
responsibilities of national governments towards their citizens.
Additionally, the US understands the right of access to food to
mean the opportunity to secure food, and not guaranteed
entitlement. Concerning Operative Paragraph 10, we are commit-
ted to concrete action to meet the objectives of the World Food
Summit, and are concerned that sterile debate over ‘Voluntary
Guidelines’would distract attention from the real work of reducing
poverty and hunger. (emphasis added)
2Vivero Pol JL, Schuftan C. BMJ Glob Health 2016;1:e000040. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000040
BMJ Global Health
right to food cannot give rise to any binding state duty
or guaranteed citizen entitlement, both at domestic and
international levels, to feed the hungry adequately. For
the US government, food is just a commodity whose
access is exclusively guaranteed by purchasing power or
charitable schemes. Moreover, this stance vis a vis the
right to food has to be understood as just one compo-
nent of the government’s long-standing broad resistance
to economic, social and cultural rights in general.
The US has even refused to accept non-binding reso-
lutions on the subject, although during President
Obama’s mandate this recurrent stance has been
softened and the US joined a non-binding UN
Declaration on the Right to Food in 2009
23
while issuing
supplemental explanations. Yet in 2014, it blocked a
draft resolution on the same right.
24
Official explanatory
notes reaffirmed its traditional areas of disagreement,
namely this right just being a ‘desirable policy goal’not
carrying any enforceable obligation.
25
This opposition,
which has rendered this right non-justiciable in the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
26
does not
prevent the generously funded and needs-based food
security programmes at home and abroad (ie, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme or Feed
the Future), programmes that are voluntary, not univer-
sal, accountable or justiciable and determined by polit-
ical priority fluctuations and budgetary constraints.
27
THE EUROPEANS’DOUBLE STANDARDS: SUPPORTING
ABROAD, RELUCTANT AT HOME
The EU authorities have repeatedly said that states
should ‘mainstream a human rights perspective in their
national strategies for the realisation of the right to
adequate food for all’.
28
After the Treaty of Lisbon,
29
a
binding agreement of high legal and political relevance,
all member states and the European Commission have
the legal obligation to respect, protect and promote
human rights within its territory and in EU-supported
interventions in other countries. Of course, that should
include all the internationally recognised human rights,
such as the right to food. Moreover, the Commission has
expressed its support to ‘right to food-based political
and legal frameworks’in developing countries, as well as
establishing and strengthening redressal mechanisms.
30
Likewise, the European Parliament has taken a similar
position regarding the relevance of the right to food to
address food security challenges in developing
countries.
31
Yet no EU member state recognises explicitly the right
to food in their Constitutions
32
or in specific laws; nor is
any mention to the right to food made in the funda-
mental European Treaties: No right to food in the
European Social Charter,
33
adopted in 1961 and revised
in 1996 that actually extends the protection of social and
economic rights to the Council of Europe members; or
in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
34
adopted in
2000 as legally binding; it is supposed to include rights
from international instruments ratified by all European
members (ie, International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights); or in the European
Convention on Human Rights,
35
originally signed in
1950 and having been enriched with seven protocols. It
is worth noting that the right to private property was
included in the first article of the first protocol in 1952.
Ergo, private property is a right for Europeans, but food
is not.
UNDERSTANDING THIS OPPOSITION
It is not uncommon to see countries that, at the domes-
tic or international level, consistently water down strong
references to the right to food. Examples include insist-
ing on rather fuzzy definitions of specific violations,
opposing the awarding of monetary and non-monetary
remedies, or softening the language in international
agreements, often carried out in last-minute diplomatic
negotiations. As shown in this article, the US deliberately
characterises the right to food as an ‘opportunity’rather
than as an entitlement which removes any obligation for
their government. Meanwhile, the Europeans have a
dual attitude in this regard: whereas in the international
arena they publicly defend and even finance this right
to be implemented in other countries (ie, the Global
South), at the domestic level they are barely doing any-
thing to render this right operational within the EU
boundaries despite food insecurity being on the rise;
36
food is not yet a European right.
Several reasons may explain the US opposition and
the EU’s attitude. Some argue that this right is not
included in the US Constitution and therefore does
not resonate with the American culture.
37
Others state
that its definition confuses human rights priorities.
38
Another explanation is that both adhere to an ideo-
logical stance in which market-based resources distri-
bution is far more efficient than a rights-based
scheme for such a vital resource. The privatisation of
food-producing inputs (soil, seeds, water) and the
absolute commodification of the final output (food)
confirm the dominant discourse of both actors and
hence in the international institutions they control
(ie, World Trade Organization, International
Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Economic
Forum).
39
Those institutions are adamant about the
absolute validity of market mechanisms to distribute
food as a commodity. Therefore, the duties and enti-
tlements guaranteed by the right to food clearly
collide with this position.
CAN THIS POSITION BE REVERSED? EXPLORING THE
OPTIONS
The absence of this right from the SDGs can be inter-
preted as both a success for US diplomacy and a crass
mistake for the Global South and EU countries in
their final bargaining to arrive at a consensus docu-
ment. We are obviously faced with a fait accompli
Vivero Pol JL, Schuftan C. BMJ Glob Health 2016;1:e000040. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000040 3
BMJ Global Health
here, and it is pointless to propose a revision of the
SDGs document.
40
Nevertheless, inaction is not an
option either and the focus shall be in rendering
effectively this right at the national level by developing
legal frameworks. Therefore, food as a human right
must attain the same status as education and health in
European regional and national legislations—acom-
mendable first step. Belgium is already drafting such a
law and the Lombardia Region has issued an ad hoc
law recently. These examples can pave the way for the
deployment of Universal Food Coverage schemes in
the increasingly food-insecure Europe. Then, once
enshrined at home, the EU could advocate for the
incorporation of rights-based provisions in inter-
national agreements dealing with food (ie, in the
World Trade Organization, bilateral trade agreements,
Codex Alimentarius). The US case proves to be
harder and only reversible through a combined mix
of local struggles and domestic rights-based cam-
paigns (ie, on food justice, community supported agri-
culture, agricultural labourer’srights)ontheoneside
and international leverage by international institu-
tions, peer countries and media campaigns on the
other.
The right to food has already progressed substantially
in a few countries, with 10 right to food laws, 15
Parliamentary Fronts Against Hunger in Latin America
and a growing jurisprudence using the right to food in
more than 50 cases in 28 countries ( just two in the EU
and none in the US, however).
41
The right to food con-
stituency is gaining momentum thanks to its alliance
with the food sovereignty movement and the closer links
being developed with the nutritional constituency,
42 43
as well as confronting the mounting corporatisation of
nutrition and the food system.
44
Part of this constituency
has set up the Global Network for the Right to Food
and Nutrition
45
and network members did exert pres-
sure during the preparatory phase of the SDGs, alas to
no avail. However, they are organised to take things
further, locally and globally, in the years to come. Finally,
although solely coming up with legal frameworks to
protect this right will not suffice—since several countries
have good laws that are only weakly implemented—ren-
dering effectively this right at the national level will
indeed be a useful rallying point in the struggle for a
food-secure world. Since food is a right and not a
commodity and eating remains a vital need, food and
nutrition security must be considered a right of all
people rather than a development goal carrying no
accountability.
Handling editor Seye Abimbola
Twitter Follow Jose Luis Vivero Pol at @joseLviveropol
Contributors JLVP is researching the motivations and institutional settings
that govern food system transitions in developed and developing countries.
CS is an international public health nutrition activist and member of the
Steering Council of the People’s Health Movement. For many years, both
authors have been directly involved in national and international negotiations
to promote the right to food. JLVP undertook the legal screening for this
paper. Both contributed to the writing of the manuscript and policy analysis.
JLVP is the guarantor.
Funding European Research Council. GENCOMMONS (ERC agreement 284).
European Commission, BIOMOT (FP-7 agreement 282625). Belgian Science
Policy Office, Food4Sustainability, BRAIN-be BR/121/A5. OpenAire FP-7 Post-
grant open access pilot.
Competing interests JLVP has received funding from the Belgian Science
Policy Office, under the project Food4Sustainability, and the European
Commission, under the FP7 project BIOMOT and ERC Project
GENCOMMONS. CS declares no conflicts of interest.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement No additional data are available.
Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with
the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license,
which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-
commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided
the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
REFERENCES
1. United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for
sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly on 25 September 2015. UN Doc A/RES/70/1. http://www.
un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
2. Initiative launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2012
as his personal vision, and a sort of legacy. It is a global call to
action to achieve zero hunger within our generation based on five
targets: zero stunting in children under 2 years, everybody having
access to sustainable food all year around, all food producing
systems being running sustainably, doubling smallholder productivity
and income and zero food waste. http://www.un.org/en/zerohunger/
challenge.shtml
3. In this text, we will be using the term ‘right to food’as an abridged
version of the cluster encompassing the human right to adequate
food and the fundamental right to be free from hunger. Additionally,
the term also includes recent proposals to broaden its scope to
nutritional domains.
4. Kruk ME. Universal health coverage: a policy whose time has come.
BMJ 2013;347:f6360.
5. Muedini F. Human rights and universal child primary education.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
6. The rights-based approach to food and nutrition security differs from
the needs-based approach in that the former demands government
accountability, active engagement of food insecure people in policy
governance, universal access policies, legal redress mechanisms
and more binding connections between policies and outcomes;
whereas the latter assumes people who lack access to food are
passive recipients in need of direct assistance, without governmental
obligations or justiciability. See also: Chilton M, Rose D. A
rights-based approach to food insecurity in the United States. Am J
Public Health 2009;99:1203–11.
7. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 25(1).
General Assembly resolution 217A. 12 December 1948. UN Doc A/
810. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr
8. United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights art. 11. General Assembly resolution 2200 (XXI). 16
December 1966. UN Doc. A/6316. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/
law/pdf/cescr.pdf
9. United Nations. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
General Comment 12: the right to adequate food. 12 May 1999. UN
Doc. E/C.12/1999/5. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/
3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9?Opendocument
10. Shue H. Basic rights: subsistence, affluence, and U.S. foreign
policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.
11. Vidar M, Kim YJ, Cruz L. Legal developments in the progressive
realization of the right to adequate food. Thematic study. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organisation of United Nations Legal Office,
2014. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3892e.pdf
12. Vivero Pol JL. El enfoque legal contra el hambre: el derecho a la
alimentación y las leyes de seguridad alimentaria. In: Erazo X,
Pautassi L, Santos A, eds. Exigibilidad y realización de derechos
sociales. Impacto en la política pública. Santiago: Editorial LOM,
Santiago, 2010:163–88. Spanish.
4Vivero Pol JL, Schuftan C. BMJ Glob Health 2016;1:e000040. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000040
BMJ Global Health
13. De Schutter O. The transformative potential of the right to food.
Report submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council, 24
January 2014, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/57. http://www.srfood.org/images/
stories/pdf/officialreports/20140310_finalreport_en.pdf
14. Margulis ME. Forum-shopping for global food security governance?
Canada’s approach at the G8 and UN committee on world food
security. Can Foreign Policy J 2015;21:164–78.
15. Lewis H. “New”human rights? U.S. ambivalence toward the
international economic and social rights framework. In: Soohoo C,
Albisa C, Davis MF, eds. Bringing human rights home: a history of
human rights in the United States. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2009:100–41.
16. Messer E, Cohen MJ. The human right to food as a U.S. nutrition
concern, 1976–2006. IFPRI Discussion Paper 731. Washington:
International Food Policy Research Institute, 2007. http://www.ifpri.
org/publication/human-right-food-us-nutrition-concern-1976-2006
17. Lambek N. The right to food: reflecting on the past and future
possibilities. Synthesis paper. Can Food Stud 2015;2:68–74.
18. Ziegler J, Golay C, Mahon C, et al.The fight for the right to food:
lessons learned. London and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011.
19. Narula S. Reclaiming the right to food as a normative response to
the global food crisis. Yale Hum Rights Dev Law J 2011;13:403–20.
20. Ospes O, van der Meulen B. Fed up with the right to food? The
Netherlands’policies and practices regarding the human right to
adequate food. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers,
2009:102.
21. Rosset P. US Opposes right to food at World Summit. Oakland:
Food First and Institute for Food and Development Policy, 2002.
http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Right-To-Food30jun02.htm
22. Reservation made on operative paragraph 10 by Carolee Heileman,
Acting Permanent Representative of US mission to the UN agencies
for food and agriculture, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/
005/y7106e/y7106e03.htm#P192_62571
23. United Nations. The right to food. UN General Assembly resolution
UN Doc. A/RES/63/187. 17 March 2009. http://www.un.org/en/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/63/187
24. United Nations. The right to food. Draft resolution UN Doc. A/C.3/69/
L.42. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/600/94/
PDF/N1460094.pdf?OpenElement This draft proposal was not
approved (as it can be seen in the official UN website http://www.un.
org/en/ga/70/resolutions.shtml)
25. Explanation of position on Agenda Item 68(b), L.42: Right to Food.
United States Mission to the United Nations. Terri Robl, U.S. Deputy
Representative to the UN Economic and Social Council. 25
November 2014. http://usun.state.gov/remarks/6295
26. Vivero Pol JL. Hunger for justice in Latin America. The justiciability of
the right to food. In: Martin MA, Vivero Pol JL, eds. New challenges to
the right to food. Barcelona: Huygens Editorial, 2011:15–55.
27. Schuftan C. Targetry and equity. [Column] Website of the World
Public Health Nutrition Association, August 2011. http://www.wphna.
org/htdocs/2011_aug_col_claudio.htm
28. Explanation of position on behalf of the European Union by the
Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations, 64th Session
of the General Assembly Third Committee, draft resolution L.30/
Rev.1 GA64: The Right to Food. European Union, 19 November
2009. http://eu- un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_9328_en.htm
29. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the
European Union, C 115 Volume 51. European Union, 9 May 2008.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:TOC
30. Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an agenda for
change. Communication from the Commission to the Council and
the European Parliament. COM /2011/0637 Final. European
Commission, 2011.
31. Assisting developing countries in addressing food security
challenges. Resolution of 27 September 2011, (2010/2100).
European Parliament, 2011.
32. Only Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova include a specific reference to
this right in their Constitutions. In: Knuth L, Vidar M, eds.
Constitutional and legal protection of the right to food around the
world. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of United Nations,
2011. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap554e/ap554e.pdf
33. The European Social Charter. Council of Europe. 1996. https://rm.
coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/
DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168007cde2
34. Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (2012/C 326/
02). European Union, 2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN
35. European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe, 2010.
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
36. Loopstra R, Reeves A, Stuckler D. Rising food insecurity in Europe.
Lancet 2015;385:2041.
37. King S. Statement before the Republican Study Committee.
Congressional Record 22 March 2007, H2946 [cited 2009 Feb 8]. In:
Messer E, Cohen MJ, eds. US Approaches to Food and Nutrition
Rights, 1976–2008. World Hunger Notes. http://www.worldhunger.
org/articles/08/hrf/messer.htm
38. Alston P. U.S. ratification of the covenant on economic, social and
cultural rights: the need for an entirely new strategy. Am J Int Law
1990;84:365–93.
39. Vivero Pol JL. What if food is considered a common good? The
essential narrative for the food and nutrition transition. United
Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition News 2013;40:85–9. http://
www.unscn.org/files/Publications/SCN_News/SCNNEWS40_31.03_
standard_res_nearfinal.pdf
40. Whether and how the inclusion of the right to food in the SDGs final
document might have had real impact in the years to come remains
an unanswered question, as many other global consensus
statements have had little, if any, impact (i.e. Kyoto Protocol on
climate change). This recognition by no means minimises the
criticism levied in this article that denounces how political
manoeuvres left a binding legal provision out of such an important
international agreement.
41. International Development Law Organization. Realizing the right to
food: legal strategies and approaches. 2015. http://www.idlo.int/sites/
default/files/pdfs/publications/Realizing%20the%20Right%20to%
20Food_Legal%20Strategies%20and%20Approaches_full-report.pdf
42. De Schutter O. The right to adequate nutrition. Development
2014;57:147–54.
43. Valente FLS. Towards the full realization of the human right to
adequate food and nutrition. Development 2014;57:155–70.
44. Bread for the World, FIAN International, ICCO Cooperation. Peoples’
Nutrition is Not a Business. Right to Food and Nutrition Watch 7.
http://www.rtfn-watch.org
45. The Charter of this network can be found at: http://www.fian.org/
fileadmin/media/publications/GMRtFN_-_formatted_charter.pdf
Vivero Pol JL, Schuftan C. BMJ Glob Health 2016;1:e000040. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000040 5
BMJ Global Health
