The UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (the Working Group) released its report, Agribusiness, Food Security and Human Rights (April 2026), submitted to the Human Rights Council’s sixty-second session, drawing on submissions received from stakeholders in response to a call for input.
Human Level’s Take:
- In the Working Group’s latest report, food fraud is explored from a human rights lens, linking issues such as the adulteration of food, manipulation of food access and abuse of food assistance programmes to human rights impacts across the food value chain.
- These practices divert resources and interventions meant for food-insecure individuals and groups, exacerbating food insecurity and associated human rights harms.
- The numbers are striking: food fraud costs global food industries $30-50 billion a year, while fake pesticides drain a further $8-20 billion annually.
- Those most exposed to food fraud are often the least protected. Smallholder farmers, pastoralists, rural workers and Indigenous Peoples face adverse impacts, with limited participation in decision-making and limited access to remedy.
- There is a disconnect at the heart of food security policy. The Working Group notes that ministries designing food security programmes and the human rights institutions responsible for related protections often operate with little coordination.
- For businesses, recommendations include conducting HRDD throughout the design, financing and implementation of food security programmes, with heightened due diligence in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, and integrating environmental and human rights compliance into investment decision-making.
- The report also calls on businesses to establish accessible internal grievance mechanisms, promote traceability and transparency across supply chains, and support human rights defenders working on food and environmental issues.
Some key takeaways:
- Food fraud is a growing and multi-dimensional human rights risk in the agribusiness sector: Food fraud encompasses a wide range of deceptive practices, from adulteration of food to the manipulation of food access and abuse of food assistance programmes. The report identifies four key drivers of food fraud across global food supply chains: infiltration by organised criminal groups, misleading environmental and food labelling ('greenwashing'), counterfeit crop protection products, and weak oversight of the informal food economy. Together, these practices divert resources and interventions meant to reach food-insecure populations, deepening the food injustice and human rights harms that food security programmes are designed to address. The scale is considerable: the report cites World Trade Organization estimates that fake, substandard, smuggled and illegal agri-foods cost the global food industry $30–50 billion a year, while fake pesticides account for a further $8–20 billion in lost revenue annually. These financial losses translate into reduced tax revenue that could otherwise fund food security programmes, as well as direct harm to farmers and workers exposed to counterfeit products. Greenwashing compounds the problem, with European Commission data showing 53% of green claims across sectors are vague, misleading or unfounded. The report also connects these risks to the informal food economy, which accounts for as much as 80% of the food supply chain in parts of Africa and Asia, and comprises nine in ten agricultural workers globally according to the ILO. In total, more than 2 billion people worldwide remain affected by moderate or severe food insecurity.
- Regulatory fragmentation and gaps in stakeholder participation limit effective food security programmes: The report finds that specific recognition of food fraud as a human rights issue remains largely absent from international, regional and national frameworks, with no explicit international treaty addressing food security and human rights together. It notes a persistent disconnect between food and agriculture ministries designing food security programmes and human rights institutions responsible for related protections. This lack of coordination is linked to adverse impacts on typically marginalised groups such as smallholder farmers, pastoralists, rural workers, women and Indigenous Peoples. The report also identifies a lack of meaningful participation of affected communities, including limited application of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) processes with Indigenous Peoples, and limited data transparency. Information on business compliance with food security and consumer protection laws is often inaccessible, and no consistent international standards exist for labelling, reporting or measuring sustainability claims. On access to remedy, persistent barriers including high litigation costs, inadequate legal aid and procedural delays reportedly limit access to justice for communities seeking redress for harms linked to agribusiness.
- Emerging practices point to a role for business beyond compliance: The report sets out recommendations for States, businesses, international organisations, civil society and academia. For businesses, these include conducting HRDD throughout the design, financing and implementation of food security programmes, with heightened due diligence in conflict-affected and high-risk areas, and integrating environmental and human rights compliance into investment decision-making. It also calls on businesses to establish accessible internal grievance mechanisms, promote traceability and transparency across supply chains, and support human rights defenders working on food and environmental issues. Practices highlighted include the partnership between Oxfam and Bolton, which introduced independent supply chain assessments and gender-inclusive grievance channels in Colombia, Ecuador and Morocco, and the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, described as a model for turning voluntary commitments into legal obligations.
