Food Policy Action Plans and the Right to Food: Identifying trends and opportunities to strengthen a rights-based approach

June 4, 2026

By Refat Muwalla, recent graduate at The University of Central Florida

This spring, I had the honor of interning at the National Right to Food Community of Practice. I am an aspiring attorney with a passionate interest in public policy, human rights, and social equity. I wholeheartedly believe that basic human rights are important, yet non-inclusive for everyone.

During my time with the Community of Practice, I conducted a scoping and policy analysis project in which I examined food action plans across cities in the United States. My research focused on identifying how different cities and counties are incorporating principles associated with the right to food into local governance, food systems planning, and anti-hunger strategies.

My work included a thorough review and comparison of food action plans across the country, including plans from New York City, Seattle, Boston, Minneapolis, Austin, Phoenix, St. Petersburg, Denver, Baltimore, Columbus, Kingston, New Haven, Multnomah County in Portland, and Honolulu. My analysis evaluated whether and how the plans addressed the core dimensions of the right to food (availability, accessibility, adequacy, sustainability) and overarching human rights principles (agency, equity, and accountability) - either explicitly stated or strongly implied.

Throughout the project, I identified certain trends in food policy plans, including the emphasis on racial equity, culturally relevant food access, climate resilience, local food systems, and people-driven governance. For example, New York City included an extensive section in its food policy plan on racial equity, noting that the current food system structure often deepens racial disparities, as people of color have less access to affordable and adequate food than white communities. The food policy plan aims to address this discrepancy by placing an emphasis on culturally appropriate food for schoolchildren, seniors, parents, and working adults. The plan emphasized kosher, halal, vegetarian, vegan, and/or gluten-free meal patterns. This helps to create more opportunities for more adequate access to food throughout multiple cultures. Adding these variations of food to schools, grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and restaurants are ways to help support this action.

The scoping highlighted how some cities have also begun to consider additional factors that can affect the realization of the right to food, such as adequate transportation and housing, fair labor, public health, and environmental sustainability. For example, Austin’s food plan linked food access to transportation barriers, climate resilience, and land accessibility, while Boston’s food plan discussed how unreliable public transportation and rising food costs directly affect residents’ ability to access healthy, culturally relevant foods. Both cities sought possible reconciliations to help mitigate the negative consequences of unreliable public transportation from a right to food standpoint, such as implementing urban farming in the city and creating “alternative transportation infrastructure[s] to help with delivery when emergency lockdown and bad weather” occur. New Haven also explicitly mentioned the need for improved transportation accessibility, as well as ensuring a walkable distance to food sources; this plan emphasized the experiences of senior citizens in particular, due to the potential difficulty that traveling to specific food outlets could pose for them. These examples show that a transportation improvement could have significant and positive implications relative to the right to food.

At the same time, the scoping identified important gaps and opportunities for improvement. While concepts such as equity and accessibility were frequently discussed, accountability mechanisms were often less clearly developed. Some plans referenced future reporting or implementation tracking, but many lacked strong structures or sufficient enforcement strategies. Additionally, although several cities incorporated ideas closely aligned with the right to food, relatively few plans explicitly adopted rights-based language or clearly framed access to adequate food as a fundamental human right.

Throughout the project, I carefully examined governance structures, implementation strategies, and community engagement processes. Most notable was Austin’s food plan, which has a dedicated value label system for the ideas of community engagement (Value 9), implementation strategy (Value 12), and governance structures (Value 4). The scoping provided insight into how local governments across the country are working to advance food justice principles in similar/different ways.

The project helped deepen my broad academic and professional desires in legal analysis, policy research, and public service. Combining a detailed policy review with a human rights-based framework contributes to ongoing conversations at the Community of Practice about how cities and counties have strengthened and can strengthen local food systems by using a right to food approach.