In 2023, the Canton of Geneva became the first Swiss canton to constitutionalize the right to food, a move celebrated as a significant innovation in European sub-national human rights governance. The subsequent Draft Law on a Solidary and Sustainable Food System (APL 2025) seeks to translate this constitutional right into a coherent policy architecture. This article offers a comprehensive socio-legal analysis of the draft law, comparing it with the transformative vision articulated in the Right to Food Manifesto, adopted at the Refettorio Geneva in April 2023 by more than sixty actors from agriculture, social services, academia, gastronomy and civil society.
Drawing on international human rights law, food democracy theory, agroecology, labour studies and comparative food-policy models, the article argues that while the APL 2025 introduces several important measures—such as the prohibition of destroying edible food in retail and the creation of a public foundation—its institutional design remains technocratic and largely anchored in the logic of food charity. It reproduces structural asymmetries in Geneva’s food system rather than addressing them. The article concludes by outlining reforms necessary for Geneva to fulfil its constitutional commitment and move from a system of charitable assistance to one of democratic, rights-based food governance.
1. Introduction
The constitutional recognition of the right to food in the Canton of Geneva (Art. 38A Cst-GE), adopted by popular vote in June 2023, represents a major normative shift in Swiss social rights. It aligns Geneva with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ratified by Switzerland in 1992, whose Article 11 enshrines the right of every person to adequate food and to freedom from hunger.¹
The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), in General Comment No. 12, defines this right as the ability to feed oneself “in dignity,” requiring availability, accessibility, adequacy and sustainability.²
This constitutional evolution was accompanied by a significant civil-society mobilization. In April 2023, over sixty actors—farmers, chefs, researchers, human rights experts, social workers, environmentalists and community organizers—gathered for a three-day forum at Refettorio Geneva. Their work culminated in the Right to Food Manifesto, a document articulating a bold vision grounded in human rights, food democracy, agroecology and local practice.
The 2025 Draft Law on a Solidary and Sustainable Food System is the canton’s first attempt to formalize the right to food. Its stated aims include improving access to adequate nutrition, reducing food waste, strengthening local agriculture and coordinating food-aid services. But a central question remains:
Does this draft law fulfil the promise of the constitutional right or does it merely codify existing practices?
This article examines that question through socio-legal analysis, participatory governance theory, agroecology scholarship and international policy comparisons. It concludes that while the draft law marks progress, it falls significantly short of the transformative vision articulated in 2023.
2. Methodology
This study employs a multi-layered qualitative methodology:
2.1 Socio-legal analysis
Following socio-legal scholars such as de Sousa Santos,³ the article analyzes how law, institutions and social practices interact in the construction of public policy.
2.2 Comparative policy analysis
The analysis draws on successful international models, including:
These cases provide benchmarks for participatory and transformative food-system governance.
2.3 Documentary analysis
Primary sources include the APL 2025, the 2023 manifesto, constitutional debates, parliamentary documents, international legal instruments, and Geneva’s administrative reports. Content was coded according to the human-rights-based PANTHER principles: participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment and rule of law.
2.4 Stakeholder mapping
Mapping Geneva’s food system—Partage, Caritas, farmers, communes, restaurants, beneficiaries, social kitchens, NGOs—highlights structural asymmetries of power.
2.5 Theoretical triangulation
The analysis integrates literature from human rights law, political economy, agroecology, labour studies, urban sustainability and food democracy.
A. Theoretical Framework
1. The right to food as a legal and normative framework
The right to food is not merely a social aspiration; it is a codified human right requiring States to respect, protect and fulfil access to adequate food.⁴
General Comment No. 12 defines its core dimensions: adequacy, sustainability, accessibility, dignity and autonomy.⁵ The right must ensure culturally appropriate, environmentally sound, nutritious and socially acceptable food.⁶
Thus, a rights-based food system extends far beyond emergency food distribution. It requires structural transformation of food environments, supply chains, labour conditions, agricultural practices and governance arrangements.
2. Food democracy and participatory governance
Tim Lang’s concept of food democracy argues that food systems must be governed not only by markets and administrations but by citizens and workers.⁷
Hassanein expands this view, showing that meaningful participation requires deliberative spaces where diverse actors co-shape policy priorities and standards.⁸
Food Policy Councils (FPCs) operationalize this principle. Studies show that successful FPCs share:
The absence of such a council in Geneva’s draft law is a major structural limitation.
3. Agroecology as a transformative paradigm
Agroecology is endorsed by FAO and the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) as a multisectoral framework for sustainable, socially just and ecologically sound food systems.¹⁰ It emphasizes biodiversity, soil health, local markets, seed sovereignty, ecological resilience, community governance and fair remuneration.
The 2023 Manifesto explicitly anchors itself in agroecological principles. The draft law does not.
4. Labour, precarity and food-system sustainability
Food systems depend on precarious and undervalued labour—from agricultural workers to cooks, dishwashers, cleaners, drivers and stockkeepers.¹¹ Labour studies demonstrate that ignoring workers in governance results in socially unsustainable systems.¹²
A rights-based system must integrate workers into decision-making structures.
5. Circular economy and food-waste reduction
Circular food-system approaches aim to prevent waste, redistribute surplus, transform off-grade foods, and compost or methanize unavoidable waste.¹³
FAO studies show that more edible food is wasted in restaurants, hotels and collective kitchens than in retail.¹⁴
The 2023 Manifesto embraces a systemic anti-waste vision; the APL 2025 adopts a restricted version.
B. Detailed Legal Analysis of the APL 2025
1. Articles 1–3: Principles, definitions, exemplariness
Although the draft law invokes “adequate food,” it does not articulate its normative dimensions—cultural adequacy, sustainability, agency, nutritional quality, dignity or autonomy. Nor does it reference international obligations.
Article 3’s “exemplariness” clause lacks mandatory standards or enforcement mechanisms, rendering it aspirational.
2. Articles 8–14: Governance and the Foundation
The proposed public foundation centralizes authority but excludes critical groups:
This contradicts the FAO’s Right to Food Guidelines and CESCR recommendations, which require participatory governance.¹⁵
3. Articles 18–19: Service structures
The law recognizes traditional aid actors (Caritas, La Farce, Le Bateau) but omits the Refettorio Geneva, the only daily evening meal service offering dignified, nutritious meals. This omission is inconsistent with the adequacy principle and with the canton’s constitutional commitment.
4. Article 25: Charter of Adequate Food
The charter lacks measurable criteria. Without binding standards—Fourchette Verte Ama Terra, GRTA, nutritional criteria, zero-waste frameworks—adequacy becomes symbolic.
5. Articles 26–29: Education and training
The draft promotes nutritional education but does not:
This falls short of WHO and FAO recommendations.
6. Article 35: Prohibition on destroying food
A significant advance—but its scope is limited to retail. Excluding restaurants, hotels, delivery platforms, hospitals, schools and public kitchens renders the measure incomplete and inconsistent with empirical evidence.
7. Articles 36–38: Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring lacks independence, participation and transparent indicators.
International best practice requires all three.
C. Stakeholder Analysis
1. Partage: expanding into a structural monopoly
Partage functions as both food bank and procurement agency.¹⁶ The draft law reinforces this position without clarifying governance or oversight. Concentration risks institutional lock-in, reduced transparency and diminished plurality of actors.
2. Canton–commune fragmentation
Overlapping responsibilities and unclear mandates risk undermining implementation, particularly regarding quality standards and coordination.
3. Civil society and frontline organizations
Despite their essential operational role, associations are structurally marginalized in governance. This contradicts human-rights requirements for participatory policy design.
4. Restaurants and the F&B sector
Geneva’s largest food employer is excluded from governance and exempted from anti-waste obligations.
This omission weakens the law’s ecological and social ambitions.
5. Migrants and vulnerable populations
These populations face the highest levels of food insecurity yet have no role in the governance architecture. This contradicts CESCR requirements for inclusive participation.
6. Farmers and agroecology
One agricultural seat is insufficient; agroecology is absent despite its international relevance.
7. Academic institutions
Geneva’s scientific expertise is not integrated, reducing innovation, evaluation capacity and sustainability.
D. Discussion and Policy Implications
1. Rights without democracy
A rights-based system cannot rely on technocratic governance alone. Without participatory structures, the right remains symbolic.
2. Administrative consolidation of charity
The APL 2025 reinforces existing food-aid networks instead of creating universal access mechanisms. This reproduces structural inequalities.
3. Missing agroecology
Ignoring agroecology limits Geneva’s capacity to build environmentally resilient and socially just food systems.
4. Anti-waste: progress, but incomplete
Retail-only restrictions ignore the sectors that generate the most edible waste.
5. School meals: a missed opportunity
Evidence strongly supports universal school meals as a transformative policy. Their absence signals a lack of ambition.
6. Labour invisibility
Workers are essential to the realization of the right to food. Their exclusion from governance is a structural flaw.
7. Toward coherence
To align with constitutional obligations, Geneva must adopt:
Conclusion
The APL 2025 is an important step toward structuring Geneva’s food policy, but it does not yet embody the paradigm shift required by the constitutional right to food or the 2023 Manifesto. Its architecture remains anchored in charity, logistics and administration rather than rights, dignity and democratic co-governance.
A transformative food system for Geneva will require:
Only through these reforms can Geneva move from the management of food poverty to the realization of a universal right: the right of every person to feed themselves in dignity.
Notes