The effectiveness of the EU and USA in minimizing the administrative burden for government programs aimed at food production and accessibility

Tento článok skúma právne a administratívne rámce upravujúce podporu poľnohospodárstva a potravinovú pomoc v Európskej únii a Spojených štátoch amerických so zameraním na znižovanie administratívnej záťaže hlavne pomocou digitalizácie. Porovnaním Spoločnej poľnohospodárskej politiky EÚ (CAP) a amerického doplnkového programu nutričnej pomoci (SNAP) práca skúma, ako procesná zložitosť ovplyvňuje realizáciu politických cieľov súvisiacich s výrobou potravín a dostupnosťou potravín.

Kľúčové slová: Eurofondy, Spoločná poľnohospodárska politika, Bidenova administratíva, Administratívna záťaž, Slovenská republika, Európska únia, USA, Pôdohospodárska platobná agentúra, Program doplnkovej výživy

Every individual possesses the fundamental right to adequate food, a principle firmly embedded in international human rights law. ¹⁾ In response to this normative obligation, numerous states have incorporated the right to food into their constitutional frameworks, national legislation, and public policy strategies, thereby reaffirming their duty to respect, protect, and fulfil this right, particularly for their domestic populations. ²⁾

This article investigates recent reforms in food and agricultural policy in the European Union and the United States, with particular emphasis on the post-2020 geopolitical and public health landscape. The Russian Federation's military aggression against Ukraine-one of the world's principal grain exporters-alongside the prolonged disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, has exposed the fragility of global food systems and highlighted the need for legal and policy innovation to ensure stable food production and accessibility. ³⁾

The focus of this research is to examine whether digitalisation has served as a catalyst in enhancing food security by facilitating more efficient public administration. The extent to which digital reforms have reduced administrative burdens in the implementation of key food-related programs: the European Union's (CAP) and the United States' (SNAP) will be discussed. Administrative burdens are defined as costs imposed on individuals and institutions in complying with public policies, including learning, compliance, and psychological costs ⁴⁾ -can significantly undermine the accessibility and effectiveness of social welfare programs.

While the EU and the U.S. have adopted distinct regulatory pathways, both systems are guided by a shared objective: the preservation of their citizens' right to food. This article evaluates whether digitalisation has not only minimized bureaucratic complexity but also substantively contributed to improving access to food and the efficiency of food production systems.

Comparative legal analysis and empirical data serve as the primary methodological tools. The findings assess the role of digital reforms in reducing procedural complexity and compliance costs for public and private stakeholders. By exploring structural differences- with the EU being a supranational organization and the US a federal state- the article offers critical insights into how governance models impact the implementation of food-related policies.

This article explores the comparative administrative frameworks of agricultural support and food assistance in the European Union and the United States. It focuses on the extent to which digitalisation reduces administrative burdens and thereby enhances access to food and food production efficiency. This research is situated within the broader legal discourse on the right to food and the principle of good administration. The core objective is to determine whether digitalisation can serve as a mechanism to reduce administrative burden in agricultural and food assistance programs, specifically CAP and SNAP. The study employs a comparative legal method, using statutory materials, government reports, and case-law (such as Fedesa and Goldberg v. Kelly) to evaluate administrative processes in both jurisdictions. It analyses qualitative and quantitative data from institutional sources including the European Commission and USDA. Beyond offering a comparative analysis, this article argues that the reduction of administrative burden is a legal imperative with direct implications for social justice, legal certainty, and the realization of the right to food. The EU and US systems are placed under scrutiny to identify not just differences in legal structure, but also the normative assumptions underpinning administrative design. The article acknowledges a structural divergence: the EU operates as a de jure international organization with shared sovereignty among Member States, while the United States is a federal republic with constitutionally entrenched administrative competencies. This affects not only how laws are made but also how administrative burdens are distributed and managed.

The performance of agricultural actors is increasingly subject to data reporting obligations directed at a range of stakeholders, including merchants, food processors, and government authorities. ⁵⁾ Farmers, in turn, are required to share data not only with regulatory institutions but also with agricultural advisors, input suppliers, and other producers. While data-sharing can enhance coordination and productivity, it simultaneously generates considerable administrative burdens. These burdens-manifested through paperwork, digital reporting, and regulatory compliance-can impede agricultural efficiency, particularly in the prima