Good Practice Principles for Regulating Large‑Scale Food Fortification

Principle 5: Tools for behaviour change and capacity building to enhance LSFF compliance

 

Principle definition
Proportionate enforcement, well-trained inspectors, and clear guidance that actively support compliance by correcting behaviours and building capacity enable fortification standards to be applied consistently and achieve sustained public health impact.
Sub-principles	Criteria
5.1. Authorities can deploy a range of proportionate and gradual enforcement measures to promote compliance.	Authorities are legally empowered to investigate, sanction, and require corrective action. Enforcement actions are consistent, lawful, and applied within prescribed limits. A graduated range of measures enables proportionate responses to violations. Escalation pathways deter repeated or high-risk non-compliance.
5.2. Resources and training are provided to inspectors to support LSFF supervision and enforcement.	Clear, up-to-date implementation guidelines are available to inspectors. Inspection tools, including checklists, promote consistency and transparency. Inspectors receive regular technical training on fortification requirements. Guidance is coherent across institutions, avoiding contradictory instructions.
5.3. Guidance is available to enhance the capacity of food business operators.	Accessible guidance explains fortification requirements in clear, practical language. Guidance is regularly updated to reflect regulatory and technical changes. Training supports businesses in implementing fortification and good manufacturing practices. Tailored support addresses the specific needs of small and medium enterprises.

Closing down a bad business does not create a good business (OECD, 2018[155]). Effective food fortification programmes ultimately depend on capable, compliant businesses to produce and supply fortified foods at scale. Laws and sanctions alone cannot deliver micronutrients to populations; they must be accompanied by enforcement approaches that correct behaviour, strengthen practices, and sustain responsible operators in the market.

Promoting compliance by going beyond correcting behaviours, toward proactively fostering a culture of compliance, directly strengthens the nutritional impact of large-scale food fortification. When producers understand requirements, calibrate dosing equipment correctly, maintain quality control records, and promptly address identified gaps, fortified staples consistently deliver the intended levels of iron, iodine, vitamin A or other micronutrients to consumers. This reliability builds public trust and ensures that population-level reductions in micronutrient deficiencies can be sustained. By contrast, if enforcement focuses only on punishment without supporting corrective action, producers may withdraw from fortification, apply standards inconsistently, or treat penalties as a manageable cost. The result can be fluctuating nutrient levels in the market, unfair competition for compliant firms, and weakened public health outcomes despite the existence of robust and well-designed fortification laws.

Principle 5 examines the broader enabling environment that supports effective implementation of fortification rules. Sub-principle 5.1 explores how authorities can deploy proportionate and graduated enforcement measures to promote compliance ensuring fairness and credible deterrence (5.1). Sub‑principle 5.2 considers the resources, training, and practical tools needed to support inspectors in carrying out their mandates consistently. Finally, Sub‑principle 5.3 discusses the importance of clear, accessible guidance and capacity-building for food business operators, ensuring that regulatory requirements can be translated into everyday production practices.

5.1. Authorities can deploy a range of proportionate and gradual enforcement measures to promote compliance

In practice, a broad toolkit equips authorities to carry out enforcement with the aim of promoting compliance, rather than punishing non-compliance. The OECD (2018) Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections Toolkit emphasises an approach to delivering regulatory outcomes that prioritises raising standards of practice, rather than focusing primarily on sanctioning (OECD, 2018[155]).

In the context of LSFF, where non-compliance may range from minor labelling errors to repeated under-fortification affecting population health, effective governance benefits from a graduated enforcement framework. A broader spectrum of measures allows enforcement to both correct behaviour and deter serious breaches, strengthening credibility, fairness, and public health impact. In several countries, fortification legislation provides that in response to a violation, authorities can issue a fine up to a prescribed cap. However, such a narrow enforcement toolkit can limit authorities’ ability to respond proportionately to the nature and severity of violations as some situations require higher fines or measures beyond financial penalties, such as corrective instructions, deadlines to remedy deficiencies, or, in serious cases, product seizure and temporary suspension or closure, to ensure compliance and protect public health.

Authorities are enabled to take action against non-compliance

Without clear authority to respond to violations of fortification requirements, regulatory frameworks risk becoming symbolic rather than delivering real nutrition impact. A credible system depends on authorities being empowered to investigate violations, require corrective action, and impose sanctions where necessary (Box 5.1).

Box 5.1. Enforcement authorities under Sri Lanka’s Food Act

In Sri Lanka, fortification regulations provide authorities with the mandate to investigate violations, require corrective measures and pursue sanctions when necessary, supporting the enforceability of food safety and fortification requirements.

The Food Act prescribes the relevant framework of enforcement authorities vesting Authorised Officers appointed by the Minister of Health, typically public health inspectors and food control officials.

The Act empowers these officers to enter and inspect premises, take samples, examine records, seize or detain suspected non-compliant food, and initiate legal proceedings where offences are identified. Courts may impose fines, order confiscation or destruction of food, and issue other penalties prescribed under the law.

Source: Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (1980), Food Act No. 26 of 1980, https://eohfs.health.gov.lk/food/images/pdf/acts/food_act_no26_1980_en.pdf.

Enforcement needs to take place within prescribed limits to ensure legitimacy and trust. When authorities apply measures as authorised in law, for example, abiding to statutory limits, their decisions are more likely to be understood and accepted by businesses and upheld if challenged. By contrast, suspending a producer’s operations without a clear legal basis, or destroying products without following established procedures, can lead to appeals, delays, and reduced confidence.

Consistent enforcement within these clearly defined legal powers is fundamental to effective fortification programmes. When violations are addressed predictably and lawfully, businesses understand that non-compliance with fortification requirements carries real consequences, reinforcing deterrence. Sporadic or uneven enforcement, by contrast, can result in variable fortification quality, slowing progress in reducing micronutrient deficiencies. This can, in turn, weaken public confidence by impacting the perceived legitimacy and fairness of enforcement authorities and processes – and when trust or perceived fairness is lacking, levels of compliance may be negatively affected as well. Anecdotally, businesses have shared experiences of food inspectors being set to visit a certain number of times but rarely fulfilling that duty in practice (GAIN, 2018[154]). These gaps may also encourage some firms to test the limits of compliance to cut costs or gain a competitive edge if consequences appear unlikely.

The FAO/WHO’s Food Control System Assessment Tool also references legislation that, in providing authorities with the necessary powers to carry out their mandates, sets sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse of power (WHO and FAO, 2021[180]). As in other areas of regulatory enforcement, food fortification supervision can be vulnerable to risks of corruption, undue influence or conflicts of interest, particularly where inspectors have broad discretion over inspections, sanctions or approvals without adequate safeguards. Integrity risks can also arise from the way regulatory functions are structured – for example, where the same authority both issues revenue-generating licences and subsequently monitors compliance, creating potentially conflicting incentives (OECD, 2018[155]). Such practices can result in selective or inconsistent enforcement, weaken incentives to comply, disadvantage responsible businesses and ultimately undermine public health objectives. Clear enforcement criteria and procedures, documented decisions, appropriate separation and oversight of key functions, accessible channels for reporting concerns, and transparent review or appeal mechanisms can help protect the integrity of enforcement and strengthen trust in the regulatory system.

Effective and consistent enforcement, in practice, benefits from broad and sustained institutional commitment, from central authorities to local inspectors. For example, national authorities may set clear enforcement priorities and targets for fortification, ensure that cases of repeated under-fortification are pursued through to resolution, and protect enforcement bodies from political or commercial pressure. At regional and local levels, authorities allocate sufficient staff time to follow up on violations and apply proportional sanctions when warranted, with informal warnings serving as an initial compliance mechanism for low-risk violations. Courts and other bodies may be implicated to ensure cases and appeals are resolved suitably and in a timely manner (see Box 5.2 for an example of the use of mobile courts).

Box 5.2. Mobile courts in Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, enforcement of food and fortification requirements can be supported through the use of mobile courts operating under the Mobile Court Act. These courts, led by executive magistrates and often conducted in co-ordination with food safety officials, enable on-the-spot adjudication of certain offences that require judicial authority, including the imposition of fines or other penalties. Inspectors who detect a violation on a first instance may enlist a mobile court to accompany them on a follow-up. By allowing cases to be addressed rapidly rather than through lengthy judicial proceedings, mobile courts can strengthen the immediacy and visibility of enforcement, while representing one approach within a broader enforcement context, which may vary in effectiveness and application.

Source: Parliament of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (2009), Mobile Court Act, 2009 (Act No. 59 of 2009), Laws of Bangladesh, https://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-1025.html.

Proportionate and gradual enforcement measures are employed to promote compliance

Proportionate enforcement involves calibrating sanctions to both the level of risk and the business’s attitude toward compliance (Start Center et al., 2024[181]). In this way, enforcement remains focused on improving fortification performance and protecting population nutrition outcomes, rather than on punishment for its own sake. Verboon and van Dijk (2011[182]) argued that authorities who enact the sanction procedures in a fair manner stimulate compliance with their decisions. Perceived fairness is key to credibility and compliance in regulatory systems. When people perceive that they are fairly treated in their encounters with government agencies, they are more likely to accept and comply with regulatory rules and decisions (Lind and Arndt, 2016[183]) Conversely, responses from authorities that are not aligned with the level of public health risk posed by a violation can weaken or undermine the effectiveness of LSFF programmes. Imposing heavy sanctions on a small miller committing a first-time, minor deviation in fortification labels may discourage co-operation or even lead the business to withdraw from fortification. Similarly, if repeated under-fortification can only be addressed through a fixed financial penalty, larger firms may absorb fines as a routine business expense, undermining public health goals and fair competition.

An enforcement framework that allows authorities to differentiate their responses depending on intent, scale and potential impact of violations, fosters a balance between the simultaneous needs for enforcement to correct and deter non-compliance. Regulations that clearly set out a graduated range of enforcement measures – from guidance and warnings, to fines, suspensions, or licence revocations – enable authorities to distinguish minor errors from serious or deliberate non-compliance. Box 5.3 illustrates this in practice within Brazil’s law.

Box 5.3. Brazil’s range of enforcement measures

Brazil enforces its fortified flour programme under national health law provisions, which grant authorities a comprehensive set of proportionate enforcement measures to address non-compliance. These provisions allow health authorities to consider mitigating and aggravating factors when determining the appropriate response and to apply a range of measures, either sequentially or cumulatively, including warnings, fines, product seizure or destruction, suspension of sales or manufacturing, cancellation of product registration, partial or total closure of establishments, prohibition of advertising, and revocation of operating licences. The law also classifies infractions as light, serious, or very serious, and sets out aggravating and mitigating factors that inform how the severity of a violation is determined, and which measures are applied.

Source: Brazil Congress (1977), Law 6437 of 1977 “Constitutes infractions to the federal health legislation, establishes the respective sanctions, and gives other measures”, August 20 of 1977, https://legislacao.presidencia.gov.br/atos/?tipo=LEI&numero=6437&ano=1977&ato=4ado3ZE9UNnRVT7ca.

Aligning enforcement responses with the level of risk posed by a specific violation also minimises unnecessary regulatory burden (Blanc, 2018[184]). Concentrating regulatory effort on violations that jeopardise programme impact, reinforces credible deterrence for high-risk behaviour, and prevents disproportionate costs for low-risk infractions. The gradation of sanctions should allow the enforcer to escalate measures, when necessary, to ensure that the enforcement response is a credible, proportionate, and has a deterrent effect, discouraging future noncompliance (OECD, 2018[155]).

Starting with lighter responses in response to first-time or low-risk violations, such as written warnings, tailored guidance, and structured follow-up visits, creates space for businesses to correct shortcomings before more severe sanctions are considered. Understanding why businesses do not comply is critical for effective enforcement. In LSFF, compliance gaps may stem from different causes: limited technical capacity, misunderstanding of fortification standards, weak internal controls, equipment calibration issues, supply disruptions of premix or deliberate cost-cutting. Providing guidance and consulting with businesses is an integral part of enforcement strategies that foster compliance. The role of the inspector is to help staff understand the problem and how to implement corrective measures which the inspector then returns to verify within a defined reasonable time frame (GAIN, 2018[154]). When gaps stem from resource constraints or confusion rather than intent, targeted guidance and clearer communication of requirements can help bring producers back into compliance more effectively than immediate sanctions. This approach also builds constructive regulator-industry relationships, reserving stronger measures for cases where deficiencies persist or risks to public health are significant.

In cases where non-compliance persists, authorities need to take proportionately heavier action. As illustrated in Box 5.4, Indonesia, for instance, explicitly provides for the regulator to act if an entity does not comply with an initial request. Non-compliance that persists after multiple follow-up visits, or where there is resistance from management, may then necessitate imposing heavier penalties identified in the law (GAIN, 2018[154]). Penalties can include larger fines, publicization of violations, product recall, temporary closure, or revocation of licences, depending on the severity and recurrence of the infraction.

Box 5.4. Gradated enforcement for repeated or resistant non-compliance: Indonesia

The Indonesian regulatory framework provides a comprehensive array of differentiated tools to deal with instances of non-compliance by fortified food producers. According to the regulation, producers or packers of fortified wheat flour could potentially be subject to a variety of sanctions, depending on the severity. For example, if it is found following inspection that the business does not comply with the requirements set out in the Fortified Wheat Flour Standard, the Directorate General of Industrial Development under the Ministry of Industry will issue a written notice to the business. The written notice will instruct producers to improve their product quality and require business operators to withdraw any products that do not comply with the standard requirements. Where the business does not follow through with the request, the Directorate General will publicise the violation, and impose administrative sanctions, including loss of authorisation to market the product. Criminal sanctions may also be imposed in case of intentional violations.

Source: Standards Authority of Indonesia (SNI) 3751:2018; Minister of Industry of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 1 of 2021 on the Enforcement of the Indonesian National Standard for Wheat Flour as Staple Food. (18 January 2021). BPK Legal Database – Republic of Indonesia, https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/166787/permenperin-no-1-tahun-2021; (Government of Indonesia, 2014[185]).

Effective enforcement considers the profile and behaviour of the regulated entity (OECD, 2018[155]). Similar to the concept of risk-based monitoring discussed under Principle 4, a business with a strong record of compliance, established internal controls, and prompt corrective action may warrant a different response than one with repeated violations or a pattern of disregard for fortification requirements. The seriousness of the infraction – particularly its implications for micronutrient intake and population health – should also shape the response. Considering past behaviour, compliance posture, and risk posed by the violation enables authorities to better target enforcement action.

Regulations that clearly define the decision-making processes and powers of enforcement authorities in applying gradated enforcement measures support fairness, consistency, and transparency. When the legal framework specifies, for example, how repeated under-fortification triggers escalation from warnings to fines or suspension, similar cases can be treated consistently across producers and regions. Clear procedural requirements – such as documenting evidence before imposing stronger sanctions – also reduce the risk of disproportionate responses to minor technical deviations or abuses of authority. This clarity strengthens predictability for food businesses and reinforces confidence that enforcement supports nutrition objectives in a fair and transparent manner. In applying enforcement actions, authorities need to be mindful of potential unintended incentives and effects on market dynamics. For instance, when financial penalties are lower than the savings gained from under-fortifying, fines may not discourage non-compliance and can instead be treated as a normal business cost. Likewise, if the same fixed fine applies regardless of the scale of the violation – for example, whether a small number or a large number of samples show non-compliance – firms may focus on reducing testing rather than improving fortification practices (Start Center et al., 2024[181]). Public disclosure of violations can increase transparency, but negative reputational effects may continue even after a company has corrected the problem. Conversely, publishing a list of operators that consistently comply with fortification requirements can encourage compliance by creating reputational and commercial benefits for compliant businesses, while also providing consumers with clear information and strengthening confidence in regulatory oversight. Strong measures such as closing a facility can be a justifiable response to serious violations, yet in markets for staple foods they may also interrupt supply and reduce access to fortified products (GAIN, 2018[154]). Considering these possible effects helps ensure that enforcement actions support compliance and protect public health without creating unnecessary disruptions.

5.2. Resources and training are provided to inspectors to support LSFF supervision and enforcement

Effective enforcement of large-scale food fortification depends not only on legal powers, but also on clear guidance, practical tools, and sustained investment in training of those charged with carrying out enforcement. When inspectors lack up-to-date implementation guidelines, enforcement can become inconsistent and unpredictable. For example, some inspectors may focus heavily on documentation overlooking critical control points such as premix dosing or storage conditions, leading to uneven fortification quality in the market. Incoherent or overlapping guidance from multiple institutions can further confuse both inspectors and businesses, increasing compliance costs and weakening confidence in the system.

Availability of up-to-date implementation guidelines and resources for inspectors

Inspections are as crucial to the integrity of a fortification programme as they are a technical and complex undertaking. Effective inspectors require a blend of technical knowledge, analytical ability, and professional judgement. Inspectors are expected to understand food processes, hazard analysis, and applicable legal requirements; assess risks and prioritise actions accordingly; interpret documentation and sampling results; and communicate findings clearly to food business operators (FAO, 2008[186]). Accordingly, robust training and guidance is required to equip inspectors with the necessary skills and competencies to fulfil their mandates.

To this end, developing clear implementation guidelines and resources supports the effective enforcement of food fortification regulations. These documents are intended to promote consistency in inspection practices and provide clarity for both enforcement officials and – where these documents are made publicly available – for regulated businesses. Box 5.5 sets out Australia’s guidelines for food audits, published online for transparency.

Box 5.5. Australia’s National Regulatory Food Safety Auditor Guideline

Australia’s National Regulatory Food Safety Auditor Guideline establishes minimum requirements for implementing a regulatory food safety audit system and supports consistent oversight across jurisdictions. It provides practical, step-by-step instructions for inspectors throughout the audit process, including a checklist for audit planning. The Guideline differentiates inspectors in low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk based on their level of education, training and certification.

The Guideline supports the implementation of the National Food Safety Audit Policy that was endorsed by the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council in October 2006, which allowed food regulators a five-year implementation period. It is periodically updated with new information ensuring reliability of regulatory oversight and alignment of inspection practices across jurisdictions.

Source: (Australia, 2009[187]).

Guidelines and resources for inspectors should be coherent, avoiding the proliferation of separate guidance developed by different inspecting institutions or guidance providers. This approach avoids conflict and competition between institutions pursuing the same objective and prevents inspectors from implementing contradictory or blurred guidance to businesses (OECD, 2018[155]). Clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of inspectors in the guidelines is important to ensure transparency in the inspection process and to uphold the integrity and credibility of enforcement activities. The guidelines need to reflect the most current regulatory requirements and offer practical, step-by-step instructions for verifying compliance. The consistent use and review of these guidelines strengthen inspector training and education, and aligns inspection practices across jurisdictions, enhancing the reliability and efficiency of regulatory oversight. Box 5.6 illustrates the example of the East, Central, and Southern African Health Community (ECSA-HC) inspectors’ manual which provides guidance on both conducting inspections of fortified food and premixes as well as on the appropriate follow-up enforcement actions.

Box 5.6. ECSA-HC Manual

The regional organisation of the East, Central, and Southern African Health Community (ECSA-HC) provides manuals that serve as guidance for inspectors for the inspection of fortified foods, including premix at the ports of entry and at the market level. It also provides guidance on the minimum documentation requirements and inspection, sampling and submission of samples for testing, supporting a consistent approach to information collection. Additionally, the Manual provides guidance on actions to take regarding failure or compliance with sample test results of inspection.

Source: (ECSA-HC, 2020[188]).

Checklists act as a complement to guidelines and serve as a practical tool to help inspectors assess compliance in a systematic and thorough manner. These checklists can be tailored to specific requirements for each stage of the food fortification process, including but not limited to, production sites, import control points, and trade and distribution channels helping to ensure consistent implementation of fortification standards throughout the supply chain. By consolidating essential inspection criteria into a single, easy-to-use format, checklists streamline the inspection process, enabling inspectors to work more efficiently and promoting greater consistency in the application of regulatory requirements. If checklists are uploaded online, they also serve as a resource that helps businesses understand obligations and prepare for the crucial points of inspection in advance. In India inspection checklists developed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority are made available online in digital platforms and in 11 different languages (FSSAI, 2026[189]).

Checklists contain structured templates for the recording of crucial information including product details, importer information batch numbers and others which are important to ensure consistent information gathering across inspections. Figure 5.1 illustrates the form provided in the ECSA-HC manual specific for use in inspections at import sites, supporting a consistent approach to information collection.

Figure 5.1. ECSA-HC inspection form for import sites

Source: (ECSA-HC, 2020, p. 23[188]), https://ecsahc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ECSA-Manual-for-Inspection-of-Fortified-Foods-at-the-POEs-and-Markets.pdf.

In several low-resource settings, enforcement practice is not always supported by documented guidance. Instead, new inspectors may rely on institutional tradition, peer learning, and verbal or ad hoc training to understand how fortification requirements are applied in practice. Such informal systems often lead to variability in how rules are interpreted and enforced over time or across regions. New staff may receive inconsistent instruction, and businesses may face differing expectations depending on the inspector involved. It can also create space for malpractice or discretionary abuse. Lack of clear guidance makes it harder to distinguish legitimate enforcement from arbitrary decision-making, ultimately undermining trust and programme effectiveness. Even in such contexts, authorities can develop simple written enforcement guidance by compiling existing standard operating procedures. While additional effort would be required to develop a comprehensive inspectors’ manual that clearly defines roles, processes and gradated enforcement actions, consolidating existing information could already significantly improve consistency and transparency.

Authorities may consider complementing documented guidance with targeted technical training on large‑scale food fortification. Beyond explaining programme objectives, scope, implementation arrangements, and enforcement powers, such training can build practical understanding of fortification standards, premix handling, dosing requirements, and documentation practices. Regular capacity-building sessions also provide an opportunity to communicate updates to nutrient specifications, labelling rules, or compliance procedures, helping ensure that enforcement remains aligned with evolving regulatory requirements. Investing in technical training therefore strengthens consistency in application and enhances the overall effectiveness of fortification oversight.

5.3. Guidance and training are available to enhance the capacity of food business operators

Expecting businesses to comply with LSFF requirements based solely on technical legal texts can sometimes leave well-intentioned operators struggling to translate complex standards into day-to-day practice. Nutrient specifications, blending ratios, labelling rules, and record-keeping obligations may be clear in regulation, yet difficult to operationalise without practical explanation. In such contexts, non-compliance may arise not from resistance, but from misunderstanding or uncertainty. Providing accessible guidance and relevant information helps prevent businesses from falling through these gaps, supporting consistent implementation and strengthening the overall effectiveness of fortification programmes.

Availability of guidance and relevant information for food business operators

Developing clear and accessible guidance materials for businesses supports the effective implementation of food fortification regulations. By providing documents that explain regulatory requirements in simple and straightforward language, it is easier for businesses to understand, apply and comply with the rules in practice (OECD, 2025[190]). Box 5.7 provides an illustration of the contents that can be included in such guidelines, with an example of guidelines for businesses involved in rice fortification from Bangladesh.

Box 5.7. Bangladesh’s Guidelines for Businesses involved in Rice Fortification

In 2021, the Government of Bangladesh issued detailed Guidelines for the Production, Distribution, and Management of Fortified Rice to support the operationalisation of national fortification requirements, targeting businesses involved in the fortified rice value chain. The guidelines translate legal mandates into practical instructions for millers, blending operators, distributors, and programme managers, clarifying technical standards for fortified rice kernels, blending ratios, quality assurance procedures, packaging, labelling, and storage. The guidelines include aspects related to monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting obligations. Application forms and monitoring checklists are also provided as resources to ensure private and public sector compliance with safety standards.

The guidelines equally address operational training for millers and other stakeholders. The Directorate General of Food, in collaboration with development partners, is responsible for organising training on rice mixing processes, inspection procedures, and mill observation. In addition, it sets out the government’s plans to use training centres and media platforms to raise awareness among stakeholders about the benefits, proper storage, and cooking of fortified rice.

The guidance document is made available on the Ministry of Food website.

Source: (Government of Bangladesh, 2021[191]).

Easy to find guidance material reduces uncertainty and costs that businesses face in navigating regulatory compliance. Regulators can for example, publish the material online in a dedicated section of their website and share it through industry associations or other networks. Accessibility is equally important in multilingual contexts. In jurisdictions where more than one language is widely used in commerce, making guidance available in multiple languages helps ensure that expectations are understood across the full range of producers, including regional and smaller operators. The European Commission, for instance, makes stakeholder guidance on food safety practices available in over 20 languages (European Commission, 2026[192])

When developing national guidance, countries can draw on a wide range of materials produced by international organisations and technical partners. Manuals and model guidance developed by global and regional bodies provide templates, technical standards, and practical examples that can be adapted to local legal frameworks and market conditions. Building on established resources can reduce duplication of effort, promote alignment with international best practices, and strengthen coherence across jurisdictions.

To remain effective, guidance must evolve alongside regulatory and technical developments (OECD, 2018[155]). Nutrient specifications may change in response to updated dietary data, laboratory methods may be refined, and labelling provisions may be revised. Regular review and updating of guidance documents help ensure that businesses rely on current and accurate information. Without periodic revision, outdated guidance can inadvertently perpetuate non-compliance, particularly where producers continue to follow superseded technical instructions.

Guidance, importantly, is not necessarily limited to a single written handbook. A variety of tools, including those leveraging technology, can help to effectively convey compliance information to businesses and other actors. These can include dedicated consultation lines where businesses can ask questions, infographics that visually present key requirements, and short instructional videos shared through platforms such as YouTube. Enforcement authorities can also use social media channels to answer common questions, provide updates and direct businesses to relevant guidance. More recently, AI-driven chatbots have provided additional channels for responding to simple and frequently asked compliance questions, helping businesses access basic information quickly while allowing officials to focus on more complex cases. For example, Lithuania’s labour regulator operates an AI-enabled chatbot, providing employers, employees, and their representatives with advice and consultation services on the application and implementation of the Labour Code, occupational safety and health legislation, labour-relations legislation, and other regulatory requirements (State Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Lithuania, 2025[193]). Self-assessment checklists and tools (as described earlier in Box 4.4) can also help make it more practical for businesses to understand and act upon how compliance can be achieved.

The most effective guidance tools and approaches make required actions easier to take, not just easier to understand. Providing information alone does not always lead to changes in behaviour, particularly where practical or behavioural barriers prevent people from following through. Behavioural science can strengthen capacity-building by helping to close the gap between knowing what to do and actually doing it. OECD (2024[194]) work highlights how behavioural science can help to identify and address these “last mile” implementation challenges, including in compliance and enforcement, so that intended policy outcomes are realised in practice. A structured behavioural diagnosis can help identify why businesses or individuals are not acting as expected and inform more targeted support. Behavioural approaches can also reinforce and sustain compliance over time. Peer networks can encourage the adoption of new behaviours (Duflo and Saez, 2003[195]), while recognition and feedback mechanisms can strengthen motivation and continued engagement (Ashraf, Bandiera and Jack, 2014[196]). More broadly, evidence from development programmes suggests that interventions are more effective when people have both the skills and capacity to act and an environment that makes the desired behaviour easier to carry out (Kremer and Glennerster, 2011[197]). Gollwitzer (1999[198]) showed that people are more likely to follow through on intended actions when they make specific implementation plans that identify when, where, and how they will act. Compliance programmes can therefore complement information and training with practical tools that help participants turn knowledge into concrete actions and routines. Food fortification programmes run by governments or NGOs have, for instance complemented food fortification regulatory programmes with production logbooks and checklists, premix-reconciliation tools, rapid testing equipment, on-site technical support and feedback on product quality – all tools that help to practically translate general information and requirements into action. These insights apply equally to how training is designed, delivered, and complemented.

Technical capacity trainings can enhance implementation by equipping industry stakeholders with the knowledge needed to meet both general food manufacturing practices standards and specific food fortification requirements. The West African Health Organization, for example, convened a regional workshop in 2024 bringing together leaders of national food fortification alliances across ECOWAS countries. The training focused on strengthening leadership, inter-ministerial co-ordination, partnership development, and advocacy skills to support mandatory large-scale food fortification of staples with key micronutrients such as iron, iodine, and vitamin A (WAHO, 2024[199]). Box 5.8 illustrates an example of an ongoing training programme in India.

Box 5.8. India’s Food Safety Training and Certification

Food Safety Training and Certification (FoSTaC) is a large-scale training programme for Food Business Operators (FBOs) that was announced by the FSSAI in April 2018. The entire training programme is managed by the online FoSTaC Portal. FoSTaC provides ease of access and transparency in conducting training. All licenced FBOs are required to have a food safety supervisor who is certified & trained under FoSTaC. To address the training needs of all types of food businesses at various levels in the food system, a total of 25 courses were developed at three levels (Basic, Advance and Awareness), in addition to 1 self-learning course. FoSTaC also includes a provision to add more sector specific courses to the current course structure as per the demand. The courses are currently delivered through a wide network of training partners, trainers and assessors.

Source: (FSSAI, 2018[200]).

Business associations can serve as important partners in this process. In the Philippines, legislation provides for nationwide public communication on iodised salt through information campaigns led by the health ministry and co-ordinated with the private sector (Congress of the Philippines, 1995[201]) Industry bodies often have established communication channels with their members and can help organise workshops, disseminate guidance materials, and facilitate dialogue between regulators and producers. Collaboration between public authorities and business associations can increase participation, tailor content to sector-specific needs, and foster a shared understanding of compliance expectations. Organisations like Millers for Nutrition – a global industry-led coalition working with food processors, industry partners, governments, and development partners – also represent how businesses can take a leading role in driving broader fortification capacity and compliance (Millers for Nutrition, n.d.[202]). Such partnerships reinforce a culture of co-operation and buy-in, where public health objectives are supported by collective industry commitment. There are also mechanisms that show industry taking leadership to encourage fortification quality, as demonstrated through the Micronutrient Fortification Index by Technoserve (see Box 5.9).

Box 5.9. Micronutrient Fortification Index

The Micronutrient Fortification Index (MFI) is a voluntary industry initiative in Nigeria that assesses and publicly reports the fortification performance of participating food companies producing products such as wheat flour, edible oil, sugar and salt. Developed by TechnoServe with industry and other partners, the Index combines company-reported information with product testing and external assessment.

Participating companies complete a self-assessment, while fortified products are independently tested against national standards. Results are combined into company scores and rankings that are made publicly available, while participating firms can also use the results to identify areas where their internal systems and practices could be strengthened. By making information on company practices and product performance more visible, it introduces an additional source of information and comparison among participating firms. Its role is complementary to, rather than a substitute for, official monitoring and enforcement of national fortification requirements.

Participation grew from an initial pilot with four companies to 15 companies representing 31 brands, with participating brands covering substantial shares of Nigeria’s flour, edible-oil and sugar markets by 2022.

Source: https://mfi-ng.org/.

In many countries, small and informal food businesses play a major role in food supply and access, (OECD, Forthcoming[70]); limited capacity and burdensome regulation that challenges this capacity can be a barrier to formalisation for these businesses. Market entry processes are key to this, as excessively burdensome regulation for start-ups is associated with higher levels of corruption and informality (Motta, Oviedo and Santini, 2010[203]) as cited in (Dayan and Bolislis, 2017[204]). Simplified and affordable licensing procedures, combined with practical support such as food-safety training, capacity building, advisory services and on-site guidance, can help businesses understand requirements and progressively meet them. OECD analysis similarly emphasises that formalisation is not necessarily a linear or one-step process, and that successful strategies need to address the different obstacles businesses encounter along their path to formalisation, combining simplified registration and licensing with incentives, capacity building and business services (OECD, 2024[205]). Codex (1999[206]) guidelines on control measures for street‑vended foods highlights the value of linking licensing with training, using simple codes of practice adapted to local conditions, establishing advisory services with on-site guidance for vendors, and other practical assistance to improve compliance while supporting livelihoods. Importantly, these measures may be more effective for informal businesses when employed as a gradual process toward full compliance – rather than requiring immediate full compliance.

Particular attention may be needed to support small and medium-sized enterprises in engaging with large-scale food fortification. Smaller operators often face distinct constraints, including limited technical staff, restricted access to laboratory services, and tighter financial margins. Countries can look to international materials as models for SME-oriented practical guidance, for example, the FAO’s manual on reducing food loss and waste in the processing, distribution and retail operations of micro and SMEs, as a reference point for national guidance (FAO, 2024[207]) Tailored guidance that provides clear, step-by-step instructions– such as on, simplified dosing calculations, practical checklists for internal controls, and model record-keeping templates, can make compliance more feasible. Nigeria, for example, through the National Agency for Food & Drug Administration & Control has issued dedicated guidelines for small-scale pre-packaged food manufacturers, setting minimum hygiene and manufacturing standards along with required process controls (NAFDAC, 2024[208]). Training sessions designed specifically for small businesses, possibly delivered regionally or through local associations, can address common challenges in a practical and context-sensitive manner. In both Kenya and Zambia, for example, the standards bureau that is involved in food enforcement delivers SME‑specific training sessions on good practices and regulatory requirements for food safety and hygiene (Kenya Bureau of Standards, 2023[209]) (Standards Alliance, 2019[210]). Principle 6 builds upon this by discussing how various policies and programmes can support businesses and SMEs, and the sustainable supply and demand of fortified foods.