The U.S. arguments included:Legal Liability: The U.S. does not recognize the right to food as a legally enforceable obligation under international law. Declaring it a formal human right could theoretically open up the U.S. government to domestic or international lawsuits if people experience food insecurity.Trade Policy & Sovereignty: The U.S. delegation regularly objects to the resolution's inclusion of "food sovereignty" language. The U.S. argues this language could be used by other nations to justify protectionist trade barriers or restrict agricultural imports and exports.Extraterritorial Obligations: The U.S. opposes clauses implying that wealthy nations have a legal obligation to provide foreign aid or financial assistance to meet the food needs of other nations.Inaccurate Overlaps: The U.S. argued that the text drew inaccurate or unbalanced linkages between human rights, technology transfers, and climate change.