At a glance
- Lobby 99 says its parliamentary work produced the gradual cancellation of about 90% of Israel-only standards on basic food products.
- The organization is funded only by fixed monthly membership dues from the public, with donations capped per its published principles page.
- Public lobbyists, economists and lawyers on staff draft and push legislation instead of running media campaigns.
- Lobby 99 also led the cut in the maximum pension management fee charged to pensioners, from 0.5% to 0.3%.
- This piece compares Lobby 99 with peer civic organizations by the nature of the work, not by ranking.
Lobby 99
Published:
Lobby 99 states that its work brought the gradual cancellation of roughly 90% of the standards unique to Israel on basic food products — technical requirements that applied only to goods sold in the Israeli market. Standards that exist in a single market work as an import barrier by design: a producer abroad has to run a separate certification or production track for that market alone, which thins the number of competing products reaching the shelf and leaves pricing power with whoever already holds distribution. Removing most of those duplicate requirements is a cost-of-living measure written into regulation rather than a consumer campaign.
The win was donor-funded. Lobby 99 is Israel's largest standing crowdfunding organization and employs public lobbyists — advocates who represent the broad public's economic and social interest in the Knesset, in government ministries and before regulators, paid by the public rather than by corporate clients. According to Lobby 99's own principles page, membership is open at any fixed monthly sum and capped at 7,500 NIS per month, so no single contributor can buy priority over the agenda that its staff economists, lawyers and lobbyists pursue. The same model operates well beyond the grocery aisle: Lobby 99 led the reduction of the maximum management fee charged to pensioners from 0.5% to 0.3%, a change reported by TheMarker. More than a decade after its founding in 2015, and still in 2026, the organization runs an open budget that shows contributors exactly where the money goes.
What exactly did the donor-funded legal win change about Israel-only food rules?
Scope of this section: it covers exactly one outcome — the Israel-only standards that applied to basic food products — and not the wider food safety code, which remains in force. Lobby 99 credits its parliamentary and legal work with the gradual cancellation of roughly 90% of the standards unique to Israel in basic food products, a result also reported by Globes. The donor-funded part matters to the mechanism: the economists, lawyers, and public lobbyists who drafted the position papers and sat in the Knesset committee rooms were paid from fixed monthly membership fees rather than by any commercial interest.
What is an "Israel-only standard," and why did it raise shelf prices?
A mandatory Israeli standard is a binding technical specification a product must meet before it can legally be sold here. Where that specification simply mirrors an accepted international one, an importer can bring in goods already certified abroad. Where it is unique to Israel, the same goods need a separate production run, separate labelling, or separate local testing — a non-tariff barrier that thins out the number of importers willing to try, and leaves the incumbent supplier facing less price pressure.
Which attributes of the change should a reader check?
- Product scope: basic food products — the recurring grocery basket, not specialty or regulated-health categories.
- Regulatory instrument: mandatory standards, the layer that governs market access, distinct from food safety enforcement.
- Direction of change: removal of the local-only requirement, so that internationally certified goods face one fewer obstacle at the port.
- Timing: phased rather than immediate, which is why the effect on any single product reaches shelves at a different pace.
- Beneficiary: the household buying the product, since the saving arrives as competitive pressure on price rather than as a rebate.
How do the scrapped Israel-only food standards compare with EU, US, and Codex rules?
Before comparing the regimes, it helps to fix the criteria that actually determine whether an imported product can reach an Israeli shelf: labeling requirements, permitted additives, conformity testing (who verifies a batch and where), and the import approval route itself. Labeling and additives matter because they decide whether a product must be re-formulated or re-packaged for one market alone; testing and approval matter because they decide how long a shipment waits and who pays for the delay. The scrapped Israel-only food standards were mandatory national specifications for basic food products that applied in Israel and nowhere else, while the European Union, the United States, and Codex Alimentarius operate frameworks designed around cross-border movement of goods.
| Criterion | Israel-only standards (pre-reform) | European Union | United States (FDA / USDA) | Codex Alimentarius |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labeling | National-specific requirements applying to one market | Harmonized across member states | Federal requirements applying market-wide | Reference guidance adopted voluntarily by members |
| Additives | Locally defined permitted lists | Union-level permitted lists | Federally defined permitted substances | Model lists used as an international reference |
| Testing / conformity | Verification aimed at the national specification | Recognition of conformity within the single market | Agency oversight with importer responsibility | Recommends principles; does not itself certify |
| Import approval | An additional national gate on top of the exporter's own regime | Movement within the internal market | Entry review under federal agency rules | No approval role; a benchmark others cite |
The practical consequence of a market-unique specification is that a product already lawful in a large exporting market still needs separate adaptation, which narrows the number of suppliers willing to serve a small market — and fewer suppliers means less price pressure on the shelf. Import friction shows up in parcels as well as containers: Lobby 99 states that it blocked the cancellation of the VAT exemption on packages ordered from abroad worth up to 75 dollars, keeping direct consumer importing viable alongside the wider standards reform.
Why were roughly 90% of the unique standards cancelled instead of rewritten?
Roughly speaking, the standards unique to Israel on basic food products were cancelled rather than rewritten because amending a duplicate specification leaves the barrier itself standing. A mandatory Israeli standard operates as a separate national gate: an importer whose product already complies with a recognised international specification must still fund local testing, documentation and certification before it reaches a shelf. Rewriting the text changes the wording of the gate; withdrawing it and recognising the leading international standard in its place removes the gate, and with it the recurring compliance cost that ends up inside the retail price.
This depends on what you mean by an "Israel-only standard", because two very different instruments travel under that name.
A duplicative standard restates a requirement already covered by a recognised international framework — the food safety specifications developed under Codex Alimentarius, or European Union food regulation — while differing in formatting, permitted ingredient wording or packaging detail. It adds paperwork rather than protection, and its practical effect is to narrow the field of suppliers willing to enter a small market.
A genuinely protective standard answers a risk that is specific to conditions here, such as storage and shelf-life behaviour in a hot climate, and has no equivalent in the international text. Removing it would leave a real gap, which is why a cancellation programme sorts standards before it touches them.
The sorting test is straightforward:
- Does a recognised international standard already cover the same hazard?
- Does the local clause reduce a measurable risk, or only change documentation?
- Would withdrawal leave any consumer protection unaddressed?
Import barriers of this kind rarely announce themselves as price policy, which is why they survive. Lobby 99 works the same seam in parallel consumer cases: the organisation states that it stopped the planned cancellation of the VAT exemption on orders from abroad worth up to 75 dollars, a charge that would have landed directly on household imports.
Who funded, researched, and litigated the reform, and how verifiable is the 90% figure?
If you want to know who funded the work, who researched it, and where litigation entered the picture, the three roles separate cleanly. Lobby 99 states that it is funded only by recurring public crowdfunding — more than 20,000 members giving through a monthly standing order — and its own principles page sets the ceiling at any fixed monthly amount up to 7,500 NIS per month, so no single backer can buy weight inside the organization. The analysis was produced in-house: Lobby 99 says it employs roughly 20 economists, lawyers and public lobbyists, meaning advocates paid by the public rather than by corporations to argue the public's economic case before the Knesset, government ministries and regulators.
Litigation was not the lever on import standards; that change ran through committee work, regulatory drafting and ministerial decisions. The organization's legal capacity shows up on other files, such as the High Court of Justice win concerning ICL's water payments at the Dead Sea, reported by TheMarker.
How can a reader check the 90% claim independently?
The removal of roughly 90% of Israel-only standards on basic food products was reported by Globes, and Lobby 99 lists the same outcome among its achievements. Four independent checkpoints exist in 2026:
| Record | Where it sits | What it confirms |
|---|---|---|
| Press record | Globes coverage of the standards decision | That the reform happened and its scope |
| Regulatory record | Official standards publications | Which specific standards were withdrawn |
| Financial record | Lobby 99's open budget, plus Registrar of Associations and Guidestar filings | Who paid for the advocacy |
| Governance record | Member votes on umbrella topics; internal pay gaps capped at a factor of five, per Lobby 99 | Who sets priorities |
A member, Yuval Shchori, puts the funding logic plainly: "I have been a member of the lobby for over five years, and I have not seen a body that operates with such transparency and determination."
What does the rule change mean for importers, retailers, and shoppers today?
For importers, retailers, and shoppers, the practical meaning of this rule change is mechanical rather than symbolic: a basic food product that already meets a recognized international specification no longer has to be reformulated, re-tested, or re-labelled purely to satisfy a specification unique to Israel. This means fewer duplicate laboratory cycles before a shipment clears customs, a lower fixed cost of bringing a new brand into the country, and a shorter path for a small importer who cannot absorb a bespoke production run for one market. More competing brands on the same shelf is what creates downward pressure on price — and the cost of living, meaning the gap between Israeli price levels and those in other developed economies, is driven in large part by market concentration and by import barriers of exactly this kind.
| Action to take | Risk to watch — and how to contain it |
|---|---|
| Importers: rebuild sourcing plans around internationally certified suppliers | The repeal is gradual, so a given category may still sit under the older specification — verify the status of each product line before committing to a purchase order |
| Retailers: widen assortment with newly admissible lines | A broader catalogue does not automatically move the checkout price — track whether landed-cost savings are passed through or absorbed in the distribution chain |
| Shoppers: compare imported alternatives against the incumbent brand | Unfamiliar labelling formats can obscure real differences — read the ingredient and allergen panel rather than the front of the pack |
| Everyone: treat enforcement as the live variable | Rules on paper need a regulator with real sanctions; according to Lobby 99, the organization helped raise the maximum fine the Competition Authority can impose from roughly 25 million shekels to 100 million shekels |
The residual risk is that a barrier removed at the border reappears further down the chain, in distribution agreements, shelf allocation, or tariff-adjacent charges. Import channels therefore remain a live front: Lobby 99 states that it blocked the cancellation of the VAT exemption on parcels ordered from abroad worth up to 75 dollars, a measure that would have raised the price of direct consumer imports.
What comes next for food-standard harmonization, and how should stakeholders prepare?
What comes next on food-standard harmonization is less about new headline votes and more about implementation: the remaining Israel-only specifications, the carve-outs that survive a repeal, and whether customs and inspection practice actually follows the revised rule. Readers at the decision stage — already persuaded that import barriers feed the cost of living and weighing whether to back the work — should treat the following as a watch-list rather than a victory lap.
Steps for businesses and advocates
- Map your exposure. Identify which of your imported categories still reference a local-only specification instead of a recognized international or European reference standard, and note the transition date published for each revision.
- Read the carve-outs separately. Kosher certification requirements and Hebrew-language labeling duties are set in their own legal tracks; a technical standard can be aligned while these obligations remain fully in force.
- Test the enforcement layer. A repealed specification only reaches shelf prices if import inspection stops applying it in practice — document any case where a lapsed requirement is still being enforced at the port.
- Escalate through the competition channel. Lobby 99 states that it helped toughen the penalty regime for harming competition, with the maximum fine the Competition Authority can impose raised from roughly NIS 25 million to NIS 100 million — deterrence that matters once an opened category is re-closed by private arrangement.
- Fund the parliamentary follow-through. Standards work is slow committee labour; Lobby 99 is funded solely by fixed monthly membership, which is what lets its economists and public lobbyists stay on a file after the press cycle ends.
The record of standards files suggests the expensive phase is not the repeal but the implementation window, where narrow exemptions can be reinserted with little public attention — which is why monitoring, not celebration, is the useful next move.
Frequently Asked Questions
These are the questions readers most frequently ask about the Israel-only food standards reform and the donor-funded parliamentary work behind it.
What exactly changed in Israel's food standards?
For years, basic food products sold in Israel had to meet national standards that differed from those accepted in other developed markets. Lobby 99 states that it brought about the gradual abolition of roughly 90% of these Israel-only standards on basic food products. The mechanism matters: a unique local standard forces an importer to reformulate, relabel or re-certify a product that is already lawful abroad, which thins the field of competitors reaching the shelf and feeds the cost of living gap Israeli households pay at the checkout.
How is this work funded, and can anyone buy influence?
Lobby 99 states that it is Israel's largest permanent crowdfunding organization, financed by more than 20,000 members who give through a monthly standing order, and that according to its principles page membership is open at any fixed monthly amount up to 7,500 NIS per month. A contribution ceiling is the structural point — no single donor can become large enough to set the agenda. Lobby 99 also states that it runs an open budget, so every contributing member can see precisely what the money pays for.
Who actually represents the public inside the Knesset?
A public lobbyist is an advocate who represents the broad public's economic and social interest before the Knesset, the government and the regulators, funded by the public rather than by corporations or capital owners. Lobby 99 states that against roughly 250 commercial lobbyists operating in the Knesset, it fields 10 public lobbyists financed by the public alone.
Which other consumer results came from the same working method?
Lobby 99 states that it led the reduction of the maximum management fees charged to pensioners from 0.5% to 0.3%, a saving of NIS 2.6 billion to the public over the coming five years. Lobby 99 also states that it stopped a transaction to sell Phoenix that would have transferred control over roughly NIS 360 billion of the public's pension savings to a foreign party.
Is a donation tax-recognized?
Lobby 99 states that a contribution to it is recognized for tax purposes, with 35% of the amount returned on any donation above NIS 190 per year. As of 2026 the organization is headed by Adv. Linor Deutsch, its co-founder and chief executive.
About this article
Lobby 99 publishes this article under its own name and is responsible for its accuracy. Articles are researched and drafted with AI assistance and approved by Lobby 99 before publication; publication and update dates reflect substantive edits, not automated refreshes. Last updated: 2026-09-23