Food literacy is defined as the "collection of inter-related knowledge, skills, and behaviours necessary to plan, manage, select, prepare, and eat food to meet needs and determine food intake”(1). Since this conceptualization, research on food literacy measurement has progressed; however, a major barrier is the absence of a standardised, sensitive, and user-friendly tool in measuring change in food literacy, particularly in clinical contexts. This gap hinders nutrition and health professionals’ capacity to assess and evaluate practice efforts to improve food literacy of adults. This scoping review aims to identify, analyse and evaluate existing food literacy measurement tools for adults. This scoping review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines(2). A comprehensive search was performed in seven databases: PubMed®, Embase ScienceDirect®, SciVerse Scopus®, CINAHL® with Full Text, A+ Education, and ProQuest. Only papers that were in Full-text articles published in English language or English translation of the publication were included. No date limit was applied. Studies were included if they described an original tool that explicitly measure food literacy of adults. Extracted data included (i) tool characteristics i.e. year, country, purpose, number of items, item categories, included items, method of administration, scoring and participant characteristics (ii) tool development i.e. underlying definition or conceptual framework of food literacy, item generation, and psychometric properties. Twenty-one original tools that explicitly measure food literacy were identified. These tools varied widely in the specific constructs intended to measure. Methodological quality, particularly in terms of content validity, also varied considerably. Nineteen tools reported assessment of content validity by expert panels, with panel sizes ranging from 2 to 85 members. Inconsistencies were observed in the underpinning definitions and conceptual frameworks, with the Vidgen and Gallegos framework being the most common across tool. Structural composition and domain organisation were highly heterogeneous, with total item counts ranging from 12 to 100. One tool adopted a simple unidimensional structure in which all items were presented without domain categorisation, whereas others employed multi-domain frameworks comprising between two and ten domains. Commonly recurring domains included planning and management, selection, preparation and eating, although the breadth and emphasis of these domains varied between tools, reflecting domains considered central to food literacy. These findings underscore the central role of the Vidgen and Gallegos framework in guiding the measurement of food literacy. This review provides a reference for developing or refining theoretically sound food literacy measures that encompass core domains to enhance more consistent measurement of food literacy across diverse adult populations and contexts.