A/HRC/26/31 undermine the effectiveness of public–private partnerships in States’ efforts to reduce dietrelated NCDs. 25. Owing to the inherent problems associated with self-regulation and public–private partnerships, there is a need for States to adopt laws that prevent companies from using insidious marketing strategies. The responsibility to protect the enjoyment of the right to health warrants State intervention in situations when third parties, such as food companies, use their position to influence dietary habits by directly or indirectly encouraging unhealthy diets, which negatively affect people’s health. Therefore, States have a positive duty to regulate unhealthy food advertising and the promotion strategies of food companies. Under the right to health, States are especially required to protect vulnerable groups such as children from violations of their right to health. To reduce opportunities for targeted advertisements, some States have instituted laws to ban companies from advertising their products to children below a certain age and to limit the availability of unhealthy foods in schools.40 D. Policies on foreign direct investments 26. TNCs that manufacture and sell processed foods are making their presence felt globally by reaching consumer groups, which transcend national boundaries through FDI and international trade agreements, thus impacting on the health of transboundary populations. Recognizing this, States need to bring these companies within their regulatory framework. States may impose health-related conditions on investments by TNCs and require them to adhere to domestic standards on nutrition, advertisement and marketing.41 For instance, States may condition investments by foreign retail chains on a requirement to make available healthy foods in their stores. 27. However, regulating FDI by TNCs through conditions on the kind of food they produce may affect the decision of TNCs to invest in these States.42 Some States, especially low- and middle-income countries that rely on foreign investments may not be able to impose health- or diet-related conditions. States may therefore not give primacy to the health of the population, undermining the full realization of the right to health. There is a need to use other approaches, such as incentivizing the manufacture and sale of healthier alternatives, to protect the right to health of people and still attract FDI. V. Responsibilities of the food and beverage industry 28. Although international human rights instruments refer to States as primary dutybearers, non-State actors are also charged with the responsibility to respect the right to health. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights prohibits the violation of human rights enshrined therein not only by States, but also by any “group or person”, clearly implicating the responsibility of non-State actors in the realization of human rights (article 5). The right to health framework further crystalizes this position and provides that while only State parties to the Covenant are thus ultimately accountable for compliance with it, all members of society as well as the private business sector have 40 41 42 Barbara Fraser, “Latin American countries crack down on junk food”, The Lancet, vol. 382, No. 9890 (August 2013), pp. 385–386. “The role of foreign direct investment in the nutrition transition” (see footnote 24 above), p. 363. Neal H. Hooker and Julie A. Caswell, “Trends in food quality regulation: implications for processed food trade and foreign direct investment”, Agribusiness, vol. 12, No. 5 (September/October 1996), pp. 411–419. 11