A/HRC/19/59 diets, by implementing ―relevant international agreements and strategies, and education, legislative, regulatory and fiscal measures.‖ 60 38. These advances remain short of what the situation requires. The emphasis remains largely on demand-side measures, focused on consumers‘ choices, rather than on the supply side: the range of foods made available to consumers and the prices of different types of food. And commitments remain voluntary. States should protect the right to adequate food by adopting measures that reduce the negative impacts on public health of the existing food systems. Moreover, States should discharge their duty to fulfil the right to adequate food by taking immediate measures to progressively make a transition to more sustainable diets. 1. Protecting and promoting adequate diets (a) Using taxation to encourage healthy diets 39. The WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health refers to the need to rethink fiscal and agricultural policies to align them with public health concerns (paras. 41 (2) and (4)). The introduction of food taxes and subsidies to promote a healthy diet constitutes a cost-effective and low-cost population-wide intervention that can have a significant impact (A/66/83, para. 42). As acknowledged by the recent introduction of such taxes in Denmark, Finland, France and Hungary, 61 the taxation of HFSS foods and beverages can be an effective tool. Price is an important determining factor in consumption levels, and demand elasticity is especially high for snacks and drinks consumed outside the home. Research shows that a 10 per cent tax on soft drinks, which have considerable negative health impacts,62 could lead to an 8 to 10 per cent reduction in purchases of these beverages.63 The standard concern raised when such taxes are discussed is that they could penalize the poorest segment of the population, who spend proportionally more of their incomes on food and often are pushed into adopting unhealthy diets. But that concern can be met by using the public revenue from the tax to make healthy foods more affordable, for it is relative prices that must change. The poor are penalized for being poor, both because HFSS foods and soft drinks are cheap and because healthy diets are expensive.64 60 61 62 63 64 Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly (footnote 22 above), para. 43. In Denmark, Law No. 247 of 30 March 2011 (Fat duty law) imposed, starting 1 October 2011, a new duty on saturated fat in a range of foods, based on evidence that the substitution of saturated fat by polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces the risks of cardiovascular diseases (A. Astrup and others, ―The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010?‖, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 93, No. 4 (2011), pp. 684688). In Hungary, since 1 September 2011 a levy has been imposed on products containing ―too much‖ salt, sugar, or fat – ―junk food,‖ in effect – while taxes on soft drinks have increased by 10 per cent; the revenues shall contribute to meeting the costs of health care. L.R. Vartanian and others, ―Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis,‖ American Journal of Public Health, vol. 97, No. 4 (2007), pp. 667–675; G. Woodword-Lopez and others, ―To what extent have sweetened beverages contributed to the obesity epidemic?‖, Public Health Nutrition, vol. 14, No. 3 (2011), pp. 599-609. T. Andreyeva and others, ―The impact of food prices on consumption: a systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food,‖ American Journal of Public Health, vol. 100, No. 2 (2010), p. 220. In the United States, a pilot study funded under the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (―Farm Bill‖) showed that a 10 per cent reduction in the price of fruits and vegetables would increase purchases by 7.0 per cent and 5.8 per cent, respectively. 17