A/71/282 70. Those efforts indicate that business has a responsibility to protect the right to adequate food and nutrition, especially with regard to children. Yet in practice it can be difficult to hold companies to account, especially in cross-border cases involving complex corporate structures. In this regard, home States have extraterritorial obligations to seek to prevent and address human rights abuses abroad by companies domiciled within their jurisdictions. For example, if a host country is unwilling to hold a company responsible, or even provides tax-free or other incentives, the home country of the enterprise should exercise extraterritorial responsibility. 71. The Guiding Principles underline that the responsibili ty of companies to respect human rights exists independently of the abilities and/or willingness of States to fulfil human rights obligations, and hence to prevent them from taking advantage of weak legislative environments. However, ensuring accountabilit y and access to effective remedies for victims remains a major challenge. 51 72. While international human rights law lays the foundations for responsible corporate behaviour, food corporations have vehemently opposed calls to regulate marketing. Instead, many have promoted voluntary commitments on labelling and advertising or have sponsored nutrition and health education programmes as part of their “corporate social responsibility”. 52 The latter is particularly concerning, blurring the lines between education and marketing, and potentially allowing companies to disseminate misleading information. 53 73. Recent initiatives, such as a 2014 high-level commission on ending childhood obesity and recommendations towards a global convention to protect and promote healthy diets by the World Obesity Federation and Consumers International, as well as Global Nutrition Reports, indicate the need for stronger accountability mechanisms at the national level, considering that voluntary corporate initiatives are proving ineffective. C. State responsibility to ensure monitoring, accountability and transparency 74. In its general comment No. 12, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights views the right to adequate food to imply food “free from adverse substances” (para. 8), which “sets requirements for food safety and for a range of protective measures by both public and private means … at different stages throughout the food chain” (para. 10). Considering the adverse health impacts, “food safety” should be interpreted to include the nutritional value of food products. 75. The Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security also encourage States to take steps to prevent overconsumption and unbalanced diets that may lead to malnutrition, obesity and degenerative diseases. 54 Many States are taking steps in __________________ 51 52 53 54 18/24 See also the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on improving accountability and access to remedy for victims of business -related human rights abuse (A/HRC/32/19). Patti Rundall, “The ‘business of malnutrition’: the perfect public relations cover for Big Food”, in Right to Food and Nutrition Watch 2015: People’s Nutrition Is Not a Business (2015), p. 23. Baby Milk Action, “Tackling obesity: how companies use education to build ‘trust’”. Guideline 10.2. 16-13441