The food system is a major cause of global warming contributing between 9 - 29 per cent of global carbon emissions. In addition, diet is believed to be a major cause of non-communicable diseases in Scotland, resulting in about 24 per cent of deaths and a reduction in life expectancy to 62.3 years. There is therefore the need to change consumer behaviour towards more sustainable lifestyles. The literature argues for diets high in fruit and vegetable but low in red meat and fat/sugar-based foods. To increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables in the UK i.e., Scotland, the government launched the “five-a-day” campaign in 2003 to increase fruit and vegetable consumption to 400 g/day through education and advertisement. However, after 18 years of its implementation, 2020 DEFRA food consumption data shows that Scottish consumption of fruits and vegetables was 23 per cent below the recommended daily intake. The goal of the present analysis is to simulate the price change required to increase fruit and vegetable consumption by 10 per cent in Scotland. The study relied on monthly food purchase data from 2013 – 2020 collated by Kanter Worldpanel for Scotland. This data was used to estimate unconditional food demand elasticities using an EASI demand model. The elasticities were introduced into a model that calculates the shadow prices that must prevail for consumers to increase their purchase of fruit and vegetables without changing the taste or utility of diets. Results suggest that, for the average person, a 10 per cent increase in purchases of fruits and vegetables would require subsidies between 8.36 per cent and 56.35 per cent for Processed fruit and fruit products and Fresh fruits, respectively. The post-policy diet was higher in the following food products: non-carcase meat and meat products, Butter, margarine, vegetable oils, cakes, buns and pastries, and confectionery. Unintended effects of the policy are 1) increase in average GHGe per person per day, and 3) increase in saturated fats and total fat purchases. The distributional analysis shows that 1) different income groups respond differently to subsidies, 2) persons earning above 30 K would reduce their emissions, and 3) households earning below 30 K would increase their sugar, saturate fat, and total fat purchases. In summary, though the policy would increase fruits and vegetable consumption, there will be unintended negative consequences.