Brussels, 02/02/2007 (Agence Europe) - In its adoption, in Brussels on Thursday 1 February, of the report by Belgian Liberal Frédérique Ries, the European Parliament has reacted to the Green Paper on obesity, which was published in December 2005 by the European Commission. The report, which was adopted by 620 votes in favour, 24 against and 14 abstentions, calls upon the European Commission to move swiftly to the next stage, that of a White Paper containing concrete measures to reduce the number of overweight or obese people between now and 2015.
During the debate which preceded the vote, the rapporteur pointed out that in the European Union, 38% of women and 27% of men are overweight. What is even more serious is that this health issue affects 14 million children, and the trend shows signs of getting worse. The report therefore recommends that the Member States officially recognise obesity as a chronic disease, in order to avoid stigmatisation of people affected and to ensure that they have access to the health care they need.
Many of the MEPs present stated that this disease can often be observed in people living under precarious social conditions. As French Socialist Anne Ferreira put it, “the rich are slim”. Alongside others of her colleagues, she criticised the fact that the common agricultural policy (CAP) tends to push up the prices of fruit and vegetables and to reduce those of sugar and fat. The report therefore recommends that health and nutritional concerns be taken into consideration across the board, in all Community policies, from the CAP to education, via research… Does this mean that we can expect binding measures at European level? In the view of British Conservative member Philip Bushill-Mathews, "it is not up to the EU to make this decision. Health comes under the competence of the Member States and also of the parents. We do not want to see a nanny Europe”. Taking the opposite view, British Labour member Linda McAvan pleaded for obligatory labelling of the eight principal nutrients (fat, sugar, fibre, protein,…), but this amendment was rejected. On advertising, she noted that a lot of talking got done, but very little action. She went on to suggest that fat with no nutritional values be banned. But most of the amendments aiming to define any constraints at this stage were rejected. Even though the MEPs called for a reduction in fatty acids, referring to measures taken in Denmark and Canada by way of example, they stressed the risks inherent in excessive zeal in prevention, which may end up working in favour of other diseases, such as anorexia. The EPP-ED, ALDE and UEN groups agreed to put aside the idea of obligatory checks on television adverts aimed at children.
On this last point, Commissioner Markos Kyprianou stated that the recent revision of the Television without Borders directive did enough to govern this issue. He expressed in “self-regulation” on the part of the food industry. “If this does not work, we can always regulate at a later stage”, he said. However, the Commissioner indicated that concrete proposals to come would combine voluntary self-regulation with binding rules. German Green Hiltrud Breyer criticised the Commission for its decision not to adopt a more binding approach and of being “far less tenacious than in the fight against passive smoking ".
Lastly, the report pleaded in favour of increased efforts for consumer information and, above all, education, because “childhood is the stage in life in which most nutritional habits are learnt”, as the French UMP MEP Françoise Grossetête pointed out. The Parliament is therefore calling on the Member States and healthcare professionals to promote the advantages of a well-balanced diet and regular physical activity. (oj)