“We need to move beyond the idea that smoking or unhealthy diets are solely matters of personal responsibility.” This line from the S&D rapporteur Romana Jerković sums up the debate shaping the EU Parliament’s work on an EU strategy on heart disease.
Documents seen by EU Reporter show a clear divide over two competing models of health policy: one that targets products versus one that supports action but recognises personal responsibility and evidence.
The first, led by the left and backed by Renew, wants the EU to go harder on what the WHO calls the commercial determinants of health. That means a tougher line on consumer goods for making people less healthy.
The other, made up of centre-right and right-wing MEPs, says poor health cannot just be pinned down to a list of ‘bad’ products. Prevention should also rest on evidence, targeted action and collaboration.
The view comes across in what the EPP calls a whole-of-society approach involving “civil society, the private and public sectors”. Similar wording speaks of “inclusive approaches” also bringing together scientists. The idea is simple: if Brussels wants rules that work, it cannot build on blame alone.
Evidence has become one of the dividing lines in the text. Many MEPs say Brussels should not move into restrictions without solid science, impact assessment and a better idea of the likely effects. There is wide concern that the left and liberals are drifting towards restrictions that leave no room for differences between products or patterns of use.
On alcohol, a majority of MEPs are pushing back against far reaching proposals and proposingpolicy that draws, instead, a line between harmful drinking and more moderate consumption.
Tobacco and nicotine show the same divide. Most MEPs want the focus kept on smoking. They argue that newer nicotine products should not be treated in the same way as cigarettes.
On food, the hardest line would give Brussels more say over food choices, with tighter marketing rules and firmer standards in canteens. Others put the emphasis on education and practical changes people can make in daily life.
This, in turn, brings the debate to the role of individuals. Proposals from the right place more weight on education, awareness and informed choice. That sits uneasily with therapporteur’s dismissal of responsibility. Critics say once personal judgment is pushed aside, policy risks leaning too heavily on top-down control.
The unease in Parliament is with a style of policymaking that treats too many things as if they were the same. Their case is that prevention is stronger when it is targeted.
As negotiations on the text continue, the debate is not about which measures Europe should adopt. It is about which model of health policymaking should guide Europe moving forward.
