In March 2005 the European Commission launched an innovative mechanism to fight against the obesity epidemic - an EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health.
EPHA has been a member of this Platform since May 2005. The following paragraphs represent the EPHA’s Secretariat’s views, based on our participation in the Platform.
This article has recently been published in the Dutch-language magazine, Intermezzo.
The Platform was set up in March 2005 and could be described as an experiment in working with business and civil society, chaired by the Commission. It brings together the key stakeholders at EU level including industry associations, consumer groups, health NGOs and political leaders. The Platform aims to pool expertise and catalyse Europe-wide action across a range of sectors. The Platform also aims to act as a forum where good practice from one country can rapidly be disseminated and replicated across the continent.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Platform
The Platform includes a varied mix of stakeholders, which is generally viewed as a great strength. This is the first time to draw together at EU-level health NGOs, consumer organisations, health professionals, representatives of the food, retail, catering, and advertising industries, and the cooperative movement.
However, despite the Commission’s assertion that “Membership is open to any organisation operating at a European level that shares the Platform’s aims and that is willing to commit to action to help achieve them”, in reality the selection criteria of new members is decided unilaterally by the European Commission and they are not published at present. This creates confusion for those organisations that would like to be members but are not accepted.
Political commitment to the Platform appears very positive. This is especially true of Director General for Health and Consumer Protection (DG Sanco), Robert Madelin, who appears to make a point of chairing Platform meetings personally. There has been similar levels of commitment in terms of human resources of other Directorate-Generals (DGs) of the European Commission, such as DG Education and Culture.
However, in terms of commitment of funding a very different picture is painted. Crucially, members are not reimbursed by the European Commission for staff time in working on Platform issues. This is of great significance for NGOs and other not-for-profit organisations who have minuscule budgets compared to those of the industry associations.
This unleveled playing field no doubt impacts on the time and quality of our contributions, especially when compared to the huge resources of industry associations. To add further to problems of resource inequity, industry can exploit expertise in legal, academic, scientific and other fields, whereas not-for-profit organisations often rely solely on the goodwill of experts in presenting their case.
As indicated in the name of the Platform, it aims primarily to focus and promote concrete actions designed to contain or reverse current trends. This is certainly a positive point as the emphasis on action is a refreshing change to the rhetoric often found in similar projects. Members submit action plans setting out what more they propose to do in promoting healthy diets and physical activity.
While EPHA endorses commitments to concrete action it has become apparent that there are different understanding amongst stakeholders of what "action" really entails. To health, consumer, and civil society organisations “action” on issues of diet, physical activity and health largely involves better regulation of the food and drink industry. Some areas of regulation of unhealthy foods include marketing and advertising (especially to children), consumer information and package labelling, misleading health claims, composition and formulation of food products, and availability of health food options.
The industry association’s understanding of “action” is unsurprisingly avoidant of regulation. So far industry associations have have outlined actions on their own terms - actions which seem to take everyone else’s role except their own.
For example, food and drink industry tends to favour investing in research on the causes of obesity, rather than research on the reformulation of unhealthy foods (for example by reducing the use of salt, sugar and trans-fats of processed foods). A further example can be seen in the plethora of industry-funded healthy eating programmes, a phenomenon considered entirely inappropriate by many.
That industry is highly involved in the Platform, need not have been an inherently negative point for the Platform. However, the actions of industry associations in the Platform are a major source of frustration for many of the other stakeholders. Rather than fulfilling the aims of the Platform, industry involvement appears to serve corporate interests as a bid to avoid regulatory legislation.
Evaluating the Platform’s performance
Despite the many criticisms, the Platform is useful in that it creates momentum in moving forward the debate. The Platform achieves this by stimulating interest in diet, physical activity and health via the media within the public at large. In addition, the Platform inspires the founding of similar platforms at national level, which undoubtedly influences national agendas in a favourable way.
Although the EU Platform is just one in a number of steps in tackling issues of obesity, diet, physical activity, it is overall a positive step. What the future holds for European health is yet to be seen.
