Brussels – “Supporting the report on the European Plan against Cancer (BECA) without amending its approach would be a mistake, both politically and in substance.” This is the unease felt by a section of the European People’s Party (EPP), as an MEP from a prominent delegation within the EPP told Eunews, ahead of the vote at the European Parliament’s mini-plenary session on 11 November, following the green light to the bill by the SANT Committee on 28 September. According to the same source, “strong resistance has emerged within the group towards certain prevention measures, which are deemed too close to the positions of the Socialists and Greens and not sufficiently grounded in proportionality and scientific evidence”.
These concerns are said not to have emerged only in recent days. According to sources, discontent has been evident at various internal EPP meetings, first during the working groups on environmental and economic policies and subsequently during discussions within the entire political group in Strasbourg. The national delegations that have expressed the greatest reservations – according to the EPP MEP – are said to be those from Italy, Spain, Romania, Sweden, Portugal and the Czech Republic. At the heart of the criticism is, above all, the discrepancy between the BECA’s approach and that advocated by the EPP in the report on cardiovascular disease (CVD) just a few weeks earlier.
The comparison between the two texts is significant. On CVD, the EPP had emphasised the need to distinguish between different levels of risk and to assess the consequences of the proposed measures, advocating a more proportionate approach. On BECA, however, the group supported a more ambitious report on diet, alcohol and tobacco, with stricter guidelines on the main cancer risk factors. According to sources consulted by Eunews, this contradiction does not necessarily reflect a shift in the EPP’s political stance on prevention, but is primarily linked to the European political situation.
Underlying this is the desire of the People’s Party leadership to preserve the majority supporting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, comprising the EPP, the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and Renew Europe. This necessity has been made all the more evident by the results achieved by the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany. Against this backdrop, maintaining a strong partnership with the S&D and Renew also means preventing the most radical forces from claiming political victories on sensitive issues such as public health.
The internal balance of power within the European Parliament is also influenced by upcoming political deadlines, starting with the race for Roberta Metsola’s re-election as President of the European Parliament and the future composition of parliamentary committees, including the Public Health (SANT) committee. Backing BECA would therefore form part of a broader compromise within the ruling majority, effectively sidelining the concerns raised by some EPP delegations. The EPP would therefore have moved away from the position it had maintained on CVD primarily for reasons of political expediency, rather than as a genuine re-evaluation of its stance on prevention.
The situation, however, could change further in the coming months. Possible political developments in France and Spain – and, in particular, any changes of government – could alter the balance of power between Member States and the positions of their respective governments on issues relating to health and tobacco regulation.
In public, the EPP rejects the notion that it has abandoned its principles. Czech MEP Tomáš Zdechovský said that “the EPP’s principles have not changed.” “We must remain the political benchmark for a balanced, evidence-based approach to prevention: protecting public health while respecting the principle of proportionality, distinguishing between different levels of risk and taking into account the consequences for employment and the economy,” he noted. According to Zdechovský, this balance was already evident in the group’s position on the CVD report and must also guide its stance on the BECA. “We are working within the group to ensure that the same principles guide our position,” he added, assuring that the EPP will not support “ideological proposals, whether from the Socialists or the Greens, that could impose disproportionate burdens without delivering clear benefits for public health”.
Even outside the EPP, the debate on the prevention measures contained in the BECA highlights differing views on how to address risk factors. Pietro Fiocchi, a Member of the European Parliament for Fratelli d’Italia in the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, criticises an approach that fails to distinguish between different products and behaviours: “In the last parliamentary term the main concept was risk reduction.” A distinction which, according to Fiocchi, should also apply to tobacco and its alternative products, but not only to these. On alcohol consumption, the MEP highlights the need to “distinguish between excessive and moderate consumption”; on food, he challenges approaches that risk “turning nutritional guidelines into bans or indiscriminate judgements”.
French MEP Pierre Pimpie, also a member of the ECR Group, takes a similar line on differentiated regulation. “You cannot treat everything the same,” he said. He advocates a pragmatic approach to harm reduction and disputes the equivalence between traditional cigarettes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches. Pimpie also warns that excessive bans could “fuel the black market and undermine investment and employment.”
The BECA debate is part of a wider discussion on the future revision of the European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and the regulations on nicotine-containing products. On the one hand, France and the Netherlands, along with six other countries, have called on the European Commission to impose a market freeze on new products and introduce more restrictive measures, including action on flavourings. On the other hand, Italy and Greece have promoted an initiative in favour of a more moderate approach, which is also supported by Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Slovakia, and stresses the need to distinguish these products from traditional cigarettes. Romania and Sweden were reportedly potential supporters of the Italian initiative, according to what has been learned, but are unable to join directly due to their domestic institutional situations.
The vote on 11 November will therefore be a crucial test of whether the EPP will succeed in bridging its divisions. At stake is not only the content of the report on cancer, but also the People’s Party’s ability to maintain a clear stance on prevention, while reconciling its positions with the political balance of the European majority.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
