Brussels – The European Parliament approved its position on the prevention of cardiovascular diseases by a large majority. However, while in Strasbourg the text was passed with 545 votes in favour, 47 against and 75 abstentions, the Committee on Public Health (SANT) in Brussels is now considering the European plan against cancer, the so-called “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan” (BECA): the draft to be voted on in the parliamentary committee on 28 September takes a different approach to some of the main risk factors, ranging from food to tobacco and alcohol. This discrepancy has not gone unnoticed and has already raised alarm bells within the European People’s Party (EPP).
The report on the European strategy for cardiovascular diseases, the CVD dossier, which was approved yesterday (16 September), places a strong emphasis on prevention, calling on the European Commission to “step up action on the main risk factors for non-communicable diseases” such as tobacco and new nicotine products, alcohol, diet, obesity and physical inactivity. The text calls for a review of tobacco regulations, i including regarding promotion on social media, improved nutritional information, a European definition of ultra-processed foods, and more cardiovascular screening for those most at risk.
However, the message emerging from the vote is also one of avoiding extreme measures and blanket bans, and of refraining from accelerating the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). The report further acknowledges that the various nicotine‑based products carry different risk profiles, removing from the text the passages that tended to equate them. And this approach does not concern tobacco alone. On food and alcohol as well, the language maintains a prevention‑based stance, without introducing extreme or generalised measures in either sector.
“The most important message is that Europe must stop focusing solely on treating cardiovascular diseases and do much more to prevent them“, the report’s rapporteur, the Croatian Socialist Romana Jerković, explained to Eunews. An approach which, according to the MEP, must address “not only individual choices, but also the environment in which those choices are made, from prices and availability right through to marketing.” With broad backing and applause in the Chamber, Jerković called the text “good and balanced.”
The shadow rapporteur for Fratelli d’Italia, a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, Michele Picaro, also sees the vote as a confirmation of an approach based on prevention and proportionality. “Prevention, scientific evidence and healthy lifestyles, without turning European health policies into a tool for ideological bans and indiscriminate penalties,” he stated, stressing in particular the distinction between responsible and harmful alcohol consumption.
But this is precisely where the BECA issue comes to the fore. Eunews has examined the draft report on the European plan against cancer discussed at the meeting of the shadow rapporteurs and has found significant differences in language and approach compared with the CVD text just approved by the plenary. These differences relate in particular to the way in which alcohol, tobacco and the principle of harm reduction are addressed.
According to information obtained by Eunews from internal sources close to the dossier, it was precisely this discrepancy that set off alarm bells within the EPP, which yesterday convened an emergency meeting of its members on the SANT committee. During the meeting, several MEPs expressed concern that the BECA text, in its current form, does not reflect the approach just endorsed by the plenary in the vote on the CVD.
In the draft, moreover, the approach to risk factors appears closer to that advocated by the European Commission, particularly regarding risk reduction and product differentiation. According to sources close to the dossier, this is precisely one of the points fuelling internal debate within the EPP. While the text on cardiovascular health acknowledges different risk profiles and focuses on prevention and proportionality, the current BECA wording seems less inclined to distinguish between products and risk levels.
According to the same sources, the request is to work towards steering BECA back towards the approach that emerged in relation to the cardiovascular strategy, which is considered more pragmatic and consistent with what the sources describe as the defence of the “European way of life.” The vote is still scheduled for 28 September, though further internal discussions within the EPP before the SANT meeting cannot be ruled out.
Pietro Fiocchi (FdI-ECR), the ECR’s shadow rapporteur on the BECA dossier, expressed a similar concern. In an interview with Eunews, he openly spoke of a “very important battle currently underway” over the text. According to Fiocchi, the key issue is, above all, the difference in approach between the two dossiers. “The text on the cardiovascular strategy was very moderate from a certain point of view, but pragmatic,” he explained. On BECA, however, “a series of very heated discussions have begun” regarding measures which, in his view, risk turning prevention into a more restrictive approach.
At the heart of this is the principle of risk reduction, which, according to Fiocchi, was central to the BECA review during the previous parliamentary term. “In the original text, the one discussed during the last parliamentary term, there was the concept of moderate or excessive alcohol consumption, which is a very important distinction,” the MEP noted. In the current version, however, that distinction risks being lost. The comparison with the vote on the CVD is therefore direct. “The text on the cardiovascular strategy was very moderate from a certain point of view, but pragmatic”, reiterated Fiocchi, who believes that the BECA is once again discussing the differentiation between products based on risk.
The issue also concerns tobacco. “From a scientific point of view, it is fairly well established that some alternatives to traditional smoking are less harmful than traditional smoking,” Fiocchi argued, calling for this factor to be taken into account in the regulatory framework of the cancer action plan. The text, however, is not yet final. “There could be a few minor changes,” Fiocchi admitted, noting that the final wording will depend on the amendments and the committee vote.
And this is precisely the political issue at stake on 28 September: having approved a policy on cardiovascular prevention by an overwhelming majority, the Parliament must now decide whether to apply the same approach to cancer prevention. Two different issues, but many risk factors in common. And a question now being asked in the European Parliament is: why is the policy just approved for one not also applied to the other?
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
