European Public Health Alliance together with International Union against Cancer and the Association of European Cancer Leagues, EU Liaison Office, Brussels
Joint Press Release
Health lobby congratulates Commission for proposal to phase out tobacco subsidies
The European Summit in Gothenburg later this week will consider the Commission's proposals for an EU strategy on sustainable development. Many of the proposals address actual or potential threats to public health. Indeed, the link between sustainable development and good health provides the underlying theme for the analysis and conclusions presented by the Commission.
Why this concern? The Commission Communication recalls first the 'Brundtland' definition of sustainable development:
'Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'
In the fourteen years since this definition was agreed, little has changed in a practical sense. There is plenty of evidence that the globalised economy continues to encourage over-consumption in the developed world, contrasted with the scarcity and starvation that is endemic elsewhere. The pattern of over-consumption here, and poverty there, is unsustainable. It is not only a social injustice now: but also a threat to basic life support systems in the future. We cannot wilfully exploit the planet's resources, without regard to the consequences. That is the essence of the 'Bruntland' definition.
The Commission document builds on this basic reality. It reminds us, in effect, that we are all interconnected. Whatever we do, whether it be as national governments, as multinational companies, or as individual citizens of planet earth, has a knock-on effect. Moreover our health, both as individuals and as community, is greatly influenced by the decisions we reach and the actions we take in regard to the environment - both THE environment, and our environment. Overall policies matter, but sometimes actions (or no action) speak louder than words.
In drawing attention to health, the Commission is touching a public nerve. Rightly so, for health is one of the values rated most highly in EU countries. Any policy that seeks to respond to citizens' interests must therefore place health centre-stage. This it does. It not only points to obvious concerns, such as the continuing risks posed by dioxins, toxins and pesticides and the necessary application of the precautionary principle: it also addresses previous inconsistencies in EU policy. Primary amongst these, and featuring amongst its most specific proposals, is the massive subsidy paid to tobacco farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
Whatever interest you represent, tobacco can never be defined as a healthy crop. Tobacco kills more than 550,000 EU citizens each year. There are only two possible arguments to justify subsidies for tobacco farmers: income support, and maintenance of the rural economy, in otherwise deprived areas of the Community. The Commission proposes to phase out subsidies and to put in place support mechanisms which will encourage conversion to other crops or alternative incomes.
The health community welcomes this strategy, congratulates the Commission on its proposal and urges the European Council to move as quickly as possible towards a clear-cut programme and a definite timetable. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence that similar moves in the past have been deliberately boycotted by various vested interests. These have to be confronted and overcome, to turn the Commission proposal into a meaningful reality.:
