Obesity in Europe: The Strategy of the European Union from a Public Health Law Perspective

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Faeh

Abstract In 2007 the European Commission published a White Paper on a “Strategy on nutrition, overweight and obesity”, proposing measures to impede the current trend towards a steady gain in weight by Union citizens. In this article, these ideas are discussed critically in the light of the competences of the Union and from a public health law perspective, in order to scrutinise the effectiveness of the measures and to identify shortcomings in the White Paper. One focus of this article will be European food legislation, as food is one of the leading causes of people being overweight or obese.

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Banta ◽  
Wija Oortwijn

Health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important in the European Union as an aid to decision making. As agencies and programs have been established, there is increasing attention to coordination of HTA at the European level, especially considering the growing role of the European Union in public health in Europe. This series of papers describes and analyzes the situation with regard to HTA in the 15 members of the European Union, plus Switzerland. The final paper draws some conclusions, especially concerning the future involvement of the European Commission in HTA.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Gontariuk ◽  
Thomas Krafft ◽  
Cassandra Rehbock ◽  
David Townend ◽  
Loth Van der Auwermeulen ◽  
...  

Objective: The first wave of the coronavirus SARS-COV-2 pandemic has revealed a fragmented governance within the European Union (EU) to tackle public health emergencies. This qualitative study aims: 1) to understand the current EU position within the field of public health emergencies taking the case of the COVID-19 as an example by comparing and contrasting experiences from EU institutions and experts from various EU Member States at the beginning of the pandemic; and, 2) to identify and to formulate future EU pandemic strategies and actions based on experts' opinions.Methods: Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with public health experts from various European Member States and European Commission officials from May 2020 until August 2020. The transcripts were analyzed by Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), mainly a manifest content analysis.Results: This study demonstrated that the limited EU mandate in health hinders proper actions to prevent and tackle infectious disease outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that this limitation significantly impacted the ECDC, as the Member States' competence did not allow the agency to have more capacity. The European Commission has fulfilled its role of coordinating and supporting the Member States by facilitating networks and information exchange. However, EU intra- and inter-communication need further improvement. Although diverse EU instruments and mechanisms were found valid, their implementation needed to be faster and more efficient. The results pointed out that underlying political challenges in EU decision-making regarding health emergencies hinder the aligned response. It was stated that the Member States were not prepared, and due to the restriction of their mandate, EU institutions could not enforce binding guidelines. Additionally, the study explored future EU pandemic strategies and actions. Both, EU institutions and national experts suggested similar and clear recommendations regarding the ECDC, the investment, and future harmonized preparedness tools.Conclusion: The complex politics of public health at the EU level have led to the fragmentation of its governance for effective pandemic responses. This ongoing pandemic has shed light on the fragility of the political and structural systems in Europe in public health emergencies. Health should be of high importance in the political agenda, and robust health reforms at the local, regional, national, and EU levels are highly recommended.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-86
Author(s):  
Raymond O'Rourke

Following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant on 11 March 2011, the European Union was informed that radioactive levels in certain food products originating in Japan, such as milk and spinach, exceeded the normal permitted levels under Japanese legislation. The European Commission judged that such levels of radioactivity could pose a threat to public health in the European Union and therefore began introducing specific additional import conditions for Japanese food products as a precautionary measure.


2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 289-320
Author(s):  
Geert van Calster

AbstractThis chapter reviews the regulatory innovation process in the European Union, with a focus on the environmental sector. It examines the EU documents on regulation and, in particular, the ‘eight pillars of European governance’ listed by the European Commission in its follow-up to the 2001 White Paper on European Governance, as a useful means of categorising the practical consequences which the European Union attaches to the different implications of the governance debate in the EU. It goes on to summarise the initiatives on regulatory innovation as kick-started by the White Paper on Governance, and to map the current state of each of these initiatives. It concludes that no fundamental reform is required, but rather only a slim number of targeted remedies; the only real solution to the regulatory fog is acceptance and deregulation.


Author(s):  
X. Dai

The European politics of digital convergence has been an important topic for public debate since the early 1990s, when the forces of the digital revolution began to clash with the complicated system of regulation established in the “analogue age” regarding the media and communications sector. When the Maastricht Treaty was signed in the early 1990s, the issue of communications infrastructure was incorporated into the law of the European Union (EU) for the first time in the Union’s history. The Maastricht Treaty stipulates that the EU should develop a Trans-European Network of Telecommunications (TEN-Telecom), which supports network inter-connectivity and service inter-operability (Dai, 2000). The Delors White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, and Employment envisions the downing of a multimedia age and calls for the creation of a “common information area” (European Commission, 1993). Shortly after the publication of the Delors White Paper, the Bangemann Report delivered a strong message to the European Council in Corfu that the EU’s regulatory framework would have to be reformed in order to take on the challenges brought by new information and communications technologies (ICTs), which are generating a new industrial revolution (Bangemann et al., 1994). The release of the Delors White Paper and the Bangemann Report heralded the creation of a new policy area—the European Information Society, in which EU institutions, in particular the European Commission, have been playing a significant role up until now. Meanwhile, although the issue of regulatory challenges posed by the multimedia revolution or digital convergence was highlighted in the early 1990s by the European Commission, there was surely a lack of detailed proposal for reforming the EU’s regulatory structure for ICTs. European Regulatory reform in the information and communications technology sector gained further momentum during the second half of the 1990s. In December 1997, the European Commission published its Green Paper on convergence, which argues that “getting the regulatory framework right is of crucial importance” (European Commission, 1997, p. iv). To assist public debate, this Green Paper identifies a range of options and poses specific questions with regard to the implications of digital convergence for regulatory reform in Europe. In the 1999 Communications Review, the European Commission provides a systematic analysis about the status quo of regulation on the information and communications technology and suggests a comprehensive plan for the overhaul of regulatory structure. The early years of the 21st century witnessed the official launch by the European Union of a New Regulatory Framework, drawing an end to the old regulatory structure belonging to the “analogue age.” The New Regulatory Framework provides a fundamentally different package of regulation over the information and communications technology sector with a focus on the challenges posed by digital convergence. The purpose of this article is to analyse the implications of digital convergence for regulatory and institutional changes in the European Union. Accordingly, it is the European policy and political responses to the regulatory issues raised by digital convergence that constitute the main focus for the discussions presented in this article. It is argued that, whilst major progresses have been achieved at the EU level since the 1990s in regulatory reform, there are still critical issues remaining to be resolved in relation to the regulation of digital convergence. More specifically, despite that the EU has now managed to move away from technology-specific regulation to technology-neutral regulation, the failure to establish a single European Regulatory Authority (ERA) will continue to create institutional barriers to achieving more effective and efficient regulation over digital convergence.


2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 289-320
Author(s):  
Geert van Calster

Abstract This chapter reviews the regulatory innovation process in the European Union, with a focus on the environmental sector. It examines the EU documents on regulation and, in particular, the ‘eight pillars of European governance’ listed by the European Commission in its follow-up to the 2001 White Paper on European Governance, as a useful means of categorising the practical consequences which the European Union attaches to the different implications of the governance debate in the EU. It goes on to summarise the initiatives on regulatory innovation as kick-started by the White Paper on Governance, and to map the current state of each of these initiatives. It concludes that no fundamental reform is required, but rather only a slim number of targeted remedies; the only real solution to the regulatory fog is acceptance and deregulation.


Author(s):  
Wendy E. Parmet ◽  
Markus Frischhut ◽  
Amandine Garde ◽  
Brigit Toebes

This chapter provides an overview of public health law. In contrast to healthcare law, public health law seeks to protect health at a broad population, as opposed to an individual patient, level. The field of public health emphasizes prevention and health promotion, as opposed to the treatment of disease. The chapter looks at three critical areas of public health law: communicable disease control, the control of noncommunicable diseases, and efforts to address the social determinants of health. While the United States and Europe face broadly similar questions, the answers given often differ. In part, this is because the European Union is for the most part a supranational organization, while the United States is a more integrated, albeit federal, nation state. In addition, important distinctions between the legal traditions and the value given to individual liberty versus the public good provide a focus of the comparison between the US and European approaches to public health.


Author(s):  
Ekaterina A. Mikhailova ◽  
◽  
Arbakhan K. Magomedov ◽  

The article analyzes the public political reactions of the leaders of the European Union and the leading political forces of various European states regarding the Russian “Sputnik V” vaccine. The position of key European states in relation to the Russian vaccine are considered. This study is based on open sources and does not provide a comprehensive or complete overview of the available estimates. It focuses mainly on the problems of information support of political decisions regarding Russian means of combating the coronavirus pandemic. The refusal of the European Commission to recognize the Europeans’ right to use the Russian “Sputnik V” vaccine suggests that ideological prejudice and protectionism are put ahead of pragmatism and public health.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document