Powerful lobbies hobble moves to cut European disease burden

Big industries are causing ill health and premature deaths across Europe by hobbling efforts to target non-communicable diseases such as cancers, diabetes and cardiovascular conditions, a World Health Organization report has warned.

Four sectors alone — alcohol, processed food and drink, tobacco and fossil fuels — are linked to an estimated 2.7mn deaths annually in the region based on global disease research, the paper from the UN health body says.

But the study, published on Wednesday, highlights “pervasive” industry interference in policymaking, including well-funded efforts to oppose public interest regulation, shape scientific evidence and public debate, and externalise the costs of harms that products cause.

Its conclusions will intensify the debate over the relative responsibilities of companies, regulators and individuals for tackling the increasing burden of consumption-related health problems.

“Industry tactics include exploitation of vulnerable people through targeted marketing strategies, misleading consumers and making false claims about the benefits of their products or their environmental credentials,” said Hans Kluge, the WHO’s European regional director. “These tactics threaten public health gains of the past century and prevent countries from reaching their health targets.”

The report highlights multiple worrying health indicators in the 53-country WHO European region. It has the highest global levels of alcohol consumption, alcohol-related harms and adolescent tobacco use. Almost 60 per cent of adults and one-third of children are overweight or obese.

The WHO study raises concerns over deals by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo to make ready-to-drink cocktails with alcoholic beverage companies, such as Coke’s tie-up with Jack Daniel’s. The growing prevalence of these products could drive up alcohol consumption among young people, the study says.

Coca-Cola was contacted for comment. PepsiCo declined to comment.

The report urged stronger regulatory measures to counteract lobbying. Industry interference is cited as one of the main barriers to the implementation of food labelling to educate consumers about the health impacts of certain products such as ultra-processed foods, while corporate opposition to plans to tax sugar-sweetened drinks was also highlighted.

Unesda, a European soft drinks industry body, has said “meaningful voluntary actions” are an “efficient alternative to regulation”. It aims by next year to have achieved a 33 per cent reduction over two decades in average added sugars to soft drinks.

The report takes aim at meat producers, including JBS, Tyson, Cargill, WH Group and Crown, over the consolidation of meat supply chains in Europe. This has hindered the reduction of meat consumption, since it has forced farmers to sometimes sell at prices below their cost of production, the study argues. 

European meat associations have responded to criticisms that meat is destructive to the environment and human health by citing the importance of livestock consumption for a balanced diet.

The study also cited the pharmaceutical industry’s attempts to delay the introduction of cheaper generic versions of drugs, by refusing to co-operate with rival manufacturers, filing additional patents or spreading doubts about the effectiveness of generic alternatives to their products.

Companies also introduced “exorbitant prices” when a new drug was the only treatment available, with the report citing Libmeldy, a therapy approved in Europe in 2020, developed by Orchard Therapeutics for the rare genetic condition metachromatic leukodystrophy, which causes children to lose all motor function.

The condition is fatal but Libmeldy offers a potential cure, albeit at a cost of €2.5mn in countries such as Belgium, Ireland and the Netherlands. The report said “extremely high prices have become the norm and a growing threat to healthcare budgets”.

Orchard Therapeutics has previously said the price is justified by its benefits for users, with drug companies saying the pricing of medicines reflects the cost of innovation.