Fat of the land

Abstract

The EU's sugar-beet subsidies reduce the profits of South American manufacturersView Large Image Copyright © 2004 APEU trade policies allow European farmers to sell their produce on the world market at a low cost, so unsubsidised developing-world producers are unable to competeView Large Image Copyright © 2004 PA Photos/EPAResidents of a remote region of Finland added 7 years to their lifespans by making healthy living a community project. Now, lobbyists want the EU to follow suit. But, says Pelle Neroth, if the new health plans are to work, politicians must first stop subsidising unhealthy crops.You might say it was a successful social engineering project. In North Karelia, a county in the north east of Finland, a lot of people used to die of heart attacks. But, 20 years on, mortality rates have plummeted by 75% due to simple community programmes which taught inhabitants of the remote rural region to eat more fruit and less butter.Everyone chipped in to help: local doctors educated the population about risk factors; sports organisations got people moving; and village opinion leaders became project assistants. Inter-village cholesterol-lowering competitions provided motivation for the programme; school projects captured the interest of the young; and television stations launched high-profile antismoking campaigns. Staff at the North Karelia project office defined programme objectives, trained participants, coordinated activities, and assessed the results. But the community members did most of the project work themselves.The results were impressive. In this traditional, isolated, rural area, whose economy was heavily based on dairy products, fruit consumption rose from 20 kg per year in 1972, to 50 kg today. And while in 1972, some 90% of the population used butter on their bread, today only 7% do so. As serum cholesterol levels and rates of lung cancer plummeted, the average lifespan of Karelians rose by 7 years.Disseminated through the media, the successes of this campaign became well known around the country, prompting other Finns to start living more healthily too. National cholesterol improvements and heart attack figures were almost as impressive as those in Karelia. A WHO analysis approvingly notes: “The decline in heart disease mortality during the last few years has been in Finland one of the most rapid in the world and the overall health of the adult population has greatly improved.”The Finnish experience also showed that a major national project can be a strong tool for improving health on a population level. This success story is something the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA), a Brussels-based left wing lobby group for health issues, wants to see repeated across Europe.Unhealthy subsidiesThe EPHA wants some of the money from the €46 billion annual common agricultural policy (CAP) budget, which is currently spent on subsidy policies the group describes as “hostile to health”, to be diverted to projects like the Finnish one.In a meeting with health professionals in July, the secretary general of the EPHA, Tamsin Rose, told delegates that agricultural subsidies can negate the effects of health initiatives. She revealed that the EU subsidises butter production and then sells the surplus at a 30% discount to the food industry to put in cakes. It creates an EU sugar surplus of 6 million tonnes, which is dumped cheaply in poor countries, devastating local sugar farming. It subsidises Greek and Italian tobacco farmers with €1 billion a year—a figure that is 20 times greater than the cost of a recent EU-sponsored antismoking campaign—even as smoking among the young is on the increase in Europe. There is also a subsidy on high-fat milk, which is then sold cheaply to schools.Meanwhile, 1 million tonnes of healthy foods, such as apples, that the EU pays farmers to produce in surplus, are pulped, uneaten, every year. Rose says such agricultural policies run counter to the EU's new health strategy, which was also launched in July, by health commissioner David Byrne.The health strategy launch coincides with two pressing problems facing the EU, both of which will come to a head this year. One is the poor progress towards the EU's “Lisbon goals”, which aim to make Europe the most “successful and knowledge-based dynamic economy” in the world by 2010. Launched 4 years ago, these targets were put together by European leaders at a summit in the Portuguese capital, amid worries that an increasingly sclerotic continent was falling economically behind the United States and other rivals in east Asia. The main tenets of the agreement were to put more and older Europeans in work, to cut red tape, and to increase investment in research and development to 3% of GDP.Several reports presented to EU leaders this spring painted a dire picture of progress towards these goals. In response to this disappointing news, an expert group chaired by former Dutch prime minister Wim Kok was set up to find ways to boost development. The group will present its report in November.Byrne's strategy has identified part of the problem: that Europe's growing health-care costs are a drag on the region's economy, and that if the economy is to be “dynamic” and “hi-tech” then the workers must be as healthy as possible. But an ageing Europe cannot compete with youthful Asia and America by putting more young people into the labour pool: it must make use of its older citizens.To provide the dual benefits of saving on health-care and pension costs, these elderly workers must also be in good shape. And Byrne believes good health for the elderly is an achievable goal. His strategy notes that most diseases to which Europeans commonly succumb are avoidable consequences of bad lifestyle choices, namely smoking, overeating, and eating badly. While these choices are fundamentally voluntary, the problem faced by European health-care systems is one of bad education about healthy living—a situation that is exacerbated by the huge advertising resources and political lobbying powers of the food and retail industries.Nevertheless, says Byrne, health systems must become “ministries of health, not ministries of illness”, aimed at prevention through education and information, rather than focusing on curing established illness.A lot is at stake: Europe loses €135 billion a year to cardiovascular diseases and €100 billion due to the direct and indirect costs of respiratory disorders. The cost of mental health care alone is estimated to be around 3–4% of GDP.But Byrne is committed to improving Europe's health. “Each health euro better spent [on prevention] could make a net saving both for individual well-being and for EU economic competitiveness”, he said.Eastern promiseThe second difficulty facing Europe relates to the integration of the 10 new member states, most of which are former Soviet states. In terms of public health, these countries mirror the North Karelia of 20 years ago. The mortality rates in countries such as Latvia and Lithuania are the highest in Europe. Obesity is common and life expectancy is low: men live to their mid-60s on average, a full decade less than in western Europe. Years of active good health are fewer still. Although health systems and costs are national prerogatives, the European Commission is taking on the challenge of improving health over the whole of Europe.The economic potential of the new member states, with a large proportion of young educated people—many of whom have scientific expertise—is huge. And if their populations remain relatively healthy, and therefore mobile, these countries could provide a dynamic, skilled, labour pool for Europe's pan-continental hi-tech industries, which, according to the European Commission, will be able to compete with the best from China and the USA over the next 30 years.Health through regulationOne strategy the EU is employing to reduce health costs is a piece of consumer legislation concerning food labelling. Scheduled to be discussed by the European parliament at the beginning of September, the bill has been held over from the last parliamentary session because of the huge number—600—of amendments that were put forward by MEPs during the proposal's early discussions this spring.Once the legislation is approved, companies will have to be much more transparent about phrases they use to advertise products and will be forced to provide information on the dangers of certain foods for those with various medical conditions. Exaggerated claims about health benefits will be curtailed.The aim of the bill is to enfranchise people by giving them accurate advice so they can make informed choices about food. The concept is promising, but it is complicated in practice: getting a German and an Englishman agree on common concept of “low fat” is fraught with pitfalls.Information and education for consumers may not be enough, however. Some analysts are critical of this approach because, they claim, good outcomes rely on informed people making the right choices.Tim Lang, a professor of food policy at City University in London, and one of the EU's leading food and health safety experts, says the evidence that transparent food labelling improves health is sparse. “Serving the informed customer is the rallying cry of modern politics”, he says. “We know that public health can only be delivered if there are structures in place to ensure that most, if not all, choices are healthy. Leaving healthy choices to the marketplace delivers a US-style obesity profile. Some superfit, others grossly overweight.”Others point out that if the David Byrne's health strategy is to work, it must overcome the contradictions with the EU's common agricultural policy. In fact, CAP contravenes two of the articles of the recent EU Amsterdam treaty that EU policies must be formulated to be compatible with a high level of human health protection.Not all CAP policies are bad for health. The high sugar prices Europeans pay—a combination of import tariffs that keep out developing-world producers and subsidies that support inefficient European sugar-beet producers—might be beneficial to public health. But some policies do directly counter health initiatives. And they are a drain on funds that could be used constructively elsewhere.As Swedish National Institute of Public Health's 2003 report, Public Health Aspects of EU Common Agricultural Policy, points out that to keep fruit prices high and orchards in business, the 20% fruit over-production in Europe is supposed to be withdrawn from the market and either distilled into alcohol or given away as charity. But in reality, most of the excess is composted.Liselotte Schafer, a Swedish food expert, recommends EU free-fruit programmes for schools, equivalent to Sweden's subsidised EU milk for schools. Then there is the 30% subsidy of butter for pastry manufacturers, which the commission insists is a cheaper way to deal with the surplus production of milk than export refunds. Meanwhile, tobacco farmers in Greece and Italy, among other countries, are subsidised to the tune of €1 billion a year because they claim no other crops will live on their hardscrabble rural land, and to leave the land unfarmed would disrupt local social structures and desertify the landscape.Redressing the balanceCAP allows farmers to produce 3800 calories per European per day, even though daily needs are little more than half that amount. The rewards of rechannelling money from agriculture into public-health campaigns are arguably great. So why hasn't this happened?Some politicians think it should. Hans Blokland, MEP, the Dutch vice chairman of the European parliament's influential environment and public health committee, said: “It is inexplicable that each year the EU spends over €46 billion on agriculture and only €20 million on health and consumer policy. This is something that should be changed as soon as possible.”CAP was originally created in the wake of the World War II when food supplies were scarce and memory of food blockades were vivid. Attempts are now being made to phase it out. During the next few years farmers will increasingly be paid less to overproduce, and fees for not producing at all will stop. But these changes will not automatically benefit public health.A focus on short-term successes mean that health issues are hard for politicians to commit to—especially when such issues are on a continental scale. For this reason, Finland's success is unlikely to be repeated across Europe, which lacks the solidarity of a small population and is frustratingly heterogenous in lifestyle.But Schafer thinks commitment to the long haul is essential: “Today people in the EU don't die of bacteria and poisons but because of an overconsumption of calories and alcohol. If they are thinking about the long-term reputation of farming, that is what bureaucrats should consider.”And one 72-year-old man from the UK who voted for the UK Independence party out of disgust at the remoteness and irrelevance of the EU said: “Health is the closest and most important thing in people's lives. An organisation that sorted out mine would get my vote and eternal gratitude.” Residents of a remote region of Finland added 7 years to their lifespans by making healthy living a community project. Now, lobbyists want the EU to follow suit. But, says Pelle Neroth, if the new health plans are to work, politicians must first stop subsidising unhealthy crops. You might say it was a successful social engineering project. In North Karelia, a county in the north east of Finland, a lot of people used to die of heart attacks. But, 20 years on, mortality rates have plummeted by 75% due to simple community programmes which taught inhabitants of the remote rural region to eat more fruit and less butter. Everyone chipped in to help: local doctors educated the population about risk factors; sports organisations got people moving; and village opinion leaders became project assistants. Inter-village cholesterol-lowering competitions provided motivation for the programme; school projects captured the interest of the young; and television stations launched high-profile antismoking campaigns. Staff at the North Karelia project office defined programme objectives, trained participants, coordinated activities, and assessed the results. But the community members did most of the project work themselves. The results were impressive. In this traditional, isolated, rural area, whose economy was heavily based on dairy products, fruit consumption rose from 20 kg per year in 1972, to 50 kg today. And while in 1972, some 90% of the population used butter on their bread, today only 7% do so. As serum cholesterol levels and rates of lung cancer plummeted, the average lifespan of Karelians rose by 7 years. Disseminated through the media, the successes of this campaign became well known around the country, prompting other Finns to start living more healthily too. National cholesterol improvements and heart attack figures were almost as impressive as those in Karelia. A WHO analysis approvingly notes: “The decline in heart disease mortality during the last few years has been in Finland one of the most rapid in the world and the overall health of the adult population has greatly improved.” The Finnish experience also showed that a major national project can be a strong tool for improving health on a population level. This success story is something the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA), a Brussels-based left wing lobby group for health issues, wants to see repeated across Europe. Unhealthy subsidiesThe EPHA wants some of the money from the €46 billion annual common agricultural policy (CAP) budget, which is currently spent on subsidy policies the group describes as “hostile to health”, to be diverted to projects like the Finnish one.In a meeting with health professionals in July, the secretary general of the EPHA, Tamsin Rose, told delegates that agricultural subsidies can negate the effects of health initiatives. She revealed that the EU subsidises butter production and then sells the surplus at a 30% discount to the food industry to put in cakes. It creates an EU sugar surplus of 6 million tonnes, which is dumped cheaply in poor countries, devastating local sugar farming. It subsidises Greek and Italian tobacco farmers with €1 billion a year—a figure that is 20 times greater than the cost of a recent EU-sponsored antismoking campaign—even as smoking among the young is on the increase in Europe. There is also a subsidy on high-fat milk, which is then sold cheaply to schools.Meanwhile, 1 million tonnes of healthy foods, such as apples, that the EU pays farmers to produce in surplus, are pulped, uneaten, every year. Rose says such agricultural policies run counter to the EU's new health strategy, which was also launched in July, by health commissioner David Byrne.The health strategy launch coincides with two pressing problems facing the EU, both of which will come to a head this year. One is the poor progress towards the EU's “Lisbon goals”, which aim to make Europe the most “successful and knowledge-based dynamic economy” in the world by 2010. Launched 4 years ago, these targets were put together by European leaders at a summit in the Portuguese capital, amid worries that an increasingly sclerotic continent was falling economically behind the United States and other rivals in east Asia. The main tenets of the agreement were to put more and older Europeans in work, to cut red tape, and to increase investment in research and development to 3% of GDP.Several reports presented to EU leaders this spring painted a dire picture of progress towards these goals. In response to this disappointing news, an expert group chaired by former Dutch prime minister Wim Kok was set up to find ways to boost development. The group will present its report in November.Byrne's strategy has identified part of the problem: that Europe's growing health-care costs are a drag on the region's economy, and that if the economy is to be “dynamic” and “hi-tech” then the workers must be as healthy as possible. But an ageing Europe cannot compete with youthful Asia and America by putting more young people into the labour pool: it must make use of its older citizens.To provide the dual benefits of saving on health-care and pension costs, these elderly workers must also be in good shape. And Byrne believes good health for the elderly is an achievable goal. His strategy notes that most diseases to which Europeans commonly succumb are avoidable consequences of bad lifestyle choices, namely smoking, overeating, and eating badly. While these choices are fundamentally voluntary, the problem faced by European health-care systems is one of bad education about healthy living—a situation that is exacerbated by the huge advertising resources and political lobbying powers of the food and retail industries.Nevertheless, says Byrne, health systems must become “ministries of health, not ministries of illness”, aimed at prevention through education and information, rather than focusing on curing established illness.A lot is at stake: Europe loses €135 billion a year to cardiovascular diseases and €100 billion due to the direct and indirect costs of respiratory disorders. The cost of mental health care alone is estimated to be around 3–4% of GDP.But Byrne is committed to improving Europe's health. “Each health euro better spent [on prevention] could make a net saving both for individual well-being and for EU economic competitiveness”, he said. The EPHA wants some of the money from the €46 billion annual common agricultural policy (CAP) budget, which is currently spent on subsidy policies the group describes as “hostile to health”, to be diverted to projects like the Finnish one. In a meeting with health professionals in July, the secretary general of the EPHA, Tamsin Rose, told delegates that agricultural subsidies can negate the effects of health initiatives. She revealed that the EU subsidises butter production and then sells the surplus at a 30% discount to the food industry to put in cakes. It creates an EU sugar surplus of 6 million tonnes, which is dumped cheaply in poor countries, devastating local sugar farming. It subsidises Greek and Italian tobacco farmers with €1 billion a year—a figure that is 20 times greater than the cost of a recent EU-sponsored antismoking campaign—even as smoking among the young is on the increase in Europe. There is also a subsidy on high-fat milk, which is then sold cheaply to schools. Meanwhile, 1 million tonnes of healthy foods, such as apples, that the EU pays farmers to produce in surplus, are pulped, uneaten, every year. Rose says such agricultural policies run counter to the EU's new health strategy, which was also launched in July, by health commissioner David Byrne. The health strategy launch coincides with two pressing problems facing the EU, both of which will come to a head this year. One is the poor progress towards the EU's “Lisbon goals”, which aim to make Europe the most “successful and knowledge-based dynamic economy” in the world by 2010. Launched 4 years ago, these targets were put together by European leaders at a summit in the Portuguese capital, amid worries that an increasingly sclerotic continent was falling economically behind the United States and other rivals in east Asia. The main tenets of the agreement were to put more and older Europeans in work, to cut red tape, and to increase investment in research and development to 3% of GDP. Several reports presented to EU leaders this spring painted a dire picture of progress towards these goals. In response to this disappointing news, an expert group chaired by former Dutch prime minister Wim Kok was set up to find ways to boost development. The group will present its report in November. Byrne's strategy has identified part of the problem: that Europe's growing health-care costs are a drag on the region's economy, and that if the economy is to be “dynamic” and “hi-tech” then the workers must be as healthy as possible. But an ageing Europe cannot compete with youthful Asia and America by putting more young people into the labour pool: it must make use of its older citizens. To provide the dual benefits of saving on health-care and pension costs, these elderly workers must also be in good shape. And Byrne believes good health for the elderly is an achievable goal. His strategy notes that most diseases to which Europeans commonly succumb are avoidable consequences of bad lifestyle choices, namely smoking, overeating, and eating badly. While these choices are fundamentally voluntary, the problem faced by European health-care systems is one of bad education about healthy living—a situation that is exacerbated by the huge advertising resources and political lobbying powers of the food and retail industries. Nevertheless, says Byrne, health systems must become “ministries of health, not ministries of illness”, aimed at prevention through education and information, rather than focusing on curing established illness. A lot is at stake: Europe loses €135 billion a year to cardiovascular diseases and €100 billion due to the direct and indirect costs of respiratory disorders. The cost of mental health care alone is estimated to be around 3–4% of GDP. But Byrne is committed to improving Europe's health. “Each health euro better spent [on prevention] could make a net saving both for individual well-being and for EU economic competitiveness”, he said. Eastern promiseThe second difficulty facing Europe relates to the integration of the 10 new member states, most of which are former Soviet states. In terms of public health, these countries mirror the North Karelia of 20 years ago. The mortality rates in countries such as Latvia and Lithuania are the highest in Europe. Obesity is common and life expectancy is low: men live to their mid-60s on average, a full decade less than in western Europe. Years of active good health are fewer still. Although health systems and costs are national prerogatives, the European Commission is taking on the challenge of improving health over the whole of Europe.The economic potential of the new member states, with a large proportion of young educated people—many of whom have scientific expertise—is huge. And if their populations remain relatively healthy, and therefore mobile, these countries could provide a dynamic, skilled, labour pool for Europe's pan-continental hi-tech industries, which, according to the European Commission, will be able to compete with the best from China and the USA over the next 30 years. The second difficulty facing Europe relates to the integration of the 10 new member states, most of which are former Soviet states. In terms of public health, these countries mirror the North Karelia of 20 years ago. The mortality rates in countries such as Latvia and Lithuania are the highest in Europe. Obesity is common and life expectancy is low: men live to their mid-60s on average, a full decade less than in western Europe. Years of active good health are fewer still. Although health systems and costs are national prerogatives, the European Commission is taking on the challenge of improving health over the whole of Europe. The economic potential of the new member states, with a large proportion of young educated people—many of whom have scientific expertise—is huge. And if their populations remain relatively healthy, and therefore mobile, these countries could provide a dynamic, skilled, labour pool for Europe's pan-continental hi-tech industries, which, according to the European Commission, will be able to compete with the best from China and the USA over the next 30 years. Health through regulationOne strategy the EU is employing to reduce health costs is a piece of consumer legislation concerning food labelling. Scheduled to be discussed by the European parliament at the beginning of September, the bill has been held over from the last parliamentary session because of the huge number—600—of amendments that were put forward by MEPs during the proposal's early discussions this spring.Once the legislation is approved, companies will have to be much more transparent about phrases they use to advertise products and will be forced to provide information on the dangers of certain foods for those with various medical conditions. Exaggerated claims about health benefits will be curtailed.The aim of the bill is to enfranchise people by giving them accurate advice so they can make informed choices about food. The concept is promising, but it is complicated in practice: getting a German and an Englishman agree on common concept of “low fat” is fraught with pitfalls.Information and education for consumers may not be enough, however. Some analysts are critical of this approach because, they claim, good outcomes rely on informed people making the right choices.Tim Lang, a professor of food policy at City University in London, and one of the EU's leading food and health safety experts, says the evidence that transparent food labelling improves health is sparse. “Serving the informed customer is the rallying cry of modern politics”, he says. “We know that public health can only be delivered if there are structures in place to ensure that most, if not all, choices are healthy. Leaving healthy choices to the marketplace delivers a US-style obesity profile. Some superfit, others grossly overweight.”Others point out that if the David Byrne's health strategy is to work, it must overcome the contradictions with the EU's common agricultural policy. In fact, CAP contravenes two of the articles of the recent EU Amsterdam treaty that EU policies must be formulated to be compatible with a high level of human health protection.Not all CAP policies are bad for health. The high sugar prices Europeans pay—a combination of import tariffs that keep out developing-world producers and subsidies that support inefficient European sugar-beet producers—might be beneficial to public health. But some policies do directly counter health initiatives. And they are a drain on funds that could be used constructively elsewhere.As Swedish National Institute of Public Health's 2003 report, Public Health Aspects of EU Common Agricultural Policy, points out that to keep fruit prices high and orchards in business, the 20% fruit over-production in Europe is supposed to be withdrawn from the market and either distilled into alcohol or given away as charity. But in reality, most of the excess is composted.Liselotte Schafer, a Swedish food expert, recommends EU free-fruit programmes for schools, equivalent to Sweden's subsidised EU milk for schools. Then there is the 30% subsidy of butter for pastry manufacturers, which the commission insists is a cheaper way to deal with the surplus production of milk than export refunds. Meanwhile, tobacco farmers in Greece and Italy, among other countries, are subsidised to the tune of €1 billion a year because they claim no other crops will live on their hardscrabble rural land, and to leave the land unfarmed would disrupt local social structures and desertify the landscape. One strategy the EU is employing to reduce health costs is a piece of consumer legislation concerning food labelling. Scheduled to be discussed by the European parliament at the beginning of September, the bill has been held over from the last parliamentary session because of the huge number—600—of amendments that were put forward by MEPs during the proposal's early discussions this spring. Once the legislation is approved, companies will have to be much more transparent about phrases they use to advertise products and will be forced to provide information on the dangers of certain foods for those with various medical conditions. Exaggerated claims about health benefits will be curtailed. The aim of the bill is to enfranchise people by giving them accurate advice so they can make informed choices about food. The concept is promising, but it is complicated in practice: getting a German and an Englishman agree on common concept of “low fat” is fraught with pitfalls. Information and education for consumers may not be enough, however. Some analysts are critical of this approach because, they claim, good outcomes rely on informed people making the right choices. Tim Lang, a professor of food policy at City University in London, and one of the EU's leading food and health safety experts, says the evidence that transparent food labelling improves health is sparse. “Serving the informed customer is the rallying cry of modern politics”, he says. “We know that public health can only be delivered if there are structures in place to ensure that most, if not all, choices are healthy. Leaving healthy choices to the marketplace delivers a US-style obesity profile. Some superfit, others grossly overweight.” Others point out that if the David Byrne's health strategy is to work, it must overcome the contradictions with the EU's common agricultural policy. In fact, CAP contravenes two of the articles of the recent EU Amsterdam treaty that EU policies must be formulated to be compatible with a high level of human health protection. Not all CAP policies are bad for health. The high sugar prices Europeans pay—a combination of import tariffs that keep out developing-world producers and subsidies that support inefficient European sugar-beet producers—might be beneficial to public health. But some policies do directly counter health initiatives. And they are a drain on funds that could be used constructively elsewhere. As Swedish National Institute of Public Health's 2003 report, Public Health Aspects of EU Common Agricultural Policy, points out that to keep fruit prices high and orchards in business, the 20% fruit over-production in Europe is supposed to be withdrawn from the market and either distilled into alcohol or given away as charity. But in reality, most of the excess is composted. Liselotte Schafer, a Swedish food expert, recommends EU free-fruit programmes for schools, equivalent to Sweden's subsidised EU milk for schools. Then there is the 30% subsidy of butter for pastry manufacturers, which the commission insists is a cheaper way to deal with the surplus production of milk than export refunds. Meanwhile, tobacco farmers in Greece and Italy, among other countries, are subsidised to the tune of €1 billion a year because they claim no other crops will live on their hardscrabble rural land, and to leave the land unfarmed would disrupt local social structures and desertify the landscape. Redressing the balanceCAP allows farmers to produce 3800 calories per European per day, even though daily needs are little more than half that amount. The rewards of rechannelling money from agriculture into public-health campaigns are arguably great. So why hasn't this happened?Some politicians think it should. Hans Blokland, MEP, the Dutch vice chairman of the European parliament's influential environment and public health committee, said: “It is inexplicable that each year the EU spends over €46 billion on agriculture and only €20 million on health and consumer policy. This is something that should be changed as soon as possible.”CAP was originally created in the wake of the World War II when food supplies were scarce and memory of food blockades were vivid. Attempts are now being made to phase it out. During the next few years farmers will increasingly be paid less to overproduce, and fees for not producing at all will stop. But these changes will not automatically benefit public health.A focus on short-term successes mean that health issues are hard for politicians to commit to—especially when such issues are on a continental scale. For this reason, Finland's success is unlikely to be repeated across Europe, which lacks the solidarity of a small population and is frustratingly heterogenous in lifestyle.But Schafer thinks commitment to the long haul is essential: “Today people in the EU don't die of bacteria and poisons but because of an overconsumption of calories and alcohol. If they are thinking about the long-term reputation of farming, that is what bureaucrats should consider.”And one 72-year-old man from the UK who voted for the UK Independence party out of disgust at the remoteness and irrelevance of the EU said: “Health is the closest and most important thing in people's lives. An organisation that sorted out mine would get my vote and eternal gratitude.” CAP allows farmers to produce 3800 calories per European per day, even though daily needs are little more than half that amount. The rewards of rechannelling money from agriculture into public-health campaigns are arguably great. So why hasn't this happened? Some politicians think it should. Hans Blokland, MEP, the Dutch vice chairman of the European parliament's influential environment and public health committee, said: “It is inexplicable that each year the EU spends over €46 billion on agriculture and only €20 million on health and consumer policy. This is something that should be changed as soon as possible.” CAP was originally created in the wake of the World War II when food supplies were scarce and memory of food blockades were vivid. Attempts are now being made to phase it out. During the next few years farmers will increasingly be paid less to overproduce, and fees for not producing at all will stop. But these changes will not automatically benefit public health. A focus on short-term successes mean that health issues are hard for politicians to commit to—especially when such issues are on a continental scale. For this reason, Finland's success is unlikely to be repeated across Europe, which lacks the solidarity of a small population and is frustratingly heterogenous in lifestyle. But Schafer thinks commitment to the long haul is essential: “Today people in the EU don't die of bacteria and poisons but because of an overconsumption of calories and alcohol. If they are thinking about the long-term reputation of farming, that is what bureaucrats should consider.” And one 72-year-old man from the UK who voted for the UK Independence party out of disgust at the remoteness and irrelevance of the EU said: “Health is the closest and most important thing in people's lives. An organisation that sorted out mine would get my vote and eternal gratitude.”