Workshop: To regulate or not to regulate: that is still the question

Abstract

Abstract Public health has always had a close relation with regulation. In the middle ages, the spread of infectious diseases was regulated by imposing a quarantine on travellers, this measure is still the first step to containment of an infectious disease. In the last century, public health regulation was also aimed at smoking, for instance implementing laws to ban smoking in public places (e.g restaurants). These regulations are very often combined with public health information campaigns on how to quit, the negative effects of smoking and passive smoking. In recent years, public health still calls for regulations now aiming at food, such as the fat tax, soda tax and sugar tax. Regulating for public health is a complex and sensitive issue. Sometimes it is used to solve public health’s failings at promoting a healthy lifestyle. For instance, the information campaigns to overcome obesity and invite people to eat healthily and exercise were not as successful as planned and the obesity epidemic remains an increasing problem. So, law kicked in and taxation policies to change dietary behaviours were introduced. Taxation policies, however, are controversial and widely discussed. The term ‘Nanny-State’ where the government is regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice, comes to mind and this has a negative impact on public health. The question remains: should we regulate for healthier behaviour or not. In this workshop, we are going to try answer this question. After two general presentations, we have 3 country examples of the relation between law/regulations and public health, followed by a discussion with the audience. Key messages Regulation can be one of the tools to promote public health. Careful consideration should be given before regulating for public health.