Congress report - European Health Forum Gastein

Forum IV: Building a healthy Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
In many accession countries, the price of foods has increased more rapidly than income
levels, and in some countries between 30% and 60% of household income has to be spent
on food, compared with less than 20% in the EU.[15] In response to this household food
insecurity, supplementary food production and small-scale farming has increased, and
appears to be more efficient than larger-scale farming methods.[16] A rapid change due to
high levels of capital investment may jeopardise the food security being developed in the
region.
Opportunities: 3. the General Public
In 2000 the total support for agriculture in the EU was some Euro 40.2 billion [17] (nearly
50% of the total EU budget) creating a tax burden on EU citizens of some Euro 130 per
capita. The protective measures also raise the price of food compared with world market
prices, adding another Euro 120-150 per capita cost to the consumer.[18] The average family
is thus paying some Euro 1000 annually as a result of EU agricultural policies.
Consumer expectations will be an important consideration in the CAP discussions. In order to
assess public perceptions, two Eurobarometer opinion polls were carried out among farmers
and the general public in 2000. The surveys were carried out by telephone interview on
16,000 members of the general public and 3,500 farmers and revealed a widespread interest
in agricultural issues and a wish for more information.[19]
Whilst 92% of the general public think that agriculture is important, only 50% had heard
about the CAP. Both farmers and the general public were asked to rate the importance of a
list of 12 policy objectives, including food safety, environmental protection, the improvement
of rural life, the protection of farm incomes and the competitiveness of European agriculture
on international markets. (Questions on nutrition and diet were not asked.) A clear majority
of people thought that all the objectives were important (ratings varied between 76% and
97%) but the levels of satisfaction with how they were being met ranged between 16% and
57%.
The protection of farm incomes and small farms was seen to be badly served, by both
farmers and the general public. Food safety and environmental protection were considered to
be the top priorities but the survey revealed an acute need for information about agriculture
policy. With respect to enlargement, only half of the respondents in both groups had heard
something about it and only 10% of the general public felt well-informed on the subject.
Indirectly, consumers are already protesting against agriculture policy because they buy less
meat. Since the BSE crisis demand for beef dropped by around 27% on average and in
Germany by 50-80%. This is damaging for agriculture policy, but, from a nutritional health
perspective, this trend may prove to be healthy if the dietary changes include the
consumption of more fruit, vegetables, wholegrain cereals or fish.
Opportunities: 4. The First Food & Nutrition Action Plan for the WHO European Region
In September 2000 the 51 member countries of the European Region of the World Health
Organization unanimously endorsed a resolution to implement the region’s first Food &
Nutrition Action Plan.[20] This document makes the case for combining nutrition, food safety
and sustainable food production concerns into an overarching, intersectoral policy, and offers
support to member state governments to develop, implement and evaluate such policies.
Progress with implementation, both by WHO and member states, will be reported to the
Regional Committee in September 2002. In addition, a more comprehensive evaluation of the
International Forum Gastein, Tauernplatz 1, A-5630 Bad Hofgastein
Tel.: +43 (6432) 7110-70, Fax: Ext. 71, e-mail: info@ehfg.org, website: www.ehfg.org
169