Proposition 54K0055

Proposition de résolution relative à l'élaboration d'un plan stratégique en vue de combattre et de traiter le problème de l'obésité.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Franky Demon, Roel Deseyn, Nathalie Muylle, Els Van Hoof, Veli Yüksel

Submission date

July 10, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

health policy resolution of parliament nutritional disease public health illness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld MR PVDA | PTB PP

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 14, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Van Peel, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this proposal for a resolution is being discussed today. I submitted this a long time ago, as proof: the document carries the number 55. Since then, we have worked hard with the various groups to reach a common text, which is why the text has also been amended globally.

We aim to focus on the seriousness of obesity. After all, there is a clear link between obesity and chronic diseases, premature death, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, osteoarthritis and asthma. The proposal emphasizes cooperation with, on the one hand, the Communities and, on the other hand, the federal authorities. The main focus is to conduct policy in this area in a structured way.

In the first instance, we ask the federal government to make room for a care path developed by a multidisciplinary team of specialists in the first and second lines tailored to the person concerned, with very concrete goals, follow-up and practical arrangements. In addition, we advocate evidence-based treatments and for the reimbursement of medicines and bariatric surgery for patients with obesity, based on the studies of the Knowledge Center related to the pharmacological and surgical treatment of obesity.

In the light of cooperation with the states, we call for an effective prevention policy, an inter-federal nutrition and health plan, with a focus on obesity among young people and among social opportunities groups.

In short, our text calls for a pragmatic approach to obesity at federal and community level.

Mr. Speaker, I preferred to go a little further in the motion for a resolution on obesity. Mrs. Becq knows that too. Some of our amendments were approved, but several of our very important amendments were not approved.

Though I will not resume the debate on the matter – I can already guess the outcome of the vote on our amendments, I would definitely like to put one again on the agenda, namely, amendment 6/1 to add an additional consideration. After we approved the proposal for a resolution on obesity in the Committee on Public Health on 20 February, a week later, on 26 February, we approved a proposal for a resolution on hormone disruptors in the committee, where Mrs. Becq was not present.

The amendment to this proposal, which I am presenting again today, was rejected in the committee. As a proposal for a resolution on hormone disruptors and their link to obesity was approved in the Committee on Public Health on 26 February, I find it only logical that I put our amendment on that point again to the vote so that it will also be included in the text on obesity. It demonstrates a consistent stance, in order now to incorporate that amendment into the present text. Furthermore, the amendment, with which Ecolo-Groen wants more attention to hormone disruptors by, among other things, calling for a directive showing the link between environmental factors and obesity in Belgium, is fully based on the conclusions of parliamentary hearings on obesity.

Again, it seems to me no more than consistent to take the point with a week difference yet. It is now discussed in the plenary session faster than we did in the committee. I therefore re-introduce the amendment, which is the logic itself, because its scope in the proposal for a resolution on endocrine disruptors was approved in the committee a week later; I do not re-introduce the other amendments.