Making personalised nutrition the easy choice: Creating policies to break down the barriers and reap the benefits

Personalised diets based on people’s existing food choices, and/or phenotypic, and/or genetic information hold potential to improve public dietary-related health. The aim of this analysis, therefore, has been to examine the degree to which factors which determine uptake of personalised nutrition vary between EU countries to better target policies to encourage uptake, and optimise the health benefits of personalised nutrition technology. A questionnaire developed from previous qualitative research was used to survey nationally representative samples from 9 EU countries (N = 9381). Perceived barriers to the uptake of personalised nutrition comprised three factors (data protection; the eating context; and, societal acceptance). Trust in sources of information comprised four factors (commerce and media; practitioners; government; family and, friends). Benefits comprised a single factor. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to compare differences in responses between the United Kingdom; Ireland; Portugal; Poland; Norway; the Netherlands; Germany; and, Spain. The results indicated that respondents in Greece, Poland, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, rated the benefits of personalised nutrition highest, suggesting a particular readiness in these countries to adopt personalised nutrition interventions. Greek participants were more likely to perceive the social context of eating as a barrier to adoption of personalised nutrition, implying a need for support in negotiating social situations while on a prescribed diet. Those in Spain, Germany, Portugal and Poland scored highest on perceived barriers related to data protection. Government was more trusted than commerce to deliver and provide information on personalised nutrition overall. This was particularly the case in Ireland, Portugal and Greece, indicating an imperative to build trust, particularly in the ability of commercial service providers to deliver personalised dietary regimes effectively in these countries. These findings, obtained from a nationally representative sample of EU citizens, imply that a parallel, integrated, public-private delivery system would capture the needs of most potential consumers.

The European Commission’s public consultation on the review of EU copyright rules: a response by the CREATe centre

This article presents the response of the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy (CREATe) to the consultation on reform of the EU copyright regime. Reviews the format of the consultation, notes the common problems in reporting data in such a format, and reproduces the consultation questions to which CREATe responded, together with a summary of its conclusions on topics including: (1) terms of copyright protection; (2) libraries and archives; (3) persons with disabilities; (4) remuneration of authors; (5) user-generated content; (6) respect for rights; and (7) data mining.

Expecting Too Much: European Union’s Minority Protection Hide-and-Seek

EU’s deference to the Member State approaches in minority protection can intensify the oppression of
the vulnerable groups, its insistence on non-discrimination on the basis of nationality in the minority regions with special rights in place can equally produce injustice. Its inability to protect EU-wide minorities, like the Roma, is equally problematic. Although a ‘value’, minority protection functions incoherently, if at all. It is time to approach the EU as a highly specific minority protection arena not to be confused with its component parts – the Member States. The reform of the Member State-centred thinking should start at the level of approaching the core issues. It should include the assessment of such questions as what is a minority in the EU’s context of a missing majority, what is the appropriate depth of EU’s intervention in the area of minority protection, i.e. how much room for manœuvre should reasonably be left with the Member States without disrupting the effectiveness of EU’s regulation, as well as the approach to defining what a success in minority protection should be, in the
EU context. The latter should be done, in particular, with due regard to the division of competences between the EU and the Member States in this and other relevant fields. This paper briefly explores a series of diverse casestudies – from migrant EU citizens, Baltic Russians, and sexual minorities to, most importantly, Roma rights to make the first attempt to test the proposed synergetic approach.