The changing structure of diets in the European Union in relation to healthy eating guidelines

Objective: Our objective in this paper is to assess diets in the European Union (EU) in relation to the recommendations of the recent World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization expert consultation and to show how diets have changed between 1961 and 2001. Data and methods: Computations make use of FAOSTAT data on food availability at country level linked to a food composition database to convert foods to nutrients. We further explore the growing similarity of diets in the EU by making use of a consumption similarity index. The index provides a single number measure of dietary overlap between countries. Results: The data confirm the excessive consumption by almost all countries of saturated fats, cholesterol and sugars, and the convergence of nutrient intakes across the EU. Whereas in 1961 diets in several European countries were more similar to US diets than to those of other European countries, this is no longer the case; moreover, while EU diets have become more homogeneous, the EU as a whole and the USA have become less similar over time. Conclusions: Although the dominant cause of greater similarity in EU diets over the period studied is increased intakes in Mediterranean countries of saturated fats, cholesterol and sugar, also important are reductions in saturated fat and sugar in some Northern European countries. This suggests that healthy eating messages are finally having an impact on diets; a distinctly European diet may also be emerging.

Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales

Patients want and need comprehensive and accurate information about their medicines so that they can participate in decisions about their healthcare: In particular, they require information about the likely risks and benefits that are associated with the different treatment options. However, to provide this information in a form that people can readily understand and use is a considerable challenge to healthcare professionals. One recent attempt to standardise the Language of risk has been to produce sets of verbal descriptors that correspond to specific probability ranges, such as those outlined in the European Commission (EC) Pharmaceutical Committee guidelines in 1998 for describing the incidence of adverse effects. This paper provides an overview of a number of studies involving members of the general public, patients, and hospital doctors, that evaluated the utility of the EC guideline descriptors (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). In all studies it was found that people significantly over-estimated the likelihood of adverse effects occurring, given specific verbal descriptors. This in turn resulted in significantly higher ratings of their perceived risks to health and significantly lower ratings of their likelihood of taking the medicine. Such problems of interpretation are not restricted to the EC guideline descriptors. Similar levels of misinterpretation have also been demonstrated with two other recently advocated risk scales (Caiman's verbal descriptor scale and Barclay, Costigan and Davies' lottery scale). In conclusion, the challenge for risk communicators and for future research will be to produce a language of risk that is sufficiently flexible to take into account different perspectives, as well as changing circumstances and contexts of illness and its treatments. In the meantime, we urge the EC and other legislative bodies to stop recommending the use of specific verbal labels or phrases until there is a stronger evidence base to support their use.