EFA News published a commentary by Pietro Paganini in which he analyzes the ban introduced by the city of Amsterdam on advertising meat and meat products in public spaces, pacing it within the broader European debate on health, sustainability, and freedom of choice. 

Read the full article on EFA News or read the English translation below.

After the United Kingdom, continental Europe is also stepping up restrictions on food advertising. The decision by the City of Amsterdam to ban meat advertising in public spaces marks a new phase in the European debate on public health, environmental sustainability, and freedom of choice.

We have long been warning of the risk of food being considered the new tobacco. Not in terms of health, but in terms of the political method adopted: first cultural delegitimization, then advertising restrictions, and finally the steering of market choices. What is happening in Amsterdam is the natural evolution of what has already been tried in the United Kingdom and promoted by the World Health Organization, particularly in Central and South America.

The Dutch case closely follows the British model. In the United Kingdom, they started by banning HFSS (high fat, high salt, high sugar) advertising during certain time slots and online, while studying the introduction of healthy targets for retailers. Formally, no food is banned, but in fact, the market is being normalized. This was a predictable outcome, which has now been confirmed by Amsterdam’s decision.

The ban adopted by the City of Amsterdam is officially motivated by environmental reasons, in particular the idea that meat production is incompatible with environmental sustainability. This is a simplification that does not stand up to in-depth analysis. The debate on methane is emblematic: methane produced by livestock farms is part of a relatively short biological cycle, part of a natural carbon cycle, very different from CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels. Treating these phenomena as equivalent leads to symbolic policies, not effective solutions. On the contrary, it risks shifting attention away from the real levers of sustainability: technological innovation, improved agricultural practices, supply chain efficiency, and waste reduction.

On the public health front, the criticism is similar. The role of institutions should be to promote balanced diets and conscious lifestyles, not to discourage or demonize individual foods. Public health is not built through symbolic bans, but by helping citizens understand the context, quantities, habits, and overall role of food within a balanced lifestyle. Confusing the problem of excess with that of consumption itself means abandoning education in favor of a prescriptive approach, which reduces the complexity of food to rigid moral categories: good or bad, allowed or discouraged.

Amsterdam’s choice also presents an obvious political paradox. It is a city that presents itself as a symbol of liberalism, known for the liberalization of soft drugs and prostitution, but which adopts a highly regulatory and ideological approach to food. It is the same pattern already observed in the United Kingdom: policies created with declared positive aims that end up imposing a lifestyle rather than strengthening citizens’ critical thinking.

The most concrete risk is that this trend will spread further across Europe. The ongoing debate on cardiovascular health, the so-called Safe Hearts Plan promoted by the European Commission, could become the next vehicle for policies based on restrictions, targets, and regulatory shortcuts. Greater caution and scientific rigor are needed.