Pharma lobbying fears shadow Parliament’s new, full-standing health committee

The European Parliament approved on Wednesday (18 December) the creation of a  permanent Public Health Committee (SANT), but some MEPs are concerned that the committee will become a playground for pharmaceutical sector lobbyists.

After the vote, some MEPs worried that the committee might prioritise industry interests over public health.

"It remains to be seen whether the EPP group will use this committee solely to advance the interests of pharmaceutical or tobacco lobbyists, or if they will work with the democratic centre to advocate for the well-being of patients," said MEP Tiemo Wölken (S&D, Germany) to Euractiv.

Wölken is one of the former rapporteurs on the EU pharmaceutical reform.

This concern had already been voiced by other MEPs from the S&D, Greens/EFA, and The Left groups in September.

Money talks

The largest pharmaceutical companies spend eye-watering amounts of money on lobbying activities, according to the EU’s transparency register.

Novartis spent between €2 million and €2.5 million in 2023 on activities covered by the transparency register, while Sanofi and Roche spent between €1.75 million and €2 million, and €2 million, respectively, to promote their interests in Brussels. Pfizer’s budget was between €1.25 million and €1.5 million.

Registration in the EU transparency register is voluntary. However, it is mandatory for interest groups – from NGOs to large trade associations – or their representatives to access the Parliament to organise events or meet with MEPs.

Companies must estimate their spending on lobbying-related activities, such as events, the staff required for their organisation and meetings with committee members.

Brussels lobbying firms at the helm

A significant portion of the budgets companies allocate to lobbying is directed towards the most well-known Brussels lobbying firms, such as the RPP Group.

In 2023, Abbvie paid between €100,000 and €200,000 to the RPP Group for help with the EU pharmaceutical strategy, clinical trials directive, and the EU4Health programme. Novartis allocated a similar amount on support for the European Health Data Space.

Pfizer, for its part, relies notably on Fleishman-Hillard and FTI Consulting for guidance on the pharmaceutical package, the EHDS, or the wastewater treatment directive.

Among sector associations, MedTech Europe spent up to €1.75 million, but even that was still far from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), which declared lobbying expenses between €5.5 million and €6 million for the 2023 financial year.

It also relied on several lobbying firms, such as Acumen Public Affairs and FTI Consulting, generating additional expenses.

Over 300 meetings since July

Since the beginning of the new Parliament legislature in July 2024, around 319 meetings, encounters, or discussions between Health Committee MEPs and interest representatives have been recorded by the NGO Transparency International.

According to the MEPs' declarations, the latest meetings between Parliament members and sector actors have focused on files that are expected to fall under the Health Committee, such as the future legislation on critical medicines or the Biotech Act.

Additionally, the discussions have also featured issues such as drug shortages, the Pharma package, sector regulation, mental health, and rare diseases. Sector actors have often targeted specific MEPs they wish to address.

MEPs such as Laurent Castillo (EPP, France), Stine Bosse (Renew Europe, Denmark), Tomislav Sokol (EPP, Croatia), András Kulja (EPP, Hungary) and Nicolás González Casares (S&D, Spain) have each had – at least – around 20 meetings during the same period.

[Edited by Martina Monti]