The House of Commons debate on the statutory regulation of herbal medicine can be viewed online at:- parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13532 There were (only?) 17 MP’s at this debate, and only 4 speakers. They all supported SR. Arguments put forward did not stand up to scrutiny. Arguments put forward to the minister. • Herbal medicine can overcome the failings of antibiotics. Exactly how this supported statutory regulation remained unclear. • over-the-counter sales of manufactured herbal medicine products would be put at risk without statutory regulation. OTC products would continue to need a licence, with or without the introduction of statutory regulation. • International trade with China might be in some way hindered if we did not support the availability of manufactured TCM products. Irrelevant argument. • Without statutory regulation, the manufacturers of unlicensed products would go out of business, thereby collapsing the supply chain of a vital resource in herbal medicine. • Support for SR was virtually universal with the public, product manufacturers, health food shops and herbalists. Public opinion based on misinformation. • SR would be a way of defying the EU. Irrelevant flag waving. • A report was given of all the historical attempts to implement SR with repeated reference made to the full title of the Steering Group Report which included a reference to “other traditions currently practised in the UK”. The fact that these same “other traditions” would stand to be effectively outlawed by the introduction of SR seemed to be strangely ignored. • Opposition to the statutory regulation of herbal medicine comes from vested interests within the established healthcare hierarchy and the pharmaceutical industry. There was also repeated reference to opposition to SR emanating from within the civil service. The minister was told to establish his authority by making a stand through introducing SR. Herbal medicine should not be used for political point scoring. The Ministers response. • Not all herbal practitioners are in favour of statutory regulation, contrary to the assertions given by the previous speakers. • Not all herbal medicine is under threat if SR does not go ahead. In Law, herbal medicine comes under three precise categories:- 1) Licensed manufactured products that are already universally available. 2) Unlicensed third-party products (specials), which are no longer available under THMPD. 3) Herbal medicines made up by practitioners for individual patients after one-to-one consultations, which continue to be available under the current legal framework. This is a point, which had apparently been intentionally suppressed by the previous speakers. • A significant part of the problem was the disproportionate licensing regime to which products are subjected. This would need to be sorted out as part of solving the current situation. • The Minister suggested that another working group should be formed representing the interests of all affected parties to achieve an “appropriate” level of regulation that would be both “proportionate and fit for purpose” without breaking EU rules. The proposed working group should start work this autumn. At present, it would appear that the majority of our concerns are being taken into consideration despite the vehement misrepresentations that has been put forward by the EHTPA. “Appropriate, proportional and fit for purpose” reflects the language of the WG on EPR report, which effectively ruled out SR.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:07:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015