EU HERBAL PRODUCT BAN: 1ST MAY 2011
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. What is behind this initiative?
The main intention behind the EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD) has been to ensure the consumer has access to safe products that have a history of traditional use, while also ensuring there is adequate consumer choice. It is well recognised that there have been particular issues with some herbal products containing heavy metals, pesticides and some have been spiked with synthetic pharmaceuticals. However, whilst the intention for this simplified medicinal licensing system may have been good, it has backfired. Its main problem is that there are too many obstacles to successful registration of authentic traditional herbal medicinal products, especially from the non-European traditions. Even the European Commission admitted in 2008 that the scheme provided by the Directive was not appropriate for traditions such as Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), which include two of the most well established herbal traditions in the world. The reliance on western style pharmaceutical standards to ensure compliance with the Directive has resulted, by and large, with registered products being single herbs that have been extracted in alcohol and stabilised within a chemical base similar to that used for conventional drugs. For many consumers, this is not what they expect of ‘traditional herbal medicinal products’.
2. I heard that herbs can cause kidney failure?
The widespread negative publicity about the risk of kidney failure or disease is generally linked to evidence that high concentrations of aristolochic acids, which are derived from a number of species of plant, including those of the genus Aristolochia, when present in high concentrations. The case of medical doctors in a slimming clinic in Belgium, prescribing drugs alongside aristolochic acid containing herbs, was widely publicised in 1998 after cases of kidney disease and cancer were noted. Over the last 12 years, while there have been continuing question marks over the precise role of aristolochic acids in the victims of the Belgian clinic, as well as suggestions that it was interactions between the various drugs being prescribed that were responsible, European authorities (including the UK MHRA) applied a complete ban on Aristolochia and other aristolochic acid containing herbs between 1999 and 2001. Since Aristolochia and its related herbs are already banned, the EU herbal directive will have no effect on any continuing illegal sales of aristolochic acid containing products. Such problems will only be dealt with by more effective enforcement of the existing ban.
3. I’ve heard that some herbs are dangerous so surely this initiative is a good thing?
The majority of evidence for risk with herbal products has been caused by:
- the presence of high concentrations of active ingredients derived from alcoholic (e.g. ethanol, methanol) extraction
- misidentification of herbs
- use of incorrect botanical parts e.g. leaf instead of root
- the presence of contaminants e.g. heavy metals, pesticides
- adulteration with toxic pharmaceuticals
Interestingly, extraction with alcohol is associated with only one specific strand of European phyto-pharmaceutical medicine, which evolved during the 20th Century in countries such as Germany, Switzerland and the UK. The major non-European traditions such as Ayurveda, TCM, Tibetan, Southern African traditions, Amazonian medicine, etc. have tended not to use alcoholic extracts traditionally, being generally more reliant on the use of dried whole plant material or watery decoctions. It has been the more recent adoption of hydro-alcoholic and alcoholic extraction systems by the Asian traditions, as a result of influence by western pharmacological methods, that have given rise to some safety concerns. Of particular relevance, ANH-Intl along with its collaborators at the European Benefyt Foundation, argue that quality control methods could be instigated that ensured higher quality and safety standards than those provided by the THMPD, while at the same time being much more affordable to smaller companies. It is a major concern that, to date, not a single authentic herbal product from the Ayurvedic, TCM, Tibetan, Southern African or South American traditions has yet to be registered.
4. Is it likely that many more herbal products will be approved before the ban comes in?
While registrations have been slow to be issued, since the passage of the herbal directive into Member State laws in 2005, about 200 licenses have now been issued EU-wide. The largest number of these (90) has been in the UK. Important reasons for the slow uptake include the lack of clarity over registration requirements and technical difficulties in providing the necessary data. While more herbal products are likely to be licensed before the full implementation date of 1st May 2011, it is expected that these will not greatly expand the number of botanical species included (currently 34 in the UK). It is also expected that very few, if any, authentic Ayurvedic, TCM, Amazonian or other products from non-European traditions will be registered by this date.
5. Surely I can still buy my herbs on the Web?
If you are buying products on the web via a European retailer, you are subject to European law. While it is likely that online retailers will flout the rules to a greater extent than those selling via health stores, pharmacies and supermarkets, enforcement by regulatory authorities will in time reduce the supply of unregistered herbal products for all routes. If you are buying products from outside of the EU, you may still be able to purchase an herbal product for personal use (but not for resale) under what is informally known as a ‘personal use exemption’. But this is only the case if the authorities in your country do not regard the product you are buying as illegal. One of the dangers of buying products from unknown sources on the internet, is that they are likely to be completely unregulated and therefore may be adulterated or contaminated. From the perspective of trying to maintain maximum choice of safe, effective products, we at the ANH-Intl believe the THMPD needs to be fixed. It needs to do what it originally set out to do; which is to provide a simplified registration system suitable to all authentic healthcare traditions involving the use of herbal products. This is why ANH-Intl along with the European Benefyt Foundation is preparing to challenge the THMPD in the courts.
6. Will authorities really have time to police and enforce the THMPD?
Different Member States will police and enforce the laws in different ways. Some, like Italy, appear to not want to adopt the Directive to the letter of the law. Others, like the UK, Belgium, Germany and Sweden, appear to want to follow the law to the letter. Most believe by the full implementation date of 1st May 2011, there will still be significant numbers of products on the EU market that may be deemed ‘traditional herbal medicinal products’ by regulatory authorities. Some of these products, in some Member States, may be able to remain on sale as food supplements, on the condition that no claims for treatment of any ailments are included in labelling or marketing. In other Member States, such as the UK, authorities have been clear that they are not going to tolerate the continued sale of herbal products as food supplements, if any of the ingredients within the products are deemed by the UK medicines controller, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), as medicines. A further challenge to the continued sale of herbal products as food supplements is the 1997 Novel Food Regulation, which required pre-market authorisation of any food or food ingredient that has not been consumed to a significant degree within the EU prior to 15th May 1997, when the Regulation came into force. The MHRA has indicated it will allow sell through of products already stocked by retailers, and Richard Woodfield of the MHRA has indicated that policing will initially be “light, but accurate”. Enforcement is likely to be assisted by ‘dobbing in’ by players who have already received registrations, who then report unregistered products to the authorities where these compete with their registered products. The implication is that, in time, for a number of reasons, effective enforcement will be ramped up.
7. I’ve heard that the registration system will ensure that heavy metals and other toxins don’t get into herbal products – surely that’s a good thing?
There is no doubt that batch testing requirements under the registration system will generally ensure that excessive levels of contaminants like pesticides and heavy metals will not find their way into registered products. However, most of the responsible and well established players currently selling herbal products as food supplements already operate such procedures, some to higher standards that those required under the THMPD. If consumer choice is dramatically reduced by obstacles in the registration process, consumers may be more likely to purchase products online, from completely unregulated markets, where risks of contamination or adulteration are increased, rather than reduced.
8. Why have so many Valerian and Echinacea products been approved?
These products are very popular with consumers and as a result the market size for these products is more able to fund the high costs of registration, which are typically between £80,000 to £150,000 for a single herb product. But not all consumers will find that their favoured formulation containing these, or other herbs found in registered products, have been registered.
9. Will consumers be happy with the choice offered by registered products?
There is no doubt that some consumers may be happy with the range of licensed products available, and there will be more registered products available in the coming 75 days before the full implementation date of the Directive on 1st May 2011. Inevitably, market forces dictate that those products that have been commercially successful either as unlicensed medicines or as herbal remedies selling as food supplements, are more likely to have been able to be registered, on the condition they are single herb products, and are alcoholic extracts. But some people may, for example, not wish to consume products with excipients more typical of pharmaceutical drugs, which are found in the majority of registered products. Others may not be able to find any products that they consider to be suitable among the list of registered products, given they don’t perceive them to be ‘traditional’ or sufficiently natural (i.e. they may contain extracts with high concentrations of certain plant compounds rather than whole plant material). Still others may only want to buy products if they are both organically certified and have been guaranteed to not have been irradiated.
10. How will this affect herbal practitioners?
The THMPD only affects herbal practitioners who are reliant on prescribing manufactured products, particularly if these are recommended for purchase by their patients or clients, who may in turn buy them from a conventional retail channel. Herbal practitioners in the UK are still uniquely able to use unlicensed herbal medicines made up for individualised treatment following one-to-one consultation, under an exemption in UK medicines law (Section 12(1) of the Medicines Act 1968). However this exemption is likely to be repealed imminently to be replaced by an exemption in European medicines law (Article 5(1), Directive 2001/83/EC), that allows 'authorised health care professionals' to use unregistered medicines. Only the UK government appears to be willing to apply this exemption to practitioners who are neither medical doctors or pharmacists. But in order to apply this exemption in European law, a functioning system of ‘statutory regulation’ will need to be operational, this having been a major target of particular groups of medical herbalist in the UK for a number of years. The fact that other EU Member States seem unwilling to apply this exemption to non-medically qualified practitioners requires that a new regulatory framework specific to practitioners is developed; this has been a major focus of ANH-Intl’s collaborators at the European Benefyt Foundation.
11. On the internet it says that the ban will start on the 1st April – is this incorrect? ?
Technically the ban on unregistered ‘traditional herbal medicinal products’ applies, at the latest, to the date of full implementation i.e. 1st May 2011. This is specified in Article 2(2) of the THMPD, which states that member States “shall apply the provisions of this Directive within seven years after its entry into force” (i.e. 30th April 2004). However, some Member States have started applying certain provisions of the law earlier.
12. What will happen if the first stage of your legal challenge is successful?
ANH-Intl, via its expert external lawyers, is hoping to demonstrate to the High Court in London that there are elements of the THMPD and its implementation that contravene European law. We will be arguing in court that the law, and its implementation, is disproportionate, non-transparent and discriminatory. We are then hopeful of getting a reference to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. If successful, we hope to be able to show the European Court that the Directive is fatally flawed and we aim to help the court, with support from expert evidence, to propose ways in which the THMPD, and its implementation, can be resolved so that it does not act disproportionately, nor does it act to discriminate against non-European traditions which utilise herbal products. We have raised nearly 70% of the £90,000 estimated to be needed for legal fees for the initial phase of the action in the High Court, but if successful there, we will need to continue to fund raise to meet the costs of the case in the European Court. We have brought a challenge against the Food Supplements Directive between 2003 and 2005, which also involved this two stage process, and the challenge resulted in important clarification and simplification of the Directive’s scope and effect.
13. I cannot believe that European consumers won’t be able to purchase basic Chinese herbal remedies. Can’t the Chinese and Indian Governments do something about this?
We have met with both the Chinese and Indian authorities and we have detected frustration by both these governments in the lack of flexibility being shown by the European Commission, the European Medicines Agency and some of the European Member States over the registration process stipulated by the THMPD. Both the Indian and Chinese governments have made several representations to European authorities in recent years and months and it seems very little benefit has materialised. ANH-Intl has met with senior Chinese government officials on this issue in Beijing and the problems for authentic TCM products was well recognised on the Chinese side. Similarly, meetings with officials from the Indian government Department of AYUSH has revealed the Indian government’s frustration over the unnecessary obstacles in the registration process being proposed under the THMPD. Given that diplomacy has achieved little in making the registration system more appropriate for non-European traditions, legal challenge is seen as a last resort.
14. How many herbs will be banned?
It is likely that different Member States will ban different herbs and different products containing different herbs. European law ascribes a very broad definition of a medicine to any substance used for healthcare purposes and there is a risk that any herb or herbal product containing herbs that are used medicinally that are: a) not registered under the THMPD, b) do not have a history of food use, or c) have a history of food use but are neither dried, comminuted herbs nor aqueous (water) extracts or decoctions. ANH-Intl has provided partial lists TCM (Chinese), Ayurvedic (Indian) and western herbs that are endangered by European medicinal law and could be subject to bans as of 1st May 2011. Download ANH-Intl's list of 'endangered herbs'.
Back to related press release: EU herb directive keeps consumers in the dark.
Comments
your voice counts
Herbal Legislation Info http://www.avogel.co.uk/eu-herbal-legislation/index.php
14 March 2011 at 1:39 pm
Managed to find one of the larger producer's response to this (A.Vogel) - pretty informative and surprisingly positive considering how hard this is going to hit them - here's the link to what they have to soay: http://www.avogel.co.uk/eu-herbal-legislation/will-there-be-a-herbal-ban.php
Anonymous
24 April 2011 at 1:50 am
A very important footnote regarding item #2 on the abuse of aristolochic acid in the Belgian slimming clinical trials: Western medical doctors were administering aristolochiae fangchi radix at up to *45 times* the herb’s traditional dosage, and then concluded that it had adverse effects. “Weight loss” is not listed as part of the herb’s indications in the Materia Medica.
Take any over the counter medication at 45 times the listed dosage, and see if you can call me in the morning.
This unfortunate study shows the lethal effects of the use of herbs by those not trained or licensed as herbalists. Western Medical doctors are not trained in the use of herbal medicines. It is critical to consult an appropriately trained professional.
Bensky, D., Clavey, S., Stoger, E. (2004). Chinese Herbal Medicine: Materia Medica (3rd Edition). Seattle, WA: Eastland Press.
CarloWaldman
05 May 2011 at 7:32 pm
I strongly protest against this biased vision of the Directive, and against the presentation made of the legislative procedure. All this has been made public and discussed openly in the Parliament several years ago. Complaining now is extremely late.
You present herbal medicine manufacturers as pure and kind people, wiht no financial interests whatsoever. This is simply wrong. What would you say if a firm was selling you a non-controlled product, claiming that is is a medicine, and this product happens to be harmful?? You would certainly protest against the government, the "ultra-liberal" EU Commission / against the "irresponsible" bureaucrats (according to your ideological bias) and sue the whole world for liability.
This Directive attempts to strike a fair balance between allowing a short and very simplified procedure for plants to be accepted on the market, and the preservation of public health against the vested interests of industrial lobbyists, which you are!
Adam
10 May 2011 at 1:02 pm
Dear Carlo, thanks for your message. It appears that you have the wrong idea about ANH-Intl: we are certainly not “industrial lobbyists” – we are an entirely donation-funded, non-governmental campaign organisation that believes passionately in the value of natural healthcare and the freedom of personal choice. Our mission and values can be found here [http://anhinternational.org/about-us].
We fully recognise that herbal manufacturers, like everyone else, have to make a living and we don’t blame them for that! There are good and bad apples in all sectors of industry, including herbal medicine, and we have certainly never presented all herbal manufacturers as saints. But that is not the issue here. We have no problem with fair and rational regulation of herbal products, which genuinely works to ensure public safety. However, the THMPD grossly discriminates against non-European traditional systems of medicine and those who wish to manage their health via those systems. The products – not the plants themselves, we should point out – that are being registered are few in number and are based on a narrow range of herbal species, that in many cases contain synthetic polymers and preservatives.
We are as concerned about public safety as you, which is why we are challenging the inappropriate and ultimately ineffective measures of safety and quality that are being applied to herbal medicines under the THMPD. Applying the same standards to herbal medicines as are used for pharmaceutical medicines cannot, in our view, guarantee public safety for three main reasons. One, herbs are complex mixtures of hundreds of chemicals that act synergistically to give the herbs their particular characteristics – much like foods – whereas drugs are synthetic, highly purified and include one or very few molecular species. If one is chalk, the other is cheese, and methods that demonstrate stability and safety of drugs are woefully inadequate when it comes to herbs. Secondly, use of single biomarkers to assess stability, as occurs under the THMPD, opens the door to fraudulent and counterfeit products as unscrupulous manufacturers might be tempted to ‘spike’ their products with the relevant biomarker. Hey presto! An instant, ‘active’, potentially unsafe herbal medicine – but legally licensed under the THMPD. Thirdly, many people who cannot now buy their favoured herbal medicines in the EU will resort to the unregulated suppliers via the Internet, thereby exposing themselves to genuine safety risks.
And after all, what are the actual risks related to herbal medicine? The most recent annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers shows that herbal medicines caused no deaths at all in 2009, while orthodox medicines, correctly prescribed, are the fourth-leading cause of death in the USA [http://anhinternational.org/news/natural-healthcare-proven-amazingly-safe-%E2%80%93-once-again].
You specifically refer to the 7-year transition period, and take us to task for complaining so late in the day. In fact, ANH-Intl has been very consistent in recognising the inherent problems within THMPD, and saying so since we started lobbying on the issue in November 2002. Our position was well known by the time the THMPD passed into law in 2004 (http://anhinternational.org/node/38)! We also believe that the 7-year transition period is slightly misleading, given that the full guidelines for the exact quality-testing requirements were not forthcoming from the European Medicines Agency until 2006/7, thereby shortening the transition period by nearly half.
MEPs appear to have voted in a system that they thought would effectively regulate all traditional systems of medicine, including, obviously, non-European systems like TCM and Ayurveda. Has this happened? Take a look at the registrations granted so far in the UK, the Member State with the most registrations to-date: you will find not a single herbal product from TCM, Ayurveda or any other non-European traditional system of medicine has been registered so far. That, we believe, is not what MEPs voted for, and highlights flaws both in the legislative procedure and in the subsequent interpretation of the THMPD by Member State competent authorities.
We could go on, but most of these issues are explained clearly in the article above. We urge you to re-read the piece, as if you are truly interested in these issues we think you will see that there are genuine and serious problems with the THMPD in terms of its effects on certain important traditions, both as it is written and as it is being implemented by European Member States. For more information, take a look at the links on our herb challenge page [http://anhinternational.org/node/3113], or at some of our recent news stories, such as this one [http://anhinternational.org/news/together-toward-a-better-thmpd] or this one [http://anhinternational.org/news/mep-concerns-mount-over-regulatory-threats-to-natural-healthcare-0].
We will be initiating judicial review proceedings because it is the only route left if we want to ensure fair access to the herbal medicines that have been safely on sale for decades for all those who wish it. In contrast to your sweeping characterisation, it is not about spraying petulant lawsuits around willy-nilly because we haven’t got our house in order. We’ll remind you that as an independent campaign organisation, we have no vested interest in any part of the herbal sector. As much as anything, this issue is about personal choice: the ability of people to choose how they manage their health without their self-determination being removed from them by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. And we believe that’s something worth fighting for.
Dr Dimitrios - James Manos
06 May 2011 at 12:00 pm
I strongly disagree for this EU (European Union) directive, as it bands many herbs that have been traditionally used for ages, including many that (as you can see the research from the ''pubmed'' Library and the ''Cochrane'' Library) have benefits in health problems. For example the herbs huperzine A and curcumin (turmeric) are promising for the treatment of the Alzheimer’s disease and also spirulina is recommended as a nutritional supplement for malnutrition from the UN.
I agree that there must be regulations about some referred problems about the herbs are sold in the market, such as contamination with heavy metals (such as lead), misleading information (e.g. use of leaf instead of root) etc. However, to my mind it would be better for the EU to ban specific brands, instead of banning them all.
As a doctor I am aware that contemporary drugs may cause severe side effects, even death and this refers to wide consumed drugs e.g. the long term use of NSAIDs (that many take even for muscle pain) may cause kidney damage, even renal failure. So, instead of banning many herbs, I find it more appropriate to make the herb companies include written information with their indications, contraindications, side effects and interactions.
In conclusion, I disagree with the banning of herbs. By using this approach, we should ban the majority of contemporary drugs that most of them have numerous side effects, interactions, and contraindications (as someone can ascertain from the written instructions or the FDA or the BNF guidelines). I hope this directive is not on the benefit of the multinational drug manufacturers companies.
transsexualmom
08 May 2011 at 11:27 pm
I use a fare few herbal products to help my transformation & keep me feminine also for helping keep my crohn's disease under control & to gain nutrients like spirulina, turmeric, saw palmento, fenugreak, red clover & PABA, prebiotics
I am worried that my choice from what, who & where I can buy will suffer as a result of this new legislation all I can see for the future is a smaller group of manufacturers & even smaller number of sellers.
yours transsexualmom
Paul
09 May 2011 at 2:33 pm
I am rather bemused by this campaign since it seems to me that all medicines should be subject to the same standards of evidence and safety. While we must recognise that many modern medicines may well be licensed by virtue of history rather than clinical trial we should also recognise that these are continually subject to two basic questions; are they safe and are they effective? Safety issues are thoroughly reviewed leading to withdrawal if not safe and efficacy issues are of importance in deciding whether or not to prescribe. clearly it makes no sense use or prescribe ineffective medicines and it costs money unnecessarily.
Now, herbal products surely must be subject to the same rules? if unsafe they should not be used and if useless there is no point in using them. with regard to safety how effective are current side effect reporting and withdrawal systems across Europe for herbal medicines? The answer is that they are weak without proper legislation. I can't see any way round this except to have proper monitoring. With regard to efficacy, I suppose it could be argued that this is not very important because the subjective sense that a placebo is doing good is nice and useful for the patient. For me however i prefer a little reality - ie evidence but i do recognise that for many it really does not matter whether the treatments they take actually work, they gain from talking with someone and the ritual of 'consultation'.
If evidence is forthcoming that a herbal remedy is effective then I think that subject to the necessary trails for safety it should be made available and that is what this legislation does; it ensures safety and makes it possible for effective treatments to be registered.
So i am rather confused by this whole issue- is someone out there arguing that herbs with no proven efficacy should be marketed to those in need as a matter of course? My worry is that this opens the door to unscrupulous or even innocent (when the practitioner really does not know either but has 'faith' rather than evidence) exploitation of the sick.
Before someone tries getting relativistic about proof, i'm keeping this simple, clinical trials are needed. there is no alternative.
The problem with these kinds of discussion is that they often ignore the vested interests of complementary practitioners at the expense of the public. it is not always the case that complementary practitioners do this knowingly and often they do it from the best of motives but simply don't understand the science needed to know if something works or not. Ignorance rather than malice, but we still need protecting. An example of this is possibly the case of chiropracters who recently made a rather a foolish attempt to silence critics http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/british-chiropractic-association-drops-shameful-libel-case-against-science-writer-who-criticised-them/. A more serious case is the adoption of 'complementary medicine' counters at major pharmaceutical chains of stores, where they must realise that most of what they sell is useless but it is too good an earner to tell the public.
Anonymous
13 May 2011 at 12:23 am
I would be good if pharma medications were subject to standards that required them to prove they were effective and also to prove they were safe, if this were the case many would be banned.
I am making my tin foil hat and going to sit in a cave if this keeps up.
bill.who.was.here.before
13 May 2011 at 2:34 am
I suppose one should not feed the trolls, but let's humour this one a while ...
@Paul
Firstly, Paul, could you tell me, please, where you found these cut-&-paste arguments?
Perhaps even where they originally came from?
I've seen them elsewhere on the web, and in the Press; I rather assume the origin is in the scripture of some cult movement or other, or else they are carefully contrived by publicity departments of corporations who feel threatened by competition. Nevertheless, the are viral.
Most are brilliantly contrived propaganda, very carefully designed to seem quite reasonable, when in fact they are so poisonous they should carry their own health warning.
So, more or less point by point:
Paragraph one, a wonderful take on the old lie: "if a herb has done nothing wrong, it has nothing to fear".
I, too, am bemused by your need to shoehorn traditionally used substances into a regulatory regime designed for novel - and patentable, and profitable - synthetic products. Unless someone takes legal action, I believe it takes on average ten years for a known dangerous pharmaceutical to be withdrawn. I won't go into horror stories here.
If wrongly-used herbs are dangerous, we've had about 20,000 years to find out. It is also wise not to confuse efficacy, effectiveness, and economic efficiency.
The real question is: are they useful to some people? Should these people then be forced to rely instead upon officially convenient alternatives - often more expensive and dangerous - which may not work for them? Forced legally or financially, that is.
As for "safe", the old adage is that toxicity is in the dose. Most herbs are arguably safer than most Con Meds. Aside from ensuring that no-one has added a toxic pharmaceutical, there really doesn't seem to be crying need for additional regulation.
Next paragraph.
This looks rather like cut&paste, gone wrong. I think you were trying to say that every aspect of life that can be regulated, should ("surely") be regulated.
If that was your thought, No, I don't agree; freedoms & birthrights are more important than employing bureaucrats & lawyers, imposing taxes, and drafting decrees.
Next you make some thumping great assumptions about why the views of one set of people are superior to the experience of any one patient (or doctor).
That 'little reality' I prefer is that science has to adapt to observed phenomena, and not censor observation in favour of dogma.
{By this point, cult thinking dictates that you should accuse me of being
"anti-science", which is so far ridiculous it doesn't bear much further
examination; go on, then, prove my point.}
"..makes it possible for effective treatments to be registered..".
As I have said elsewhere:
an effective herbal cure does not become "mainstream medicine", instead it becomes "banned".
A herbal cure is unpatentable (by prior art), thus there is not the money to afford excessive registration charges. What we have here is legalised piracy, privateering. The \EU has grabbed ownership of a birthright, and wishes to impose restrictions designed to favour another sector which pays better. It wants least to generate some revenue by way of registration charges and prosecutions.
A corollary: I certainly would not want to see the \US approach, which allows corporations to grab patents of natural life, like the gene for basmati rice.
"So i am rather confused by this whole issue". Yes, you probably are.
"My worry is that this opens the door to unscrupulous...". Yes, there are unscrupulous quacks around. The history of ConventionalMed confirms it. Plenty of examples there.
But this is not what is at issue. A sensible rule does not seek to restrict or ban a whole modality because of one crook, else GPs and dentists would be long gone.
Forgive me for suspecting that this is not your major worry at all.
"Before someone tries getting relativistic about proof, i'm keeping this simple, clinical trials are needed. there is no alternative."
You arrogant little cult m*mber.
Your attempt to pre-empt genuine discussion is noted.
Clinical trials are but one tool of science; arguably outcome studies are a better measure of what is useful. What works, works. The arbiter is the patient, and those who closely observe, not the System.
{See earlier note about cult accusations of being "anti-science". I might consider that libellous.}
"vested interests of complementary practitioners ".
I am open-mouthed at the sheer gall of this cut&paste.
A workman is worthy of his pay, it is said; people, unconventional people, put a lot of effort into learning how to heal, and not to kill (the latter being generally illegal anyway, unless you have the the correct papers).
Forgive me, but I just haven't seen the huge corporations of medical herbalists poised to take over the world of finance.
So let's not ignore possible vested interests of pharmaceutical corporations, vested interests of established medical experts with reputations to protect, of university departments with funding to chase, and the political clout that these groups wield.
I'm thinking of the princess & the Pisum sativum, the while ignoring the monstrous ogre in her bed.
As for "chiropractors .. foolish attempt to silence critics", I really can't see the relevance to THMPD. And the points about free speech are entirely disingenuous. It's that cut&paste g o r n awry, again.
And if I get a bad back, I'll not go to a journalist (or, given the evidence base, to a surgeon); I'll go to a chiropractor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill.who.was.here.before
bill.who.was.here.before
13 May 2011 at 11:49 am
HI to Herbal Leg Info
I preferred this Vogel site
http://www.avogel.co.uk/eu-herbal-legislation/index.php
To paraphrase, it says:
> On the plus side: Great! Herbs will continue to be great quality and have informative labels.
> On the down side: But, sorry, they probably won't be available to buy any more.
Anonymous
27 November 2013 at 6:56 am
we know this is a conspiracy simply because the rules that apply to herbs stated here DO NOT apply to toxic pharma drugs which kill millions a year. There is simply no correlation between safe or relatively safe herbs with thousands of years of clinical application and modern pharma drugs that we know are killers and ARE NOT ADEQUATELY TESTED--this is the real scandal.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences