The UK is in the midst of a complex debate over herbal product and practitioner regulation that has been raging for decades. The outcome of the debate is likely to have consequences that echo throughout the European Union (EU). But as the claims, counter-claims and controversy fly, perhaps the most important question is in danger of being overlooked: what will the eventual regulation mean for individual UK practitioners who use herbs – many of whom are not herbalists?
Herbs aren’t just for herbalists
Herbal medicine has always been, and remains, humanity’s most widely used healthcare strategy. Every country in the world is the proud possessor of a dizzying range of indigenous herbs, many with powerful healing properties that form the backbone of healing traditions stretching back centuries – even millennia. Naturalised Indonesian microbiologist and conservationist Willie Smits discovered that orang-utans use as many as 4,000 different herbal species for their health-giving properties: an astounding number that must be the envy of herbalists the world over.
However, trained herbalists are not, and have never been, the only ones to use herbs in their practices. In a modern context, some examples include naturopaths, colon hydrotherapists, homeopaths, osteopaths, nutritional therapists, aromatherapists, acupuncturists, kinesiologists and some mainstream medics – and this list is far from being exhaustive. Unfortunately, at present, the ongoing UK discussions over the future of herbal regulation exclude these practitioners almost entirely.
What does it mean for me?
The debate over herbal regulation is necessarily complex and multifaceted. In such a context, it’s not surprising that many herb-using practitioners aren’t sure how any change in herbal legislation will affect their access to herbs. This is our attempt to clarify things a little, by outlining the major consequences for three broad groups of practitioners, and the general public, of a shift to SR or VS. For completeness’ sake, we also look at the consequences of doing nothing and sticking to the status quo.
We have collated the information in this table, which should be read in conjunction with our earlier article on UK herbal regulation.
Call to action
We hope this article, along with our previous piece on SR/VS, helps to guide you through the maze of legislation, arguments and counter-arguments that surrounds this polarised issue. Our call to action remains unchanged from the first article:
- Members of the public and practitioners, from both the UK and beyond, please get involved in the comments and give us your thoughts on this important issue
- UK practitioners of herbal and traditional systems of medicine, please make your association aware of your views so that they can best be represented in the important coming debates within the UK working group.
Comments
your voice counts
26 March 2014 at 9:27 pm
When I was told I was terminally ill in January 1999, I used several healing protocols to get well, but I used an awful lot of herbs that I knew would help clean me up, improve my vitality and improve my immune function.
Under UK common law, anything not actually banned is legal. Under EC law, anything not expressly allowed is banned. There is a deep sense of irony that whilst in countries like Germany, herbal treatment is mainstream and easily obtainable under the German medical insurance scheme, in the UK, it is subject to attacks from people who wish to see herbalism driven out of business. Nevertheless, in the UK, and until this EC abomination became law, all individuals were free to buy and use herbs not actually banned under English law.
I am lucky. I have a good friend who is a medical herbalist, so anything he can obtain is open to me. I have serious concerns about the ability of others to obtain herbs that have absolutely no ill health claims whatsoever made against them. The last time I checked, no supplier of herbs in this country has been prosecuted, but it is only a matter of time. Napiers Herbals a venerable company in Scotland did come very close to closing for good after a campaign by skeptics.
It does cause me the deepest concern over what should after all be a human right to responsibilty for one's own health and wellbeing. Of course the real irony is in the well documented damage that so much of the conventional drugging achieves with little by way of activity against the manufacturers from the corporatist superstate.
It is not the first time in history that the freedom of people to choose their own form of health protection has come under attack from vested interests. That said, it is about time supporters of people's right to choose stood up and were counted.
26 March 2014 at 11:23 pm
Il y en a assez de réglementssss .Qui paye tous ces sages ? Devinez ? Pour aboutir à quoi? Faire de nous des esclaves , l'inquisition n'est pas morte, elle a changé de forme :normaliser pour dominer ,exploiter . Si l'orang-outan a autant de sagesse ,nous ne descendons pas,c'est certain du singe .Il faut accepter qu'il est encore en évolution et nous sur la déchéance .Ils ont fait rotir les soi-disant sorcières ,nous ils nous font crever de maladies "dites dégénératives".MAIS HEUREUSEMENT ,LA PROVIDENCE NOUS ENVOIE DES TECHNIQUES COMME L'EFT ,DE MONSIEUR GARY GRAIG , QUI SE REPAND COMME LES POISONS QUI DETRUISENT LA TERRE ,CE SERA LA SEULE MANIERE DE NOUS TIRER D'AFFAIRE .Au moins le net sert à quelque chose ,pour le moment cela ne va pas durer . La meilleur médecine est gratuite :EFT . Assez de C_ommissions ,de C_orruption ,tout ce termine dans leur C_aisse ,et pour nous dans un C_ercueil . C'est la formule des trois C.C.C. Lisez JON RAPPOPORT il a un site trés instructif . Abonnez vous à Greenmed info ,Natural News .Il ne disent que la vérité basé sur des recherches scientifiques SERIEUSES .
27 March 2014 at 11:44 am
As you are no doubt aware, the MHRA has issued notice that the final stocks of unlicensed herbal remedies must be sold through by 30th April. Once again the MHRA supported larger companies against the interests of consumers in making this decision.
Beyond the more high profile herbs such as St John's wort and Black cohosh, at present it is still not clear exactly what herbs can and cannot continue to be sold as botanical food supplements. The industry will of course try to maximise those sold as supplements. The MHRA have so far double gold-plated the implementation of European regulations and then ignored the government's red tape challenge despite an obvious case of over-regulation. The worry is they will use the end of the sell through of unlicensed herbal remedies to attack consumer interests further by announcing more herbs that cannot be sold without a license.
01 October 2014 at 9:24 am
Given the discussions going on in this latest Working Group, it is surely about time that all practitioners using herbs realised that they are on the same side, and acted that way, standing together for the purpose of safeguarding their future.
The drive for practitioner regulation has been characterised up to this point by organisations like the EHTPA (European Herbal and Traditional medicines Practitioners' Association) and the NIMH (National Institute of Medical Herbalists) making out that some practitioners are dangerous, in order to suit their own agenda to have SR brought in. Herbal medicines and the practitioners who use them have a record of safety that is incomparable, and this is why there exists no evidence base to show that herbs or herbalists are dangerous. The claim of "we're safe, but they aren't" is surely one that must now be moved on from. As the ANH has pointed out elsewhere, even the Aristolochia case so often cited by those who are pro-SR as an example of the risks to public health posed by herbs, and which largely led to the drive to regulate herbal medicines, was founded on a mistaken premise.
Those who have sought to create a dichotomy between herbalists in order to serve their own ends have done a disservice to the herbal profession, and I would call upon them to now unite with their fellow practitioners in the interests of the public good.
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