At the end of last week, we leaked a letter sent by Elizabeth Williamson, a Reading University professor, to Andrew Lansley, the UK Health Minister.
So far, we have received no direct response from the good Professor. All we have seen are her comments to journalist Shane Starling, made during an interview for a Nutraingredients article. We’d like to stress that contrary to the title of the article, we didn’t attack the professor. We simply exposed a letter that we believe contained misleading information that we presume, given the stated, intended recipient, was destined for the Health Minister. We in turn put on public record our comment to Prof Williamson in a second letter, as well as a third letter to the Health Minister, which provided our views on what appeared to be serious misconceptions contained in the professor’s original letter.
Professor Williamson told Nutraingredients that to leak something like this, “Casts aspersions on my professional career and my department and implies that I am inept and corrupt.” She also said that she was, “Crushed and devastated by it and haven’t slept in four days”. Apart from suggesting that she might benefit from some valerian, we’d like to direct Professor Williamson to our reply, posted on the Nutraingredients site:
Please don’t lose sleep, Prof Williamson
We are sorry that Prof Williamson has chosen to take this personally, but she hasn’t been attacked! Her ideas written in a letter have however been contested. But this is not about her, us or any of the people in the herbal sector. It is about the fundamental way in which foods and medicines are treated by regulators in the UK and Europe more generally. The implications for consumers of a government, such as the UK, following the advice given by Prof Williamson, are huge. Prof Williamson has previously published important papers showing how dietary components and food supplements can have therapeutic properties (e.g. Phytother Res. 2007; 21(2): 99-112) – now she implies, through her letter, that these same products should be removed from the market unless they are authorised successfully as drugs (under the THMPD scheme, which guarantees neither safety nor efficacy, or using the ‘well established use’ or full marketing authorisation routes). The sheer cost and practicalities of this mean that the vast majority would be lost from the market. Polyherbal products would be the most severely affected, yet these are the ones with the strongest evidence of benefit, particularly from non-European traditions. I am at a loss as to why Prof Williamson doesn’t simply justify her position, rather than losing sleep.
The paper makes extensive reference to beneficial and even therapeutic properties of foods, food ingredients and herbal food supplements, so it is a surprise that Prof Williamson now appears to suggest that such products should be regulated as drugs.
We will keep you posted on any response we get from Prof Williamson.
How Europe abandoned the precautionary principle under pressure from Big Ag—quietly stripping away your right to know whether many foods are gene-edited, why it matters, and what you can do about it
Loneliness and social isolation don’t just break hearts. Find out why social disconnection is a modern day disease epidemic and what we can do about it
Our weekly roundup of the latest natural news from across the globe in one place. This week: Big tobacco & UPFs; Regenerative greenwashing; EU deregulates gene-editing; Needles, not pills; Plus updates from ANH-USA and much more…
Upcoming events, conferences, available courses and replays.
8 Responses
I am at a complete loss to understand why you think that by questioning Prof Williamson’s academic independence and integrity – not just once, but several times – it wasn’t an attack and that you don’t expect her to take it personally!
The comment left on your webpage looked like a very personal attack on her.
Dear Jo
I’m not sure how you can state that Prof. Williamson has academic independence and integrity, when the letter clearly shows that she doesn’t.
Anyone who supports the pharmaceutical industry and seeks to deny it any competition is suspect and deserves questioning on their motives and honesty. Side effects from ‘safety tested’ pharmaceuticals kill a million people a year and Prof. Williamsons time would be better employed investigating this. Studies that expose these side-effects are frequently covered up by the companies whose only interest is to make profit and academics who are frequently and secretly employed to make the industys case for their aim for the total monopoly of healthcare. While a few cases of harm caused by herbal medicine have been given great publicity any such problems are dwarfed by the terrible consequences of many widely used mainstream drugs that are never heard about. Herbal medicines often have thousands of years of use to verify their safety and efficacy and their basic chemistry is of the same evolutionary processes as our bodytchemistry yet the prof is lending her voice to those who want take them from us for corporate gain. All ethical academics in the field should be working to proving the efficacy of cheap herbal products for the good of all humanity – work that will never be done by an industry that needs patentable, profitable, new product to sell to the wealthy. She lends her voice to those who would take away the liberty of choice for our own health and is upset about the reaction- tough – if she cant stand the heat she shouldve stayed outa this kitchen. If she has valid reasons for her aim of limiting our already reduced choices she should give them here instead of trying to have covert influence over lawmakers and then wanting to run and hide.