« Cropwatch Newsletter 16: Disproportionate Reactions to Health & Safety Issues | Main | Notes & News »
October 25, 2009
Traditional Herbal Medicine Under Threat in the United Kingdom
Cropwatch has posted [PDF] and sent out by e-mail to its subscribers an emergency mailing about the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to regulation of herbal medicine. Although this blog is more focused on the aromatics world, we also are interested (and believe our readers are also) in herbal medicine, and at this point it’s not clear to us whether essential oils could or would be included in that regulation.
Most of the readers of this site are Americans, but if you happen to be from the United Kingdom, the EU, or even are American, you should get more information on this issue from the Cropwatch site and sign the petitions linked from it and also linked from the beginning of the Cropwatch letter posted here (emphasis mine):
The purpose of this Cropwatch emergency mailing is primarily to ask
all of you to seriously consider signing the Save Our Herbs petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-herbal-medicine.html This organisation not only campaigns on behalf of the general public, but also represents a very significant proportion of medical herbalists of both Eastern and Western traditions, practising in the UK.
Time is very short - if you want to support this very worthy campaign
ensuring the continued availability of safe Herbal Medicinal Products,
the continued free use of a wide range of our safe endemic &
imported Herbs by ordinary people according to our traditions,
preventing the takeover of small Herbal Medicine Suppliers by
pharmaceutical concerns, & opposition to Statutory Regulation of
Herbalists, you will need to sign the petition by 31st October 2009.
The Save Our Herbs campaign’s official website can be found at
http://www.saveourherbs.org.uk/index.html and provides a wealth of
background information to this potential crisis for Herbal Medicine.
Cropwatch strongly recommends you to read through the
comprehensive information to be found there.
The Newsletter continues for 11 pages and will not be reprinted on this blog. But I strongly recommend that you read it and the information on the linked sites and follow through as best you can. You can read the full newsletter here on the Cropwatch site.
Posted by Rob on October 25, 2009 in Essential Oils/Plant Extractions, Regulatory Issues | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d6f369e20120a61eeec5970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Traditional Herbal Medicine Under Threat in the United Kingdom:
Comments
You are sending out an unbalanced and inaccurate view to readers of this blog.
The situation is not as you describe it.
Basically the EU has passed laws harmonising medicines legislation across Europe. In the UK this law will be enacted on 30th April 2011. From that date all herbal medicines must have a licence or will disappear from the shelves. Unlicensed medicines will still be available from those who have the designation 'authorised healthcare professional'. Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, it has happened already.
Change happens, and when it does it is unsettling. No-one wants to think that someone is doing something to restrict them, but this is actually empowering herbalists. The proposed regulator has the most open and unrestrictive policy on Continuing Professional Development of many professions, and not just health ones. In fact it has been critical of other healthcare professions that say e.g a person must spend x number of hours doing y. Also the proposed regulator wants to work with the herbal professions to ensure that regulation works for them and suits them - it sees the professional herbalists as the experts in herbal medicine.
Currently herbalists in the UK are unique in Europe, although herbalists can also practise in Ireland with some restrictions on the herbs they use. (In Denmark, herbalists practise under food laws which restricts their practice). There is no legal definition of a herbalist in any country other than South Africa, where all practitioners of CAM have had statutory regulation for 20 years and enjoy both freedom and respect, as well as not being subjected to ridicule by the so-called self-appointed quackbusters. Part of the 1968 Medicines Act which allows herbalists to prescribe herbs has already been removed - whether we like it or not. That is the over the counter sales aspect - the bit about licences.
If herbalists become regulated by statue, first of all they gain legal recognition, something they have sought since the time of Henry VIII. Secondly, they will retain access to the complete range of unlicensed herbs that currently grace their shelves and will therefore be able to continue to offer their patients the same service they get now. No herbalist wants to see restrictions on their practice. However serious herbalists want to see that those who are treating people are properly trained - the difference between having a degree in herbal medicine and having done a weekend's course. Also herbalists want to ensure the public is safe from unscrupulous practitioners - those people who behave inappropriately towards patients. Statutory regulation will prevent such people from continuing to practice and behaving badly to more patients. Voluntary regulation (which is what exists currently if a person belongs to a professional body) does not do that. First of all the person can chose whether or not to belong to a professional body, and secondly, if a complaint is made against a person for e.g touching up a patient, that person might be expelled from the professional body, but there is nothing to stop him or her from continuing to practice. Since osteopaths became statutorily regulated there have a been a few cases where osteopaths have been struck off the register. We live in a society where people do these things, but we as a society have a duty to do something about it.
Bona fide practitioners have nothing to fear from statutory regulation. They are well qualified, insured, do CPD, abide by a code of ethics and so on - everything you would expect from your healthcare professional. Without regulation, and with the changes to the laws that will be implemented in 2011, there will be no defined body of professionals that the MHRA will be able to turn to 'give' herbal medicines. If a herbal medicine is suspected of causing adverse effects there will be no recognised body with the authority to refute such claims.
The likely result of that is that more and more herbs will become banned in the UK, with no-one recognised as having a voice to defend them. Herbalists will have fewer and fewer herbs to use for their patients. Suppliers will go out of business as their trade contracts. Eventually most herbalists will simply have to give up.
The public will be left with just the internet where they can buy herbs - and we all know how difficult it is to know what is good and what is bad on the internet. Would you be able to tell the difference between comfrey leaves and foxglove leaves? Would you know that what you ordered was in fact what it says it is and is not something completely different? Would you know if it was good quality? Or old stock? Those are the sorts of things that professional herbalists know about and demand, and herbal suppliers have quality control that herbalists can depend on. Regulation supports that quality control.
So please stop spreading propaganda that statutory regulation is a bad thing. the majority of herbalists want it - they voted in favour of regulation. Only a small number voted against it.
The real threat to herbal medicine in the UK is if herbalist are not regulated.
Please stop asking people to sign a petition that could spell a death warrant to herbal medicine in the UK. Give the other side of the situation.
Have a look yourselves at the other side of the story.
Posted by: Laura | Nov 4, 2009 6:44:14 AM
Dear Laura
I was interested to read your message. The view of regulation upheld by others is not necessarily unbalanced or biased - it is simply different from yours. By hearing both sides of the discussion for and against regulation, people can then make an informed choice for themselves. You may wish to go to the "anti regulation" website www.saveourherbs.org.uk to help widen your perspective of the current scenario. What a pity these issues were not encouraged to be debated before a decision had been made regarding regulation - this is one of the reasons both I and many other herbalists decided to discontinue our membership of NIMH. Don't forget, the pro-lobby does not represent the majority of herbalists as you often state. 28% of NIMH members voted for regulation at the last EGM. 68% of members did not vote, and similar figures have been the case ever since regulation became a voting issue. On discussing this with members who did not vote, many members said it was because they felt they had not been given sufficient information to make an informed decision, and the information they did receive was confusing.
Now, the "pro regulation" supporters message is unclear. Firstly, in the early 1990's, we were told by Michael Mcintyre that we needed to prepare for regulation or the government would force it upon us. Regulation would be the way forward and there would be no other option. Initially we were told we would progress Statutory Self Regulation. Then, somehow the "self" disappeared from the equation to become Statutory Regulation, without any discussion whatsoever.
We were also of the belief that Herbal Medicine was safe medicine - in fact, I remember being issued with a "car sticker" from NIMH to promote exactly that message. However, I have now been forwarded correspondence written by Michael Mcintyre stating that herbs are dangerous!
Now it seems the government are showing no enthusiasm for Herbal Medicine to be regulated and the message being promoted by the pro-regulation lobby is that they are desperate to be regulated!
Last, but not least, your pro-regulation campaign is called "Save Our Herbs" which is exactly the name we gave our anti-regulation campaign when we launched our website! However, from your literature, you are clearly not out to save herbs, but to save those herbalists who want to be regulated. The THMPD is planned to go ahead regardless of whether or not herbalists are regulated. In fact, by regulating herbalists in the ways proposed, you are denying the use of herbs to all CAM practitioners and therefore resulting in restricted access to the public. This is exactly the opposite of the Culpeper ethos which promoted the access and use of herbs for everyone.
So - it seems the pro-regulation campaign has got an identity crisis:
1. You were told there was no option but to be regulated, and although this no longer seems to be the case, you are now pleading with the government to regulate the herbal profession.
2. You do not know if herbs are safe or dangerous,
3. You do not know if you want to save herbs or herbalists, as your message is confused and incorrect.
4. You have taken the name of the anti-regulation campaign for your own message. I accept that identity theft is a form of admiration in many instances, but how sad that your campaign does not have an identity of its own with substance and integrity.
Jennie Wharam
Naturopath and Independent Medical Herbalist
Posted by: Jennie Wharam | Nov 8, 2009 6:27:01 AM
A primary standard of the British regulations on health and safety is that the responsibility for their compliance lies with those who own, manage and work in commercial and industrial concerns. This includes the self-employed, who must themselves assess the risks attached to their activity and take appropriate action.
http://claimss.putblog.net/health-and-safety-in-the-workplace/
Posted by: David hogard | Nov 11, 2009 1:44:02 AM
Dear Laura
I think first of all I would like to raise a couple of pertinent points. Herbalists have not had to seek legal recognition since the time of Henry VIII, as that is exactly what he gave them in the Royal Charter. The current proposals would limit the field of recognition and therefore disenfranchise any herbalist who tradition does not fall within the narrow confines prescribed. The knock-on effect of this would be to limit the freedom of choice to the public. Because of this statutory regulation is anti-herbal medicine, not pro-herbal medicine.
The "one size fits all" model, that has been proposed as a definition of "Herbal Medicine" is totally at odds with the practice and philosophy of traditional herbal medicine (which incidentally does not encompass the use of denatured high potency Frankenstinian pharmaceuticalized compound standardised extracts. Because of this, we have a situation where the nature practice and philosophy of genuine herbal medicine stands to be murdered and abandoned in an effort to force it to comply with rules and regulations that do not respect its existence. I would point out that the imperious nature of this proposition is acknowledged in the report from the Working Group on Extending Professional Regulation.
The Working Group did not consider the details of individual professional groups as part of their work.
(Page 7 Working group report)
Secondly the other major non sequitur ought to be addressed. If herbal medicine is about to be swiped from the shelves of retail establishments by the implementation of THMPD, the statutory regulation of herbalists will not put it back on the shelves.
Those products that the manufacturers might be unable or unwilling to be able to afford to licence at £40,000 a throw, would indeed continue to be available through a suitably approved source. The only problem is, is that without a retail outlet, there would not be enough approved health professionals to market the product in sufficient bulk to make the price of production and distribution financially viable. No financial viability = no manufacture = no product = no herbal practice dependent manufactured product. This is not exactly rocket science!
The pro-statutory regulation lobby like to put forward that statutory regulation is the only model available. This of course is completely untrue, as the WG on EPR report goes into great detail defining other models together with their strengths and weaknesses, for instance:-
Statutory licensing has some attractions, in that presumably it would provide a transferable CRB approval. However it would not protect the practitioner from the campaign of vexatious complaints, such has already been experienced elsewhere, which have been apparently motivated by those with an obsessive desire to see the obliteration of CAM therapies in general. This is a serious issue, as the unintended consequence of well-meaning regulation could still lead to the obliteration of practitioners by underhand means. As this threat hangs over all regulated practitioners, great circumspection should be employed on this subject.
From this it follows that even if it were to require the administration of some of approved herbalist to access these products, a different model to statutory regulation could be chosen by the government as the appropriate format. It appears to me that certain people are very determined to refuse to acknowledge this possibility. The fact of the matter is that the government is actually considering a range of options to find the most suitable and viable one currently available.
"I have taken on board all the points you make in your letters and would like to reassure you that it is the intention of the forthcoming consultation on the recommendations in the Pittilo report to look at all the options available for these groups, of which statutory regulation is only one. The Pittilo report is an independent report (albeit to the Department of Health) and it is not a foregone conclusion that statutory regulation of these professions is the way forward. The purpose of the consultation is to enable Ministers to decide on a level of regulation appropriate and proportionate to risk. Ministers will make a decision on the way forward in the light of the responses received to the consultation. If a decision is taken to regulate these professions, a great deal of detailed work on the operational details and a further consultation on the draft legislation will inevitably follow."
Sharon Corner European & Specialist Legislation Team, Workforce Directorate, Department of Health, 26th June 2009.
Inappropriate regulation at the end of the day would be considerably worse than no regulation. The current situation has worked perfectly adequately without disproportionate harm ever having occurred. One only has to look at the history of regulated allopathic medicine to see the number of ills and misfortunes have continued to occur, even under the most stringent regulations in force in this country.
The idea that the regulation of practitioners would protect the public from inappropriate conduct, is also somewhat disapproved by the activities of the BMA regulated Dr Harold Shipman, and the Royal College of Nursing regulated Nurse Beverley Allit.
In short, none of the arguments that have been put forward to substantiate either the necessity or efficacy of statutory regulation actually hold water!
As has been pointed out, the necessary structures for evaluating herbal medicine are not in place, and if they are subjected to the discriminatory application of inappropriate criteria, herbal medicine would cease to exist. If the government proceeds with an inappropriate model, it would inevitably block the way for an appropriate model being developed, and even if such were eventually to take place, it would already be too late.
The current proposal from anyone's point of view constitutes action for the sake of action, irrespective of result, and is in effect a recipe for disaster.
Those who have insisted on blindly championing the cause of statutory regulation, having failed to legitimise it on its own merits, have resorted to making totally exaggerated claims on the basis of public safety. It is a matter of some interest that a misguided group of homoeopaths have also decided that they would gain some sort of professional kudos through statutory regulation. They have also attempted to make the same fallacious claim that their therapy is potentially dangerous, and must therefore be regulated, thereby making them statutory regulated practitioners.
There is a similar hole in their argument. Homoeopathic medicine can be highly effective when prescribed correctly. When prescribed incorrectly however, nothing happens at all. It is completely impossible for homoeopathic medicine to be dangerous, but this has not deterred the demented advocates of statutory regulation attempting to use this argument.
If one is to use the issue of public safety, it would be first appropriate to prove the risk, and demonstrate how the proposed action to limit that risk (if any) would accomplish that end, in a proportional and cost-effective way. These concepts are clearly spelt out in the report to government, and as of yet none of these criteria have been fulfilled. As result of this, there is absolutely no case for statutory regulation, and the motives for this proposal should therefore be investigated.
The manufacturers of high potency standardised extracts have a natural interest in maintaining their market, and are therefore driven by issues of financial reward rather than public safety. The EHTPA has demonstrated itself to be firmly wedded to this misguided concept. It may of course be pertinent that a prominent figure within the EHTPA inner circle is rather closely associated with a company making high potency standardised extracts.
It is a matter of interest that the HPA (the original brand name of the EHTPA) was actually formed to promote voluntary self-regulation, specifically to avoid statutory regulation being imposed! It is therefore manifested the Orwellian leger de main of "two legs bad, four legs good, , four legs good, two legs better". This of course leaves us with the question of who is playing the role of Snowball (the corrupt dictatorial pig that ended up running the farm). This is a reference to the cautionary tale " Animal Farm" by George Orwell.
I also notice in the submission that there is the statement that regulation protects the quality of the product. As you well know, statutory regulation relates to the practitioner only. The regulation of pharmaceutically produced standardised extracts would come under different regulation altogether. We therefore have yet another false argument being put forward, based on ignorance and confusion.
I noticed that a statement is made that only a few herbalists voted against statutory regulation. You will of course be aware that very few actually voted for it, with the vast majority who were offered the opportunity of voting, either voting against or abstaining. You will also be aware that one of the parent organisations of the EHTPA threatened its members with expulsion from its ranks if they signed a petition against statutory regulation. This hardly supports an argument based on a democratic vote in favour. The members of another organisation, the IRCH, which was a member of the EHTPA before its resignation in disgust, were never offered the chance to vote on this proposal, and this therefore constitutes yet another infringement of the democratic process.
Dear Annette,
I am concerned to hear from Vicki Pitman that the URHP vote about SSR had a significant number of no votes (Vicki couldn't tell me how many exactly and what percentage of your membership this represents). As I understand from Vicki that your membership stands at about 30 perhaps it might be possible for the team leaders in the URHP to call individually those who are not in favour and explain why SSR may be the best option. It would also give us an opportunity to learn why they have voted against SSR. Is it the money?
It would be a chance to persuade those who are unsure to attend one of the three remaining SSR road shows so they can participate in the debate.
Sincerely
Michael McIntyre
Chairman EHPA
> From: ELIZABETH LYDEN
> To: amt-urhp
> Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:21
> Subject: FW: [ukherbal-list] 'Herbal Medicine' petition
>
>
>
> this petition is currently being circulated. please note that it goes against everything that the URHPand EHTPA have been working o to achieve our freedom to practice in the last 15 years. if you sign it please resign immediately from the URHP. If you have already signed it and wish to remain a member send us your letter of withdrawal from the petition. if you have just renewed you may have a refund. there is no grey area with this. if this petition undermines the reguatory process we will not have the freedom to access all of our herbs in 2011. it is your choice.
>
> Liz Lyden and Annette Montague Thomas URHP
It might also be appropriate to address other issues.
It has been put forward that: --
Without statutory regulation there will no longer be any access to herbal medicine, and the public would only have recourse to illegal backstreet supplies.
However, what the steering group report actually said was: --
11. Pharmacy and Herbal Medicine Practice
It should be noted that there was some discussion as to whether practitioners preparing and supplying unlicensed herbal medicines to meet the needs of individual patients might be statutorily regulated alongside pharmacists. Little enthusiasm for this option could be identified amongst both pharmacists and herbalists suggesting that such an arrangement could only be achieved by a level of coercion. As the White Paper determined that the HPC should be the preferred regulator10, and in view of other doubts which some members of the Steering Group had about the appropriateness of this option, we did not pursue the idea further.
(Page 12 the Steering Group Report to Ministers…..)
It has been put forward that: --
Statutory regulated practitioners would be able to work alongside allopathic doctors in the NHS from which they would reap the benefit of well-paid employment.
The Department of Health said: --
"If a practitioner is regulated by statute, it does not necessarily mean their services are available on the NHS; this is currently the case with many chiropractors and osteopaths. It would be a matter for local commissioners to decide whether to fund CAM therapies on the NHS. Indeed many CAM therapists choose to only practise privately."
Sharon Corner (European and Specialist Legislation Team, Workforce Directorate, Department Of Health) 26th of June 2009.
This of course is already the extant situation, which would not be affected by statutory regulation by a single jot.
It would appear that your opinions have been formed without having read and comprehended the contents of the Steering Group Report, which admittedly is a mess of contradictions, the Interim Report from the WG on EPR, the Final Report from the WG on EPR, or the Consultation Document. Had you done so rather than quoting verbatim from the NIHM crib sheet, you might have embarrassed yourself a little less .
Sandy Scott SQHP GHR reg. MAAMET. BHSAI. Associate member IRCH
Posted by: Sandy Scott | Nov 11, 2009 7:55:36 AM
Interesting to read your article and Laura's comments. I think that this shows a great perspective of both sides of the story and then lets the reader decide for themselves what they want to believe. I think if Laura cited her sources she would make for a better argument.
Posted by: Plastic Bottles | Nov 15, 2009 10:07:31 PM
Same thing is happening in Australia, US, Canada, Nigeria, Thailand....etc
It is part of the evil AGENDA 21 and CODEX ALIMENTARIUS.
Let there be no mistake this is the FASCISM and TYRANNY of GLOBALISATION we must stop.
Posted by: Cath | Dec 11, 2009 10:44:19 PM
