EU threat to natural remedies

[teamsaint]

No doubt the mail is even worse for us than the EU, but its true to say that the EU did its best to ban natural remedies, so banning natural music really wouldn't be a problem for it.

[french frank]

its true to say that the EU did its best to ban natural remedies

Is this the story (according to the Guardian)?

Anyway, if we all write our MEPs about the gut string issue, and tweet and stuff, well, it could trend ...

[Flosshilde]

its true to say that the EU did its best to ban natural remedies,

Another myth. The proposal (& regulations) said that herbal remedies that made claims of efficacy in curing conditions should go through the same rigorous testing as other medicines. Quite reasonable in my view.

[teamsaint]

Another myth. The proposal (& regulations) said that herbal remedies that made claims of efficacy in curing conditions should go through the same rigorous testing as other medicines. Quite reasonable in my view.

No not a myth at all. It was made extremely expensive to get a license, so that only the big well known stuff like st Johns wort will in future be on sale.

This was an agenda pushed by the drugs industry. there is almost zero evidence that any harm at all was caused by the remedies that were on the market.
A useful comparison would be all the toxic stuff that the drugs companies are allowed to sell (EG aspirin).

If you want all remedies controlled by big drugs companies, then effectively banning, or at least reducing the availability of natural remedies is a great place to start.I would suggest that the tests are constructed for the benefit of the drugs companies.As for efficacy, well plenty of the drugs that doctors prescribe are useless, at least for certain conditions. (check the stats on antibiotics!!)

It really is a quite appalling infringement of our freedoms, yet again.

Not a lot of fun if you are one of those people who rely exclusively on the banned remedies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/europe-to-ban-hundreds-of-herbal-remedies-2171781.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1342747/Herbal-drug-crackdown-Europe-ban-hundreds-natural-remedies-year.html

[teamsaint]

Is this the story (according to the Guardian)?

Anyway, if we all write our MEPs about the gut string issue, and tweet and stuff, well, it could trend ...

THis was it according to the Indie.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/europe-to-ban-hundreds-of-herbal-remedies-2171781.html

[Flosshilde]

No not a myth at all. It was made extremely expensive to get a license, so that only the big well known stuff like st Johns wort will in future be on sale.

This was an agenda pushed by the drugs industry. there is almost zero evidence that any harm at all was caused by the remedies that were on the market.
A useful comparison would be all the toxic stuff that the drugs companies are allowed to sell (EG aspirin).

Absolutely a myth, & as the article linked to by FF explains many of the major remedies have been licenced under the new regulations. There is plenty of evidence that St John's Wort, for example, interferes with other drugs used for heart conditions (the one I take, for example), & there is not sufficient warning in the packaging.

Perhaps you don't know that the active ingredient in aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) is derived from willow bark - a 'natural' remedy.

It seems to me to be entirely reasonable for products marketed as medicines, however they are manufactured, & from whatever ingredients, to go through the same testing procedures.

The Independent article says that
"Under EU law, statutorily regulated herbal practitioners will be permitted to continue prescribing unlicensed products. But the Coalition Government and the previous Labour administration have delayed plans to introduce a statutory herbal practitioner register"

as has been suggested earlier it's not the EU regulations that are at fault, but the delay from the national government (in this case the UK)

[teamsaint]

it really depends on who is making the rules up, and to what purpose.
These rules are clearly being introduced to defend certain positions.

Natural is not necessarily good, artificial not necessarily bad.Clearly if you are taking any remedy you should take precautions. It is true to say that the warnings on the packging of many prerscribed drugs are incomprehensible to most people.(and indeed to some doctors in my experience).

Anyway, whether we agree or not on on whether this was a good thing or a bad thing was not really my point. My point was, it isn't a myth.It happened. The EU was involved in (effectively) banning these remedies.
In my view , it is naive to think that this has anything at all to do with health outcomes, but that is my opinion.

[french frank]

I'll be moving the discussion about herbal remedies to a separate thread in a minute.

[amateur51]

Ban or no ban, I'm sure you'll still be able to get your tablets of choice on t'Internet

[french frank]

This was an agenda pushed by the drugs industry. there is almost zero evidence that any harm at all was caused by the remedies that were on the market.

'Almost' zero is an unquantified amount. Reading the Independent's story which you linked to:

"The UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued more than a dozen safety alerts in the past two years, including one over aristolochia, a banned toxic plant derivative which caused kidney failure in two women."

And more:

"Under EU law, statutorily regulated herbal practitioners will be permitted to continue prescribing unlicensed products. But the Coalition Government and the previous Labour administration have delayed plans to introduce a statutory herbal practitioner register."

I can see that EU legislation involves tiresome added bureaucracy. I can't see an argument for suggesting that the huge drug companies are trying to put the little guys out of business. Possibly another case where efficient organisation by interested parties should be lobbying national government.

[Lateralthinking1]

You might add the "herbal highs" which are sold at festivals. I think these are now regulated when most of them are dodgy only insofar as they do nothing and hence rip people off. I am all for consumer protection but also common sense. It makes you wonder where caveat emptor now sits. It is a depleted principle probably. But might it be that the constraints on "herbal highs" lead some into illegal drug taking? And is it not a ploy when some things go the other way and become wholly legit with tax revenue, ie guarana?

[teamsaint]

Absolutely a myth, & as the article linked to by FF explains many of the major remedies have been licenced under the new regulations. There is plenty of evidence that St John's Wort, for example, interferes with other drugs used for heart conditions (the one I take, for example), & there is not sufficient warning in the packaging.

Perhaps you don't know that the active ingredient in aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) is derived from willow bark - a 'natural' remedy.

It seems to me to be entirely reasonable for products marketed as medicines, however they are manufactured, & from whatever ingredients, to go through the same testing procedures.

The Independent article says that
"Under EU law, statutorily regulated herbal practitioners will be permitted to continue prescribing unlicensed products. But the Coalition Government and the previous Labour administration have delayed plans to introduce a statutory herbal practitioner register"

as has been suggested earlier it's not the EU regulations that are at fault, but the delay from the national government (in this case the UK)

Well, if that is true, then both the EU are at fault ,(for banning)as are both the labour and coalition governments (for not introducing the register).
Looks like a stitch up from where I am standing.(or sit/kneeling !!)

[teamsaint]

'Almost' zero is an unquantified amount. Reading the Independent's story which you linked to:

"The UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued more than a dozen safety alerts in the past two years, including one over aristolochia, a banned toxic plant derivative which caused kidney failure in two women."

And more:

"Under EU law, statutorily regulated herbal practitioners will be permitted to continue prescribing unlicensed products. But the Coalition Government and the previous Labour administration have delayed plans to introduce a statutory herbal practitioner register."

I can see that EU legislation involves tiresome added bureaucracy. I can't see an argument for suggesting that the huge drug companies are trying to put the little guys out of business. Possibly another case where efficient organisation by interested parties should be lobbying national government.

More than a dozen? in 2 years?
Don't want to sound callous, because its a calamity if bad things happen to you, but its close to zero, statistically.
How many adverse reactions happen each year to prescribed drugs?
how often do those events get investigated. I don't know the answer, but it is in those areas that the real, big scale problems lie.

FF, you may not see the little guy being pushed out by the big guy, but lots of us do. And as LT1 points out, money talks.

[Flosshilde]

My point was, it isn't a myth.It happened. The EU was involved in (effectively) banning these remedies.

Ah, so now it's only effectively banning them, not actually banning them.

The reality is that it isn't/wasn't a ban - it was an attempt to ensure that they were properly regulated & safeguarded and that the manufacturers were accountable for their claims.

[french frank]

Well, if that is true, then both the EU are at fault ,(for banning)as are both the labour and coalition governments (for not introducing the register).
Looks like a stitch up from where I am standing.(or sit/kneeling !!)

Is there any regulation at all of herbal practitioners? Any professional organisation of recognised, insured members?

Answer appears to be, yes - and is possibly based in your home town.

Are they currently involved in getting themselves recognised by the government as that statutory body allowed to provide natural remedies under existing EU legislation?