EU threat to natural remedies

[teamsaint]

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.

sorry , that is semantics.
If the EU/British government wanted this stuff available, they wouldn't have imposed this legislation, which if you don't happen to have a access to lots of money up front is effectively a ban.

If you were involved in one of these remedies,(using or selling), and didn't have the money to pay for the license you would see it as a ban.

It suits you to see it as a piece of licensing regulation.
But its a ban, because you cannot now buy some of these things.

(and not very free trade either, as a side issue).

If it looks like a ban , and feels like a ban, it probably is a ban. That's the way the press saw it too. (although I don't believe everything I read !!)

[MrGongGong]

why is it still legal to sell so called "homeopathic" remedies that have NONE of the substance on the label present ?
If I sold you a pint of beer that was 100% water but had happened to have been waved at a picture of a pint of beer I would expect you to (at least !) make a gentle complaint
yet these charlatans are able to continue to peddle this nonsense with legal protection ?

About time they were banned for fraud and the manufacturers arrested

[Pabmusic]

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.

Quite agree. Even the Guardian article does not say such remedies are banned per se. Here's a passage from the article:

"Under the directive, herbal medicines will now have to be registered. Products must meet safety, quality and manufacturing standards, and come with information outlining possible side-effects.

Herbal practitioners and manufacturers say they fear the new rules could force them out of business."

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

[Flosshilde]

I was going to say, Mr GG, that at least homeopathic 'remedies' didn't do you any harm, whereas the herbal ones could. But if someone relies on homeopathic 'remedies' to cure a serious condition they would end up with the condition not being cured & in serious danger.

[Ferretfancy]

I seem to remember another canard, namely that the EU was going to insist that orchestras must reduce their dynamic range on health and safety grounds. That one seems to have vanished, as I'm sure this one will.

[MrGongGong]

I was going to say, Mr GG, that at least homeopathic 'remedies' didn't do you any harm, whereas the herbal ones could. But if someone relies on homeopathic 'remedies' to cure a serious condition they would end up with the condition not being cured & in serious danger.

indeed

Malaria being a well known example
and
what of the fraudsters peddling this nonsense in Africa as a way of avoiding HIV infection ?

fine for middle class folk who aren't really ill
but for people who really are ill .................... Snake oil on the NHS

[teamsaint]

Quite agree. Even the Guardian article does not say such remedies are banned per se. Here's a passage from the article:

"Under the directive, herbal medicines will now have to be registered. Products must meet safety, quality and manufacturing standards, and come with information outlining possible side-effects.

Herbal practitioners and manufacturers say they fear the new rules could force them out of business."

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

You are presumably then not a practitioner, manufacturer or user of these remedies, which seem to have an exceptionally low rate of negative side effects.
(possibly 12 cases in 2 years is the best anyone can find).

I hope nobody comes along to "regulate " your livelihood in this way.

[Flosshilde]

You are presumably then not a practitioner, manufacturer or user of these remedies, which seem to have an exceptionally low rate of negative side effects.
(possibly 12 cases in 2 years is the best anyone can find).

I hope nobody comes along to "regulate " your livelihood in this way.

I would think that the contra-indications they have for 'conventional' drugs are pretty serious - how many people take them without realising that they compromise other drugs they are taking, because herbal remedies are 'natural' & 'harmless'?

Why shouldn't people manufacturing stuff which they claim will cure people, and have no side effects, expect to be regulated & licensed? They are possibly having a serious impact on people's health & lives.

[french frank]

You are presumably then not a practitioner, manufacturer or user of these remedies, which seem to have an exceptionally low rate of negative side effects.
(possibly 12 cases in 2 years is the best anyone can find).

I hope nobody comes along to "regulate " your livelihood in this way.

You're still ignoring the fact that EU legislation allows registered practitioners to supply what you call 'banned' remedies. I don't think many people have herbal practitioners on their doorstep, so an email service must be an option. Why doesn't the 'industry' get its act together?

[scottycelt]

Quite agree. Even the Guardian article does not say such remedies are banned per se. Here's a passage from the article:

"Under the directive, herbal medicines will now have to be registered. Products must meet safety, quality and manufacturing standards, and come with information outlining possible side-effects.

Herbal practitioners and manufacturers say they fear the new rules could force them out of business."

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

Of course it is!

My own view, for what it's worth, is that these almost endless discussions about EU 'interference' in our lives have very little to do with the merits or de-merits of the particular law being discussed at the time. There may be the odd honourable exception, of course.

They have much more to do with where the law has been passed. In other words, to the Euro-sceptic , even bad British law is preferable to any good law passed in Brussels.

The issue is really one of national 'sovereignty' rather than any law itself.

[Flosshilde]

I have used St John's Wort in the past, until I discovered that it compromised the action of my heart drugs. I had to resort to chocolate as an anti-depressant

I've tried echinacea ointment for cuts - had no effect at all.

[MrGongGong]

One has to be a little wary of the words
"natural"
"safe" and
"Harmless"

ALL substances can be toxic ........in the right concentration

there was a great item on R4 the other day talking about how in the USA there were signs around a lake where people go swimming saying "Warning , Contains high levels of Hydrogen" , naturally the local press ran a story of how people were risking their lives swimming in the water which as any fule knows is made of H20

people are very ignorant of basic science (and I'm no scientist !) saying something is "Natural" is no different to saying its "Groovy"
Bubonic Plague and Cancer are "Natural"


Picking up on Scotty's point
could we not have a news story that says something like

EU rules save Abroath Smokies

[teamsaint]

You're still ignoring the fact that EU legislation allows registered practitioners to supply what you call 'banned' remedies. I don't think many people have herbal practitioners on their doorstep, so an email service must be an option. Why doesn't the 'industry' get its act together?

I really don't know. Presumably those involved find too many obstacles/costs along the way. I doubt that they are not registering because they can't be bothered.

Incidentally, some of these remedies are potentially those that people have to resort to when NHS rationing (ie NICE approval) takes place.

And it happens. Especially when you reach a certain age threshold. I have seen it happen, and its going to happen more.

I am rather on the side of those who don't want all the remedies in the hands of the soon to be privatised NHS and its paymasters in the big drug companies.

If registering and licensing these products is so necessary, just make it free.
problem (at least partially) solved.
Ban lifted !!

[Bryn]

indeed

Malaria being a well known example
and
what of the fraudsters peddling this nonsense in Africa as a way of avoiding HIV infection ?

fine for middle class folk who aren't really ill
but for people who really are ill .................... Snake oil on the NHS

Please, MRGG, Snake Oil, the real thing that is, (derived from th Chinese Water Snake, Enhydris chinensis), has a long history as an effective non-inflammatory agent. It's the fake Snake Oil that was peddled in America in the latter part of the 19th Century to which I presume you seek to refer.

[MrGongGong]

Thanks Bryn I didn't know that