Herbal remedies face licence rule

smeagold

Hundreds of traditional and imported remedies on the shelves of health food shops and herbalists are set to be banned under new licensing rules

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12196371

does anyone have a link for a list of the herbs to be banned?

cootambear

I have mixed feelings about this

On the one hand, people confuse `natural` with being safe to ingest. food has to pass safeguards, so why not herbs?

One the other, it may give some people the impression that because some herbs have been classed as scientifically `passed`, this equates to a stamp of approval of effectiveness - more money for the multi billion quackcure industry.

Finally, I believe its up to adults to decide what they want to put in their bodies, safe or not.

I suppose what I am arguing for is good quality information - not bogus claims or misleading suggestions - so that people have the right to decide. Therefore if people want to take a herb that has bad side effects then just like medicines - the side effects should be clearly labelled, and also whether there have been PROPER trials to establish efficacy.

A._Badger

It's certainly none of the EU's business - particularly when it's in the pocket of the giant pharmaceutical companies.

I choose to consult a medical herbalist in preference to a GP (yes, it works) and was warned this was coming a year ago. Despite having had a thorough (orthodox) medical education before qualifying, she is going to be limited in what she is able to use after this ban comes into force

I shall, of course, simply grow my own from now on - and damn the EU gauleiters!

cootambear

A._Badger wrote: »

It's certainly none of the EU's business - particularly when it's in the pocket of the giant pharmaceutical companies.

I choose to consult a medical herbalist in preference to a GP (yes, it works) and was warned this was coming a year ago. Despite having had a thorough (orthodox) medical education before qualifying, she is going to be limited in what she is able to use after this ban comes into force

I shall, of course, simply grow my own from now on - and damn the EU gauleiters!

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/3701.php

herbal quackists have had no such restrictions on direct advertising. pick up any sunday supplement and you will find glossy adverts from these multi million companies

as for growing your own, as I said its up to you what you put in your body, and thankfully it will put less money in the hands of the money grabbing charlatans.

A._Badger

cootambear wrote: »

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/3701.php

herbal quackists have had no such restrictions on direct advertising. pick up any sunday supplement and you will find glossy adverts from these multi million companies

as for growing your own, as I said its up to you what you put in your body, and thankfully it will put less money in the hands of the money grabbing charlatans.

Yes, but they are not restricting 'herbal quackists' alone are they? They are also restricting the prescribing of fully trained medical herbalists.

As for 'money grubbing charlatans' I think you'll find the pharmaceutical giants don't have what you might call a spotless record.

They just have enough money to buy legislation.

cootambear

A._Badger wrote: »

Yes, but they are not restricting 'herbal quackists' alone are they? They are also restricting the prescribing of fully trained medical herbalists.

As for 'money grubbing charlatans' I think you'll find the pharmaceutical giants don't have what you might call a spotless record.

They just have enough money to buy legislation.

They are restricting the sale of drugs (herbs which have no medicinal effect are simply herbs) to those which have no harmful effects.
As I said, I have mixed feelings on this.

Herbalism is not medicine, it does not subscribe to evidence based practice. Anyone can describe themselves as a `herbalist`, `training` or not.

Even if they were `trained`, that carries no authority. It begs the question, trained in what? You could be a `trained exorcist`, but I wouldnt want you anywhere near a mental patient.

As for the drug companies, certainly their lobbying power has influence on legislation, especially in the states (where they are allowed to directly advertise, as herbalists are here - unlike drug co`s -, and as far as I know there are no plans to change that).

I would also pose the question, given the quack giants massive advertising in the newspapers, do you think that might have any bearing on the continual articles that claim this and that health benefit for this and that herb sold by the charlatans?

As for the drug co`s. I am well aware of their tricks. The irony is, the tricks that they get up to are employed much more frequently by the quacks themselves!

I would heartily recommend `bad science` by ben goldacre. It enables anyone to see clearly through any dubious health claims by drugs co`s or their snake oil mimics.

A._Badger

cootambear wrote: »

I would heartily recommend `bad science` by ben goldacre. It enables anyone to see clearly through any dubious health claims by drugs co`s or their snake oil mimics.

And I would heartily recommend that you visit http://www.nimh.org.uk/ so that you can learn something about the qualifications required to become a medical herbalist in the UK.

It might also inhibit you from writing such palpable nonsense as: "Herbalism is not medicine, it does not subscribe to evidence based practice".

cootambear

had a read. what is supposed to be revelatory?

Sublime_2

If anybody does have a list could they please post. I take a few herbal remedies, so would be interested to know what they are.

A._Badger

cootambear wrote: »

had a read. what is supposed to be revelatory?

Now read your quote again about herbalism 'not being evidence based'.

There has been, and continues to be, extensive research into herbal medicines. Indeed, in Germany it has been studied and researched for decades and is now increasingly being studied and taught at British universities.

Your statement is wrong and potentially very misleading.

cootambear

A._Badger wrote: »

Now read your quote again about herbalism 'not being evidence based'.

There has been, and continues to be, extensive research into herbal medicines. Indeed, in Germany it has been studied and researched for decades and is now increasingly being studied and taught at British universities.

Your statement is wrong and potentially very misleading.

There is a world of difference between research in to organic compounds, and herbalism being taught at universities. Frankly it is a disgrace that pseudoscience is being `taught` at some universities.It is a disgrace that £2m of taxpayers money funded a `homeopathic hospital` in London.

herbs, in fact many plants, have been studied for at least a century for medicinal purposes. IIRC 25% of all drugs are compounds discovered through plant analysis.

If you wished, you could stew willow bark and by a painstaking process get a solution that contains the active ingredient that eases headaches (generic name aspirin) and in the process ingest whatever harmful chemicals the plant also produces.

or you could just take an aspirin.