Herbal remedies face licence rule

sarahjayne1977

Emm i am trained though work on herbs, vits and minerals and everyone is in the company i work for, even to the extend we have yearly tests, but yet we are gonna be affected by this.

A._Badger

misskool wrote: »

The main concern is that you cannot regulate the active ingredient of herbs in correct doses so that it will actually cure the patient..

This is why I made the comment about not being keen on self-diagnosis.

That said, we all do it - look at the queues in Boots - largely made up of people buying perfectly legal (and sometimes potentially lethal - eg paracetamol) remedies for what may, or may not, be wrong with them.

Comments about the inconsistency of dose are interesting but it's perhaps worth noting that similar concerns have been raised about so-called 'generic' medications which, while they purport to be identical to branded products, apparently often aren't.

Personally, I know just enough about the subject to be properly scared of what grows in the garden and wouldn't dose myself without taking the advice of someone who had professional knowledge of the subject.

But if the only way to get the required herbs was to grow them myself, I'd be quite comfortable with that.

AnnaV

Why should herbs, if sold with medical claims, not have to supply the same proof and go through the same testing as pharmaceuticals?

How can the EU be the pharmaceutical companies' 'shield' if they currently impose much stricter legislation on them than complementary medicines?

Your arguments are not stacking up at all...

sarahjayne1977

One instance they want to stop shops selling, Vitamin c no more then 60mg (RDA) but yet the safe limit is 2000mg..this vitamin is water solube and does not get storaged in the body.
I find it stupid that they are saying we can't buy stuff which i know helps me loads, but yet i can buy tons of beer etc and kill myself with that!!
If i wanna buy 1000mg Vitamin C surely this is my choice and my body??
They wouldn't stop me buying 24 cans of beer everyday would they ??

A._Badger

AnnaV wrote: »

Why should herbs, if sold with medical claims, not have to supply the same proof and go through the same testing as pharmaceuticals?

How can the EU be the pharmaceutical companies' 'shield' if they currently impose much stricter legislation on them than complementary medicines?

Your arguments are not stacking up at all...

Because the herbs in question have frequently been in use for over a thousand years - they are not NCE's which, five years later, turn out to have ghastly side-effects. I assume you've heard of thalidomide?



Moreover, the market is rigged in the same way as it is for vegetable seeds. To be legal for sale, a herb, or a vegetable seed, has to be registered with our lords and masters in the EU. If you own the patent rights to a chemical - or a seed - then paying the thousands of pounds required to register it, may be cost-effective. If it is not a patentable product, however, it isn't.

The same scam worked in the pesticide market, which is why it is now dominated by two giant companies and so many products are no longer available - regardless of their safety record.

That is how the EU works against consumers' interests in favour of big business.

A._Badger

sarahjayne1977 wrote: »

One instance they want to stop shops selling, Vitamin c no more then 60mg (RDA) but yet the safe limit is 2000mg..this vitamin is water solube and does not get storaged in the body.
I find it stupid that they are saying we can't buy stuff which i know helps me loads, but yet i can buy tons and as must beer etc and kill myself with that!!
If i wanna buy 1000mg Vitamin C surely this is my choice and my body??
They would stop me buying 24 cans of beer everyday would they ??

Indeed - and yet paracetamol, with a potentially lethal dose terrifyingly close to a safe one, remains not only on sale but actively touted as a 'safe' medication.

cootambear

A._Badger wrote: »

Sadly, that isn't how the system works. The EU has developed a method whereby it sneaks in new regulations (frequently ''directives' issued by the unelected commissioners) with implementation dates in the far future.

This is what led to an earlier poster saying this story wasn't news. Well, no - but it will be to many who will suffer from it.

By the time the measures come into force it is far too late to stop them on an EU level and beyond the 'competence' of individual states.

Ask any fisherman how it works. And look what it has done to our fishing industry.



That isn't what my (qualified) herbalist believes and I trust her judgement.

The EU quota regulations are fundamentally flawed. It relies on a quota system that means that fish that are not being targeted by fishermen are thrown back - 50% of all fish. Even if that fish were used for fertilizer it would surely be less wasteful.

There are some simple measures that could ease this eg bigger mesh to allow young fish to escape.

However the alternative - unrestricted fishing - is far worse. Cod stocks would be decimated within a year. Such unrestricted fishing led to the complete collapse of cod off the rich fields of newfoundland 30 years ago, and they have yet to recover.

However imperfect, EU regulations do protect stocks. In fact I would be in favour of tighter ones.

I watched Jamies fish fight last night. He showed delicious recipes for 10 underused fish eg pouting. He got agreements from supermarkets to stock these fish. However they won`t continue to stock them unless we eat them.

Here is the alternative I think. Information for the public to enable them to expand their choices, and more EU regulation to protect stocks please!