Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Jeremy Laurance: 'We need to know our supplements are safe'

Tuesday 03 December 2002 01:00 GMT
Comments

Let me start with a health warning. I am a sceptic about herbal remedies and food supplements. On the whole, I think they are a waste of money. I tell my family, friends, and anyone else who will listen, that for most people, most of the time, eating a balanced diet will provide for their needs. Shelling out for mega doses of vitamin C, which the body is incapable of absorbing, does no more than create expensive urine.

This is not to say, however, that the tinctures, potions and nostrums peddled by health-food stores and alternative medicine outlets are useless. Far from it. I still remember, as a child, the excitement of a visit to the bathroom in my grandmother's house. Not for her the pedestrian soap and flannel, with the tub of Ajax in the corner. Ranged along the sides of her bath were dozens of jars containing herbs, leaves, roots and crystals, which added a sense of mystery to bathtime. After luxuriating in my own witches' brew, I felt not cleansed but, somehow, more interesting.

Recalling my grandmother's passion for all things alternative, I understand the anger people feel now that two directives from the EU appear to threaten their supplies. The first, the Food Supplements Directive, has been passed, and is due to be implemented in the UK over the next year. It will ban any vitamin, mineral or supplement not included on an approved list, and will specify that most be sold at a lower dose.

The second, the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive, is currently making its way through the European parliament, and is expected to be passed by the end of the year. It seeks to apply to herbal remedies the same regulations that cover pharmaceutical drugs, to ensure that they are safe and that consumers have some guarantee of their quality. All herbal remedies will require a licence, showing they have been tested for safety and efficacy, but those that have been in use in the EU for at least a decade, and anywhere in the world for at least 30 years, will be exempt.

Campaigners have protested loudly at what they see as an assault on the natural-health movement, and handed in a one-million signature petition to the House of Commons last month. They claim that some of the most popular remedies could be affected by the two measures, including St John's wort for depression; echinacea for colds and flu; and high-dose tablets of vitamin C. The restrictions will apply not only to the active agent in the products, but to the other ingredients as well. Up to 300 "safe and popular" supplements that do not appear on the draft list could be lost, they say. And herbal remedies relied on for millennia in China and the Far East, but which have only been introduced to the West within the last decade, will be ruled out.

But the protests have been overdone. Claims that the herbal medicines directive will clear the shelves of some of the best-loved products don't stand scrutiny. After the Medicines Control Agency requested samples of herbal remedies that could be outlawed by the proposed directive on herbal medicines earlier this year, it was notified of 270 herbal ingredients that campaigners said could be affected. But the MCA view was that "only two or three cases" would be unable to demonstrate traditional use.

It also referred information on 200 combinations of herbal ingredients about which there was concern to two expert herbalists. Their view was that "in many cases" they would qualify as being in traditional use and therefore exempt from the directive.

If anyone doubts that there is a need for some protection from herbal remedies, they should ask the medical toxicology unit at Guy's Hospital, which advises hospitals nationwide treating patients suffering side-effects, and have seen the sometimes fatal consequences first hand.

It is difficult to argue, too, with the restriction on maximum dose levels of vitamins. Mega doses of vitamin C will probably do no more than harm your pocket, but hefty doses of other vitamins can have serious side-effects. And when an alternative practitioner such as Dr Bernard Rath says that "for the first time in history, I have proved a direct link between chronic vitamin deficiency and the development of most common health problems", one is disposed to think that restricting maximum dose levels is a sensible public-health measure.

Campaigners argue how safe food supplements and herbal remedies are compared with prescription drugs. They point out that adverse reactions to drugs kill tens of thousands of patients every year. But this is a false analogy. Most people taking a drug for cancer will accept a higher risk than with a drug for a headache. Powerful drugs carry higher risks, and the risks must be carefully balanced against the benefits.

Most supplements and remedies are given to improve wellbeing or deal with minor ailments, and thus only a negligible risk is acceptable. If you are taking something whose constituents are mysterious, whose mode of action is unknown, and whose effects are uncertain, you are entitled to some assurance that it is safe.

Jeremy Laurance is the health editor of 'The Independent'

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in