SciencePunk

The alternative medicine industry has been complaining that regulations demanding they prove their products are safe before being granted a licence resemble "a sledgehammer to crack a walnut".

Global Regulatory Services reports from a keynote debate at the Natural & Organic Products Europe Show held in London earlier this month. A panel of speakers from across the herbal remedies industry stated that while they supported the MHRA's Herbal Directive in principle, some felt it was too stringent and expensive in requiring companies to prove their products were safe, effective and consistent before granting a full licence. Lynn Lord of Natures Aid bemoaned the fact that registering a herbal medicine to the new licence could cost up to £50,000! Wow, who thought making medicine could be so expensive?

The Herbal Directive is an attempt by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to bring the burgeoning market of herbal remedies under its control. There are two different standards to which a herbal remedy can aspire. Licensed herbal medicines are held to similar standards as other medicines, and are required to show evidence of safety, effectiveness and quality. Sellers of registered traditional herbal medicines, by contrast, aren't required to prove that their medicine actually works - they just need to show that the remedy is safe and has been in use for 30 years, 15 of which must be in Europe. However, even this proved too onerous for some:

[Greer Deal asked if the] panel thought it would make a difference if this rule was amended or even removed altogether. The panel were united in their response: yes, this one amendment would make a significant difference to the herbal industry.

Well they would say that - clearly these people are salivating over the near limitless supply of new, ineffective medications that could be sold if the 15/30 rule was abandoned, or extended to include other hubs of quackery such as India and China.

The MHRA has come under a lot of criticism for the Herbal Directive, which many feel established a two-tier system where some medicines are held to higher standards than others, and gives a Governmental seal of approval on what is essentially quackery. I would like to think that the MHRA will slowly tighten the noose on herbal medicines, eventually requiring all to be full licensed, but given their stated commitment to the Blairite mantra of 'patient choice', I won't hold my breath.