Examination of Witness (Questions 320 - 326)
TUESDAY 19 MAY 1998
MR JEFF ROOKER
320. Not necessarily promoted by the industry though.
(Mr Rooker) No, but the industry then uses what the
journalists write, that this is what you need to take. I have
some examples here from recent months where I have seen journalists
saying, as journalists not doctors, "These things are good
for you" and then the health industry can say, "We are
not making that claim but our products are good, people go and
look for it."
321. So you are not pointing the finger at the industry for
making these claims themselves?
(Mr Rooker) No, I would not single out the industry.
322. How do you think regulation of claims in this area might
be improved, if you are concerned about claims at all? It is a
little vague as to how one does that if it is not claims by the
industry but by third parties.
(Mr Rooker) It is a difficult one because once you
start doing that, assessing the claims, you have the competitive
edge of some products. Some manufacturers are going to say, "Mine
has the edge over the next one because I put a teeny weeny bit
extra, a bit of a kick in it", and you are into interfering
with normal commercial practice. I will have to take advice on
this maybe and write to you, but I do not know whether the expert
group could look at this. We have the industry involved in that
expert group, alternative medicines, the manufacturers, the consumer
groups, there are going to be observers who will be able to put
in papers and sit in on the meetings. Maybe they could hammer
out a code or some symbols, something where it sends the right
signals, so that we know as ministers—to have a comfort
factor, if you like—this issue is being taken seriously.
We do not want to go down the road of over-regulation, but we
need to be proportional to the risk. Where there is doubt in the
science and where people could be misled by what they read in
journalistic pieces which are giving quasi-medical advice, then
frankly the Government has to take an interest in that, it cannot
simply ignore it. But it may be the expert group may be the way
to go down that road. But there is a cause for concern. I do not
point a finger at the industry, far from it, but there is evidence
that journalists will write things and quite clearly you see the
blown up pieces of newspapers in shops saying "This thing
is good for you and, by the way, we sell it here."
Chairman: As they say on News at Ten, Minister, finally,
Mr Mitchell.
Mr Mitchell
323. We have just seen a minister show us a recommendation
from a doctor, which is presumably plastered up in MAFF and the
Department of Health, which is suggesting 10 mg a day. This is
exactly the same process.
(Mr Rooker) Sorry? You have seen a minister—?
324. We have just seen you cite one doctor saying that 10
mg a day—
(Mr Rooker) Yes, a practising doctor, not a journalist.
That is the difference.
325. If the claims come from doctors they are okay but not
from journalists.
(Mr Rooker) Let's get this clear. If it is a health
claim and the issue comes from a practising doctor, you take it
seriously. If it is a journalist, it has to be treated in a different
degree.
Mr Mitchell: It is irrelevant in this issue because the case
is not about the claims made for B6, although that might prejudice
you against them and it might prejudice others against B6, the
argument is specifically about whether there is a level at which
there is a problem of toxicity, and it is only about that and
nothing else. All I wanted to say was, the Minister said earlier
to Mrs Organ that she would have to buy four 49 mg tablets a day,
that could be construed as "Minister attempting to poison
backbencher"!
Chairman
326. Unless you want to, Minister, you do not have to incriminate
yourself!
(Mr Rooker) That comment will be taken in the spirit
in which it was intended at the time I made it obviously!
Mrs Organ: I hope so!
Mr Jeff Rooker
Chairman: We do not want Diana Organ poisoned, or anyone
else. Minister, thank you very much indeed for your time and taking
the trouble, we do appreciate it. We look forward to seeing you
again and we will ask for you by name in future!
|
