House of Commons
Wednesday 10 March 1999
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Dietary Supplements
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Dowd.]
9.33 am
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire): I am glad to see such a healthy attendance so early in the morning.
My motivation in choosing this subject for debate stems from two concerns. First, two companies in my constituency are manufacturers of herbal remedies, vitamins and minerals. One, a very small company, is worried about the potential impact of regulation of the sector that might affect its business. The other company is much larger, but its anxieties are real too.
Secondly--like, I am sure, many other Members--I have been lobbied by consumers in my constituency about last year's proposed reduction in maximum permitted levels of dosage of vitamin B6. I think that we all remember the postbags that we received then. As vitamin B6 was classed as a food at the time, the Select Committee on Agriculture, of which I am a member, reviewed the Government's proposals. Our firm view was that the proposed regulation of the dosage was unjustified. Such evidence as there was that excessive consumption might pose a risk had been heavily criticised by scientists. No one taking vitamin B6 had complained of ill effects, despite the massive publicity given to the subject for several months--and, internationally, for longer.
If, as was claimed, the issue was purely one of safety, there was no real evidence to support intervention. There are two possible grounds for intervention: safety and need. Is the product effective in meeting a person's requirements? Does anyone need it? Are unjustified claims being made about the need for it? Let us begin with safety, however. As the Committee's report observed, as a society we allow many items to remain readily available, their availability being restricted only by often ineffective measures to protect children from products that carry known risks, such as alcohol and tobacco. It has been clearly demonstrated--possibly even in the personal experience of some Members--that excessive consumption of alcohol can damage health; yet we still allow it to be freely available in shops, with no suggested dosage levels.
A doctor with whom I conducted a debate on the radio this morning ventured to express the view that sales of alcohol and tobacco should be banned. I suggested that such a programme might enjoy limited support among the electorate. We must make judgments about what is practical and also about what should be left to individual citizens to decide for themselves, on the basis of reasonable information that is available to them.
We also allow the sale of salt without warnings, although excessive consumption of it can do significant damage, and we do not try to restrict the size of packets available in supermarkets.
We need to consider the concept of risk. We all take risks, in almost everything that we do. We take risks when we eat and when we consume drugs prescribed by doctors. We take risks when we cross the road. Which of those risks is it our responsibility to judge, and in which cases should the Government try to help? One of the problems has been the failure to establish the philosophy on the basis of which we should make decisions. Should the Government decide what people ought to consume when they are feeling ill, or should individual citizens make judgments based on their own perception of their health needs?
We should measure relative risks. We should be clear about the kind and level of risk that we expect citizens to weigh up for themselves, the cases in which clear warnings are justified, and the cases in which society should expect Government intervention in the form of either restriction or a total ban. Because we have engaged in no proper analysis or debate, we act in an ad hoc and reactive fashion featuring glaring inconsistencies of approach.
The Government's response to the Select Committee report is directly relevant to today's debate. Let me quote some key passages. The Government
Mr. Todd:
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will have a chance to reveal the Government's position for herself. I will not be drawn into defending or otherwise a statement that I have not seen in context.
The response continued:
There is scepticism among many consumers and those in the vitamins and minerals industry. Our discussion on B6 showed an unhappy relationship between that sector
and the "official" health sector. There is considerable suspicion that drug companies wish to undermine the position of those providing alternative products.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
Do not large drug companies have a motivation to use increased regulation and licensing requirements as an enemy of economy of scale that they can exploit to exclude smaller firms that feature largely in the market?
Mr. Todd:
The hon. Gentleman may have a point. On a slightly different subject, but related to it, consumers in my constituency have complained to me about changes in the price regime for the purchase of simple analgesics following changes in dosage levels. There is a suspicion that some companies in the sector find ways in which to raise prices, based on Government intervention that has just happened.
In recognition of that scepticism, the Government made an extremely welcome and positive step, which was to allow direct representation by consumers and representatives of the industry on the expert group. After it considered the Government's response, the Select Committee applauded both those steps: the recognition of the need for a clear philosophy and for proper representation in the decision making that would lead to a regulatory framework.
One might therefore assume that any new proposals for intervention will be founded on that report, when it finally emerges, and there is probably still another year or so to go before it concludes its evidence. One would be wrong. The Medicines Control Agency is proposing to take additional powers in the sector after a brusque consultation that even another Government Department, the Department of Trade and Industry, has commented on:
The MCA has proposed that it should have sole powers to decide whether any health product should be classified as a licensable medicine, requiring it to be tested for efficacy. Those tests carry massive costs for small companies. I think in particular of Surepharm, a small company in my constituency, which was built up from scratch by an individual entrepreneur, employs 30 or 40 people and specialises in the sector. It could not carry the regulatory cost that would be involved in securing clearance for particular products through the MCA.
That company had never imagined that it was manufacturing something that might be described as a medicine, yet someone could make that claim to the MCA and it could make that judgment. One recognises that most minerals, vitamins and herbal products could be described as either a food or medicine, and lie within that borderline classification. If the sole basis for classification is whether a product has a physiological impact, most foods and drinks would fall within the MCA's compass.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam):
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject. On the key
"accepts the Select Committee's view that action on vitamin B6 should not be taken in isolation but in the context of the wider review of the safety of dietary supplements which is to be undertaken by the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. The government recognises that the Expert Group will be considering the establishment of principles on which controls for ensuring the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements can be based."
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about the expert group, although many in the health food industry are concerned about it. Will he, however, dissociate himself from the words of the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who said that these were "drugs masquerading as foods"? Surely that compromises the work of the expert group before it has even begun.
"The government agrees that there is a delicate balance to be drawn in this and other areas between regulation to protect the public and the desire to determine such issues on the basis of personal choice.
Essentially, the Government said that we have to understand the philosophy of how we should intervene in the sector before we take an isolated decision on one particular product. They accepted the argument that I have set out.
It is for this reason that the government accepted the Select Committee's recommendation that action on vitamin B6 should be deferred pending the report of the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals."
"We share your concerns that the consultation period was very short . . . There are a number of pieces of legislation affecting these proposals in the 'borderline area' and we are concerned that the proposals from the MCA do not make any reference to these or require the MCA to consult with ourselves and other government departments with a responsibility for these areas."
That is scarcely a ringing endorsement of the consultation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |