| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Jan 2003 : Column 108—continued
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith): I am glad to hear about the consultation that my hon. Friend is promising to continue to hold with the industry. Will she assure the House that she will not
allow any directives to pass through the European Union legislative process unless the industry's concerns are taken into account?
Ms Blears: From the outset, the Government, the MCA with regard to herbals and the Food Standards Agency with regard to food supplements have been engaged with the industry, including large and small companies, manufacturers, retailers and the whole field to try to ensure that we advance the views of the people whom we represent and to protect consumers and public health by getting the balance right.
On the food supplements directive, our focus is now on good implementation, ensuring that we maximise consumer choice and pressing for a safety-based approach to maximum limits. On herbals, we want to enhance the status of herbal medicine and maintain consumer choice, and our initiative is widely supported in the sector.
It is crucial that we get the balance right between protecting public health and ensuring that consumers have a wide choice of safe and effective food supplements. I suppose that I can do no better at the end of my speech than to quote from the brief that the Consumers Association—an independent and challenging organisation—has given to hon. Members for this debate. It states:
- "There is potential for harm in relation to both herbal medicines and food supplements, where there is inadequate quality control and insufficient information. These two EU Directives will establish regulatory frameworks that ensure consumers can take full advantage of these products in the secure knowledge that they are using them safely and that they contain what they say they contain."
8.31 pm
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): The Liberal Democrats welcome this debate and applaud the Conservative party for raising on one of their Opposition days a subject that features heavily in hon. Members' postbags and which has attracted much cross-party support as the subject of early-day motions. It has also been the subject of petitions submitted by many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Under-Secretary was uncharacteristically harsh in her closing remarks in claiming that the Conservative party's motion was cynical, short-sighted and opportunistic. That might embarrass some Labour Members who support at least some of the sentiments underlying the concerns that have been expressed. Generally, the debate has been detailed rather than partisan, and I hope to continue in that spirit.
The Under-Secretary was right that there is an issue of public health, and it has to be balanced with choice. She has my sympathy in grappling with the difficulties of
finding that balance. I think that the main principle should be that people should be allowed to consume products where it is safe to do so and where they are not being misled into doing so. In some cases, we are dealing with vulnerable consumers who are seeking specific health effects, even if they are not advertised as such. Another principle that should be established is that the greater the health claim, the greater the potential vulnerability and the need for safety. In that respect, information is very important.The labelling aspects of the directives have not been stressed enough. They will provide for proper labelling. Yes, there will be a cost to the industry and retailers in providing it, but we support it with regard to food and licensed medicines and it is right that we should support it with regard to an intermediate group of products. The directives are good in that respect. I know that people who feel that there should be freedom to consume also recognise that that must exist in the context of adequate health information. For example, very few hon. Members would ban smoking, but most of us insist that a significant amount of information should be given to people who are especially vulnerable, as they are addicted in many cases.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): The hon. Gentleman is a medical practitioner, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to smoking. The European Union promotes and subsidises the production of a leaf—tobacco—that is known to cause harm, yet we are considering banning substances that humans have used for many years and have not been proven harmful. What is the logic of that?
Dr. Harris: I agree that it is morally outrageous that the European Union subsidises tobacco crops. Many hon. Members feel strongly that such subsidies should end because they cannot be justified, especially when the products are marketed in the developing world. It is therefore consistent, and the hon. Gentleman is consistent, to raise anxieties about that and to be worried about some of the directives' unintended—or, indeed, intended—effects on products that are currently available. I hope to deal with some of those concerns.
Although I generally agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring, he went further than I would go in decrying regulation. I shall revert to that shortly. He was inconsistent when he argued that the directives would send people and users underground and that they would double their dose, go abroad or seek black market sources, because that argument also applies to some softer drugs. He praised the Netherlands, but it is important that hon. Members realise that some countries are consistent in their liberal approach of allowing consumer choice, provided that adequate information exists about a product's safety or health risks. There are health risks associated with, for example, cannabis.
I do not believe that over-regulation is the problem. We support the principle of regulating food supplements and herbal products, but there are valid concerns about the detail. The directives aim to improve the single market. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) pointed out the difficulties that
manufacturers in this country experience in marketing products in other European countries that are stricter. That is the problem with a single market, which the Conservative party supported in the past.Safety, information, labelling and public health also need to be tackled. We must take a balanced view, and I am therefore worried about scapegoating the pharmaceutical industry. Although there are problems with pharmaceutical companies, they are not the baddies with regard to the directives. As we have heard, significant commercial resources back those who lobby against the directives or some of their provisions. That does not invalidate their concerns, many of which I share, but the pharmaceutical industry does not have a monopoly on lobbying.
It is pleasing that some progress has been made in amending the food supplements directive in the European Parliament. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the European Parliament supported a move to extend the 18-month period for submitting evidence for the harmless nature of a food supplement to at least 36 months. It is regrettable that it is not longer. If the derogation allows the products to be used until 2009, it is strange to set a cut-off date of 2005. The evaluation would not require four years.
I agree with those who tabled the motion, Consumers for Health Choice and others, that up to 300 nutrients or nutrient sources that are currently in use may not be available, and that that is unsatisfactory. I do not believe that the Minister disputes the numbers. It is worrying that the maximum allowed dosage may not be based on an upper safety threshold. I believe that all hon. Members would support such a basis.
It is unclear whether the positive list remains open in the way in which the Minister implied when she spoke about the amendment. The positive list remains open only with the provision of the dossier. That places a significant burden on smaller companies, and there is a valid concern that it will be more difficult for established small companies to ensure that their products are included on the positive list. It would be useful if Ministers cleared up the part of the amendment that implies that the positive list remains open without qualification.
The suggestion that there should be a British positive list could only result in support being given to smaller companies to enable them to work with other people to establish the safety of their product. There is an argument for at least some kind of framework for helping those companies, if not for Government intervention, given that they will be put in a difficult competitive position by the regulations, which will have been difficult for them to foresee when they first marketed and established their product.
The Government have made progress. They have obtained—or, at least, they claim to have obtained—a derogation to allow the use of existing products until 2009. Their approach goes in the right direction with regard to the maximum permitted safety levels, and there is therefore much to be welcomed in their approach. It could have been worse: they could have taken a very narrow line on these issues. It is, therefore, appropriate to give them our support and wish them luck in future negotiations on these matters.
A series of amendments to the directive on traditional herbal medicinal products has been tabled in the European Parliament. Again, the position is not as bleak as had first been thought. Liberal Democrat colleagues have supported the amendments to allow the inclusion of non-herbal ingredients such as vitamins and minerals—I suppose that Conservative MEPs will have done so too—and to modify the definition of a herbal medicinal product to mean those products containing pharmacologically active ingredients.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |