New Petitions

Petition PE584 was originally lodged in response to two EC directives: the food supplements directive and the directive on traditional herbal medicinal products. However, the latter directive is before the European Parliament and does not deal with a devolved matter, so, apart from requesting the Scottish Parliament to make appropriate representations about Scottish concerns on the matter, we will concentrate on the food supplements directive, which concerns a devolved matter that is shortly to come before the Scottish Parliament.The food supplements directive is presented to the public as essential to ensure that vitamin and mineral products on the market are safe and properly labelled. That, however, is a misrepresentation. The Food Standards Agency and the Medicines Control Agency have sufficient powers to control any problem relating to safety or labelling. The real purpose of the directive is harmonisation. Along with the Netherlands and Ireland, the United Kingdom has the most liberal regime in Europe on food supplements, which are treated as foods, as they are. As long as safety concerns are properly met, products can be, and are, marketed to any level and in any consistency. Consequently, the UK consumer has been able to take advantage of all up-to-date knowledge on nutritional requirements and on the effectiveness of vitamin and mineral supplements for specific health problems and has been able to use the most effective forms of the products. In other countries in Europe, the regulations are much stricter. Vitamin and mineral products are generally limited to those few that have a recognised recommended daily allowance, which are generally sold at that level or slightly above. That is a rather old-fashioned attitude, which does not take into account modern knowledge on nutrition. The food supplements directive contains a list of ingredients—vitamins and minerals—that can be used and a list of the forms in which they can be used in supplements. As even the Westminster Government admits, the first list omits some recognised minerals and vitamins. The second list omits more than 200 of the forms in which mineral and vitamin products are currently used and sold—safely—in Britain. The directive allows for manufacturers to apply for inclusion of those missing ingredients, but the companies that produce the vitamins are generally small—they are often family run—and do not have great resources. Even the FSA estimates that the cost of submitting dossiers for the ingredients missing on the list can be up to £250,000 per ingredient. As I said, more than 200 vitamin forms are currently missing from the list and, to date, I believe that about 30 dossiers have been submitted. The small companies simply cannot afford the cost of seeking inclusion of their products. The directive also allows for the setting of maximum levels of the vitamins and minerals. It has become clear that, in most of Europe, where recommended daily amounts are standard, countries will be pressing for the maximum levels to be set at about those amounts. That will mean the loss of a great many products that people in Britain find essential in order to maintain their perfect health. UK consumers have been used to the freedom to protect their health using food supplements—I emphasise that they are foods, not vitamins or medicines, and that they are perfectly safe—but, under the food supplements directive, they are likely to lose that right. The products are generally used by people suffering from health problems, the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the poor, who may not have access to the vegetables and fruits that we all require to eat. We want the Parliament to do everything in its power to prevent the loss of products that are currently on the market and through the safe use of which Scottish consumers maintain their health. May I ask Dr Gibson to add a few words?

The food supplements are nutrients—they are food—and they are essential components of our bodies. They are not pharmaceutical drugs. We need them to maintain our health. We should get the nutrients from our food, but we do not, because the soils in the western world—indeed, around the whole world—are now so depleted that we cannot get all the trace elements and vitamins that we require. We also need a wide range of herbal-type products. We evolved over hundreds of thousands of years eating from a wide range of food groups and we require those biologically active materials to maintain our health. We do not know all the materials that we require, because, until the last 100 or so years, we got them from our food and did not even know that we needed them. We have started to realise that we need them as we get deficiency diseases. There is no way in which we can legislate for just a small number of vitamins. We do not know the full scope of the vitamins and nutrients that we require. They are not drugs; they are essential components of our bodies and they should be freely available to everybody who wishes to use them to maintain their health.

No, I have always worked in hospital medicine and complementary medicine. I worked in genetics at the University of Glasgow, but I also worked in the Glasgow homeopathic hospital. In that setting, we became very aware of the importance of nutrition. I am also a biochemist.

I have an MD as well as an MDChB and an honours degree in biochemistry.

It was to be expected, but why should we harmonise to the rest of Europe's lower levels instead of Europe harmonising to our much healthier, higher levels?

It has been said, particularly in Westminster, where a similar process is taking place, that there is a lot of scope, because the directive has not set the levels of the minerals and vitamins. To some of us, it is incredible that legislation is passed before it has been decided what that legislation will cover. It has been suggested that we are worrying unnecessarily. However, as Douglas Robison said, many minerals and vitamins are not on the list. We are also concerned that the levels will not be high enough. The directive misses the point anyway. As Dr Gibson said, we are legislating to say that we can take only those things that have been put on a list, but we are talking about foods—they are natural elements. The directive goes about things in entirely the wrong way. No matter how many items are added to the list and even if the levels are high, the cutting edge of nutritional medicine might next week say that an element that nobody thought our bodies used is essential. That is what happened with boron, which was recognised as essential to our bodies only in, I think, 1990. It is now considered important for combating osteoporosis. The directive totally misses the point. It is terribly out of date before it has come on to the statute book.

Yes. That would be perfectly possible. As I said, sufficient powers already exist to deal with safety concerns, poor manufacturing techniques or bad labelling. The directive does not introduce any new powers in that area. It introduces regulations on what individuals can take and at what level they can take it.

The interests are not necessarily external to the UK. We are talking about harmonisation, so there is free movement of products all over Europe. In most of Europe, the products are limited to being sold at only a few times the recommended daily amount. Some people want that practice to spread all over Europe. Those who will gain from that are pharmaceutical manufacturers who manufacture low-level recommended daily amount vitamin and mineral supplements. After the directive is passed, the whole European market will be open to them.

Yes. That is one way of looking at it.

It is our worry that that is the case.

About 40 per cent of British people take alternative complementary medicines and supplements, so therein lies the answer. There is a huge and growing market, because people are fed up with being prescribed drugs that make them ill and have side effects. I think that you are right.

I think that there was confusion when the directive was passed. Replies from various Government departments often start by saying, "We must do this to ensure the safety of consumers"—which we have argued is not true—and then quickly move on to say in the second line, "and for the sake of harmonisation." I watched the debate in Westminster. One of the MPs said that we have to compromise on the issue and cannot expect everyone to come to our level. We do not have to compromise. Like many other consumers, I am not prepared to compromise the health of my family. I know that many members have had letters and representations. We say that the matter is a health issue for us and is not necessarily a safety issue. I hope that questions will be asked seeking relative figures for adverse reactions from pharmaceutical products and adverse reactions from food supplements.

Not from the manufacturers' point of view. Large pharmaceutical firms would much rather that we took a drug than a vitamin. They can license a drug, but they cannot license a vitamin, so there is no profit in vitamins.

UK law is robust on the issue. We cannot make misleading medicinal claims under the Medicines Act 1968. The directive brings nothing new to the table in that regard. It will not deal with a con man making misleading claims, because it is already illegal to make such claims.

The answer depends on whether Anne McGuire is referring to the food supplements directive or the herbal medicinal products directive.

The industry that supports the food supplements directive probably consists of large international manufacturers of low-level vitamin and mineral supplements. They might manufacture some high-level supplements, but they would be prepared to lose the high-level supplements that we use in Britain to gain the whole market of Europe for low-level supplements.

The industry organisations are many and varied, which makes it difficult for us to make our case. In the past week, I have seen correspondence on the herbal medicines directive from Richard Woodfield, who is the head of the herbal policy unit at the Medicines Control Agency. He admits that the agency's herbal forum might not be as extensive or inclusive as it had claimed or led UK ministers to believe. We represent specialist health food stores and specialist manufacturers who cater to a niche market, which uses high-dose supplements that are better absorbed and better tolerated. Our interests and those of our consumers are not being represented at any level.

There is evidence in relation to the traditional herbal medicines directive. The part of the industry that supports that directive comprises herbal product manufacturers who have product licences. In general, they have those product licences as of right, because their products were on the market before the Medicines Act 1968 was passed. Those manufacturers are all in favour of the directive, because it will mean that they have a monopoly.

Although health food retailers are making the argument, the issue is more fundamental and concerns consumers. The industry and business issues are important, but the main issue is our health. Our question to the Scottish Parliament is: will Scottish consumers' health be affected or will they think that it has been affected by the legislation? If so, does the Scottish Parliament have the right to approve such legislation?We are concerned to ensure that the matter is not lost as a business issue. We would like to know where the directives will go in the Scottish Parliament. Europe has said that the measures must be passed by July. An election is coming up and we have been told that the Health and Community Care Committee has no time to consider the issues. We are concerned to ensure that the measures are not passed without democratic discussions because of a timetable from Europe.

We are happy for the petition to go to a place where it will be seriously considered, but we do not want the health issue to be lost, because it is the most important matter. Members will know whether that can be dealt with without the petition going to the Health and Community Care Committee.

Thank you.