COMPLEMENTARY HEALTHCARE COUNCIL of Australia resists sensible reforms

THE CASE

The fundamental principals of medicines are

1. They should do no harm (product safety)
2. They should be effective (product efficacy)

The Complementary Healthcare Council of Australia (CHC) is resisting the introduction of controls that would indicate whether or not alternative medicines were effective. The CHC is the peak body representing the overall complementary healthcare industry in Australia.

The idea presented to the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, Senator Jan McLucas, was that therapeutic claims for complementary medicines supported by hard scientific evidence should entitle that medicine to be identified by the consumer as being efective. The specific idea presented by Ken Harvey of the School of Public Health at La Trobe University was a green tick, similar to the National Heart Foundation's red tick.

"The industry group Complementary Healthcare Council is strongly opposed to Harvey's reforms, which include a disclaimer on product labels to explain that the "listing" process used by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to approve most alternative products does not mean that the products have been assessed for efficacy by the TGA."

The CHC is being a little disingenuous:

“Ingredients used in Listed complementary medicines have been reviewed by the Complementary Medicines Evaluation Committee and determined to be safe. Sponsors of complementary medicines are required to hold evidence of their efficacy and certify so at the time of listing. Advertising of all nonprescription medicines whether via broadcast or mainstream print is subject to pre-approval under a coregulatory process and advertising copy must conform to the strict requirements of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. Dr. Harvey appears to lack understanding of the checks and balances built into the system”

The CHC addresses the issue of safety by saying that the Complementary Medicines Safety Committee reviews the ingredients - fair enough. But the words "Sponsors of complementary medicines are required to hold evidence of their efficacy and certify so at the time of listing" dodge the question of efficacy. The words imply that no-one is going to look at, or assess such evidence no matter how weak, such as "Auntie Audrey took it for a week and now she feels much better".

In 2003 the Australian Skeptics awarded the CHC "The Bent Spoon Award":

"The deciding factor was when the CCHA asked the government for several million dollars to educate the public about alternative medicines. This request was in response to the discovery that Pan Pharmaceuticals, Australia's largest manufacturer of alternative medicines, had quality control procedures which were so lax that the only facts about a product which could be accepted without question were that the bottles were made of glass and the boxes were made of cardboard."

There is a voice of dissent. Another complementary medicines industry organisation called Ethical Complementary Medicines said the regulatory system "should be changed so that the public can be told clearly whether or not there is scientific evidence to support the efficacy of a particular product". In other words good old Evidence Based Medicine (EBM).

Hear hear!

MY VERDICT

Knowingly selling ineffective products is actually stealing. It is nothing more than consumer fraud.