The info below in italics is taken from a web report on Health Care Public's website. What really annoys me is the headline, then when you read the report it says that 77% of people surveyed, which amounts to 2,305 people only are in favour. Poll taken by a nationally representative sample, of who? How many were people that regularly use herbal medicine? 87% apparently, but wait 87% and 77% that makes 164%, ohhh they mean 87% of the 33% left after they've subtracted the 77%! So of the remaining 33% some people said they had no opinion or voted for Mickey mouse or some such! I hate people who massage the statistics to get the result they want!

Without a clear guide to the people sampled and a larger number of people I think these sort of 'samples' and headlines are misleading, and yes I would still say that even if it came out that 3/4's of the 'people' were against herbal regulations. What do others think? 

Debs

Three-quarters of UK adults agree that herbal medicines should be regulated, according to an Ipsos MORI poll for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The poll of a nationally representative sample of 2,305 adults found that 77% agreed it is important that herbal medicines are regulated, with the figure rising to 87% amongst users.

Doctors have been used as a source of information about the risks or benefits of herbal medicines by 17%.

Historically, most OTC herbal medicines in the UK have been sold as unlicensed herbal remedies under the Medicine Act 1968.

The UK traditional herbal registration scheme was launched in 2005 and requires products to meet assured standards of safety, quality and patient information.

There is a transitional period for some existing unlicensed products until 2011.

www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/GP/872877/Three-quarters-back-regulation-herbal-medicines

Morning Debs!

The first thing to do with any article is to look at the magazine it's posted in - in this case a rag aimed at GPs which is littered with adverts and information about pharmaceutial drugs. Secondly, who funded the research? - the body which is trying to fast forward regulation and therefore limit public access to herbs so no-one is able to access stuff which doesn't bring the pharmaceutical manufacturers income. Thirdly, the questions will have been carefully formulated to ensure people say yes to a question they want a yes answer to and no to the opposite - that's what polls are all about.

Fourthly - who wrote the article? A journalist, who is only interested in getting their article printed, because that's their job. Who wrote the headline? A sub-editor, because that's what sub-editor's do. Have they read the original research? No? Do they care about relating their headline to the original research? No, all they care about is having an eye-catching headline which attracts people to read the article and hopefully the accompanying adverts which fund the publication.

Am I cynical? You bet! Does mis-information make my blood boil? Yes. The thing to remember is that most of the general public will never read the article because most of them aren't interested in magazines for GPs. What does worry me is that they are buying herbs over the counter because a footballer's wife says something (and we all know that she is a leading expert on herbal medicine!!!) - that is much more dangerous!

Sarah

Hello Debs & Sarah,

With increasing age I also become more and more cynical about opinion polls. No one has ever asked me my opinion except to ring up just as I am cooking or we are about to sit down to a meal on 'do I use the various entertainments in Bournemouth. No I don't!' It seems to me that all these polls and regulations that eminate from either our government or the EU always benefit large companies regardless of the consumer or should I say the mug who pays. Well that's my grumpy old woman rant for today

Jane

The research was conducted by the MHRA - their press release can be found here http://www.mhra.gov.uk/NewsCentre/Pressreleases/CON036071 with a link to a pdf of the full research at the bottom of the page.

I haven't read it yet.

Certainly agree with Sarah about opinion polls and discovering who conducted them and why.
I remember some years ago reading a "scientific" report that said white sugar was good for your health. After some digging around, I discovered that the resaearch had been funded by Tate and Lyle !!!
Linda

aka another grumpy old woman

Hi Debs

Far be it from me to miss out on a good argument, the survey mentioned is only the tip of an iceberg which has been raging (in so far as icebergs rage) at least since last summer. In general, I am all for the regulation of herbal medicines not because of my allopathic background but to raise the credibility of those who prescribe them. Perhaps then scandals like that involving Aristolochia wont recur, nor the prescribing of snakeroot mistaken for Echinacea..nor Ayurvedic medicines containing heavy metals nor Chinese prescriptions dispensed in anonymous paper packets with goodness knows what in them. One could go on and on but those are the ones that immediately come to mind. OTC medicines which contain an infinitesimal amount of the plant eye-catchingly displayed on the label will hopefully be banned then members of the public will stop saying I tried herbal medicine and it didnt work

Better still, we will get rid of some of the quackery that circulates around the fringes of herbalism. Some of my best friends are practitioners of the most outrageous nonsense so better not to go into details.

If regulation results in the training of more pharmacognosists, it has to be good thing, if it stops Western practitioners playing with Oriental medicine without proper training, again it must be a good thing.

On the other hand, if its more rubbish coming from Brussels regulating for regulations sake, to be seen as doing something even if that "something" is just filling in forms with no tangible benefits,the futile stance so frequently and enthusiastically adopted by our own government; as a way of raising money from herbalists and herb processors or as a means of crushing the alternative to allopathic practitioners in spite of the public being disillusioned by their endless mistakes, inconsistent advice and treating patients as symbols on their computers, then as I suspect, old cynic that I am, its just expensive spin with the unfortunate side effect of yet again restricting the publics freedom of choice.

(Edited to change Guest to Anthony's name)