Fwd: Herb regulation and bans - the Australian approach

[Guest guest]

Attempted resend of post!

 

 

 

> Steven Slater <dragonslive

> 15 April 2004 5:01:19 PM

> Chinese Medicine

> Herb regulation and bans - the Australian approach

>

> Dear List,

>

> I am a practitioner in Australia and have been observing with some

> dismay the situation my fellow practitioners find themselves in with

> the FDA herbal regulatory decisions and those that may be soon to

> happen in the EU.

>

> I would like to give a brief rundown of the current Australian

> situation and what may happen in the near future here in the hopes in

> may provide some support through example or possibilities for those

> who are fighting for our profession in Europe and the USA.

>

> Currently, one of the seven states of Australia now has a registration

> board for TCM practioners, Acupuncturists and Chinese Herbal

> Dispensors. Other states are working on such registration as well for

> TCM and possibly naturopathy and other complementary professions that

> use herbs or supplements.

>

> This Professional registration is not for the protection of the

> profession directly. It was designed and implemented to protect the

> public as it was concluded that our profession uses techniques that

> may be dangerous if used by those unqualified to do so. Fair enough in

> my eyes.

>

> The main function of this registration is to protect the public by

> " protection of title " legislation; not necessarily the practice of TCM

> or acupuncture. What this boils down to is that anyone can still use

> techniques from acupuncture or TCM but not give the impression that

> they are qualified to do so by using the titles " acupuncturist " ,

> " chinese herbalist " etc. etc. A small victory perhaps, but one that

> helps protect the reputation of our profession from fraudsters and

> quacks to a large degree.

>

> So far this seems to have little to do with the current US or EU

> situations I know.

>

> However, as part of this registration board legislation; it put in

> process a reevaluation of the current " Drugs, Poisons and controlled

> Substances " legislation with the intention to reevaluate several

> currently banned substances for the use by REGISTERED professional TCM

> practitioners. These banned substances include Ma Huang and Fu Zi

> among others (approx 30 from memory) and any species containing high

> levels of AA such as Mu Fang Ji, Guang Mu Tong etc. These herbs can

> only currently be " prescribed " by medical doctors, vets or pharmacists

> (a bad situation anyway). Ban Xia is NOT part of the current

> restrictions in Australia, although in contrast, it is my

> understanding that some herbs that are used freely in the USA and

> banned here.

>

> This process has been very slow since the original implementation of

> the registration legislation circa 2001 due to the professional and

> scientific evaluations, evidence and monographs that were prepared for

> each herb application that the profession wishes to reintroduce into

> TCM practice in this country. The word is that this process is almost

> complete now and a final draft proposal is currently in the works.

>

> Much political maneuvering by TCM practitioners here was necessary to

> get the initial legislation passed at all. Everything seemed rosy for

> some time, until the " Medical " practitioners kicked up a stink due to

> the possibility that they would no longer be able to practice TCM and

> acupuncture without any real training or qualifications anymore

> (excuse the sarcasm). These same " Medical " practitioners are already

> exempt from the laws which prevent TCM practitioners to use herbs

> which we are professionally trained to use such as Ma Huang and Fu Zi.

> (almost amusing if it wasn't so stupid).

>

> A compromise was made to the bill and " medical " practitioners were

> granted an exception with the vision of a short-term sacrifice for a

> long-term gain. However, politics being politics and professional

> bodies being professional bodies; other health professions kicked up a

> stink crying " if medical doctors will be exempt, we want to be

> too!!! " . These professions were Nurses, Chiropractors, Osteopaths,

> Pharmacists, Physiotherapists, VETERINARIANS and OPTOMETRISTS (no

> offense to the last two professions but with regard to acu and TCM -

> god help us!!). Each of these groups somehow managing to bend the ear

> of a parliamentarian and threaten the legislation in its entirety

> unless they too were given a free ride to practice any TCM or

> acupuncture technique without any training.

>

> Logically, at least to me, this was no different to me as a TCM doctor

> claiming I was also a competent professional nurse, medical

> practitioner, chiropractor, osteopath, pharmacist, optometrist and

> vet!!!

>

> At this time I was 2nd or 3rd year of my 5 year TCM training and must

> admit due to my political naivety and idealistc thinking that I

> refused to sign the petition to allow these amendments to the bill to

> allow these hitchhikers to hop on our profession for a free ride.

> Fortunately, the legislation did include the amendments and was passed

> regardless of the idealistic few (me included).

>

> The amendments allowed these professions to be exempt if their own

> registration board granted them license to claim they were qualified

> to use our techniques. That is, if the optometrist registration board

> said their members could use acupuncture and herbal medicine then they

> could call themselves registered acupuncturists or TCM herbalists!! I

> thought this was far too much trust to put in these other boards when

> it was OUR reputation on the line, not theirs. After all, if they

> hurt, injured, killed or simply didn't help a patient using our

> techniques without proper training it would reflect on TCM as a

> profession not their own.

>

> Anyway, I have been very pleasantly surprised by the decisions some of

> these other registration boards have taken in regulating the use of

> TCM and acupuncture by their own members. Recently, the " medical "

> board made the very wise and admirable decision to require their

> members to meet the same education and training standards of the TCM

> board for recognition of professional status. They still have there

> own weekend training or similar for acupuncture however. It seems that

> the Physiotherapists board will follow suit and others MAY follow this

> lead. Ironically this was the wish of the idealists such a me in the

> first place and would have avoided all this rubbish schoolyard

> politics for politics sake rather than any real purpose.

>

> The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) plays a similar

> role to the FDA in the USA. They have stepped up the regulation of

> complementary medicine recently and increased the requirements for

> registering and licensing such products as Ming Shan patents etc.

> Previously, raw herbs and concentrates were usually considered " foods "

> and not subject to such regulations but this is changing. This will

> lead to increased costs for herbal companies, importers and

> distributers which will no doubt result in some disappearing, the

> costs being passed onto us as practitioners and subsequently to our

> patients. However, the profession in general here seems to supports

> these moves to ensure we supply high quality, consistent and pure

> herbal products to our patients. AA's, contaminants and the like will

> be tested batch by batch for certain herbs to ensure correct

> identification of species such as the Mu Tong's and the Fang Ji's to

> ensure the tragedy that occurred in Europe a few years ago and damaged

> TCM world-wide does not occur here. It seems this may go further and

> require certain consistent levels of " actives " when used for

> therapeutic purposes which should not affect large professional

> companies form Taiwan beyond added costs; but it may signal the end of

> less " professional " distributers from china who despite the basic GMP

> certificates can be less than " reliable " . All good in my eyes.

>

> I am sure the Australian system is not perfect and will cause problems

> for us as a profession at some time. However, I think the general

> PROCESS is a sound one and may provide a useful guide for other

> countries in recognizing and respecting the TCM profession that has so

> much to offer to mankind in general. That basic process is:-

>

> 1) Register and recognize TCM practitioners/acupuncturists with

> appropriate qualifications.

> 2) Restrict potentially dangerous substances for the use by those

> registered.

> 3) Ensure these substances are actually what they claim to be (correct

> ID), and are generally safe for consumption when prescribed in an

> appropriate manner by TCM registered professionals.

> 4) Consultation at every step of the way with the profession to ensure

> the profession's practices and interests are realistically represented

> and their needs met.

>

> This last one is vitally important in my eyes and the Australian

> government has been very wise in including the profession throughout

> every step of the legislation processes. It has allowed the needs of

> the profession to be represented through the direct involvement of

> professional associations, educators, researchers and practitioners

> from the TCM profession as a whole on each legislation board and

> submitting drafts of any proposals to all relevant associations and

> the public for consultation and feedback before any laws are enacted.

> Certainly not everyone will be pleased with ANY outcome but this is I

> feel the correct way to go about such complicated issues.

>

> Perhaps this is what the FDA and EU are not allowing. I have not

> followed closely enough to know the processes of these bodies but

> unless it involves a similar showing of respect for the Profession

> that the Australian government has it must be an absolute nightmare

> for both associations representing and fighting for my profession and

> the practitioners in these countries.

>

> Sorry if this rambled a little; but I hope it can provide some ideas

> or assist in any way my brothers and sisters of TCM anywhere in the

> world.

>

> Some sites regarding the Australian process and legislation follow:-

>

> http://www.cmrb.vic.gov.au

> http://www.tga.gov.au/cm/cm.htm

>

> Best Wishes,

>

> Dr. Steven J Slater

> Practitioner and Acupuncturist

> Mobile: 0418 343 545

> chinese_medicine

>

>

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine