Herb regulation and bans - the Australian approach

[Guest guest]

3rd attempted re-post

 

 

 

> Steven Slater <laozhongyi

> 15 April 2004 6:09:57 PM

>

> 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

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/15/04 8:32:22 PM, dragonslive writes:

 

 

> 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.

>

Medical Doctors are essentially pharmacologists, and understand that herbs,

like drugs, have actions and interactions that require a significant amount of

training to do safely and effectively.

 

They cannot understand how sticking a few needles in someone to treat them

can require any significant amount of training because it is not in their hard

wiring. Such physical things are in the " see one, do one, teach one " type of

process.

 

I might suggest that one of the herb items that you work on getting

reinstated is the AA herbs, pointig out that you had used them safely for

decades and

that they should be regulated in a way that allows practitioners to use them.

David Molony

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Andrea,

 

I live in country Victoria at the moment. I studied at Uni in Melbourne

for my TCM education. There are two university Bachelor level programs

for TCM/acupuncture in Victoria; and at least two private colleges

also.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

On 17 Apr 2004, at 4:56 AM, Ai An Meng wrote:

 

> Thanks Steve!

>

> I had a strong feeling it was Victoria. It is the most progressive

> State in

> many respects. As we're considering eventually moving back to

> Melbourne,

> this is very good news, indeed.

>

 

 

> I'm most definitely interested. Thanks for the link! Oh, I was

> meaning to ask

> you, where in Australia are you?

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Andrea

 

 

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine