JOIN US NOW!
YOUR VOICE CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.Click on JOIN US in the list on the left.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH IGNORES THE HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE
Medsafe (Ministry of Health), following a meeting with industry representatives in January 2004, they have publicly announced that they are building a list of ingredients in dietary supplements on the New Zealand market as at 31st December 2003 that are not available in Australia.This date was not agreed to at the meeting. It was pointed out that many supplement companies would alreday have products and ingredients "in the pipeline" and a date in the future would be more appropriate, not one in the past. This has been ignored.
It was also pointed out to the Ministry of Health that as all NZ opposition political parties have publicly stated that they are against the proposal,(see below) Annette King may have signed a treaty she is unable to implement.
The unanimous decision from all parties (including labour) was that NZ should have a list of ingredients not allowed in supplements NOT a list of ingredients allowed. Again the Ministry of Health has ignored the Select Committee report and is developing a list of ingredients that they will allow. Even ingredients that have been safely used for over 30 years could be eliminated from the NZ market. (advertised in NZ Herald public notices on Saturday 28th February) Only 2 months have been allowed for this project (30th April) - we stated at the meeting that it should be a minimum of 3 months.
We also agreed that with the stance of the Select Committee but if they wanted a list it should only be a list of ingredients on the NZ market that are not allowed in Australia. They have asked for a list of ALL ingredients.
As you can see, the Ministry of Health (Medsafe) is ignoring all agreed positions.
ALL OPPOSITION POLITICAL PARTIES OPPOSE THE GOVERNMENTS STANCE
STOP PRESSWhy is the Labour Government pressing ahead in the face of such opposition?
The GREEN'S opposition to this proposal is well known through the public work of Sue Kedgley throughout New Zealand.
"The Green Party fully supports access to a wide range of dietary supplements and the protection of the individuals right to choose how they manage their health. We want to encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own health and well-being.
This controversial proposal will erode New Zealand's sovereignty in this important area and impose a costly, complex, cumbersome and highly restrictive regime on dietary supplements.
It is unacceptable that the Labour government is proposing to place control over this industry in the hands of Australian bureaucrats. This incredible assault on our sovereignty and Australian control over dietary supplements must be stopped."
ACT has publicly opposed the proposed Trans Tasman Therapeutic Goods Agency to regulate medicine, medical devices and dietary supplements.
"Where is the evidence that American or New Zealanders are at risk from their relatively light-handed regulations?
Where is the evidence that Australians are safer after paying huge fees to their bureaucracy?
Unquestionably the New Zealand consumer will get a rough deal under the Labour government's proposal and New Zealand suppliers of dietary supplements will be driven to the wall.
We must oppose any proposal that increases costs or restricts choices without good reason."
The NATIONAL PARTY National's stance on the proposed Trans Tasman Therapeutic Goods joint agency:
"The fact that the Minister of Health Annette King decided to proceed with the joint regulatory agency, despite huge public opposition, and without waiting for the Health Select Committee to report back to Parliament, is a measure of the current Government's arrogance and "nanny-state" mentality. National does not believe such a regulatory regime is in the best interests of New Zealanders and we have strongly opposed it." - Dr Don Brash
"The NEW ZEALAND FIRST CAUCUS New Zealand remains firmly opposed to having its citizens' beliefs and needs subjugated by any other country's wishes. Whilst harmonisation might have some components of advantage to New Zealand's alternate medicine suppliers and consumers, the overall thrust of the governments' current direction simply does not have the support of New Zealand First.
In addition, New Zealand First firmly believes that in respect to the health of its citizens the New Zealand Government should not be led by the decisions of Australia or any other country. Rather it should make decisions on fundamental issues such as health solely in the best interest of New Zealanders.
UNITED FUTURE
UNITED FUTURE favours "Mutual recognition" over the proposed joint agency Of greatest concern to us is the unwillingness to establish a third regulatory category for low-risk complementary products. We believe that all other recommendations of the select committee could have been negotiable if this one recommendation had been agreed to. The failure by government to accept this recommendation means that the other recommendations that have been ignored become more serious. The Black list versus the white list debate is a clear example of this. United Future was happy to agree that any product making therapeutic claims as opposed to wellness claims may need to be regulated like pharmaceuticals, and that certainly any product that had both complementary and pharmaceutical ingredients should be regulated by the higher standard. But Complementary health products can safely be regulated through a black list approach because of the low risk nature of the ingredients. The Ministry admits that the use of a negative list requires a high threshold of harm before a substance is placed on the list. That is the very reason why it is such a suitable way to regulate complementary health care products.
Of additional concern is the unwillingness to undertake a small firms impact report. We are concerned for those businesses and for the loss of innovation that they often represent.
DO SUPPLEMENTS CAUSE DEATHS IN NEW ZEALAND?
See how safe your dietary supplements really are. Our thanks to Ron Law for the use of this graph. Please click hereBREAKING NEWS - FEBRUARY 2004
THE ARROGANT NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN UNBELIEVABLE ACTION - THE MINISTER HAS MISLEAD AND LIED TO THE PUBLIC OF NEW ZEALAND
To quote a well known phrase, there has been "An orchestrated litany of lies"
Despite all the work Citizens for Health Choices, dietary supplement industry associations and consumers have done since 1992 and the overwhelming evidence against proceeding with the joint agency with Australia for dietary supplements, it was revealed in Parliament that Annette King, Minister of Health has deliberately betrayed all New Zealanders who believe in freedom of choice in healthcare.
The following question was also asked of Annette King on her chat room on 8th October 2003.
QUESTION:We have been informed that despite complete rejection by the dietary supplement industry and well over 35,000 dietary supplement consumers, constitutional lawyers and economists and before the Health Select Committee has submitted its report; you have stated that the Trans Tasman Joint Agency to regulate dietary supplements will proceed as planned. Why are you ignoring the overwhelming opposition in New Zealand to the proposal for a Joint Agency?
ANNETTE KING: You have been misinformed.
A transcript of the events in Parliament 4th December 2004 follows:
Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products Agency-Bilateral Treaty>
SUE KEDGLEY(Green MP and Deputy Chair of the Health Select Committee) to the Minister of Health: Has the Government made a decision to include the regulation of complementary medicines and dietary supplements in the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency, and when does it expect to sign a bilateral treaty between the Australian and New Zealand Governments establishing the agency?
ANNETTE KING(Minister of Health): Yes. The Government has decided to include the regulation of complementary medicines and therapeutic dietary supplements in the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency. The treaty is to be signed on 10 December.
SUE KEDGLEY: Why has the Minister made this decision before the Health Committee, which is inquiring into this very issue, has even reported back, and what does she say to members of the Health Committee who have been toiling away on this issue for 8 months, only to find at the end of it that that we have completely wasted our time because the Minister had already made up her mind?
Hon.ANNETTE KING: It is not reasonable to expect the Governments of New Zealand or Australia to wait any longer for a report from a select committee-a report that the Government did not call for-on something that was first decided in September 2002, 15 months ago. Governments cannot hold up agreements on that basis. What countries would deal with us if we did?
Mark Peck (Labour): What process will be followed once the treaty has been signed?
CFHC COMMENT:Australia is not willing to wait for NZ's democratic processes to take their course. This confirms our (unfounded, of course!) fears that the regime will be run by and for Australia, with NZ's voice too small to have influence. The Minister's rhetorical question can be answered with another: "Why should we join an experimental transnational regulatory framework with a country that does not respect our democratic processes?"
Hon ANNETTE KING: It is proposed that the national interest analysis and a text of the agreement be tabled in Parliament in accordance with the parliamentary treaty examination process.
Dr Lynda Scott (National): What are the cost implications for New Zealand's large complementary health-care market of having a trans-Tasman therapeutics product agency rather than mutual recognition and a strengthened New Zealand regulatory system?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Work undertaken by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research suggests the costs of regulating complementary medicines within a joint agency would be significantly less than that of a New Zealand regulatory scheme.
CFHC COMMENT:The Minister concludes we should buy A because it is cheaper than B. She has failed to demonstrate that we need either A or B, nor that if the cost is worth it even if there is a need.
The NZIER report used highly dubious assumptions to find its supposed cost savings compared with a NZ-only regime. As only one example, the assumed cost of a JTA was compared with the cost of a notional New Zealand bureaucracy bloated to the size of the current TGA -- an unexplained and indefensible assumption that creates a big analytical bias in favour of the JTA. The NZIER has been proven to be fatally flawed and did not use information provided to it by NZ industry.
SUE KEDGLEY: What was she saying to the hundreds of submitters who made submissions in good faith believing that we were conducting a genuine inquiry into this issue, and does she understand how they may consider her decision to be arrogant and extraordinary, and that they too may feel-like the members of the Health Committee-that they have completely wasted their time because she had already made a predetermined decision on the matter that the committee is inquiring into?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The Cabinet made a decision in principle in November 2002 that complementary medicines would be included in the joint regulator. We have waited patiently for the select committee to report back. It still has not reported back. We are working closely with the Australian Government. We have considered what we have heard along the way. I think the member may well even be pleased when she sees the extent of what has been considered in the joint regulator.
SUE KEDGLEY: In light of comments by the Minister for Small Business yesterday that Australian businesses face much higher compliance costs than New Zealand businesses do, why is she supporting a proposal to regulate dietary supplements by an expensive, Australian-based therapeutic goods agency, when overwhelming evidence was presented to the select committee that that will increase the compliance costs of small New Zealand dietary supplement industries, and that no further assurance will be given to consumers as a result of these increased compliance costs, as the Pan Pharmaceuticals debacle amply illustrated?
Mr SPEAKER: That question was far too long. The Minister may comment briefly on one or two aspects of it.
Hon ANNETTE KING: This Government has decided to move, in conjunction with Australia, to regulate complementary and therapeutic dietary supplements because of the Pan Pharmaceuticals situation. Many New Zealanders demanded that we put in place regulation, and the work that I have seen shows the impact on small business of what we intend to put in place will be minimal.
SUE KEDGLEY: Is she aware that the overwhelming majority of submitters, consumers, and dietary supplement industries are completely opposed to the course she is pursuing, and does she agree with Margaret Wilson's comment, in respect of the Supreme Court debate, that a remote and inaccessible final Court of Appeal is not a hallmark of modern democracy; if so, why is her Government supporting the establishment of a remote and inaccessible body, based in Australia and staffed principally by Australians, to regulate dietary supplements in New Zealand?
CFHC COMMENT:Wow!
An over-the-counter drug (not a dietary supplement) is found to be dangerous because the Australian regulatory regime TGA) failed utterly to enforce its own standards.
Several innocent citizens, including children, suffer serious harm as a result. It is the biggest regulatory failure of its kind in the Western world for a decade or longer.
So obviously it is imperative and urgent that New Zealand must impose this same "world-class TGA" regime in order to "protect" its citizens from the "risks" of a different class of products that are known to be safe. Brilliant!
Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is wrong on just about every point she has made. She has assumed that the body is remote, she has assumed that it is in Australia, and she has assumed that it is under Australia's control. She is wrong on all those points.
CFHC COMMENT: It is the Minister who is wrong, wrong, wrong. Her reply tends to indicate that she has not read the proposals and relys solely on "advice" from the Medsafe regulators and the TGA!
END
- Select Committees are part of the New Zealand constitutional process. I believe it is unheard of for a government to take such action while waiting for a Select Committee report to be tabled. This calls into question New Zealand's whole "constitutional process". It means that New Zealand Select Committees have no power at all and are a waste of time.
Annette King has now stated in Parliament that the decision was made in November 2002 to proceed. She allowed the Health Select Committee to proceed with their enquiry over the past 8 months, knowing full well that she would ignore totally any recommendations that they should make.
She allowed the dietary supplement industry, consumers and tax payers to waste tens of thousands of dollars providing very valid arguments mainly against the proposal.
She advised Australia, that it was proceeding months ago.
She has still not formally advised New Zealand interested parties and the people of New Zealand.
She has signed the death knell for hundreds of small New Zealand dietary supplement companies and innovation and committed the New Zealand public to having a reduced range of supplements at probably greatly increased prices. She has virtually shut the door to dietary supplements from countries other than Australia and will create a non-tariff trade barrier the same as Australia.
Citizens for Health Choices
was formed in 1992 by a concerned group of New Zealand natural health care professionals.It aims to advise politicians and government agencies on legislation and health reform.
It promotes freedom of choice and access to safe dietary supplements of your choice.
Since 1992, Citizens for Health CHoices has helped to defeat various New Zealand government and bureaucratic attempts to tighten the rules and restrict consumers access to safe natural vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids and other nutritional supplements.
WITH YOUR HELP WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!
The New Zealand Government's proposal for a Joint Agency with Australia threatens your right to access the vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids, sports supplements and nutritional remedies of your choice.This means that supplements will cease to be treated as food and will become regulated by New Zealand and Australian bureaucrats similar to prescription drugs.
We need legislation in New Zealand for New Zealanders, not legislation imposed by Australia. Our own proposed Health Care and Therapeutic Products Act would have preserved your right to have continued access to safe dietary supplements and labelling providing information about the benefits supplements provide. Talk to your MP about how this will affect you. Ask them to oppose it
"Harmonisation" with Australia through this new "Super" agency will mean:
- Dramatically higher prices for many supplements with no benefits to you, the consumer, since both Governments say the new bureaucracy must be funded 100% by the health companies.
- Many supplements would be banned that you currently use. Australia only allows 1800 herbs out of the 20-30,000 used internationally. It will not allow many herbs, vitamins, minerals, nutritional supplements and homeopathics that you currently use and take for granted.
- Restriction of ingredients available internationally, but not in Australia, and these would no longer be available to New Zealand.
- Reduced ingredient strengths. For example in New Zealand, Selenium is set at 150mcg per day. In Australia, until recently, Selenium was banned but now they are allowed 26mcg! Folic Acid would probably increase to 500mcg - which is still far too low - internatoinally it is at least 1000 mg.
- Some ingredients could be classified as medicines and made prescription only.
