Annette King: Public safety at heart of new regulations on herbal lines

COMMENT

The Herald's lead story on Monday was headlined Outrage over health pills law. Most of that "outrage" is not focused on claims that a transtasman agency to regulate therapeutic products will hand over control to Australia.

Rather, it stems from New Zealanders not being adequately protected from therapeutic products or dietary supplements that have been found to cause serious illness and death.

Even food is more strictly regulated than alternative remedies, and public outrage after the Pan Pharmaceuticals recall this year says this must change.

Today, Australia's Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing, Trish Worth, and I will sign a treaty establishing a joint scheme to regulate therapeutic products from July 2005.

This is a new agency, not the imposition of the Australian scheme on New Zealand as some opponents have claimed.

Therapeutic products include medicines (prescription medicines, over-the-counter medicines and complementary medicines), medical devices and other products such as some sunscreens, blood and blood components.

New Zealand's existing law covering therapeutic products is outdated, unsustainable and in need of reform. It does not adequately manage the public health risks.

For example, solvents such as compact disc cleaners have been sold as dietary supplements, while other supplements have included prescription medicines and contaminants such as lead.

In possibly the most tragic example, two New Zealanders died of liver failure after taking the product K4 - a herbal remedy for prostate problems.

Opponents of the treaty claim a transtasman agency will mean a loss of sovereignty. In fact, New Zealand will be punching well above its weight.

Despite Australia's population being five times that of New Zealand's, the agency will be overseen equally by the New Zealand and Australian health ministers. It will be just as accountable to both governments as our Medsafe body is to our Government.

It must also be noted that by forming a joint scheme with Australia, we will have legislation that is consistent with international best practice.

The assessment of therapeutic products is a highly complex and technical area.

If we do not take the initiative and join Australia, we will face capacity problems and will simply be too small a player to assess all products ourselves.

Opponents claim the new agency will force up the prices of therapeutic products.

A cost-benefit analysis has outlined that it will cost less to regulate products through a joint agency, and this should be reflected in the product price.

I also reject criticism that we are sidelining a select committee report by signing the agreement today.

The select committee has been considering submissions since November last year and was due to report back in the middle of this year.

We needed to proceed with the work we were doing and there are further opportunities for public consultation before any legislation is passed.

While there are many factors to consider when forming any sort of regulatory body, let alone one that spans two countries, what must be considered paramount is safety.

The safety of New Zealanders from products that make unsubstantiated or false claims, or from harmful products that masquerade as dietary supplements, is the Government's priority.

A transtasman agency with greater international recognition and a wider resource base will ensure New Zealanders are given the best possible protection from harmful products.

I find it ironic that the Greens' health spokeswoman, Sue Kedgley, has campaigned against arsenic in wooden playground equipment but has not raised her voice against the reality that arsenic can be found in dietary supplements.