Our Targeted Objection to the Therapeutic Products Bill

Dear Select Committee Members,

Thank you for reading this objection to the proposed Therapeutic Products Bill.

As the doctors and the midwife in this committee will tell you (should you be interested) you are a bunch of molecules.  Molecules made up of elements such as calcium, iron, zinc and potassium, that interact and self-regulate in an intricate and highly-tuned manner, helped by vitamins, minerals and other food compounds, in the body’s quest for balance.  Furthermore, every time you put food into your mouth genes are turned on and off; thus all food and drink can be considered medicinal.

In objecting to this bill, we have three overarching concerns.

1. The safety of natural products far exceeds that of pharmaceuticals.

It is estimated that around 50% of Kiwis use natural products with almost no reports of ill harm.

Except for the rare event of massive intake when feedback mechanisms are overwhelmed, the body has, over millenia, developed ways of excreting or preventing absorption of minerals or vitamins when these are in excess, or of increasing absorption and decreasing excretion when these compounds are deficient.

This cannot be said for pharmaceuticals. While pharmaceuticals make use of existing pathways in the body, there are no inherent ways of managing these foreign substances.

Herbs in their whole form, rather than as an isolated and concentrated compound, have been used for centuries in all cultures. Maori, African, European, North American, Chinese, Indian and every other culture has a tradition of using local plants and herbs for the treatment of illness and for the creation of optimal health.

Furthermore nutritional interventions, in the form of specific foods, food products and supplements are a central strategy for treating chronic disease, a situation that countless New Zealanders find themselves in.

It is well known that pharmaceuticals are a leading cause of death in the US and certainly in New  Zealand, and that their toxic effects are 4 to 5 orders of magnitude that of natural products. We also note with concern that synthetic food additives with known adverse effects, some of which are banned by the FDA, are on the 2016 MOH permitted list. So yes, independent, with the emphasis on independent, regulation needs to be in place when considering access to unnatural pharmaceutical compounds.

However, the same does not apply to natural (already ocuring in nature and in humans) compounds. Furthermore, the past years have brought into high definition the human frailties of so-called independent regulators when it comes to corporate interests.  Pharmaceutical and synthetic compounds are nothing if not in the corporate interest, being deliberatey designed to be different from nature so they can be patented.

2. Adequate legislation already exists

NZ already has regulations in place that are used to control the quality and dosage of natural products.  These are the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Dietary Supplements Regulations Act.

The proposed new legislation is written vaguely, making this an enabling law, potentially resulting in the supression of scientific discourse, robbing Kiwis of everyday foods and preventing the safe and effective treatment of many ailments, thus increasing the burden on the already stretched health system.

If a plant molecule can be used in a pharmaceutical, the bill proposes that regulators can dictate if that plant can be sold. Do you enjoy cinnamon with your cappuccino? The potential scope for further command and control over our foods is extreme. Nutrients are not healthy because they make us even more healthy than some wondrous baseline, but because without them we will fall apart, slowly or acutely, but as sure as eggs are eggs. 

3. Government remit

It is not the remit of any democratic government to dictate the food, traditional herbs and supplements that its citizens are “allowed” to access, nor is it the right or role of the government to decide which health practitioners can be consulted and what they are allowed to say. New Zealand has more than enough regulation to keep its citizens “safe from cowboy practitioners and companies.”

This bill is not a “risk proportionate regulation of therapeutic products”.  Instead it lowers the bar for pharmaceutical, bio-technological and synthetic substances while raising the bar for safe, natural products.

As the health system seemingly implodes, many people – not just the disenfranchised unvaccinated sector – are turning ‘back to nature’ for their health and wellness. Attacking this segment of the economy would appear to favour corporate interests over citizens. The harsh penalties proposed only strengthen this perception. 

Also on the bill’s radar is innovative diagnostic and treatment equipment that a single regulator can ban. This person will be already unable, as a solitary csar, to have an expert grasp of the gamut of products the bill targets. Well funded lobbyists could have a field day. 

Either the government is interested in the health of its citizens, increasing productivity and tax-take – in which case it would be supporting all avenues of health – or it is following an agenda that it is keeping from the public. Which is it?

Our beleagured Bill of Rights states that citizens have the right to seek and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.  It would seem that this bill puts this right of expression in dire danger. Furthermore the rights of minorities, to “enjoy their culture” also appears to be at risk. This bill appears to be an attack on those already marginalised.

In summary this bill hurts all New Zealanders, from the latte sipping laptop class to the refugee working two jobs taking magnesium for sleep.  For the sake of Kiwis, your re-election and future generations, please think about what this bill may lead to, rescind it and start again focusing only on the pharmaceuticals.