It is entirely possible that the desired clinical response obtained by herbs is the result of the summation of dozens or perhaps even hundreds of gentle and pharmacologically subtle and distinct mechanisms of action. This may account for the difference in toxicity, because herbal remedies may be gently “asking” the body to react in numerous physiologically desirable ways, none of which create, by themselves, a large change in the overall economy of the organism (thus few “side effects”). Conventional medicines act, generally, by one or only a few “mechanisms of action”, and, because of their physiologically more significant pharmacological dose, create a much larger re-action on the part of the organism in an effort to maintain homeostasis (thus many “side effects”).

Assuming that isolated “Active Ingredients” are a substitute for the whole herb (or purified extract) is somewhat like a General assuming that the most effective platoon in a Division, is, in battle, an adequate replacement for the whole Division! The excuse that the relationships (or even identity) of all the possible active compounds in a given herbal preparation might never be elucidated, in no way argues against the evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the whole herb! The handwriting has been on the wall for a long time as to how free most well-prepared herbal preparations are from undesirable effects.

Isn’t it about time that Pharmacologist looks back in time to remember and learn from the Phamacognocists, whose knowledge formed the basis for modern Pharmacology?

Charles W. Sullivan, D.O.

So yes, it is important that people know about this, so it must be regulated to avoid complications that may be life threatening!

For many, it is a way of life. Telling them they can’t make tea (for example) and sell it at the local market is an infringement on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in the U.S. there are similar amendments to the constitution). But legislation is not made for moral reasons, as any first year law student can tell you. So the question on how to regulate is a thorny one, especially when there is not a level playing field in the political arena for making the decision.

The decision to regulate (and how to regulate) has less to do with good science, as it has to do with which lobby groups get to have the most influence in the final bills.

There is still time to vote against these proposals (the consultation ends on November 2nd) and you’ll find plenty of material at http://dcscience.net.

Like medicines regulation has down and up sides. Government has its own agenda – and the power to impose it: that there concern is health is simplistic if not naive.

The benefits need to be demonstrated or at least argued for. Saying government regulation will be good is an article of faith (where’s the science or evidence?).

“Despite the advances made in conventional medicines, many people live their lives in constant pain and discomfort, and are willing, or desperate, to give anything a try.” Very true. And many have found relief through ‘alternative medicine’. What’s more as many of these successes are after the conventional (usually government subsidised) medicine has failed, each of these can be seen as demonstrating the superiority of the ‘alternative’. It seems that swallowing the unknown may be done for good reason.

Herbs make changes at the physiological level. Of course. So does food.

This article seems confused. It argues for government but doesn’t accept the current regulation (the placing of herbs in the category regulated as food). If the current regulation by government is flawed, why is it a good idea to have more of it? This article doesn’t even seem to be aware of this, let alone attempt to address it.