Regulating herbalists and herbs in the UK and here

[Guest guest]

The regulation of herbalists in the UK has been based on the Commonwealth

Charter of Henry VIII (1542) guaranteeing herbalists the right to practice

freely through the Commonwealth. This law is still applied both in the UK as

well as its former territories worldwide such as Australia and New Zealand

for instance. In fact many think an argument could be made that the US as a

former British colony has a legal basis for unregulated and free practice

based on the Herbalist's Charter.

 

 

 

The fact is that for over 400 years this has worked pretty well with very

few adverse incidents reportedly occurring especially compared to mainstream

conventional medicine down through the ages to the present. Today because of

the relationship between the UK and the European Union, other European

countries choosing to impose highly restrictive laws limiting the practice

of herbal medicine to medical doctors, has met with stiff opposition from

professional and lay herbalists in the UK. Besides cultural and historical

distinctions such as herbal medicine, that need to be respected and resolved

as the European Union increasingly defines itself the main incentive for the

union is based on globalized financial networks. While most European

countries have converted to the Euro for instance, the UK still uses the

pound sterling as its currency. This tends to create areas where the UK is

seen as 'not fully participatory'. Maintaining an increasingly strained

relationship to the Commonwealth Charter which also happens to guarantee the

rights of the people to unrestricted practice and use of herbs (despite the

imposed restrictions by the government in recent years). So I believe it is

the broader financial consideration that has led once alternative,

homeopathic, acupuncture and herbal advocate, Prince Charles to now promote

similar restrictions on herbal medical practice in the UK similar to those

now in effect in Germany and France for instances.

 

 

 

History repeats itself? " In the Sixteenth Century, as in the Twentieth

Century, licensed physicians and surgeons were going to Court to ban the

activities of the alternative practitioners of their day, the herbalists.

Parliament ordered an end to this misuse of the Courts to enforce licensure,

protecting the nutritionists from " suit, vexation, trouble, penalty, or loss

of their goods... " This ancient Act of Parliament applied to England and the

King's " other dominions " including, of course, the American Colonies, and

later, States. This Act has never been repealed, and thus remains part of

our Common Law to this day, offering protection to alternative

practitioners, " at all Time from henceforth... " as a perpetual Charter of

Rights. " (For more on this please see

http://home.earthlink.net/~lifespirit23/herbcharter.htm). In fact, I see

similar restrictions that have occurred down through the ages in most

countries which amount to nothing more than the petty attempt to protect the

revenue stream of " the professionals " .

 

 

 

The bottom line to consider is if the unrestricted use of herbs is so

dangerous, where are the numbers of dead or injured - compared to the

numbers of iatrogenic and drug related deaths and injuries? There is simply

no comparison but reading Prince Charles present views and the popular press

that is always eager to report the occasional adverse incident from herb

usage. It's unfortunate to me how much this paranoia has affected the herbal

profession where US herbalists, Western, Chinese and Ayurvedic are compelled

to take courses on herb-drug contraindications despite the fact that most of

the information (I'd guestimate 90% is based on conjecture and inference and

not on incident). So many of today's herbalists are imbued with the notion

that herbs are in fact dangerous failing to have a clear understanding to

what a small extent this is true except for the very few toxic substances

that are seldom used.

 

 

 

Some TCM practitioners welcome these restrictions because it builds up the

" profession " by prohibiting non-licensed herbalists to practice and use

herbs. In my opinion, any restriction of popular herbal medical practice,

perhaps except for the use of 'toxic' substances, should remain accessible

to all. Why? Well it may be my own bias but when I began learning herbal

medicine, my path at first was self taught. It served my own and a

generation of accomplished American herbalists very well to " learn by

doing " . Despite all of this there were few serious adverse incidents. Since

then, of course standards have risen which I welcome. However, I think

restricting herbal use solely to a body of " professionals " violates the

empirical basis upon which herbal medicine has and continues to evolve. Much

of what is known about individual herbal use does not come from the

professionals but from the process of trial and error down through the ages.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps those who advocate this level of restriction fail to recognize that

the same attempt to restrict herbal practice to professionals in various

European countries led to the majority of people who either had no faith in

nor could afford professional counsel being cut off from the greater popular

herbal tradition. In Europe this was done both by law as well as having

texts only in Latin, a language reserved for the medical and legal

profession. This led to the publication of Culpepper's Herbal in 16th

century England. Culpepper saw that the people were being underserved

medically while the " professionals " debated in the 'halls of ivy' rarified

questions regarding modes of practice and use. As a result he attained near

heroic stature by translating these Latinate texts into common English,

again liberating the empirically based knowledge of the ancestors available

to all.

 

 

 

In Traditional some may not like the fact that it's

'standoffish' antiquated medical jargon barely understood by most

practitioners has a similar effect in preserving the " profession " of Chinese

herbalism. Still, at least in China most herbs and patent formulas remain

available to the masses. We also increasingly hear how in China, a large

number of herbs that are not part of the " official " Chinese Materia Medica

are being called for and used by Chinese doctors based on their own

empirical knowledge of use from the regions they originated.

 

 

 

I know that it may be controversial but professions be damned, I stand for

the free use of herbs by all people as a birthright if only to protect the

empirical stream source of knowledge that we all are privileged to partake.

 

 

 

I think no matter how freely available herbal medicine is for all people

there will always be a place for the passionately dedicated professional so

I don't see the threat from keeping the medicinal use of herbs away from the

lay or unlicensed practitioner.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8388985.stm

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Michael I started with you 25 years ago. It was a simple beginning and a story

of making tinctures in Mother Earth News. I laughed and thought your article was

quaint but, your product didn't compare to modern medicine. The next day a bee

sting and some plantain in the garden changed my life forever and the lives of

thousands I have shared and helped because of you. An herbalist showing a

beginning herbalist. And I still don't have a license!

Thank you,

Patrick Edgmon

--- On Wed, 12/2/09, Michael Tierra <mtierra wrote:

 

Michael Tierra <mtierra

Regulating herbalists and herbs in the UK and here

 

Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 12:19 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The regulation of herbalists in the UK has been based on the Commonwealth

 

Charter of Henry VIII (1542) guaranteeing herbalists the right to practice

 

freely through the Commonwealth. This law is still applied both in the UK as

 

well as its former territories worldwide such as Australia and New Zealand

 

for instance. In fact many think an argument could be made that the US as a

 

former British colony has a legal basis for unregulated and free practice

 

based on the Herbalist's Charter.

 

 

 

The fact is that for over 400 years this has worked pretty well with very

 

few adverse incidents reportedly occurring especially compared to mainstream

 

conventional medicine down through the ages to the present. Today because of

 

the relationship between the UK and the European Union, other European

 

countries choosing to impose highly restrictive laws limiting the practice

 

of herbal medicine to medical doctors, has met with stiff opposition from

 

professional and lay herbalists in the UK. Besides cultural and historical

 

distinctions such as herbal medicine, that need to be respected and resolved

 

as the European Union increasingly defines itself the main incentive for the

 

union is based on globalized financial networks. While most European

 

countries have converted to the Euro for instance, the UK still uses the

 

pound sterling as its currency. This tends to create areas where the UK is

 

seen as 'not fully participatory' . Maintaining an increasingly strained

 

relationship to the Commonwealth Charter which also happens to guarantee the

 

rights of the people to unrestricted practice and use of herbs (despite the

 

imposed restrictions by the government in recent years). So I believe it is

 

the broader financial consideration that has led once alternative,

 

homeopathic, acupuncture and herbal advocate, Prince Charles to now promote

 

similar restrictions on herbal medical practice in the UK similar to those

 

now in effect in Germany and France for instances.

 

 

 

History repeats itself? " In the Sixteenth Century, as in the Twentieth

 

Century, licensed physicians and surgeons were going to Court to ban the

 

activities of the alternative practitioners of their day, the herbalists.

 

Parliament ordered an end to this misuse of the Courts to enforce licensure,

 

protecting the nutritionists from " suit, vexation, trouble, penalty, or loss

 

of their goods... " This ancient Act of Parliament applied to England and the

 

King's " other dominions " including, of course, the American Colonies, and

 

later, States. This Act has never been repealed, and thus remains part of

 

our Common Law to this day, offering protection to alternative

 

practitioners, " at all Time from henceforth.. . " as a perpetual Charter of

 

Rights. " (For more on this please see

 

http://home. earthlink. net/~lifespirit2 3/herbcharter. htm). In fact, I see

 

similar restrictions that have occurred down through the ages in most

 

countries which amount to nothing more than the petty attempt to protect the

 

revenue stream of " the professionals " .

 

 

 

The bottom line to consider is if the unrestricted use of herbs is so

 

dangerous, where are the numbers of dead or injured - compared to the

 

numbers of iatrogenic and drug related deaths and injuries? There is simply

 

no comparison but reading Prince Charles present views and the popular press

 

that is always eager to report the occasional adverse incident from herb

 

usage. It's unfortunate to me how much this paranoia has affected the herbal

 

profession where US herbalists, Western, Chinese and Ayurvedic are compelled

 

to take courses on herb-drug contraindications despite the fact that most of

 

the information (I'd guestimate 90% is based on conjecture and inference and

 

not on incident). So many of today's herbalists are imbued with the notion

 

that herbs are in fact dangerous failing to have a clear understanding to

 

what a small extent this is true except for the very few toxic substances

 

that are seldom used.

 

 

 

Some TCM practitioners welcome these restrictions because it builds up the

 

" profession " by prohibiting non-licensed herbalists to practice and use

 

herbs. In my opinion, any restriction of popular herbal medical practice,

 

perhaps except for the use of 'toxic' substances, should remain accessible

 

to all. Why? Well it may be my own bias but when I began learning herbal

 

medicine, my path at first was self taught. It served my own and a

 

generation of accomplished American herbalists very well to " learn by

 

doing " . Despite all of this there were few serious adverse incidents. Since

 

then, of course standards have risen which I welcome. However, I think

 

restricting herbal use solely to a body of " professionals " violates the

 

empirical basis upon which herbal medicine has and continues to evolve. Much

 

of what is known about individual herbal use does not come from the

 

professionals but from the process of trial and error down through the ages.

 

 

 

Perhaps those who advocate this level of restriction fail to recognize that

 

the same attempt to restrict herbal practice to professionals in various

 

European countries led to the majority of people who either had no faith in

 

nor could afford professional counsel being cut off from the greater popular

 

herbal tradition. In Europe this was done both by law as well as having

 

texts only in Latin, a language reserved for the medical and legal

 

profession. This led to the publication of Culpepper's Herbal in 16th

 

century England. Culpepper saw that the people were being underserved

 

medically while the " professionals " debated in the 'halls of ivy' rarified

 

questions regarding modes of practice and use. As a result he attained near

 

heroic stature by translating these Latinate texts into common English,

 

again liberating the empirically based knowledge of the ancestors available

 

to all.

 

 

 

In Traditional some may not like the fact that it's

 

'standoffish' antiquated medical jargon barely understood by most

 

practitioners has a similar effect in preserving the " profession " of Chinese

 

herbalism. Still, at least in China most herbs and patent formulas remain

 

available to the masses. We also increasingly hear how in China, a large

 

number of herbs that are not part of the " official " Chinese Materia Medica

 

are being called for and used by Chinese doctors based on their own

 

empirical knowledge of use from the regions they originated.

 

 

 

I know that it may be controversial but professions be damned, I stand for

 

the free use of herbs by all people as a birthright if only to protect the

 

empirical stream source of knowledge that we all are privileged to partake.

 

 

 

I think no matter how freely available herbal medicine is for all people

 

there will always be a place for the passionately dedicated professional so

 

I don't see the threat from keeping the medicinal use of herbs away from the

 

lay or unlicensed practitioner.

 

 

 

http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/health/ 8388985.stm

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, however... I don't see the problem as between CM (or other)

licensed practitioners and the " lay practitioner " but between these two groups

against large and small corporate interests that take advantage of our relative

freedoms to sell products in a dangerous way. (Note I didn't say dangerous

products themselves.)

 

 

 

Doug

 

 

 

, " Michael Tierra " <mtierra wrote:

>

> The regulation of herbalists in the UK has been based on the Commonwealth

> Charter of Henry VIII (1542) guaranteeing herbalists the right to practice

> freely through the Commonwealth. This law is still applied both in the UK as

> well as its former territories worldwide such as Australia and New Zealand

> for instance. In fact many think an argument could be made that the US as a

> former British colony has a legal basis for unregulated and free practice

> based on the Herbalist's Charter.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Fantastic! And congratulations for pursuing a noble solitary path out of

devotion and love – and of course it brings its own reward. Today too many

enter this work with the purpose of career. It is understandable but is it

possible that something is missing compared to those who come to it because of

some profound inner calling? Nurturing that inner calling in others to me seems

of paramount importance and unfortunately the training programs leading to

licensure create so many distractions and ordeals that it is a wonder that

people graduate with more than a feeling that “I’m now a “professionalâ€

and it’s been a long, arduous and expensive road and what right does any

non-professional have to infringe on my turf?â€

 

 

 

Professionalism has certain benefits and virtues but let’s not forget that it

comes as a potential threat to losing the spirit that has motivated many of us

to crazily chase after weeds, plants and eagerly find ways to use them to safely

alleviate the suffering of others. Fortunately there are still many of those

around and I think we should think twice before we support legislation that

would restrict them from pursuing their path of healing.

 

 

 

I just received a letter from a former student and friend from the UK who said

in response to my narrative that

 

 

 

“I agree - unfortunately what has been happening in UK is that it was felt by

the powers that be that herbal medicine either had to be regulated or banned

entirely - so herbal bodies agreed to compromise and go for self regulation

(i.e. Herbal Registers wd get together to exclude non registered or unqualified

practitioners - and agree on what herbs cd be used etc.) This appeared to many

of us to be a huge compromise but the best of two evils. Ten years of time and

energy went into this regulation process - discussions with department of health

and EU bodies etc and then the government pulled the plug and left us back at

square one looking as though herbal practice could be banned entirely. Prince

Charles is supportive of the regulated practice of herbal medicine and fights

that corner.

 

Good news today is that it looks like I've been appointed onto the EU

accreditation board - God I hate beaurocracy! and am not a good committee member

- but will be good to know exactly what is going on and be able to stick in my 2

cents worth. Will keep you informed.†John Smith, UK herbalist

 

 

 

The above occurred especially with eager and willing participation from the

‘professionals’ – the more legal herbalists (i.e. the ones who graduated

from accredited programs and could obtain practice insurance), the licensed

acupuncturists, the homeopaths, naturopaths, etc.

 

 

 

These people felt flattered to be counted among the ‘elect’. Their false

sense of importance caused them to lose sight of consequences from negotiating

with the devil.

 

 

 

What we (both professionals and lay practitioners) need to do instead is to

strengthen our organization (s) and accumulate the kind of political and

financial power that can empower them to represent our interests for the good of

all.

 

 

 

Every s often we hear of an attempt to ban from practice certain herbs such as

ephedra and prepared aconite for instance, that I think are irreplaceable in a

TCM practice. Usually this results in some cow towing compromise and a

impediment to practice.

 

 

 

We also allow grossly exaggerated claims of the dangers of certain herbs,

products to circulate and ultimately come back to generate suspicion with us to

the point that we question the validity of our own and our older colleagues and

peers regarding the safety of products – thus we have the new GMP guidelines

imposed on our practice. How much of a threat was there from the Appalachian

backwoods herbalist who brewed up concoctions in a cabin along the Ohio river?

 

 

 

Increased regulation always means a certain restriction for some and represents

a potential advantage for others. The result however for all is that with

increased control solely from people, politics, who don’t have a clue about

herbal usage, represents a threat to all.

 

 

 

I have my own ideas as to recourse but I’m not sure they will work because

they only emanate from my limited perspective. More people, especially

herbalists – Chinese, Western, Ayurvedic, folk herbalists, etc. need to be

involved in the discussion. Getting these people to agree on anything is another

matter altogether.

 

 

 

I see nothing wrong with restricting certain herbs from popular commercial

products because without studied appreciation of their appropriate use, harm can

be done. However, bottom line, plants grow anywhere and everywhere i.e. the

attempt to restrict the growing and use of marijuana, and we cannot allow the

reckless use of a few to adversely restrict the wise use of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think I agree with you but I'm not entirely sure what you mean " large

corporate interests " . The ephedra debacle stemmed from a misuse of a great

herb but I would see these as herbally ignorant 'opportunists' rather than

large corporate interests. Nevertheless, there seems to be some credible

dispute as to whether concentrated ephedra extract actually did the damage

that was claimed. So the question is similar to the previous ban on

'cholestrin " based on the use of " red yeast rice " to lower cholesterol by

companies manufacturing similar statin drugs and investing millions of

dollars testing their efficacy - petitioning the FDA to ban the promotion of

'cholestrin' and red yeast rice as a legitimate alternative.

 

 

 

So it is a problem with the regulatory system - not the herb and to some

extent not even the companies involved - though I'd hardly say that Big

Pharma would avoid an exploitive opportunity to satisfy the demands of its

greedy stockholders.

 

 

 

I think we need to be cautious of over simplistic, " david and goliath " " us

against them " reasoning. The more meaningful path is to form and support

organizations that have the capacity to represent the interests of

herbalists. Someone once said that chiropractors for instance, have over a

hundred 'non-chiropractic' modalities allowed as 'their standard of

practice " . The reason is because they are willing to make a commitment to

pay monthly to support their representative organizations. In contrast, most

licensed acupuncturists are content with paying for their annual license

renewal.

 

 

 

Michael Tierra

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:34 AM

 

Re: Regulating herbalists and herbs in the UK and here

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you, however... I don't see the problem as between CM (or

other) licensed practitioners and the " lay practitioner " but between these

two groups against large and small corporate interests that take advantage

of our relative freedoms to sell products in a dangerous way. (Note I didn't

say dangerous products themselves.)

 

Doug

 

 

<%40> , " Michael Tierra "

<mtierra wrote:

>

> The regulation of herbalists in the UK has been based on the Commonwealth

> Charter of Henry VIII (1542) guaranteeing herbalists the right to practice

> freely through the Commonwealth. This law is still applied both in the UK

as

> well as its former territories worldwide such as Australia and New Zealand

> for instance. In fact many think an argument could be made that the US as

a

> former British colony has a legal basis for unregulated and free practice

> based on the Herbalist's Charter.

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think we agree also. And you have laid out well the difficulties. What a

licensed person has is a license to take away. I imagine that there are herbal

societies which could - but nobody would want this - " license " herb use. We also

have to distinguish between herbal hobbiests, family and the local (or

corporate) health food store. And as I understand it, as an LAc. , I don't

really " prescribe " or perhaps that is the unlicensed person. I agree that herbs

are not the problem as much as Western Medicines.

 

Doug

 

 

 

, " Michael Tierra " <mtierra wrote:

>

> I think I agree with you but I'm not entirely sure what you mean " large

> corporate interests " . The ephedra debacle stemmed from a misuse of a great

> herb but I would see these as herbally ignorant 'opportunists' rather than

> large corporate interests. Nevertheless, there seems to be some credible

> dispute as to whether concentrated ephedra extract actually did the damage

> that was claimed. So the question is similar to the previous ban on

> 'cholestrin " based on the use of " red yeast rice " to lower cholesterol by

> companies manufacturing similar statin drugs and investing millions of

> dollars testing their efficacy - petitioning the FDA to ban the promotion of

> 'cholestrin' and red yeast rice as a legitimate alternative.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

My path is not just love and devotion, I've made a few bucks along the way.

(herbdx.com) But I didn't just shoot from the hip. Your training is excellent

Michael. It gave me a well rounded perspective of multiple system of healing and

solutions.I would think as a simple solution a list of 30 herbs of concern and a

few situations of current problems related to herbs and some recommended

guidelines with a short test done on a yearly basis would be a good way to keep

us lay people current. ABC has a program like this.

(http://abc.herbalgram.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Programs_Services#HIC)

This type of a basic training included in all herbal schools might be a good

start. As for making it a requirement? Maybe only if you plan on recommending

herbs of concern? I'm not against safety training, even something through Red

Cross might work. We might even consider this like getting a drivers license.

And some of the people out there with drivers licenses scare the hell out of me

but they passed the test!

p edgmon