Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 05 Mar 2003

05 Mar 2003 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Food Supplements<br />(European Directive)

Fergusson, Alex Con South of Scotland Watch on SPTV

The legislation in question is said to be about food safety, but as Shona Robison has pointed out, the products are already fully regulated under current food safety laws, which is a far more stringent approach than the pharmaceutical-style regulations that are being introduced. It is statistically proven that someone is far more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to die from taking food supplements—unless we are talking about Murdo Fraser, in which case the lightning probably goes out.

We should contrast that situation with that of pharmaceutical drugs, which result in a multitude of deaths and serious reactions in the UK. Indeed, those serious reactions put a weight on the NHS. Given that, I find the arguments pretty hard to follow. If the arguments are that the supplements are not safe, why has the EU and the Government allowed them to continue to be sold to somewhere between 2005 and 2009?

If the argument is not about food safety, we should try to find out what it is about. Margo MacDonald hit the nail on the head when she mentioned the word "harmonisation". Harmonisation within the EU will essentially bring the more liberal market in the UK and Holland down to a level playing field in line with other EU countries that have very different traditions, diets and health problems.

We should also consider who would benefit from the legislation. It seems to me that the biggest beneficiaries will be large multinational companies that supply lowest common denominator, low-level products through the mass market. The pharmaceutical companies, which have already been mentioned, will also benefit. They are already losing market share and are suffering from declining consumer confidence in some of their products.

Not only do we need to consider who would benefit, we should also think about who would lose out. First, there are the small specialist retailers that sell low-volume tailored products to a well-informed customer base with a specific health requirement. Secondly, professional nutritionists would lose their livelihood. Thirdly—and most important of all—the sick, the elderly and women would lose out. After all, 47 per cent of women use food supplements. That statistic is borne out even by the Food Standards Agency.

As a result, the issue becomes one of freedom of choice and therefore one of basic human rights. People have the right to choose cigarettes and alcohol, but after 2005 they will not have the right to choose positively for what they see as their own health requirements.

Many chronically ill people who have conditions such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy, and parents of children with conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder and—from personal experience—myalgic encephalomyelitis, believe that such products are vital to them. Frankly, it does not matter whether the medical profession, politicians or ill people believe that: the real question is whether the products are safe. The answer is an unequivocal yes, which leaves us with the question that I hope the minister can answer—why on earth is this being done?

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 05 Mar 2003

In the same item of business