Nature's Healers

Back to Articles Index

Who Benefits From Regulation Of Herbalists?

The European Commission plans to introduce regulation of herbal medicines throughout the EU. The stated aims are to protect the consumer and improve the quality of herbal products. (1)

Parallel to this legislation, sections of the herb industry call for regulation of herbalists with the same stated aims -- to improve safety and quality. (1) (8)

A similar system of statutory standardisation of herbalists and self-regulation is proposed in the United States of America. (2)

Herbalists who are in favour of standardisation and regulation are those who want to practice in the health care system on an equal standing with doctors, with access to research funds. This aim requires state recognition. (1)

State recognition requires a system of statutory self-regulation and certification. The European Herbal Practitioners Association has been set up to create a curriculum, a professional development scheme, a disciplinary code and a code of ethics. (3)

Michael McIntyre writes that the Department of Health proposes the use of ‘legally protected titles’ for complementary practitioners such as ‘herbal practitioner’ so that the public can identify qualified practitioners.

The Regulatory Council will validate the training and certification of herbalists. (4) Registered herbalists will only be allowed to use certain herbs on a list agreed by the Regulatory Council. (1) (4)

The Proposed Regulatory Model for Traditional Medicines calls for similar regulation of herbalists in the United States as in Europe.

Self-regulating license boards composed of self-certified members will set the standards for the profession. (8) Herbal practitioners will be restricted to use only herbs on a list determined by the authority of the license board. (6)

Susun Weed objects to the proposal that an ‘authority’ will have the power to tell herbalists what herbs they can and cannot use. She points out that many herbs are ‘nourishing foods, tonics, alteratives, and non-medicine helpers’. To label nettle or oat straw as ‘medicine’ would take away the right to use herbs traditionally. (5)

Michael Moore, Director of Southwest School of Botanical Medicine Bisbee, Arizona, objects that the authorised herb list is severely limited and does not reflect American usage. Many of the plants Moore uses will not be allowed. The list represents only those plants used in the manufacture of drugs, not those used by herbalists. (6)

Regulation is designed to conform to the conventional Western approach to medicine. Buhner claims that the ‘science-based Western’ approach creates disease rather than curing it. For example, it still teaches that the heart is merely a pump, but new research shows that the heart is a sensory part of the brain that sends and receives information to and from the brain via sensory neurons. Buhner compares this to the wisdom of the ancient traditions that recognise the heart as ‘the seat of consciousness. (8)

The lack of understanding of the flexibility of DNA and the ‘intelligence’ of bacteria has created antibiotic resistant bacteria that kill 100,000 people in the US per year. Thousands of people are injured, permanently disabled, and sometimes killed by ‘properly prescribed’ drugs every day. Compared to the harm from pharmaceuticals, traditional herbalism is very safe. (8)

The science-based Western medical institutions and industries are Eurocentric and discriminatory. The stated aims of the House of Lords' report on ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ is to develop ‘integrated medicine’ -- a combination of ‘the best’ complementary and alternative medicine with ‘ the best’ conventional medicine. However, due to the Eurocentric approach, traditions such as Ayurveda and Chinese medicine are ascribed a low status. This indicates that traditional herbalists will not be treated on an equal basis under the new legislation. (1)

Stephen Harrod Buhner objects to the dominance of medical science and the exclusion of alternative perspectives. Certification means that herbalists will be trained in a ‘science-based, Western system of botanical medicine’. Other approaches such as wise woman or community folk practitioners will be denied the right to practice. (8)

Susun Weed claims that the best training and ‘certification’ of herbalists already exists in the apprentice system. (7) Moore is in agreement with Weed that the best herb ‘schools’ are apprenticeships, but they would not be recognised under the new proposals. (6)

Buhner compares the self-certification of herbalists to the guilds of medieval Europe, which existed to protect the wealth and power of a few by restricting entry into trades. (8) Those who own the educational institutions also design the criteria for licensure. The pharmaceutical and phytopharmaceutical industries will be in control of the training and certification of herbalists. (8)

Licensing laws exist to protect vested interests of wealthy institutions. They do not guarantee safety or quality for the consumer. Studies show that medical licensure leads to poorer care, higher prices, less innovation, and aggressive protectionism. (8)

Regulation means control -- it does not mean safety or quality. Licensing laws exist for the protection of the vested interests of pharmaceutical and phytopharmaceutical industries, not to protect consumers from harm or raise quality. (8) The evidence of this is in the fact that the list of permitted herbs represents only plants used in the manufacture of drugs, not those used by herbalists. (6)

The wisdom, knowledge and innovation of the traditional practitioners will be stifled and outlawed. Licensing takes away the right to use herbs traditionally. It will rob us of nature’s stores of nutrients and healing. It will deny us the right to give and receive holistic healing. (5) (7) Does history repeat itself? I wonder how long it will be before people will be prosecuted for the use of wild herbs -- and ‘witch-hunting’ begins again.

The idea of ‘integrated medicine’ is an attempt to absorb alternative, complementary and traditional healing into conventional medical practice. This is a contradiction in terms -- an impossible concept. As soon as you turn something into the conventional, it is no longer alternative, complementary or traditional. It takes away all the benefits that alternative, complementary and traditional medicine offers.

Regulation of herbalists benefits the few at the expense of the many. It only makes sense if it is viewed as a means of eradicating the competition that alternative, complementary and traditional practitioners present. Those who will benefit most from regulation of herbalists are the pharmaceutical and phytopharmaceutical industries, and the ‘science-based’ practitioners who seek to protect territory and increase their income. (8)

© Martha Magenta 2006.

Sources