Volume 189 - Issue 1

Commercialism, choice and consumer protection: regulation of complementary medicines in Australia

Author:  C Scott Masters

Med J Aust 2008; 189 (1): 50-53. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01904.x
Published online: 7 July 2008

To the Editor: Harvey et al1 have a right to be concerned about the parlous state of regulation in the billion-dollar complementary medicine (CM) industry. They are not alone, with various leaders from CM doctor groups and other leaders also expressing concern.2,3

Predictably, those in the CM industry itself are denying any problems exist, and just repeat their mantra that their products are safe and effective.3

As business people, the leaders of the CM industry must be pleased with the unchallenged run they have had over the past 20 years (except for one challenge with the Pan Pharmaceuticals debacle4).

Consider one company (Mannatech) whose multilevel marketed products are promoted by their associates (natural drug representatives) as useful for arthritis, diabetes, dementia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Parkinson’s disease, asthma, cancer and various other chronic diseases. The associates promoted claims that a product, Ambrotose, would assist with the above conditions using literature that did not carry the company logo, and used the company literature for non-specific claims and testimonials, thus absolving the company of responsibility.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration is helpless in such a situation, and it was only when a medical practitioner started selling Mannatech products, including Ambrotose, from his surgery that the state medical board took an interest.5 However, the medical board has no jurisdiction over the company, and when the doctor was deregistered, he would have been able to keep marketing the product for the company.

Mannatech launched Ambrotose in Australia, quoting the benefits of their product from a trial conducted and published in the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association by American immunologist Dr See and colleagues.6 Eighteen months later, the published trial was the subject of much controversy.7 There was little if any effect on the company from this, in stark contrast with what one would expect in the pharmaceutical industry.

Yes, Harvey and colleagues are just starting to scratch the surface of controversies that are decades old in this unregulated industry. For the good of the public and for the good of the CM industry, there needs to be a watchdog, similar to Medicines Australia, to regulate CM.


Author


Competing interests


References