Homeopathic products 'should carry no scientific evidence labels'
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:16 pm
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?s ... id=NDU4Nzk
4MjY3MwS2&sp_mid=35956347
Homeopathic products 'should carry "no scientific evidence" labels'
05 Nov 10
By Steve Nowottny
Homeopathic products are 'clearly not' medicines and should carry labels warning that there is 'no
scientific evidence for homeopathy', the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has said.
Responding to draft guidance on the advertising of homeopathic medicines published by the MHRA this
week, the society expressed concerns that the public does not understand the principles on which
homeopathy is based, and said there was 'general confusion' about the difference between homeopathic
and herbal products.
The society said that labelling on a homepathic product should make it 'very clear' whether the
efficacy of products had actually been demonstrated.
Under current rules, products are allowed to carry claims based on the traditional homeopathic use
of the product.
But the RPS ' chief scientific advisor Jayne Lawrence said:
'Given the lack of clinical and scientific evidence to support homeopathy, the RPSGB does not
endorse homeopathy as a form of treament.'
'The society strongly believes that any advertising for any homeopathic product, regardless of its
licensing status, needs to include the statements that there is no scientific evidence for
homeopathy nor any evidence to support the clinical efficiacy of homeopathic products beyond a
placebo effect.'
Last year the sale of homeopathic and herbal products in pharmacies hit the headlines
after Paul Bennett,
professional standards director at Boots, gave evidence to an inquiry by the House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee.
Mr Bennett admitted to MPs that there was 'no evidence' to prove the efficacy of a range of remedies
sold by the pharmacy giant, such as arnica and St John's wort, but said there was 'certainly a
consumer demand for these products'.
Readers' comments
* Andy Lewis | 04 Nov 10
the label state that there is no reason to believe the product works, but it should also state why:
that the product contains no active ingredient and is just a sugar pill. Anything else is likely to
mislead. And despite the warning that people confuse herbal remedies with homeopathic ones, that is
exactly what this article does as it suggests St John's wort is homeopathic - which it is not - it
is a herbal remedy. Fail. As they say.
Best Regards
Soroush
4MjY3MwS2&sp_mid=35956347
Homeopathic products 'should carry "no scientific evidence" labels'
05 Nov 10
By Steve Nowottny
Homeopathic products are 'clearly not' medicines and should carry labels warning that there is 'no
scientific evidence for homeopathy', the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has said.
Responding to draft guidance on the advertising of homeopathic medicines published by the MHRA this
week, the society expressed concerns that the public does not understand the principles on which
homeopathy is based, and said there was 'general confusion' about the difference between homeopathic
and herbal products.
The society said that labelling on a homepathic product should make it 'very clear' whether the
efficacy of products had actually been demonstrated.
Under current rules, products are allowed to carry claims based on the traditional homeopathic use
of the product.
But the RPS ' chief scientific advisor Jayne Lawrence said:
'Given the lack of clinical and scientific evidence to support homeopathy, the RPSGB does not
endorse homeopathy as a form of treament.'
'The society strongly believes that any advertising for any homeopathic product, regardless of its
licensing status, needs to include the statements that there is no scientific evidence for
homeopathy nor any evidence to support the clinical efficiacy of homeopathic products beyond a
placebo effect.'
Last year the sale of homeopathic and herbal products in pharmacies hit the headlines
after Paul Bennett,
professional standards director at Boots, gave evidence to an inquiry by the House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee.
Mr Bennett admitted to MPs that there was 'no evidence' to prove the efficacy of a range of remedies
sold by the pharmacy giant, such as arnica and St John's wort, but said there was 'certainly a
consumer demand for these products'.
Readers' comments
* Andy Lewis | 04 Nov 10
the label state that there is no reason to believe the product works, but it should also state why:
that the product contains no active ingredient and is just a sugar pill. Anything else is likely to
mislead. And despite the warning that people confuse herbal remedies with homeopathic ones, that is
exactly what this article does as it suggests St John's wort is homeopathic - which it is not - it
is a herbal remedy. Fail. As they say.
Best Regards
Soroush