The Therapeutic Products Bill: Separating the Myths from the Facts
Daniel Ryan (February 20, 2023)
The NZ Skeptic's committee has been busy working on our submission for the new Therapeutic Products Bill introduced last year. This new bill aims to regulate therapeutic products in New Zealand, including medicines, medical devices, natural health products, and active pharmaceutical ingredients, to ensure their safety, quality, and efficacy. The Bill will replace the current Medicines Act 1981, Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985, and other minor acts like the Sunscreen Act 2022. The purpose of the Bill is to protect and improve the health of all New Zealanders by regulating therapeutic products across their lifecycle. The Bill will require therapeutic products to receive market authorisation before they can be imported, exported, or supplied in New Zealand. The Bill also regulates controlled activities related to therapeutic products, including manufacturing, supply, exporting, clinical trials, and advertising restrictions. A Therapeutic Products Regulator will be established to oversee these regulatory matters.
Overall this looks to me like a good bill that fixes many flaws in the current Medicines Act. The bill has been through its first reading, and is now accepting submissions until the 5th of March. I wanted to read through some of the already made submissions to get some good ideas of where there are potential issues with the legislation, but what I saw wasn't what I was expecting!
At the time of writing, there are 9500 submissions, and I've read the first 12 pages of them - 240 submissions in all. About 2-3% of the submissions are positive towards the bill, but most are less than a paragraph, with many people complaining about their “freedoms”. One submission was simply the words “No to the bill”.
You can read all the submissions on the Parliament website at:
There is a huge amount of misinformation and scaremongering, and I trust that the Select Committee can filter most of it out. One common misconception I noticed was people arguing that supplements (natural or otherwise) are proactive, preventative, fight sickness/disease, and/or always safe; therefore, they should have no regulation. Of course, this isn't true, but maybe MPs will believe it if enough people repeat it. Looking at the science, most reviews investigating the use of supplements to reduce the risk of chronic diseases have shown little to no benefit, and some studies have also suggested possible risks associated with certain supplements. Here's what I found:
“No clear patterns of associations by study country, gender, smoking status, or frequency of use were observed. Based upon the available scientific evidence to date, supplementation with MVMs does not appear to increase all-cause mortality, cancer incidence or mortality, or CVD incidence or mortality and may provide a modest protective benefit.”
Effects of Nutritional Supplements and Dietary Interventions on Cardiovascular Outcomes (2019):
“Use of omega-3 LC-PUFA and folate supplementation could reduce risk for some cardiovascular outcomes in adults. Combined calcium plus vitamin D might increase risk for stroke.”
Supplemental Vitamins and Minerals for CVD Prevention and Treatment (2018):
“Conclusive evidence for the benefit of any supplement across all dietary backgrounds (including deficiency and sufficiency) was not demonstrated; therefore, any benefits seen must be balanced against possible risks.”
Vitamin and Mineral Supplements for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer (2022):
“Vitamin and mineral supplementation was associated with little or no benefit in preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and death, with the exception of a small benefit for cancer incidence with multivitamin use. Beta carotene was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and other harmful outcomes in persons at high risk of lung cancer.”
For the most part, multivitamins just create 'very expensive yellow urine' at best or, at worst, cause some harm. The media has reported that the supplements industry in NZ is worth over $2 billion. That's a lot of money for products that do very little for the general population. So when I read people's submissions where they say they have been using supplements for their health for decades, it sadly shows they have been scammed for a long time. Here's just one example:
“I have used health supplements almost daily such as vitamin C, D as well as zinc and ashwaganda for over two decades now.”
This isn't evidence of the need for less regulation, as they suggest, but quite the opposite.
Filtering out the obviously crap submissions and duplicates, I have created a list of claims from submissions that could do with debunking.
“What this suggests is that pharmacists are able to sell ingredients for highly addictive drugs and shop assistants can reccomend highly damaging drugs and ingredients that havent met saftey standards.”
“you are wanting to add more to an already overloaded day for someone simply wanting some vitamin c during winter so they don't have to take time off work because of a cold?”
“Natural supplements are proactive, preventative, 'ambulance at the top of the cliff' solutions. We need MORE of these, not LESS.”
“Most supplements taken by New Zealanders are not claiming miracle healing or any nefarious actions and enable most people to be able to ease their own maladies without bothering doctors or over taxed hospitals and improve their own well-being by being self-responsible.”
“it too hard for producers of small natural products. Against the amount of money drug producers are able to bring to the argument, the small producer cannot”
“the use of homeopathic remedies is the alternate solution on our dairy farm and a lot of others”
“NHP are safer than other medicines, we need alternatives so that we can heal sickness the least invasive way”
“We do not have anyone in New Zealand dying from too much vitamin C, or too much magnesium or too much tumeric or garlic.”
“There is no control or brake on what this person /group will be allowed to impose on New Zealanders without any accountability from the voters.”
“The Bill acknowledges that natural health products are very low risk, and yet it would impose complex and expensive regulations on the use of them”
“but there is no data showing deaths from using plantbased medic”
“single person who is the regulator of which substances should be restricted or prohibited is also wrong. This person would be tasked with making decisions about both pharmaceutical products and natural products”
“It is a fundamental right of all people to have access to traditional medicines, be they rongoa Maori, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic healing from India, traditional North American and European herbal remedies”
“There are no clear definitions for what constitutes a natural health practitioner or traditional medicine and traditional practice (Western herbalism, rongoa Maori, TCM, Ayurveda, and other traditional medicine systems should all be included in that, but the question is will they be?). Nor are there any assurances that qualified members of the natural health community will be on the advisory panels, as they should be if this goes ahead”
“Natural therapeutics have been used freely and effectively to support the body to help its self to elevate and fight entailments, sickness and disease for millenniums.”
“Many NHPs mentioned are used regularly in cooking commonly consumed meals (cinnamon, turmeric, oats, ginger, soy, garlic, coca, cloves, celery, mussels, tea and rosemary to name a few). I regularly eat porridge for breakfast. How is regulating oats going to make my breakfast any healthier or more cost effective than it already is?”
“It seems highly likely to result in erosion of the 'free market' and competitive 'choice' for consumers by restricting their purchase options and accessibility. As per the principals of economics, restricted supply results in higher prices, taking choices away from more people due to socio-economic factors as well”
“there would have to be a danger posed from NHP. Clearly there is minimal to none. In fact it is pharmaceuticals that are the third leading cause of death in the USA and Europe”
_“Therapeutic Products Bill: Natural Health Practitioners is illogical, misplaced and should not be passed into law, as over 50% of Aotearoa/New Zealand constituents will testify. Every member of parliament should be well aware of this.”
“I am very concerned after reviewing the prohibited list of 300 and just to name a few, for example; cinnamon, eggplant, coconut, almond, cardamon, jasmine, wormwood, aloe vera, juniper, mustard, just to name a few are on the restricted list.”_
“Clause 252 will make it unsafe for practitioners to talk about their work for fear of fine or imprisonment.”
I urge everyone to make a submission - help balance out the misinformation, show support for the Bill and debunk some codswallop (there's plenty there for everyone!).