Bridges Simon: Natural Health Products Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Natural Health Products Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8808. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources)  
on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move  
That the Natural Health Products Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Health Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the Natural Health Products Bill. I would also like to give particular acknowledgment to the work of the excellent chair of the committee Dr Paul Hutchison. The committee has recommended a number of amendments to the bill which the Government will be supporting. I would also like to thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee who provided important feedback on some technical aspects of the bill which has been taken into account. 
The Natural Health Products Bill began its parliamentary life in 2011. It was developed by the Government in conjunction with the Green Party pursuant to a memorandum of understanding signed in 2009. At this point in proceedings I would like to acknowledge the work of Sue Kedgley and more recently that of Mojo Mathers for the constructive way they have worked with the Government in helping to give the bill its current shape. 
The Government is particularly grateful to the Green Party for agreeing to be involved in the development of the regulations that will quickly follow the enactment of this bill. We acknowledge that the bill leaves some material for regulations that some submitters would have preferred to see in primary legislation. The regulations will set out technical detail that is not appropriate for primary legislation. The Government with the Green Party’s help is determined to get these regulations right. 
The purpose of the bill is to establish a regulatory regime in New Zealand for natural health and supplementary products in accordance with four principles: first these products where sold must be fit for human use; second their regulation must be proportionate to the generally low risk of harm they pose; third they are sold only with information that is accurate and tells consumers about their risks and benefits; and fourth and finally claims of health benefits are backed by scientific evidence or evidence of traditional use. 
The Government acknowledges that most of these products demonstrably pose little or no risk of harm to the people who use them. However it is clear that some form of consumer protection is warranted. At the very least people are entitled to have confidence that the products they buy with the intention of protecting or promoting their own health are sanitary contain all and only those ingredients they purport to contain and have some chance of doing what they claim. The New Zealand public and indeed New Zealand law would not for example tolerate the sale of an air-conditioning unit that did nothing but waft asbestos through a building while failing to cool the air. Similarly we do not intend to tolerate the sale of products that are not true to their labels are not true to their claims and may indeed be harmful. 
In all of human endeavour nothing is wholly effective and wholly without risk. This applies to the promotion of human health in medical science and in the field of natural health and supplementary products. In the case of medicines many of which are very new chemicals at the cutting edge of science the Government requires rigorous scientific assessment before treatments are brought to the New Zealand market. Although by no means perfect this is appropriate. The history of medical science shows that a number of treatments have had to be withdrawn after they were discovered sometimes by tragic consequences to do more harm than good. 
Natural health and supplementary products belong in a different category. Many of these have been in continuous use for centuries and have never harmed anybody. On the other hand some of these products have shown little evidence of effectiveness. The challenge is to achieve a sensible regulatory regime that protects consumers acknowledges people’s right to make decisions about their own health and does not have a large negative impact on industry. 
This bill creates the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Regulatory Authority as well as an advisory committee. The authority is to oversee the pre-market notification of products. To bring a product to market a notifier must tell the authority what is in it and it must consist solely of things from an open-ended list of permitted ingredients. There is also to be a list of forbidden ingredients which will include prescription medicines and controlled drugs. The notifier must hold evidence either scientific evidence or evidence of traditional use to back up any claims of health benefit being made for the product. The notifier must provide the authority with that evidence if it is decided that a claim for a particular product warrants further investigation and a summary of the evidence must be made publicly available. 
There will be a publicly accessible database created and maintained by the authority of all notified products. A code of manufacturing practice will apply to all products. The most significant change made to the bill in the select committee relates to serious conditions. As initially drafted the bill prevented any health claim being made that related to a serious condition. Everyone on the select committee agreed that it was important to make sure people were not discouraged from seeking clinical advice when necessary. This is still the intention of the bill. 
What was found during the select committee’s consideration of the bill was that there is no definition of “serious condition” that worked. Either they were too loose and left the way open for excessive claims to be made or they were too tight and would prevent claims being made about things like the relief of the symptoms of hay fever. The solution we have found is to allow the regulator to publish a list of conditions that sellers will be able to make claims about. This does not restrict any other claim just ones about specific conditions. We expect the list to be long. We look forward to working with the Greens and the industry to make sure it is comprehensive. 
There has been some concern expressed that we have changed the nature of the scheme. We have been told that it is now a pre-approval scheme rather than easy and simple self-notification. This is not true. Indeed it is precisely because this is not a pre-approval scheme that we have to do it this way. In other countries that regulate these products there are pre-approval schemes. All claims have to be assessed by the regulator before they can be made. That means they do not have to be as careful in their definitions because there is a check on everything that goes to market but it adds time and it adds expense. The Government is committed to a low-cost low-compliance scheme and this bill reflects that.