Reti Shane; Verrall AyeshaDr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. We would like to raise another concern that we have and that industry has and that is around cosmetics which we seek to address in Supplementary Order Paper 371 in my name. The concern we have is that our $1.25 billion cosmetic industry—that's turnover in New Zealand; $400 million export dollars so this is not an insignificant industry at all—is also caught up in the Therapeutic Products Bill.There are concerns that things like products which I've mentioned before—an anti-dandruff shampoo and potentially fluoride in toothpaste; anti-wrinkle cream if you like with retinol for example—could all get caught up in the Therapeutic Products Bill. Currently cosmetics are excluded under the Medicines Act because they are thought to be reasonably regulated under the Cosmetic Products Group Standard. We think that the industry and the 24 manufacturers in New Zealand who manufacture cosmetics think this bill is an overreach and opens up the possibility for reasonable cosmetic products that we all use to be captured and have to go through authorisation processes as well.So in collaboration with industry we have sought to address this in a Supplementary Order Paper which we commend to the House. The Supplementary Order Paper amends the Therapeutic Products Bill. The cosmetic industry is a $1.25 billion industry. The definition of a natural health product in the bill has a very wide and interpretive set of meanings and includes a specific list of ingredients that are widely used in cosmetic products. Such width of definition provides far too much scope to include cosmetic products which might have a health benefit but are not a health product—which might have a health benefit but are not a health product; that's quite important. I've mentioned that anti-wrinkle creams toothpaste and shampoos have health benefits but are well accepted as being cosmetic products globally.There is also a concern around the bill's regulation of the $400 million cosmetic export market. If ingredients that are naturally sourced such as lanolin or lavender were used in a product deemed to be providing a health benefit or a natural health product" under the current definition they could be captured under the bill's scope. In such circumstances the product would require an export licence as well as having to meet any good manufacturing practices the bill determines are required. This would be a barrier to trade. In this circumstance the cost to industry of the bill's regulation would raise pricing for exports and make New Zealand products less competitive or uncompetitive.So we're raising concerns that it is our view that cosmetic products that everyone accepts are reasonably cosmetic products globally—not just domestically as well—will be caught up in this legislation. We're proposing in SOP 371 that they be put aside and that they be regulated under their current regulations which are the Cosmetic Products Group Standard which has been more than adequate and suitable to date. The industry is telling us that if we move away from these if we pass the Therapeutic Products Bill through any stages of authorisation this will make the industry uncompetitive and we may not receive global cosmetic products in New Zealand because of those restrictions. We agree with them and we think this needs to be addressed. This is what we're looking to do in Supplementary Order Paper 371.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I thank the member Shane Reti for that contribution. There is of course an interface between cosmetics and therapeutics and it's important that we address that. The Supplementary Order Paper is a blunt tool in that it prohibits regulation of all cosmetics under this bill and that contains a high risk of unintended consequences. There are some cosmetics which it would be desirable to regulate under this Act. It would be a minority but there would be some that it is appropriate given their intended purposes. One example is a sunscreen with a sun protection factor above a certain level where the intention is to prevent cancer. Another could be a lip balm with natural health product ingredients where the primary purpose is to relieve mild eczema. Some products could be cosmetic and therapeutic products such as dermal fillers and breast implants. Therefore I intend that most cosmetic products would be excluded from regulation under the bill—for example non-sunscreen make-up insect repellents decorative non-corrective contact lenses."