Regulating Alternative Therapies

By Merill Haseen

IN THIS country, we spend more than £350 million a year on natural remedies, but how do we know they work?

Although many alternative remedies can be as safe and effective as conventional medicine, recent scares about untrained therapists have made many people fearful of trying alternative remedies.

After a year-long investigation, the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has called for alternative remedies to be properly researched and regulated. It  wants complementary practitioners to be trained and registered so they can be struck off in the same ways as GPs if they are incompetent.

At the moment, only two therapies - osteopathy and chiropractics - are regulated by law. There was enough evidence, however, to show that acupuncture and herbal medicine are as effective as conventional medicines - and sometimes far better - than antibiotics, which are increasingly notorious for the risk of unpleasant side effects. Such therapies, the report said, should be properly regulated to protect patients from 'quacks'.

Other treatments, such as crystal therapy, traditional Chinese medicine and iridology, were condemned by the report, because there was 'sparse evidence' that they worked.

One reason why is there so little scientific evidence for many therapies is that pharmaceutical companies won't fund the research. This is because they can't patent the findings and make a profit. For every £100 spent on orthodox medical research, only 8p is spent on complementary therapies.