Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 
                Statutory Instrument 1387

A report concerning the Standing Committee debate and vote to translate the EU Food Supplements Directive into English law, with associated background material.

Prepared by Paul Anthony Taylor               paulandpolly@btinternet.com

Introduction

One of the most controversial aspects surrounding this Standing Committee meeting was the allegation that the Labour Whips, and in particular Jim Fitzpatrick MP (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's household), had “packed” the Committee and removed from it those Labour MPs who were intending to vote against the legislation. Evidence to back up this claim first began to emerge on Tuesday 1st July, two days before the Standing Committee meeting itself. 

Following my receipt of these allegations I was contacted on Tuesday 1st July by David Cooper, a campaigner known to me. David told me that he had had a phone-call from Kate Hoey MP, one of the original members of the Committee, and said that Kate had told him that she was very supportive of the campaign to oppose implementation of the legislation. Moreover, she informed him that because she was going to vote against the bill she had been removed from the Committee. 

It was with this background in mind that I made the trip to London on Wednesday 3rd July, to accompany Lord Duncan McNair on his lobbying and attend the Standing Committee meeting as a public observer. 

Wednesday 2nd July

Upon our arrival at Westminster we spoke briefly to Earl Howe, who informed us that the Opposition had not imposed a three-line whip on the vote in the House of Lords on Monday 30th June. Earl Howe went on to say that this made the Lords victory even more impressive, and that a turnout of over two hundred in the Lords for a debate that was held during the dinner hour was quite remarkable. 

Once we reached Central Lobby it became immediately apparent that there was indeed a concerted attempt underway to “pack” the Committee and remove from it those Labour MPs who were intending to vote against the legislation. Furthermore it also became clear that the new Committee would not be named until Thursday morning, which gave lobbyists virtually no time to contact them.

Despite these difficulties however Lord McNair succeeded in obtaining an updated list of the new Committee members at around 5.30pm in the afternoon. (See Appendix One for a list of the original Committee members). The list of Committee members was now as follows (new members marked as NEW): 

Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire Moorlands, Labour) NEW
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)
Ross Cranston (Dudley North, Labour) NEW
Geraint Davies (Croydon Central, Labour) NEW 
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
Mr William Hague (Richmond Yorkshire, Conservative) NEW
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
Miss Melanie Johnson (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)
John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour) NEW
Mr Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham, Liberal Democrat)
Mr Gwyn Prosser (Dover, Labour)
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West, Labour)
Claire Ward (Watford, Labour) NEW

As can be seen, the Labour Party had by this time replaced five of its original committee members, four of whom had previously signed Early Day Motions calling upon the Government to take urgent action to address the serious problems brought about by the Food Supplements Directive. With regard to the Conservatives replacing David Treddinick with William Hague, it is notable that when Lord McNair spoke to Treddinick on the internal House of Commons telephone line he was completely unaware that he had been replaced. He was very angry about this; which was quite understandable as he has long been a supporter of the natural health movement. 

Dr. Robert Verkerk and David Hinde of the Alliance for Natural Health had provided us in advance with briefing documents for distribution to the sixteen Committee members. Lord McNair’s assessment at this stage was that because of the lateness of the hour we should concentrate our efforts upon ensuring that the documents were delivered immediately to the offices of the sixteen MPs, rather than waste time attempting to arrange meetings with them. He was also concerned at this stage as to whether some of the Labour Party Committee members might change again overnight. A further complication also arose in that many MPs were attending the Rhodes scholars centenary celebration in Westminster Hall, at which Nelson Mandela, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were speaking. After we had relabelled the briefing documents with the new Committee members’ names in Central Lobby, Lord McNair managed to deliver them just in advance of a Division Bell sounding in the Lobby at 7pm. This then done, Lord McNair decided that there was nothing more that we could do that evening, and I retired back to my hotel.

Thursday 3rd July

Upon arriving at the House of Commons Lord McNair made immediate enquiries as to the latest news regarding the membership of the Committee. The list that we obtained, shortly before 1pm, showed two further changes to the list that we had obtained the previous evening; namely that Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham, Conservative) had been replaced by Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh, Conservative), and Mr William Hague (Richmond Yorkshire, Conservative) had been replaced by Mr David Tredinnick (Bosworth, Conservative).

At around 1.30pm Lord Mcnair spoke to Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat) by telephone, who informed him that he would not be attending the meeting because he had “an engagement in Harrogate that came up at the last minute”. At this point it was not clear who, if anybody would be replacing Dr. Harris. Whilst there is no evidence to doubt the explanation for his absence, it is notable that following the debate in the House of Commons on January 20th Dr. Harris voted for both the Opposition motion (division 57) and the Government amendment (division 58). Bearing this fact in mind it is very difficult to ascertain what Dr. Harris’ voting intentions would have been had he actually been in attendance at the Standing Committee meeting. 

The Standing Committee meeting

The meeting was held at 2.30pm in Committee Room 12 at the House of Commons. The fourteen (14) Committee members present were:

Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire Moorlands, Labour)
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)
Ross Cranston (Dudley North, Labour)
Geraint Davies (Croydon Central, Labour)
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh, Conservative)
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative)
Miss Melanie Johnson (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour – Junior Minister for Health)
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove, Conservative)
Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)
John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour)
Mr Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham, Liberal Democrat)
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West, Labour)
Mr David Tredinnick (Bosworth, Conservative)
Claire Ward (Watford, Labour)

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour) was the Chairman
Dr. Harrison was the Clerk.

The following MPs also attended, but were not allowed to vote:

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West, Conservative) 
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall, Labour) 
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East, Labour) 
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative) 
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

The meeting opened with Chris Grayling raising a point of order in relation to the removing of at least two Labour Members from the Committee against their wishes because they said that they would support the prayer against the directive. Mr Grayling asked whether the Chairman had the ability to make representations through the Chairmen's Panel about the propriety of such actions, and whether he know of rules that might show the Government that such behaviour is unacceptable. The Chairman replied that there was nothing that he could do about the situation and that such moves should be made through the usual channels. He added that the Junior Health Minister (Miss Melanie Johnson) could discuss it further in the Whips Office, if she so wishes. David Wilshire then asked the Chairman could he express his concern to the Government “at their yet again showing another example of their jackboot approach and determination to stamp on this place and parliamentary democracy, if any honourable Members so much as say that they have doubts about the Government's dictatorial attitude” and continued by asking the Chairman would he “ask the Government to return to a belief in democracy and to behave themselves?” The Chairman replied that this was not a point of order, and that the debate on this matter should be ended. 

Chris Grayling opened the debate proper by saying that the views of thousands of people throughout the country who have signed petitions and made seemingly endless representations to hon. Members and Ministers are not being listened to. Not only that, he said, but “their views are being treated with complete contempt and disdain by the Government and the Labour party, with some honourable exceptions.” Mr. Grayling continued by reminding the Committee that when the matter was brought to the House of Commons in January 2003 through early-day motion 278, which was signed by 220 MPs, not one Labour Member who had previously signed the early-day motion was willing to back the issue when it came to the House. “It is tragic,” he said “that the directive will have a significant impact on patients, businesses and a significant sector of our society and economy.” 

He continued by describing the effect that the directive will have upon the list of nutrients that we can currently buy from health food shops and supermarkets, saying that of the products currently on sale in this country, nearly 300 nutritional sources and nutrients have been excluded from the approved list. “That matter” he went on “combined with the likely developments over the maximum permitted level for nutrients in vitamin tablets, which is to be decided over the next few months and years, forms the heart of the dispute.” He also emphasised that this meeting represented one last chance for the House to express its will, and stated that the UK should be “sending out a message that we will not accept overbearing, unnecessary regulations from Brussels that force businesses to abandon their products for no good reason and deny our people the freedom of choice that they have a right to expect.” 

Mr. Grayling then issued a direct challenge to the Junior Health Minister, Miss Melanie Johnson, asking her could she name one item on the list of almost 300 substances that is unsafe and what steps she was taking to remove that substance from the shelves immediately.

Miss Johnson was silent at first, and then replied that she saw no point in selecting individual points to reply to and that she would not respond to a challenge thrown down to oblige her to argue a position. 
“In reality” continued Chris Grayling, “the products are not unsafe.” He went on to say that “the policy is all about harmonisation, not about public health” and that “there is no evidence of a significant health problem in respect of supplements.” Mr. Grayling continued by saying that it “remains the case that we are vastly more likely to suffer significant adverse health effects from a conventional regulated, tested, prescribed drug than from a food supplement.” He also stated that the tone of the American legislation (DSHEA) is markedly different from the Food Supplements Directive, and that it is “as deregulatory as possible, and it is encouraging and supportive of the supplements industry.”  The same cannot be said, he went on, for what is happening in Europe. Following on from this Mr. Grayling made the point that whilst the Government talk about medical evidence their regulatory impact assessment states that there is no UK system for recording adverse reactions to food supplements. “On what evidence” he then asked, “are the arguments based?” The truth is, he said, that patients will not gain from the action and that many of them will lose.” Chris Grayling then went on to read out some of the emails that he had received from consumers that morning, all of which were asking him to vote against the food supplements directive being taken into law in the UK. 
Carrying on from this, Mr. Grayling explained that the only way for the products to remain legal is for the manufacturers to submit a complex dossier to a special committee at a cost of many thousands of pounds. He further stated that the industry has said that in most cases it simply cannot afford to do this. The economics do not add up. The Government admitted last year, he said, that the initial estimate for the cost of putting together a dossier ranged between £80,000 and £250,000 per product. “Even at the lower end of that estimate” he continued “we are talking about a cost to the industry of £24 million to register all those products.”
He then expanded upon the matter of the maximum permitted levels of nutrients, saying that this will be not a safety decision, but a harmonisation decision, and again asked the Junior Health Minister (Melanie Johnson) whether she could tell him which of the products that are currently on sale are unsafe. On this occasion Melanie Johnson did not even bother to reply. 
“Why” asked Chris Grayling “are we allowing laws imposed by the European Commission to take from people in this country the choice that they have freely exercised for years?” He also said that Holland and Barrett have stated that “several companies working on dossiers have now abandoned the project because the costs are prohibitive, particularly in those cases where clinical trials would need to be commissioned.”

Asking the Junior Health Minister whether she has visited a health store and seen the products that will disappear as a result of the regulations, Mr. Grayling went on to say that it is striking how many legal, safe products that are available to the public today will be removed from the shelves by this ill-thought-out European directive. 
“It is clear that the Government have not looked after UK interests” he continued, and yet “they refer in written answers and statements to a best achievable deal.” Continuing on this theme he said that he had read a written answer the previous night that had talked about the Government pressing for an urgent meeting with the European authorities on the issue of the maximum level of nutrients in vitamin tablets. “Why are they pressing for an urgent meeting?” he asked. “Why did not those discussions take place months ago? Why have the Government not sorted things out? Why have they not looked after the future interests of our producers and patients; those who choose to buy such products?” 
Julie Kirkbride then added to Chris Grayling’s arguments, saying that people who want to buy these products in the future will go onto the Internet and order them from America. “A whole business sector in the UK economy will be lost,” she said.
Chris Grayling agreed with Julie Kirkbride, saying that the internet will expose UK consumers who seek to buy nutrients to the risk of obtaining them from unsafe sources, and that this may have a negative, not positive, effect on health. His view, he said, was that people and businesses in the UK are being “sold down the river” by the directive. “It is surely possible” he went on “to negotiate a position in which a product that is sold legally in the UK can continue to be sold here.” Expanding on this theme, he suggested that if we need a regulation that the UK cannot export their products overseas; that higher dose products produced in the UK are for the UK only; then so be it. Is it necessary, he asked, in order to achieve European harmonisation, to say to producers that they may not legally sell the products in future that they are selling safely today, unless they spend thousands of pounds to secure the right to do so? “That is a breach of a fundamental right,” he said.  
Jeremy Corbyn then asked Chris Grayling whether he had any thoughts about how the directive came about, and whether he thought that there may have been pressure from the pharmaceutical industry wanting to limit the market to itself, thus removing an independent, popular sector from the shelves.  
Chris Grayling replied by saying that “there are always interest groups involved in processes, and that those have particular perspectives.” He went on to say that he personally was more concerned that the European authorities, and those in the UK, appear to be walking away from the principle of ''innocent until proved guilty''. 
He then asked the Junior Health Minister to withdraw the regulations, saying that there is work to be done to reduce the impact of the directive, and that it need not happen today. If we were in another European country, such as France, he said, “we would not be rushing the regulations through; not if it were directly against the interests of French companies. We would be doing our damnedest to fight to ensure that the directive did not have that impact and to delay it for as long as possible.” 
Mark Francois agreed with this, saying that if the Government are pressing for an urgent meeting with people across the channel to discuss the matter further, then “surely it makes logical sense not to implement the directive until the meeting has taken place, discussions have occurred and we know the outcome.”
Chris Grayling replied by saying that he hoped that the Minister would take away with her from the debate the wish of the Committee, and that the Government will reopen negotiations with the Commission about ways to add to the permitted list. “The Government should insist that maximum permitted levels for nutrients in vitamin tablets are based one hundred per cent. on safety” he said “and not on the need to harmonise with other countries.” He also stated his belief that the Government “should explore ways of amending the regulations so that UK products can be sold in the UK subject to the current rules and so that products that are legally and safely on sale today are not excluded from the marketplace.”
Finishing his statement to the Committee, Chris Grayling said that the Junior Health Minister needs to be extremely careful what she says about safety because her views are listened to outside of the House, and reminded her that she had said two days previously that the products in question are unsafe. “I do not believe that to be the case,” he said. He also reminded the Junior Health Minister that she had said that the regulations were based on safety, and that she had implied that if products were not on the permitted list it was for reasons of safety. “That is not a responsible way in which to portray the issues surrounding the directive” he told her. Chris Grayling then said that the Committee should reject the regulations, and urged the House of Commons, the Standing Committee and the Government to “throw the directive out and go back to the drawing board.”
Jeremy Corbyn then stood up, and asked the Chairman whether it was within the power of the Committee and the Government to simply withdraw the regulations so that they could be discussed further and submitted in a different form later. The Chairman’s reply was that the Junior Health Minister had heard these comments. (She remained seated, and did not speak).
Dr. Brian Iddon spoke next, saying that although he was not a member of the Committee and did not have a vote he felt strongly about the issue. He stated that he was against the regulations, but that he wanted to make it clear right from the beginning that his comments were not really a criticism of the Government, “but of the way in which the European Union behaves in making directives that interfere with strong traditions and culture in one of the member countries.” That is what it is doing, he said, by trying to impose these regulations on Britain. 
Dr. Iddon said that as far as he could see the European Union was trying to harmonise trade in vitamins and minerals right across its member states. He found this to be strange, he said, because the majority of companies in this country are completely against harmonisation when it comes to Britain losing out, as it will if the regulations are implemented. 
He went on to remind the Committee that the Food Supplements Directive is only one of two European directives that will change the face of the industry in Britain forever if they are implemented. Together, he said, the Food Supplements Directive and the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive will cost jobs and may even result in the closure of firms, especially the many small firms that are engaged in the industry. 
The other place (the House of Lords) had discussed the regulations three days previously, said Dr. Iddon, and had rejected them. He also reminded the Committee that a petition totalling one million signatures had been presented to the House of Commons, and that this was one of the biggest petitions presented to the House in recent times. 
“There are many people out there” he went on “who feel very, very strongly on this issue. It is highly controversial.” He also reminded the Committee that on 4th December he had tabled an early-day motion on the food supplements directive, and that the official record shows that 220 MPs had signed it. 
Dr. Iddon then explained that the Food Supplements Directive was drawn up on the basis of continental, Napoleonic law, under which everything is forbidden unless expressly permitted. This is in contrast, he said, to British common law under which everything is permitted unless expressly forbidden. “That is why” he went on, that “a positive list of nutrients and nutrient sources is appended to the regulations rather than a negative list of banned ingredients.” He then further explained that the positive list originates from the PARNUTS directive (Foods for Particular Nutritional Purposes Directive), and that it was considered to be totally inappropriate by the industry for inclusion in the Food Supplements Directive. Dr. Iddon then went on to recount some of the anomalies that the positive list system would bring about, saying that safe and popular nutrients such as Magnesium Ascorbate, Selenium Yeast and Selenomethionine would all be banned under this directive. Selenium Yeast and Selenomethionine are the predominant forms of selenium, and are found in plants such as broccoli. The industry uses those organic forms of selenium, he said, because they are better absorbed by the stomach. But the positive list includes only the element selenium; he went on, which is hardly absorbed from the stomach at all. 
Because of its origin in the PARNUTS directive, said Dr. Iddon; the positive list has a strong emphasis on inorganic chemicals rather than on the organic chemicals found in natural products. This is crazy, he said. 
Turning his line of criticism to the UK Government, Dr. Iddon said that the Government had implied all along that they have secured a substantial derogation from the regulations that will allow existing products to remain on the market in the United Kingdom. “That is not how the industry sees it,” he said. “The Government have argued that all is not lost for the British industry, because it will be able to continue to sell its products until the end of 2009.” He then went on to point out that sales will be permitted only if acceptable safety dossiers are submitted to the European Scientific Committee on the Safety of Food by 12 July 2005. 
Moving on from this, Dr. Iddon explained that the other problem that he has with the regulations is that there is no indication of what the permitted dose levels are likely to be. “If the Committee votes through the regulations this afternoon” he continued “they will in my opinion be voting for the unknown.” It is highly likely, he went on, that the levels will be set far below the levels now permitted for use in the UK. 
“The daft thing about the regulations” he said “is that our constituents will buy the lower dose tablets at an extremely elevated price and then take several tablets in order to get what they were taking previously.” He then asked the Junior Health Minister to “consider whether it is better to have the safe products that have so far been on sale in Britain, or whether our constituents would be safe if they bought products of an unknown constituency and purity from any country in the world via the Internet?” 
In closing, Dr. Iddon said that the Government should be requested to go back to the negotiating table in Brussels in order to seek an amending directive, so that the UK industry can survive as it is now. He then urged all of the Committee members to reject the regulations, as had already occurred “in the other place” (the House of Lords). 
Paul Marsden stood up next, and paid tribute to all MPs who have shown their opposition to what he called “these ridiculous regulations.”
Telling the Committee that each day he takes 1,000 mg of vitamin C and large quantities of Zinc, he said that these regulations could have implications that meant he could no longer buy the quantities that he would like. He appealed to the Government to withdraw the regulations, saying that they must have a rethink. The Government must do the right thing, he said, because millions of people will soon not be allowed to take these products unless they go outside of this country to purchase them. 
Like Dr. Iddon, Paul Marsden said that he was not there to start bashing the European Union. Nor was he, he went on, there to have a go at the pharmaceutical industry. The blame, he believed, lies fairly and squarely with the Government. “There is no reason” he said “why the Government cannot negotiate an amending directive that would allow member states to permit domestic market products which are recognised by the competent authority, in our case, the Food Standards Agency, to be labelled as safe and appropriate. Those products would then be outside the restrictions. The Government could do that, but they are choosing not to and prevaricating for months on end. It is time for them to face up to the fact that there is overwhelming public opposition.”
Mark Francois then spoke, saying that it was unfortunate that only one Liberal Democrat was present when they could have had two votes by fielding a second person. He then asked Mr. Marsden whether he agreed that the Government do not have to pass the regulations and that there is no overriding reason why they should? “It is within their gift to withdraw them and bring them back after further negotiation” he said. “They can do that if they choose.”
Paul Marsden replied by saying that Dr. Harris, the other Liberal Democrat, could not be there because “he had an engagement in Harrogate that came up at the last minute.” 
“Some Committee members” he continued “in particular Labour ones, will have to look their constituents in the eyes and say that they believe in all this. I do not believe for one second that Labour Members believe in the regulations. They know that they are potty.” He then went on to agree with Mark Francois that “the Government could withdraw the regulations and that there is no reason why we should continue with them.” He carried on by pointing out that the Minister could say at any moment that she would like to withdraw the regulations. “She chooses not to” he said “because the Government want to railroad them through.”
Mr. Marsden then described how other nutrients that will be banned, including boron, sulphur, vanadium, tin and germanium, are commonly used and found in some 5,000 products on the UK market. For Holland and Barrett, he said, this equates to something like £6 million of sales. From a market of about £450 million, he said, an enormous £22.5 million will be wiped out. He went on to agree with Chris Grayling, saying that if any of the substances are unsafe they should not be on the market now, and that they should have been instantly withdrawn. “Why have the Government not done that?” he asked. “They cannot have it both ways. Either the supplements are safe or they are not. If they are safe, the Government should be battling to get an amended directive through the European Union. Then all this would just go away. The Government have made a right hash of it. They have failed to listen to ordinary people and to the industry. The regulations are based not on science, but on dogma.” He concluded by saying that he hoped the Minister would do the decent honourable thing and withdraw them. 
Some of the most dramatic moments of the debate came when Kate Hoey stood up to speak. She was clearly very angry, and it was very noticeable how uncomfortable Melanie Johnson, the Junior Health Minister, appeared to be whilst Kate Hoey was speaking.
Kate Hoey “I was a member of this Committee until I said, very honestly, that I would vote against the regulations. That is probably a lesson that one should not be honest in this place. It is sad that other honourable Members have been taken off the Committee and that some Government members have been put on it at short notice. I am sure that they have not had an opportunity to read about the issue in great depth. I congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Bolton southeast (Dr. Brian Iddon) who is also not on the Committee, because he is an expert on this issue and has done a huge amount of work on it, along with Opposition Members. 
I strongly believe that the Food Supplements Directive is unacceptable. I would vote against the regulations and I urge all members of the Committee to do the same if my honourable friend the Minister will not do the obvious and sensible thing. It is clear that there will be a majority for the regulations to go through only if honourable Members are bludgeoned into voting for it. In fact, the Minister should withdraw it. 
The situation is simple: the debate is about consumer choice. If it is about safety, the vitamins should not be available today, as all honourable Members have said. They should already have been taken off the shelf. Unless the Minister comes up with something startlingly new today, there is no evidence that there is anything unsafe about them. It is ridiculous that people will end up having to go on the Internet to get their products from other parts of the world. I have already had to do that because of an earlier measure. It has meant that people have to go on the Internet and get in touch with Canada if they want their products. That is outrageous. The regulations will destroy the health food industry in this country and small shops such as those in my constituency, which are very popular and do a wonderful trade. 
The regulations send out the message that, once again, the elite in Brussels, backed up, I am afraid, by the connivance of the Government, are running our country. The message will go out to millions of ordinary people that the Government care more about the pharmaceutical industry than they do about ordinary people's opportunities and rights to continue to take products that they have always taken. This is not a public health issue. If it were, we would not be dealing with it in this way and we would already have banned the products. This is a victory for the elite in Brussels and for bureaucracy in Brussels. The idea that we are making a decision on the regulations in an hour and a half in a small Committee Room is scandalous. If that is the way in which the European Union is going, no wonder there is a huge demand in this country for a referendum on any change to the constitution. 
I plead with other members of the Committee to look at the issues. This is about market harmonisation. There is no evidence that the current legal framework does not work. It is absolutely clear that if the regulations come into effect, any product that involves any of the 300 relevant substances will not be able to be made or will have to be reformulated. Reformulation is hugely expensive and will not happen for many small companies. This is a scandalous abuse. Yes, the Government are doing what they can legally in terms of the way in which the House works, but the situation is scandalous, and I want my voice to be very clear as I say that this is not being done in my name.”
David Tredinnick spoke next, and described the situation as near catastrophic, explaining that this was not just the case for the country but also for the Labour party itself. He also warned the Junior Health Minister that her new job is a graveyard for Ministers. The former honourable Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Jeff Rooker) received a premature peerage because of the way in which he handled the vitamin B6 debate, he said.
“The Minister must not underestimate the fury in the country about what is going on” he continued, and went on to mention the Health Freedom Movement march that was held in London recently, and the Consumers for Health Choice petition that had been signed by one million voters, the latter of which he described as “a near record in modern times.” 
“Let the Government beware,” he said. “This is a serious issue and it will have serious consequences.” Mr. Tredinnick went on to say that he believes that the Food Standards Agency is operating on outdated and incomplete evidence. He also expressed the opinion that he is scandalised by the way in which the Committee had been packed, and stated that it is the doing of the Government Whip (the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's household - Jim Fitzpatrick). Mr. Tredinnick stated that he had no doubt that “the Whips are running an operation because of the situation this afternoon.” 
Following on from this, Mr Tredinnick then went into a discussion about the shortcomings of the positive list, and mentioned his concern that sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide and calcium oxide were included in it as safe nutrients when all three of these three substances can prove fatal if ingested.'
The FSA, he went on, said in a press release dated 8 May 2003 that the current intakes of most vitamins and minerals are not thought to be harmful. “What is going on?” he asked. “If that is its real opinion, why is it pursuing such a course of action?” 
“The idea of the lowest common denominator, which Europe is peddling, is fundamentally wrong” he said. “The idea that we will get all kinds of ailments if we take large quantities of vitamin C is wrong.” “In fact” he continued “Patrick Holford, who is an expert in the field working for an independent body, said that people getting a slightly runny gut from taking a lot of vitamin C is not a serious problem.” The Junior Health Minister was shaking her head vigorously upon hearing this, and clearly disagreed with Mr. Tredinnick about the safety of vitamin C. Mr. Tredinnick, however, continued by telling the Committee that much of the information on which the FSA is working is contentious and unsupported, and in common with other MPs he stated that it has been estimated that 5,000 products will be affected by this legislation, and added that “the Government's idea that those can be reformulated is dangerous”. 
Mr Tredinnick went on to say that the idea that the dossiers will be completed is also fundamentally flawed, and that only 15 dossiers are currently being produced. He then stated that the managing director of Holland and Barrett had told him that the reason for this is that the dossiers are prohibitively expensive. “It will cost an average of £150,000 to get what is in effect a licence,” he said. “If that sum is multiplied by three hundred, it will cost the industry £45 million to reformulate. I do not believe that the hon. Lady has enough experts in the ministry to check things. What would be done if 300 dossiers were going forward for reformulation?” Describing the dossiers as a smokescreen, Mr. Tredinnick stated that the dossiers are not going to happen, and added that he would be delighted if the Junior Health Minister could tell him otherwise. 
Andrew Turner then asked Mr. Tredinnick whether he would be prepared to speculate on what the Government may have gained in return for handing over such powers? “Presumably” he postulated “they received something as a quid pro quo.”
David Tredinnick replied by saying that he did not believe that the Government had received anything for their efforts. “One of their spectacular failures” he said “was not to make headway on the issue in Europe.” “The Government are in terrible trouble” he continued. “As a member of the Opposition, I am thrilled to bits about that, but as someone who has tried to look after the interests of complementary medicine generally over the past sixteen years and who has run the parliamentary group on integrated health care and complementary medicine for most of that period, I am terrified by this measure. It will be ghastly.” 
In completing his speech, Mr. Tredinnick stated that not long ago he had been a member of another Committee in which the Junior Health Minister’s predecessor had been telling the members about the supposed evils of kava-kava. “I undertook some research into the matter and found that it was the national drink of two nations in the Pacific Ocean” he said. “I rest my case.”
Jeremy Corbyn spoke next, saying that he was not sure what had happened about the appointments to the Committee, but that it is one reshuffle that he himself had survived. “I am not entirely certain how that came about” he went on “but I must say to the Minister that I am unhappy with the directive. She must not to rely on my support to get it through.” Mr. Corbyn then stated that it would be feasible for the Junior Health Minister to withdraw the regulations to allow for further discussions about it. 
“I must declare an interest” he continued “in that I do not take vitamin supplements.” He then stated that he had a large number of constituents who take them with passion, believing that they are both necessary and safe. 
“Whether or not the argument is about the safety of the products on sale” said Mr. Corbyn “they do not become unsafe on 1 August 2005: they are safe or unsafe today. They are not going to change over the next year, so perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.” The Junior Health Minister declined to reply however. “If dangerous substances are on sale and can be easily bought throughout the country” continued Mr. Corbyn “it is the duty of every public official to stop them from being sold. Parliament in particular has a duty to ensure that.” Pointing out that there had been no attempt to remove such products from sale until the EU directive came along, Mr. Corbyn said that one must therefore ask where the directive came from and what its genesis is. 
“There is something badly wrong with the British parliamentary system” he continued. “I know that we call it the mother of Parliaments and therefore incorruptible and unchangeable, but in reality the situation is madness” he said. “A directive comes from the European Union that the House can debate only on a negative prayer. It comes to this Committee and we cannot amend it, but can only either accept it or send it away. That is a cumbersome and inefficient way of doing things. There ought to be some basis on which we can seriously debate and amend the directive if that is what we feel we ought to do, and I say that for the benefit of anyone in Parliament.”
Mr. Corbyn’s next statement was particularly interesting: 
“I also suggest that the genesis of the directive is the product of some ruthless lobbying tactics that are used in the European Union. Brussels is a place in which one needs to walk with care, because there are so many sharp suits around that will cut one. Such people are there and are lobbying on behalf of all kinds of interest groups. Although Conservative Members may not agree with me, I unfortunately see the hand of the pharmaceutical industry at work, because it is not keen on the diversity of supply of vitamin supplements and all such products that are available in health food shops in this country. I also suggest that at a later stage many of those companies will, where they are permitted to, produce lower dosage pills at a higher cost and thereby clean up the market for themselves. That would concentrate the market into the ever fewer hands that seem to run such things.” 
He went on to say that he had talked to people in his community who use the products in question, and that they feel absolutely outraged that the supplements they take and believe to be safe and doing them good will suddenly be denied them unless they either go to a non-EU country to buy it; go to an EU country that has refused to sign up to the directive; or buy it through the internet. Such materials will come into this country anyway, said Mr. Corbyn, except that they will be quasi contraband and quite expensive. “Will trading standards officers in local authorities then have to run around after 1 August 2005 checking the shelves of every health food shop and every marketplace to find out what is on sale” he asked. Or will they have to “raid people's homes to look for things that they have brought home from Canada in order to benefit their health?” he continued. 
Mr. Corbyn continued by asking the Junior Health Minister to tell the Committee what is the danger of using supplements. “How many serious illnesses have resulted from overdosing on such materials, which are freely available now in health food shops?” he asked. “Why can she not instead recognise the strength of feeling and debate from informed sources and people who have studied and understand the matter, and withdraw the regulations?” He went on to ask the Junior Health Minister to say to the EU, ‘‘sorry, we cannot go along with this directive, the supplements will remain on sale in this country''.
Mr. Corbyn’s final statement was also worthy of note:
“The other issue must be the power of the medical industry—it is an industry—in the prescription of drugs. Doctors are not allowed to prescribe these kinds of medicines, so people have to buy them. Although that may be a debate for another day, this Committee is addressing the edge of the issue. The pharmaceutical industry prescribes the kinds of medicines that it does, but many people in this country wish there to be a different, more homeopathic form of medicine. They are denied that within the Health Service, and this directive will deny them even the opportunity to buy such medicines independently. I urge the Minister to recognise the strength of that argument and to withdraw the document so that we can have serious discussions about the matter.”
Graham Brady spoke next. “It is clear,” he said “that what we are seeing here today is an affront to democracy. The Government have cynically stacked the Committee.” He went on to point out that despite this not a single Committee member had been prepared to speak in favour of what the Government are proposing. “They are not speaking up for the regulations because they know that they are wrong and indefensible” he stated.  
“There is a rich irony here” he went on. “The Government believe that they have the power and the right to require our constituents to use a combined MMR vaccination and they will be moving amendments to the Water Bill next week that would give them powers to add fluoride to the public water supply.” Stating that the Government believe that “they can do things to our constituents against their will” he added that “they do not believe that our constituents should have freedom of choice.” At this Melanie Johnson (the Junior Health Minister) rose to her feet for the first time in the entire debate, but Mr. Brady continued talking nevertheless, saying that he wanted her to put herself in the shoes of his constituent, Mr. Steve Murphy, who spoke to him on the telephone the previous week. Mr. Murphy suffers from multiple sclerosis, said Mr. Brady, and none of the conventional treatments have helped him. High dose supplements have helped him however, he continued, and he believes that they have transformed his quality of life. Graham Brady concluded by asking the Junior Health Minister how she could justify this legislation, which would ruin the lives of tens of thousands of people.
John Mann spoke next, and made a very interesting statement:
“I was informed by the Home Office that it and the Department of Health are planning experimental treatments for drug abuse using vitamin supplements. Having been called at short notice to this Committee, before I cast my vote I would like to know which of these supplements are involved in particular and what would be the implications of this legislation in terms of the pilot project for treating drug addicts that the Home Office and the Department of Health are going forward with in the near future.”
With little over twenty minutes debating time remaining the Junior Health Minister finally got to her feet.
Melanie Johnson began by saying she knew that MPs of all parties felt passionately about this matter, and that the public strongly feel that they should have the right to have continuing access to a wide range of food supplements. “I share that view,” she said. “Members will be aware” she continued “that this is also the position that the UK Government took in negotiations on the food supplements directive.”
“The Government have always taken the view that the market should be open to all foods that are safe and properly labelled” she went on “which is why I said that the debate was about safety. That principle applies to food supplements as much as it does to other foods. Action should be proportionate so as not to impose unnecessary restrictions on consumer choice, innovation or trade.” 
She then went on to state that the Government “are acutely aware of how important the availability of a wide range of food supplements is to many individual consumers, as well as to businesses and individuals involved in the use, manufacture and sale of these products.” 
Miss Johnson went on to say that we need to dispense with the past to a large degree, and be clear about where we are and why we are where we are. “The Commission” she said “proposed harmonisation of the rules on food supplements because of trade problems between member states.” She went on to say that “a substantial number of trade problems were notified within the single market.” 
The negotiations on the food supplements directive were very difficult for the UK, she said, because the UK, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland have more diverse markets in food supplements than the other member states. “The Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland were sympathetic to our concerns about the potential loss of products from the market” she said “but others were definitely not.” She also claimed that the negotiations were conducted with great vigour and “a wide range of interested parties were fully consulted.” She also stated the Government’s view although the directive does not deliver all that the UK wanted “it is much better than it might have been, and it was certainly the best deal that could have been achieved in the circumstances.” 
At this Chris Grayling stood up, saying “It is a pretty poor show”, and he was quickly followed by Mark Francois, who simply said “Pathetic.” 
Melanie Johnson continued by saying that “many discussions still need to be held and many things still need to be resolved, and the position that we are now in needs to be considered along with them.” Mark Francois then asked her to give way, but she refused to let him speak.
At the time of the vote on the directive in the Council of Ministers, she went on, the UK was faced with a very difficult choice. “We could have joined other member states that wanted a more restrictive needs-based approach to regulation of these products in blocking the directive's adoption,” she said. “We decided not to do so because it was clear that further negotiations would very likely have resulted in a more, rather than a less, restrictive regulatory framework.” At the time of the vote, she continued, both upcoming presidencies were hostile to the UK objective of maximising choice, and were in the camp that preferred more extensive controls. “This was qualified majority voting,” she said. 
“We consulted most of the stakeholders” she went on “including all the major trade associations representing UK food supplement manufacturers, who agreed with our decision to vote in the end for the directive to secure what we, and they, considered to be the best achievable deal.”
Kate Hoey then stood up and made an excellent point, asking the Junior Health Minister “how France can manage to get an exemption from some parts of the CAP reform and yet we cannot get exemption from this? Why could not our country and our Ministers have argued for one from this?” 
Melanie Johnson replied by saying that she was sure that Government Ministers had argued as strongly and as powerfully as they could, but that an argument used in one set of negotiations cannot be transferred to another. She went on to claim that the UK had secured a very important concession in the negotiations that allows us to permit the continued marketing in the UK of food supplements containing substances currently excluded from the permitted lists until 1 January 2010 where relevant criteria are met. (Emphasis added). Miss Johnson then stated that she wanted to bring the Committee's attention to “a positive effect of the directive that we have heard little about. It will open up markets for products manufactured by UK businesses in other member states. I do not place a great weight on that, but it should be borne in mind.” 
Referring to the suggestion that the Government should go back to the negotiating table in Brussels to try to secure an amendment to the directive, she stated that she did not know why those who suggest that think that the Government could achieve now what they could not achieve in the first place. “The risk is that the directive could get worse” she said, and that the Committee should understand that “we stopped at the point after which we thought, after considering all the evidence, that it would get worse, not better.” Miss Johnson then went on to say that the reality is that the Commission has secured a deal and will not reopen discussions. “The Government's priority now” she said “is to make the best possible use of their influence and negotiating capital in preparing for future negotiations on maximum limits.”
Following this Miss Johnson then went into a description of the legislation, which added nothing to what everybody present knew about it already.
Chris Grayling then stood up, and made the point that that the only reason to ban a supplement is because it is unsafe. “Are any of the items that are excluded from the two lists currently deemed or suspected by the Government to be unsafe?” he asked her. 
Melanie Johnson replied by saying that the Government has an expert group that has produced views on the safety levels of certain vitamins and minerals, but that she did not have its advice to hand. Rather pompously she then stated that “Honourable Members should listen to the arguments, because they are not coming from the right place at the moment. Six minerals but no vitamins are missing from the first list, and I understand that the industry is developing safety data for two of them, so that they can be added to the list.” This statement caused a number of angry protests from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs, but Miss Johnson refused to give way to any questions.
“From the missing minerals, germanium is not essential” she said. “Germanium is a toxic metal that has been voluntarily withdrawn by the industry from the UK market and is an example of something that is unsafe.” She then went on to say that two other minerals have dossiers under production, and that she believed that the other two minerals were not vital. “It is the industry's responsibility to decide whether to produce the dossiers for the others” she said. Miss Johnson then claimed that there is little consumer or industry interest in two of the other minerals, but did not mention them by name.
She then went on to say that “since the industry is satisfied that the products are safe, because otherwise it surely would not be selling them, why is it not prepared to submit safety evidence to support the continued use of the sources? Do those in industry think that the data will not stand up to examination?” This caused a great deal of indignation from the Conservative MPs, who all shouted at her that the dossiers were too expensive. Paul Marsden asked her to give way on that point, but she refused to let him speak. 
Melanie Johnson continued by stating that “the cost of the dossier will vary according to the data that have to be produced.” She also claimed that “we have made strong representations and secured a meeting about the possibility of allowing the industry to produce a slimmed-down and more refined dossier, if there has been prolonged use of a product and it is already on the market.” She went on to say that she welcomed the industry's collaboration on submission of the safety dossiers, and that she was pleased that discussions on dossier preparation are to take place between the European Food Safety Agency and representatives of the relevant interest groups. “I give this initiative, which has been brokered by the Food Standards Agency, my wholehearted support” she said. 
Following this Miss Johnson said that the availability of glucosamine sulphate would not be affected by the directive, because it is not a vitamin or a mineral, and that germanium was not on the permitted list because “it is unsafe and has been withdrawn.” 
The Government have argued for a safety-based regime, she continued, but many EU states would prefer a needs-based approach. In the Government’s view, she said, a needs-based approach would lead to unnecessary restrictions. Although it has been claimed claimed that the majority of products would be affected by the directive, she said, industry has told the Government that only five per cent of products would be affected. 
Miss Johnson carried on by saying that there is nothing in the current directive that sets any permitted dose levels, and that these have yet to be discussed. Upon hearing this a number of MPs sarcastically exclaimed ''Quite.'' At this, the Junior Health Minister replied that “it is important that the industry, retailers and honourable Members and constituents who are interested in the subject are working with us and helping to advance the arguments that will lead to the right outcome.”
Julie Kirkbride then stood up, saying that when the specified limited doses are introduced, it will happen on the same basis of qualified majority voting that has destroyed the industry in the first place. “We can have no hope” she said “that the doses currently available in the United Kingdom will continue to be available when the negotiations are completed.”
Melanie Johnson replied by saying that this “is now a matter for technical work; it is not matter for decision by the Commission. The Commission will make a proposal for EU maximum limits after the European Food Safety Authority has issued opinions on all the relevant vitamins and minerals.” She went on to say that the Government do not yet know when the safety assessments will be completed, and emphasised her belief that this is a discussion for the future. “The levels are important” she said “and some good arguments have been made about them, but it not something that is in the text before us.”
David Tredinnick then stood up again, saying that the cost of the dossiers is a key issue. “If the Minister can persuade the Treasury to part with some money,” he said, “her task will be much easier.”
Melanie Johnson replied by saying that Ministers are reluctant to pledge Treasury money freely. She went on to say that she understand his point, but that the cost of the dossiers must be reduced where something has been used for a long time with apparently no problems. “The safety dossier to be produced should be a simpler and cheaper affair,” she said. Miss Johnson then passed on to the subject of the chromium picolinate ban, saying that new research from the USA has only recently been brought to the attention of the Food Standards Agency and that it is now being considered. “Chromium picolinate will not be banned if the UK independent experts accept that evidence,” she said. The Government has always recognised concerns about choice, and has argued for safety-based controls” she carried on. “On the question of vitamin C” she said “the warnings about that vitamin relate to people with irritable bowel symptoms and for whom a runny bowel may be more of a problem than for others. The regulations do not say anything about levels, and honourable Members must recognise that.” She then stated that dossiers have been proposed for boron and silicon, and that there are nine forms of calcium, eleven forms of magnesium and nine forms of potassium on the second list of permitted sources. “Sulphur is present in all foods” she claimed “and is not needed as a supplement.” She also expressed her belief that “there are many sources of many things on the second list.”
Graham Brady then asked the Junior Health Minister whether she would turn her attention to the question that he had asked about what she and the Government intend to do about his constituent Steve Murphy, who is suffering from Multiple Sclerosis and who believes that his quality of life will be destroyed by the Government's proposals. 
Melanie Johnson replied by saying that she had “trying to answer that question throughout.” She went on to say that “the Government are trying to ensure that consumer choice is as wide as it can be while remaining compatible with safety. Safety must be addressed because it is the basis on which, as we have rightly argued, we must tackle the issues on a European front. Need would have been a much worse basis on which to make our case.”
Miss Johnson concluded by saying that “we have everything left to argue about, including the levels and the possibility of getting things on the permitted lists or of otherwise changing the lists over the next couple of years. In that respect, we have argued strongly for slimmed-down dossiers, and I urge honourable Members to join us in that work.”
Graham Brady then spoke to the Chairman, saying that it was clear that there was no way of amending the regulations and that changes on the Government side may mean that the regulations would be passed, even though not a single member of the Committee has spoken in their favour. “Do we have the option to vote to adjourn consideration and to return to the matter on another occasion so that the Minister can come to us with some arguments?” he asked. 
The Chairman replied by saying “the answer is no.” 
The vote then took place, and the clerk announced the result of the vote to be Ayes 7 Noes 6.
Postscript

On 8th July it emerged that the result of the vote was actually Ayes 8 Noes 6. The explanation given for this, by Chris Grayling MP, was that the clerk had “read it out wrong initially.”
The Ayes were listed as follows:
Charlotte Atkins (Labour), Ross Cranston (Labour), Geraint Davies (Labour), Miss Melanie Johnson (Labour), Jim Knight (Labour), John Mann (Labour), Geoffrey Robinson (Labour), Claire Ward (Labour).
The Noes were listed as follows: 
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour), Mark Francois (Conservative), Chris Grayling (Conservative), Miss Julie Kirkbride (Conservative), Paul Marsden (LibDem), David Tredinnick (Conservative). 
Summary

The mood throughout the Standing Committee meeting was rebellious and it is notable that not one single MP that was present spoke in favour of the regulations.

The meeting lasted for one hour and thirty-one minutes, including the vote. The Junior Health Minister Melanie Johnson spoke for less than twenty minutes, and it was clear to all present that when she did finally stand up to speak she was doing her level best to avoid answering questions on the more controversial aspects of the legislation. 

It is also now clear that had the Government not packed the Committee and removed dissenting Labour MPs the Regulations would not have been voted through. 
I understand that the Regulations will now technically be notified to the full House of Commons as having been considered by the Committee, but it seems unlikely that there will be a Division of the full House on the matter. A Division of the full House will not occur unless the Conservatives decide to ask for one, and it would currently appear they have no intention of doing so.

Appendix One 

Original Food Supplements Directive Standing Committee membership list (24th June 2003) with notes on individual members.

Name	Constituency	Party	Known CHC Supporter = *	
Tony Banks MP	West Ham	Lab	* But voted with Gov in Jan 2003.	
Tony Colman MP	Putney	Lab	* But voted with Gov in Jan 2003. Signed EDM 278 dated 04.12.02 Signed EDM 1398 dated 11.06.03	
Jeremy Corbyn MP	Islington North	Lab	* But did not vote in Jan 2003 (or abstained?) Signed EDM 278 dated 04.12.02	
Cheryl Gillan MP	Chesham and Amersham	Con	* Voted against Gov in Jan 2003. Signed EDM 278 dated 04.12.02	
Chris Grayling MP	Epsom and Ewell	Con	* Voted against Gov in Jan 2003. Signed EDM 278 dated 04.12.02	
David Tredinnick MP	Bosworth	Con	* Voted against Gov in Jan 2003. Signed EDM 278 dated 04.12.02 Signed EDM 1398 dated 11.06.03 	
Dr Evan Harris MP	Oxford West and Abingdon	LD	Voted for opposition motion in Jan 2003 (division 57) and also for Gov amendment (division 58) !!	
Kate Hoey MP	Vauxhall	Lab	* But voted with Gov in Jan 2003. Signed EDM 278 dated 04.12.02 Signed EDM 1398 dated 11.06.03	
Melanie Johnson MP	Welwyn Hatfield	Lab	Did not vote in Jan 2003 (or abstained?) (New Junior Minister for Health)	
Julie Kirkbride MP	Bromsgrove	Con	* Voted against Gov in Jan 2003. Signed EDM 278 dated 04.12.02	
Jim Knight MP	South Dorset	Lab	Did not vote in Jan 2003 (or abstained?)	
Andrew Love MP	Edmonton	Lab	Voted with Gov in Jan 2003 Signed EDM 1398 dated 11.06.03	
Paul Marsden MP	Shrewsbury and Atcham	LD	Voted for opposition motion in Jan 2003 (division 57) but didn’t take part (or abstained?) in vote on Gov amendment (division 58) Signed EDM 1398 dated 11.06.03	
Gwyn Prosser MP	Dover	Lab	* But voted with Gov in Jan 2003. Has NAHS shop in constituency. Signed EDM 278 dated 04.12.02	
Geoffrey Robinson MP	Coventry North West	Lab	Voted with Gov in Jan 2003	
Joan Ryan MP	Enfield North	Lab	Did not vote in Jan 2003 (or abstained?)