The European Food Supplements and Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products directives are examples of 'health and safety' culture gone mad, writes Nigel Farage MEP

nine out of 10 multi-vitamin and mineral preparations, and many other food supplements, are to be banned by new EU directives. More than 300 items commonly on sale in Britain's health food shops and chemists will have to be removed. In the UK we are the largest manufacturer - and indeed consumer - of food supplements of one kind or another. Britain, as so often, will be the hardest hit.

This dire situation arises from a plan by the EU to harmonise laws on food supplements. While countries like Britain and Holland have liberal regimes, the laws are very restrictive in countries like Germany and the EU Commission has chosen the German model for its new laws. This is more than just a question of tightening up the law. There is also a major clash of cultures. Under the British system of law, anything not specifically prohibited by law is permitted. However under the Continental system - known as the Napoleonic Code - it is the other way round. Unless something has been specifically permitted by the authorities, it is prohibited.

This has been translated into the Food Supplements Directive and the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive by means of what is known as a "positive list". The directives list some 30 vitamin and 80 mineral substances (the "positive list") that may be used in the manufacture of food supplements. Anything not on the list cannot be sold.

Examples of supplements not on the list include the minerals, boron, sulphur and vanadium, commonly used in multi supplements. Boron is important for healthy teeth and bones, and found in raisins, prunes and almonds; sulphur for acne and healthy skin and found in cabbage, dried beans, and eggs. Vanadian deficiency - found in seafood, parsley, cereals and mushrooms - is linked with bone deformity.

Manufacturers will be able to make a case for supplements to be put on the list if they can prove their efficacy and safety. This requires going through a highly bureaucratic and expensive procedure. Many small companies do not have the resources for this kind of research trial and many products will, as a result, remain effectively banned.

This is "health and safety" culture gone mad. As my colleague Jeffrey Titford MEP said, during a debate in the European Parliament in February 2001, when the law came up for its first reading: "No one is forced to buy these products and those that do buy them tend to be well informed about their purchases"by and large the market regulates itself and where false claims are made, unsound or potentially dangerous products are marketed, the existing legal structures have proven adequate". Another British MEP said: "Many people believe these supplements are vital to them. This is heavy-handed legislation which I believe should be withdrawn but all we may be able to do is a damage limitation exercise."

And therein lies the rub. Even if all the British MEPs had voted to reject the directive, with such a thumping majority of Continental MEPs voting for it, it would still have passed.

MEPs received thousands of e-mails asking them to oppose the directives. So heavy was the volume of e-mails that the European Parliament's system crashed under the load. Many complained about being lobbied and the email campaign was dismissed out of hand.

That left the many letters but the EU Commissioner proposing the directive - David Byrne - dismissed these as well. According to him, their authors may "very well be people who have been seriously misled by those who profit by this legislation not going through the system".

This is not borne out by the content of the letters I have received. One gentleman was concerned that his wife will die if these alternative remedies are withdrawn and another lady wrote that she would go blind if she is deprived of her vitamins and minerals. Many people will have to return to the already overburdened NHS for treatment, which may not be as efficacious for them as the traditional remedies have proved.

It is about time that our elected representatives in Westminster stood against the constant erosion of freedoms that impact on the ordinary "citizen". A concerted effort might stop this directive that denies us our freedom of choice for the cause of EU "harmonisation".

The serious principle is that a minority position cannot defend the national interests where the vested interests of another state hold sway in the European Union.