...The Advisory Panel, with one notable exception, has demonstrated its willingness to allow unsubstantiated claims to be made and that it lacks an appreciation of the scientific method and the role of objective evidence in adjudicating claims of therapeutic efficacy.
History has shown that the kinds of soft "evidence" the panel is willing to credit is seriously deficient in its ability to decide such complex issues.  Our current safeguards evolved out of a realization that such "traditional" methods of adjudication, relying essentially on subjective estimates and personal testimonials, are prone to serious error. ...Seeking unbiased and dispassionate experts who would weigh all of evidence critically should be the utmost goal in deliberations of this sort.  Suggesting instead that products making major health claims should be freely dispensed unless the government has proven them to be harmful makes no sense, economically or medically.

Our dialogue with the ministry continues. It is our hope that we may encourage the government to base its policy regarding ‘natural’ health products on sound scientific appraisal.