Adjudication No. 617 (January 1993) [1993] APC 9

ADJUDICATION No. 617 (January 1993)

The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint against the Australian Women's Weekly over its failure to publish some response from the herbal medicine industry to an article by its medical correspondent warning against possible dangers in herbal remedies.

In doing so, the Council again appeals to editors to be aware of the need for fairness by providing a reasonable right of reply to people or organisations whose interests may be damaged by published articles and a balanced picture to their readers.

In this case, the complaint was originally brought by the National Herbalists Association of Australia. It was taken over by MediHerb, a company that manufactures herbal medicine, when the association decided not to proceed.

The complaint concerned an article, written by a medical practitioner, in the magazine's "Healthwise" section, headed, "Warning on herbal remedies". The article referred to "an increasing number of reports of poisonings (and a few deaths) resulting from the use of herbal remedies". It stated that, while medications produced by pharmaceutical companies are strictly controlled by government drug authorities, "no such controls apply to herbal remedies, but it has been proposed that they should [be]". It cited a survey in South Australia which found products containing toxic substances, but no warnings on the labels.

The complainant wrote to the magazine saying that the article could cause "undue alarm among readers based on errors of fact and ignorance of the current legal position in Australia", that the manufacture of herbal medications was now governed by the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 which imposed "very tight standards", and challenging the implication that poisoning from herbal medicines was commonplace in Australia. The complainant was "unaware of any such problems with herbal products" in Australia, and demanded specific examples. In general, the complainant argued that the article relied heavily on overseas, rather than Australian, experience, and that the Australian references highlighted the worst examples from the past, whereas the industry had since gone through a process of upgrading.

The magazine responded by citing a number of scientific articles in professional journals, pointing out that it had run many positive articles on the benefits of herbal medicines in the past, and explaining that Australian manufacturers did not have to comply with the standards set by the Therapeutic Act until February 1993. It did not concede any errors of fact.

The Press Council believes that the magazine was acting responsibly in publishing the article, which dealt with a matter of clear public interest. The Council is of the view that it is a pity the article did not make it clear the reference to poisonings was drawn from overseas literature.

On this occasion it would have been appropriate for the magazine to find some way, perhaps through a letter to the editor, to enable the industry to respond.