Vitamin B6

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 10:37 am on 24 June 1998.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Keith Simpson Keith Simpson Shadow Spokesperson (Defence) 10:37, 24 June 1998

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in that matter.

In his draft regulatory appraisal, the Minister said that he was faced with five options: Option 1—do nothing;Option 2—address the problem simply by requiring, on a voluntary basis or, if necessary, by legislation, that supplements containing vitamin B6 products include a warning of the risks of prolonged intake of high doses;Option 3—seek agreement from industry to limit the level of Vitamin B6 in supplements and add warning labels on a voluntary basis;Option 4—introduce a higher limit than that recommended coupled with warning labels;Option 5—legislate to implement COT's and FAC's recommendations in full.

The Minister was faced with five options, ranging from do nothing to legislating. He decided to use the legislative sledgehammer—option 5—whereas most reasonable people would have concluded that the evidence pointed to option 2 or 3.

This is not the only case of ministerial misjudgment at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister used the legislative sledgehammer some months ago when he decided to ban beef on the bone, to the disbelief of scientists and the majority of consumers. He is rapidly becoming the biggest nanny of them all: to consumers throughout the country, he symbolises the ultimate nanny state.

The Minister has on many occasions, including in his evidence to the Select Committee, talked about the Government putting the consumer first, but he has not done that. He has put bureaucracy and flawed judgment before scientific evidence and common sense, and he has put the consumer last—whether on the issue of beef on the bone or on vitamin B6.