From Mr J. T. Hampson
SIR,—I have every sympathy with Mrs Clarke and the sometimes lengthy labelling on older familiar products (PJ, October 30, p708).
We are all interested in ensuring consumers have all the relevant information.
The Medicines Control Agency's label and leaflet regulations are quite specific and, of course, the licence holder has to submit a colour proof to the MCA for prior approval. Thornton & Ross, whose product was the subject of Mrs Clarke's comment, will of course have done this.
The problem (or is it benefit?) comes from the fact that, under these regulations, you either have a label and a leaflet, or you include all the leaflet information on the label, as Thornton & Ross has done.
Now this technique evades the problem of over-packaging just to include the leaflet, where most consumers probably will not read it. Please remember the packaging waste directive is now upon us and in a "greener" world such excess packaging is wasteful.
A label which incorporates all the requirements of a patient information leaflet has other benefits. Proper licensed medicines need product knowledge to sell with confidence.
The PIL label provides all the information needed by pharmacists and their assistants at the point of sale. Indeed such labels make an ideal training guide, including an understanding of the ingredients and their therapeutic effect.
Such labels are certainly a shock to the system, but once we all get used to them on licensed older (and younger) medicines, these "silent salesmen" do inform patients and help sell products for use in the right way.
J. T. Hampson
Managing Director, Potter's Herbal Medicines, Wigan, Lancashire