Vitamin B6 (Hansard, 24 November 1997)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to reconsider their decision to limit the level of Vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It seems particularly perverse in the light of the Government's stance on the sale of organophosphates and the huge body of scientific literature on peripheral neuropathy, psychoneuropathy and damage to a good many of the organs in the body when there are only about 18 papers—I have seen the list that CoT has seen—showing that peripheral nerve damage is caused by Vitamin B6 in overdose and not at doses below 250 milligrams, except as stated in the much disputed Dalton paper. Can the Minister look at one or other case—either organophosphates or Vitamin B6—and decide which is right?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, our stand is not perverse. There is a consistency in that our policy both on the recommended dosage of Vitamin B6 in foods and our stand on OPs is the consequence of the official scientific advice we have taken. There are differences between the two. The regime for OPs is much stricter in terms of licensing and controls over sales and use. B6 has a lighter regime. Whether the regime for controlling OPs is strict enough is a question on which our scientific advice says "Yes". The noble Countess disagrees. I personally would not discourage her from continuing to ask her questions.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that he might do very well to recall that the noble Countess is, first, very persistent and, secondly, 749 very often right? There is at least a possibility, remote as it may seem to him, that the Government or the department concerned have got it wrong.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I always appreciate the noble Lord's questions and normally agree with them. It had crossed my mind, long before I took this job, that the noble Countess could be right in a number of ways. I have conducted my job so far on the basis of that possibility.

§ Baroness Park of Monmouth
My Lords, following on from that, perhaps I may ask the Minister who are the members of the Committee on Toxicity and what areas of interest they represent.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, the Committee on Toxicity has 15 members. They are appointed for their expertise. They are basically scientists or medics. Their interest in terms of expertise is in the broad area of relevant sciences. If they have financial interests, they are required to declare them.

Viscount Addison
My Lords, is the Minister aware of any studies on the British population which show the uptake of Vitamin B6 rather than the intake of Vitamin B6? Is 10 milligrams of Vitamin B6 sufficient in terms of intake?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, there have been a number of surveys on this matter. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy in 1991 recommended the average daily intake required for the purpose that these particular nutrients perform. It was 1.4 milligrams a day for men and 1.2 milligrams a day for women. Many studies—the noble Countess referred to them—and many official bodies have accepted that 50 milligrams and above is potentially a dangerous dose if used over a prolonged period. It was on the advice of the Committee on Toxicity and our Food Advisory Committee that we accepted 10 milligrams as a recommended daily dose for food supplements. We are not discussing medicines. Other countries take different numbers, but often, especially in Europe, less. For the assistance of the House, perhaps I may point out that one can get one's recommended daily dose of Vitamin B6 from the consumption of 12 pints of beer a day.

Earl Howe
My Lords, I understand the Government's position to be that Vitamin B6 deficiency is rare and that therefore to restrict the availability of Vitamin B supplements would not be widely felt. Is the Minister aware of a recent study by David Benton and others of a number of young British adults which reveals that 42.3 per cent. of males and 63.7 per cent. of females had a Vitamin B status which was in either the marginal or the deficient range? If he is aware of that, has he any comment?

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I am not aware of that study. Since starting this job I have read all kinds of documents that I shrewdly spent my previous life ignoring. The basic survey was conducted in 1990. 750 It demonstrated, or claimed to demonstrate, that a deficiency of Vitamin B6 was very rare. The Committee on Toxicity looked at 100 studies on various aspects of the subject. It was still convinced that Vitamin B6 deficiency was rare. I shall inquire about the significance or weight of the study to which the noble Earl refers.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord. The study was on the intake and not the uptake. Particular groups of individuals, such as women on the pill, women on hormone replacement therapy, and people like myself who have been chemically poisoned, need extra doses of Vitamin B6 because their metabolism has been altered by the other chemicals that are affecting them. Those people rely on purchases of Vitamin B6 from healthfood shops. There will be enormous expense to the health service if we all go to our GPs for prescriptions. Has that been taken into account?

§ Lord Donoughue
Yes, my Lords. I think we can say that. The restraints we have applied refer only to food supplements. Vitamin B6 can still be licensed and be available from a pharmacist in amounts up to 49 milligrams a day. A doctor can prescribe more than 50 milligrams. Those who have complaints for which Vitamin B6 is an appropriate remedy can still get it from the pharmacist or from the doctor. It is not our information that this imposes a particular extra burden.