Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, that is true if the substance is going to be imported under the Therapeutic Goods Administration or under FSANZ regulations. That is absolutely true. But there are other substances that are imported that are not covered by those regulatory frameworks. I have got a list of substances, if you would like me to go through them with you. There are a number of them. They were brought to our attention through the course of the inquiry. There is, for example, the extract of an Amazonian plant, Guayusa. The leaves of this plant contain caffeine. It has a range of polyphenol antioxidants in it. There are claims that it is healthier than other caffeinated alternatives. It has been used traditionally for thousands of years in Ecuador. That specific extract would be captured by this definition. It is not listed under the TGA or FSANZ and therefore it does not have to demonstrate that it has a therapeutic effect. It does not have to substantiate the claim because it is not imported under either of those regulatory frameworks. So why is it that that substance would not satisfy the definition of a psychoactive substance, given that it does contain caffeine and other substances? Why is it that it is not captured?