Traditional Medicine and Ethnomedicine World Conference 2026

Abstract

An herbal product label can tell us what a preparation contains. It rarely tells us about the people who have kept knowledge of its medicinal use alive, or whether they agreed to its use in research or commercial products. These are different questions from whether a product meets safety and quality requirements, although the distinction can become blurred when traditional remedies enter laboratories and markets. This study draws on completed regulatory research to compare how Singapore and the United Kingdom address traditional medicinal knowledge. It reviews the UK's Nagoya Protocol (Compliance) Regulations 2015 and guidance from Defra and the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), together with guidance from Singapore's Health Sciences Authority (HSA) on traditional medicines and Chinese proprietary medicines. The Nagoya Protocol, the 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, and the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025 to 2034 provide international context. The documentary comparison considers which activities fall within each regime, what supporting records may be needed, and where product regulation and access-and-benefit-sharing obligations differ.
In the United Kingdom, due diligence requirements apply to qualifying research and development involving genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge accessed on or after 12 October 2015 from Nagoya Protocol parties with applicable access measures, subject to the relevant exclusions. Where the regime applies, users must establish and retain information showing that applicable provider-country rules have been followed. This may include prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms. Due diligence declarations are required at specified research-funding and final-product-development checkpoints when the conditions for those declarations are met.
Singapore is not a party to the Nagoya Protocol. The Singapore guidance reviewed does not identify a user-declaration mechanism equivalent to the UK's Nagoya due-diligence declarations. HSA distinguishes traditional medicines, including Malay and Indian traditional medicinal products, from Chinese proprietary medicines. Both categories are subject to safety and quality controls, but Chinese proprietary medicines require product listing and relevant dealer licenses, while traditional medicines generally do not require pre-market approval or dealer licensing by HSA. These rules concern the products being supplied; they do not amount to a complete account of traditional-knowledge protection in Singapore. A researcher may still need to consider access rules or agreements in a provider country, depending on the resources, knowledge and circumstances involved.
There is also a gap in what product documentation can tell us. Knowing where a medicinal plant was collected is not the same as knowing which people preserved the knowledge associated with it. A preparation may lawfully enter the market without that fact alone establishing community authorization for the use of traditional knowledge. Where healing practices are part of living cultural heritage, decisions about attribution and disclosure affect more than record-keeping. The 2024 WIPO treaty adds a separate prospective issue of patent disclosure; it does not establish whether consent was obtained or benefits shared.
The findings underline the value of keeping clear provenance records, applicable consent and mutually agreed terms, benefit sharing documentation, and any later changes to permission or use. These conclusions come from existing legal and regulatory documents, not community interviews or testing of a compliance system. They are consistent with the WHO strategy's emphasis on responsible regulation, community participation and respect for traditional knowledge.