FACT CHECK | The new public health law is not a „health dictatorship“, but prohibits calls for the use of dangerous substances

In December, Riigikogu passed a new public health law, which, for the first time, created a legal basis for intervening in the distribution of fake medicine to protect people from products and services that are directly dangerous to their health. Misleading claims began to spread on social media, as if the law would prohibit the distribution of any information about alternative medicine and allow for retroactive fines for those who distribute information. This is not true.„Estonia is no longer a free country: the new public health law enforces a health dictatorship,“ the Telegram portal wrote on December 12.„And while the law undoubtedly needed updating, it also comes with a clause to combat so-called fake medicine, under which a legal entity can be fined up to 80,000 euros for publishing an article about alternative medicine, for example,“ the portal wrote in another article on the same day.„The government has adopted a health tyranny law, which basically prohibits freedom of speech as of next September,“ said Telegram leader Hando Tõnumaa on December 19.„Since it can be interpreted in all directions, you can actually interpret it in such a way that if you write on Facebook that I think a person should decide for themselves whether they want to get vaccinated, then such a sentence can be interpreted as something like dangerous medicine, etc.,“ said Tõnumaa.„This means that all Facebook lives where we have ever said anything critical about the health of the system, the health policy of the Health Board (Terviseamet – ed), (…) we should take down half of Telegram or pay a fine of 80,000 euros for each such article,“ Tõnumaa said on December 12.Facts The new Public Health Act, among other things, sets rules for the use of products and services that are directly dangerous to health. The Act gives the Health Board the right to initiate supervision and impose fines if there are calls to use, for example, frog poison or MMS in the name of maintaining, protecting, or improving health.The Act does not prohibit the sharing of information about alternative medicine or dangerous substances, but it prohibits any call to use them.The new Public Health Act is not retroactive, but violations that occur after the Act enters into force will be processed.On December 11, the Riigikogu adopted the new Public Health Act, which replaces the Public Health Act in force since 1995. The new act will enter into force on September 1, 2025.The new regulation sets rules for the use of products and services that are directly dangerous to health, establishing restrictions on the use of poisonous plants, animals, plant and animal products, and hazardous chemicals.„This creates the first basis for interfering with the spread of fake medicine and related false information. Namely, the law gives the Health Board the right to initiate supervision and impose a fine if there are calls to use, for example, frog poison or MMS in the name of maintaining, protecting, or improving health,“ the Ministry of Social Affairs explained in a press release on December 12.„No legal or natural person may, for the purpose of maintaining, protecting, promoting or improving human health, invite the public to use plants and animals or any substances and mixtures by applying them to or introducing them into the body, if their use entails a risk to human life, health or the living environment, unless otherwise regulated by a special law,“ the law states.In addition, according to the new law, the service provider must, based on scientific data or generally known facts, verify that the service it offers is safe for health at the time of use.„The general legal principle stipulates that an amended or new law does not have retroactive effect, unless it is expressly provided for. Therefore, this amendment to the law is not retroactive, but violations that occur when the amendment to the law enters into force will be processed,“ Imre Kaas, Head of Communications at the Health Board, commented to Faktikontroll.Therefore, if a website has published content prohibited under the new law for years, the Health Board does not have the right to fine the portal retroactively.The Health Board assesses the „threat to human life, health or living environment“ depending on the specific source of the threat because the consequences may be different for each source, and therefore, the threat assessment will also differ.„In identifying a hazard or assessing safety, the applicable legal regulations (e.g., prohibited or hazardous substances) as well as scientific research are helpful. The current Public Health Act also addresses the basic requirements for environmental and health protection, which include safety. Therefore, the principles of assessing a hazard or safety will not change,“ Kaas explained.The new law is not a „health tyranny“ or a „prohibition of freedom of speech“. However, it is a legitimate infringement of freedom of expression.The annotated edition of the Estonian Constitution states: „Everyone has the right to freely disseminate ideas, opinions, beliefs, and other information in words, in print, in pictures or in any other way. This right may be restricted by law for the protection of public order, morality, the rights and freedoms of others, health, honour, and good name. The law may also restrict this right for state and local government employees to protect state or commercial secrets or confidential information that has come to their knowledge in the course of their duties, as well as for the protection of the family and private life of other people, as well as in the interests of justice. There is no censorship.“The law does not state that talking about alternative medicine or dangerous substances is prohibited. The law only prohibits the advertising, sale, offering of dangerous services and direct calls for their consumption, because this endangers the lives and health of other people.„The legitimate aim of the infringement of freedom of expression is, among other things, the protection of the rights and freedoms of other people and their health,“ said Kaas.He added that restrictions apply when the information provokes dangerous behavior. Thus, for example, the dissemination of information about a dangerous plant is permitted if it does not contain a call to use it.„So, information can be shared that ’white fly agaric is dangerous’, but if a dangerous mushroom is attributed medicinal properties, for example, ’white fly agaric cures cold’, then this is already a case in which the Health Board is interested. If there is no direct call to consume the mushroom in this post, then it is still necessary to assess what the impact of such a post may be. Therefore, it is impossible to say where the line between what is permissible and what is not permissible exactly runs, and for each „borderline“ case, a position is developed in which the circumstances of the case are assessed on a case-by-case and aggregated basis,“ explained Kaas.So it is not true that the Health Board will fine companies or individuals for criticising the Health Board or expressing an opinion on health policy.Decisions by the Health Board can be challenged in court.The law also states that the provider must assess safety „based on scientific evidence or if such evidence is generally known“.The law specifies that scientific data must be competent and accepted. According to Kaas, in Estonia, such data are based on the Estonian Science Information System (ETIS) and other similar official sources of scientific data, or studies carried out in other countries.„Generally, published and peer-reviewed research published in reputable scientific journals is used as a starting point, but also generally known and accepted views, such as those of the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or nationally recognised data from Estonia, can be an important source of assessment,“ Kaas added.Verdict: Misleading. Claims that the new public health law would ban the dissemination of information on alternative medicine or allow retrospective fines for disseminators are not true. The law only prohibits calls for the use of directly dangerous substances or services to protect people’s lives and health. This is a legal infringement of freedom of expression.