Faulty medical implants investigation: Patients being put at risk by implants scam, says Jeremy Hunt Yesterday, it was revealed that British patients" health is being put at risk because some European regulators, known as notified bodies, were prepared to license potentially dangerous medical implants. Official regulatory bodies in Slovakia and the Czech Republic were prepared to approve a "toxic" hip replacement, which means it could be sold to the NHS and legally used in unsuspecting British patients, the investigation found. The Czech regulator boasted that they were "on the side of the manufacturer... not on the side of patients." The hip - designed by medical experts for the investigation - had similar specifications to another banned product which is suspected of poisoning health service patients and leaving them in severe pain. In an article for The Daily Telegraph today, Mr Hunt admits that there are problems in the regulatory system but pledges to take action. "Like many people, I was shocked and appalled to read in the Telegraph yesterday that a regulator in Europe said that it was 'on the side of the manufacturer" when it comes to licensing products - such as hip replacements - for use in British patients," Mr Hunt said. These words undermine everything I believe about the health sector in Britain. He added that he had asked the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and British Orthopaedic Association to bring forward plans to tighten regulation. The Health Secretary said there were "problems in the European regulatory system" which needed to be addressed and that patient safety could be "compromised." He said: "The system cannot guarantee that companies determined to put profits before patients will not get approval for improperly tested products." MPs and senior doctors criticised the European regulatory system. Andrew Miller, the chairman of the Commons science and technology committee said this newspaper had uncovered "a trail of deception." "The Telegraph's revelation that a notified body is on the side of the manufacturer rather than the patient is tantamount to criminal activity by a regulating body," he said. This is not within the current spirit of the regulation and it is not within the legal interpretation of the regulation. The European regulatory system involves more than 70 private regulators competing for business, meaning the process is susceptible to corrupt practices, with those policing the safety of medical products apparently also advising Asian firms on entering the European market. Undercover reporters from The Daily Telegraph approached regulatory bodies in several European countries. It can be disclosed that along with the Czech Republic and Slovakia, organisations in a further three countries - Hungary, Greece and Turkey - were prepared to consider licensing the potentially dangerous hip implant. Representatives of several notified bodies said Asian and Indian companies were able to mark their products as "Made in Europe" because of a loophole known as "Own Brand Labelling." At SGS, one of the notified bodies in Hungary, executives emphasised its advantages. "What we suggest is that you make a certification so that the, on the product itself, the label would be from a European country and therefore the Chinese producer will not be on the packaging," said Anna Szabo, an executive. At EVPU, a notified body in Slovakia, representatives said this form of relabelling was "standard procedure." She said: "We have lots of customers from the UK, which buy the product from India manufacturer and put on his own label." One company, TUV in Hungary, quoted a fee of up to €50,000 (£40,600) to approve an artificial hip. Asked what proportion of clients succeeded with their applications, Bence Thurnay, the managing director of TUV's office in Budapest, said they "always obtain certification. [The] question is time. He said it could give "each product, a solution for certification, somehow." Last night, a spokesman for TUV said its staff "did not promise that clients always obtain certification." A spokesman for SGS said "several certification options were discussed," including the OBL approach. "This discussion included the well established system of 'Own Brand Labelling" ... in no way reduces the burden of conformity assessment on the true manufacturer." He added: "SGS think they have robust procedures in place to ensure certification is issued only in justified circumstances."