Bill C51 – Response to government agenda The Big Pharmaceutical lobby continues to strong arm the government into pushing through legislation to change the Food & Drug Act to include ‘Therapeutic Products’. What affect will this have on our ability to choose traditional options for preventative care? At what expense to the current health care model will this push a beleaguered system over the brink? Our government is telling us, “This Bill is part of our strategy to ensure that food and products that are available on the Canadian Market are safe for consumers.” How can they ensure this when laws governing prescription drugs or even day to day products lack this ability? Recently, it was reported by Canadian Press that ‘The federal government is considering declaring a substance used to make chewing gum as toxic after tests on the colourless liquid with a sweet, fruity smell linked to cancer…” Apparently, there is a law in place to protect the consumer from this ‘toxic’ substance. “All of Canada’s major international trading partners have the authority to recall a drug, cosmetic or medical device if a serious incident were to occur. While most companies willingly remove dangerous product from the market, without this Bill, Canada would not have the authority to intervene if a company chooses to ignore requests for withdrawal.” Teflon pans that are now prohibited from sale in Canada, again, there is a law in place that can remove products and ensure consumer safety. This new legislation certainly didn’t have an impact upon this product and yet the government managed to deal with the issue. A recent response to an email regarding Bill C-51 elicited the following response, “Under this Bill, natural health products will continue to fall under their own unique set of regulations and the provisions for safety and quality will continue to be appropriate to the relatively low risk profile of this class of products.” Clearly a law already exists for consumer protection. Safety and quality? Where are these terms in relation to prescription drugs, I was on the subway the other day and one of the advertisements stated, “In Canada, 300,000 hospitalized for misuse of prescription drugs.” That’s one percent of the entire population hospitalized for taking what is prescribed. Can the same be said for supplements? A recent article in MacLean’s Magazine (Apr. 21st, 2008) titled ‘Vitamins can be hazardous to your health.’ quoted a British 2003 study that indicated, “…34 vitamins and mineral studied, one could cause cancer, six could induce ‘irreversible, harmful effects’ and three could have ‘short-term harmful effects’. Here’s the kicker, at levels over 10 times the recommended dosage. Yet little was said in the article regarding even one ray of hope in regard to the positive effects of supplementation. A Canadian University study in the 1950’s of vitamin IV therapies on paranoid schizophrenics found that within a three month period participants received a clean bill of health. There are countless other examples that we don’t get to see and aren’t covered in the media. What constitutes low risk? Definitely not the prescription drug advertisements that inundate our televisions, where we see untold numbers of ads for ‘prescription’ drugs that have a list of side effects as long as your arm. Take a bottle of aspirin and you could end up dead. Give a child a tube of toothpaste and they too could have ‘irreversible, harmful effects’. As for low risk, I ask, is death a relatively ‘low risk profile’. We have seen numerous drugs flood the market only to be taken off when further ‘testing’ reveals levels of risk higher than previously claimed. We don’t have to look that far back to remember Vioxx. Are current laws protecting the consumer in this case? Who’s most at risk? Another quote from a message regarding the government’s stance on Bill C-51; “We need fines in the Bill to deter criminals from abusing their privilege to market safe products … the Bill also says that the fines must be tailored to the risk of the product.” Would these laws be applicable to the Big Pharmaceuticals or better said are they being applied to them now? I think not and I don’t think so! If any supplements to come under this legislation, it is the Big Pharmaceutical companies have the most to gain. They are unable to patent plant matter, yet when they discover a chemical compound that affects the body, they can patent that process and the synthesis of the ‘drug’. Who pays for it? We do. Research since the discovery of ‘sulpha’ drugs in 1850’s has changed from the more holistic approach to a prescription approach, in no way affecting the underlying issues regarding disease. Will mediation become part of this ‘therapeutic product’ as recent discoveries have proven its effect on all systems of the body? What criteria would be used to define a ‘therapeutic product’? The advertising claim on most of the food we eat certainly is becoming more oriented to the therapeutic affect of ingredients. Is our food destined to become by prescription only? Are the current laws protecting the consumer or the large corporations? In the instances here, Big Pharmaceutical companies are the beneficiaries of current regulations and they are sure to continue to be unless we act. Please write to your governmental representatives today, to stop this process.
Canada - www.StopC51.com
US - http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ Please sign the petition and forward this information, we are all affected by these changes. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/StopC51 Peace, love & lightT.S. (Tim) White