SPECIAL UPDATE: Canadian Bill STILL Poses a Threat to Natural Health
Consumers
_http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/01/special-update-
canadian-bill-still-poses-a-threat-to-natural-health-consumers.aspx?source=nl_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/08/01/special-update-canadian-bill-still-poses-a-threat-to-natural-health-consumers.aspx?source=nl
)
Bill C-51 was debated during second reading, the week ending June 13, 2008,
at which time the Canadian government introduced amendments to the bill.
According to the draft discussion paper on the amendments to C-51, written
by Constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley for the Natural Health Products
Protection Association (NHPPA), the amendments presented by Tony Clement on
June 9,
2008 are far from satisfactory, and do little, if nothing, to protect the
natural health community and users of natural health products.
Sources:
* _Proposed Bill C-51 Amendments June 9, 2008_
(http://www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/c51-amend-mod_e.html)
* _Draft Discussion Paper on the Amendments to Bill C-51_
(http://nhppa.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/draft_dp_amendments_bill_c-51.pdf)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
I previously commented on an article from the Vancouver Sun on July 19,
stating that _natural health advocates had defeated a government power-grab_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/19/natural-health-advoc
ates-defeat-government-power-grab.aspx) , forcing Canadian Health Minister
Tony Clement to amend his proposed bill, C-51, which amends and updates the
Canadian Food and Drugs Act.
This _bill was fraught with language that could pose serious threats to the
natural health industry_ (http://www.stopc51.com/c51/legal_review.pdf) , not
just in Canada, but potentially in the U.S. as well due to Codex and the
potential future implementation of the North American Union (NAU). (For more
on
Codex and the NAU, please read my first _article on C-51_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-to-be-made-illegal-
in-canada.aspx) .)
Fortunately, I have many well-informed readers who are not shy to tell me
when I’ve missed something, which was exactly the case here, and it appears I
was overly optimistic in my last comment.
After further review of information gleaned from readers well-versed on the
topic, both bill C-51 and bill C-52 are still poised to wreak havoc with the
natural health industry.
As Wendell Phillips said:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—power is ever stealing from the
many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy
of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be
prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a
people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered
in material prosperity.
Wendell Phillips, speech in Boston, Massachusetts, January 28, 1852
Not much has changed in the past 150 years, and eternal vigilance against
government corruption still needs to be at the top of everyone’s list today.
Why Amended Version of C-51 Still Poses Threat to Natural Health Industry
Bill C-51 was debated during second reading, the week ending June 13, 2008,
at which time the Canadian government introduced amendments to the bill. I
initially reported that Mr. Clement had listened to the natural health
community
’s concerns and that these amendments would solve the problems created by
the bill. However, I stand corrected, as that is NOT the case.
According to the _draft discussion paper on the amendments to C-51_ (ht
tp://nhppa.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/draft_dp_amendments_bill_c-51.pdf) ,
written by Constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley for the Natural Health Products
Protection Association (NHPPA), the _amendments_
(http://www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/c51-amend-mod_e.html) presented by Tony
Clement on June 9, 2008 are
far from satisfactory, and do nothing to protect the natural health community
and users of natural health products.
Concerned Canadians and Americans want the bill (and its successor, bill
C-52) scrapped completely, as either bill accomplish nothing in terms of
protecting consumers, but increases government power to remove products, and
destroy
natural health businesses more or less at will.
One key amendment was to give Natural Health Products (NHPs) its own
category. However, this change actually amounts to nothing at all in
practice, as
merely changing their definition does not by itself change how they’re
regulated.
In fact, rather than creating a third category that is distinct from the
drug category, the amendments actually entrenches NHPs further, as a subset
under the drug category, which does nothing to protect or increase access to
NHPs.
Unfortunately, mainstream media have erroneously conveyed this “third
category” as being distinctly separate from drugs – which is what natural
health
advocates wanted – but that is definitely not the case.
Whether it’s a mistake based on ignorance or more malicious misdirection is
up for debate, but it played a hand in my previous, faulty conclusion that
the natural health industry had accomplished at least a partial victory.
In essence, if bill C-51 were to pass in its amended form, nothing will have
changed to offer NHPs any more protection than before. However, OTHER
provisions of C-51 will allow for things like:
* Making it an offence for a Natural Health Practitioner to continue
treating patients with a treatment if an Inspector tells them not to, as
Inspectors are permitted to make health decisions
* Inspectors are given unprecedented powers of search and seizure
without court supervision
* Penalties originally designed for large pharmaceutical companies can
now be imposed on Natural Health Practitioners and NHP manufacturers,
distributors and retailers, few of which would likely survive the financial
ramifications of prosecution
* Treaties and laws of other countries or international bodies can be
adopted as Canadian law by simple regulation, without approval from the
Parliament
None of the amendments put forth address, nor incorporate, any of the
concerns initially raised by the natural health industry.
Regardless of what the government pronounces to be the INTENT of the law, if
it’s not spelled out clearly, the law is guaranteed to mean exactly what it
states, which means that C-51, even in its amended form, does nothing to
protect NHPs from overzealous regulation.
In fact, C-51 in its amended form may actually be WORSE for the natural
health community than the original!
Another item causing alarm in the natural health community is the new
definition of what a natural health product actually is.
Proposed in Clause 3, Page 6 of the amendment is the new definition of a
natural health product, now defined as any plant or plant product and any
non-human animal product that affects your health and function. This means
food can
be regulated as a “natural health product” as well, which STILL falls under
the category of DRUGS in the amended bill.
The Natural Health Product industry is adamant that the only workable and
agreeable regulations are those that protect NHPs from drug governing
legislatio
n.
As of July 19, Parliament Members Steven Fletcher, Mark Inky and Vic Toews
are pro C-51. Judy Wasylycia- Leis is against. This _link_
(http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/What-Is-Your-MP-Voting.pdf) shows where the
Canadian MPs
stand on this issue as of July 19, and also includes phone numbers to all
members.
Renewed and Increased Concerns About Codex Harmonization
The Canadian government has been an active party to Codex, supporting the
direction of the Codex Alimentarius Commission’s nutrition committee, which
develops the international guidelines and standards on ‘safe’ nutrient levels,
based on the _misapplication of scientific risk assessment to nutrients_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-to-b
e-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx) .
Both the original and the amended bill have renewed concerns about how C-51
may help usher in the dreaded Codex regulations, as it appears the bill will
make a “confidential” agreement of dubious legality for cross-Atlantic
regulations legal.
Mr. Clement attempted to calm these concerns by introducing some
accountability into the amended C-51, changing the word “may” to “shall” in
C-51’s
section 20.4, turning the sentence into “the Minister shall establish,
committees for seeking advice on complex issues of science in medicine.”
However, unless those committees are independently picked, and open to
public scrutiny, and unless the results are debated in the Canadian
Parliament,
this proposed amendment does not at all protect against cherry-picking of
suitable industry yes-men. In fact, in the provisions in C-51, industry is
included among those the Minister may pick from for advisory committees. Since
that
is the very industry being regulated, the provisions leave the door wide open
for yet another age-old fox-guarding-the-hen-house-kind of scenario.
Additionally, since Canada, the United States and Mexico are set to 'unite'
under the NAFTA trade treaty, the 'codes and regulations' will likely be
standardized between the three countries, effectively shuffling any decisions
made on C-51 (and C-52) in Canada over the border into the U.S., sooner or
later.
Why are Some “Natural Health Advocates” Endorsing C-51?
It’s an unfortunate truth that many of your so-called Natural Health “
Advocates” are in fact working for Big Pharma’s benefit… not for yours.
Just as the Natural Products Association and the Council for Responsible
Nutrition (CRN) have been instrumental in forcing drug-like rules on dietary
supplements in the United States, most of the vitamin trade associations,
including the _Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA), are heavily controlled
by
industry_ (http://www.healthcanadaexposed.com/c51/chfa.asp) . In essence being
the voice of government within the industry, rather than the voice of
industry to the government.
These large companies actually benefit from increased regulatory hurdles
because it helps them squelch smaller competitors (who, by the way, often
offer
you better quality goods and services).
As an example, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) in the U.S. has
been taken over by multinational drug and food companies. _Key players_
(http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron36.htm) include the nutritional
divisions of:
* Bayer
* BASF
* Cargill
* Monsanto
* Wyeth
* Archer Daniels Midland
Not exactly the most nutritionally responsible group imaginable…
Nutritional companies that participate in the CRN are in most cases owned by
pharmaceutical companies, or are heavily invested in pharmaceutical
companies. These include well-known names like:
* Mannatech
* Shaklee
* Herbalife
* GNLD International
* The Vitamin Shoppe
* GNC
These large nutritional companies, who have pharmaceutical industry ties,
are more than happy to promote legislation that helps eliminate competition
from small companies and start up ventures.
Likewise, the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA) represents a federal
mandate.
As _Nutri-Net Canada_
(http://www.nutrinetcanada-nnc.ca/useredits/File/News%20Release%20June5.pdf) ,
the CHFA is the legal agent and overseer of joint
activities for the development of a national vision, strategy, and the
development of operational plans for the entire Functional Foods and Natural
Health
Products Industry. Part of that strategy is to define the scope of the
industry.
The CHFA has been involved in the development, and the subsequent
amendments, of Bill C-51 all along, and is charged with the responsibility to
encourage
and facilitate regulatory compliance. It’s difficult to ignore the
breadcrumbs leading right back to Big Pharma, no matter which way you look at
it.
The Natural Health Practitioners of Canada similarly issued a somewhat
flimsy _NHPC member advisory on C-51_
(http://www.nhpcanada.org/Content_Files/Files/NHPC_Position_BillC51_June19am.pdf)
, indicating that C-51 would likely not
affect its members negatively.
What’s the Current Status of C-51?
Despite some reports to the contrary – including an _article from the
British Alliance for Natural Health_
(http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/canadians-beat-bill-c-51-—-watch-back-door) ,
who erroneously reported that C-51 was
killed and the matter closed as of June 20 – bill C-51is still alive and
kicking.
The Canadian Parliament is now in recess until October. When they return,
they will likely push C-51 through additional readings unless the public
opposition is heard loud and crystal clear.
This may pose a dilemma, as October is two months away, and even adults
these days have the attention span of gnats. In the end it is up to you to
continue expressing your opposition to C-51. If you believe that C-51 is a law
that
is not in your and your family’s best interest, you can make your voice
heard by signing the _StopC51 petition_
(http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/StopC51)
.
Watch Out! C-52 May Be Even Worse, and Could Usher in C-51 by Proxy if
Passed
It appears C-51 is so valuable to its intended benefactors that another
current bill may have a built-in rescue hatch, just in case C-51 can’t make it
into law on its own merit.
Enter big brother: _bill C-52_
(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3397415&Language%20=e&Mode=1&File=29.)
, which amends and
updates the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
In his _Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-52 and the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act_
(http://nhppa.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/bill_c-52_draft_discussion_paper.pdf)
, Constitutional lawyer Shawn Buckley warns that bill C-52 –
although it does not specifically target natural health products – could
set a precedent where Canadians will learn to accept removal of their rights
in
the name of product safety.
C-52 removes a number of civil rights, including abolishing the law of tresp
ass. C-52 also grants the state the right to seize property without court
order or without even reporting the seizure to a court for an indefinite
period,
and gives the state the right to assume control over movement of private
property without court order and without concern for safety, just to name a
few
of the heinous inclusions in this bill.
According to Mr. Buckley, the bill goes so far as to permitting the state to
take control of business and private property for trivial violations of the
Act or Regulations, even if those violations do not in any way pose a safety
problem.
Additionally, if bill C-51 is defeated but bill C-52 passes, bill C-52 could
be made applicable to Natural Health Products by way of a regulatory
amendment to Schedule I of bill C-52! Put simply, C-52 could then be used to
take
away Natural Health Products in the name of safety.
Bill C-52 has already been through second reading and only needs one more
reading to go through the House of Commons and be sent to the Senate.
Related Articles:
_Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada!_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada
.aspx)
_http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about
-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx)
_What You Can do About Codex, A Threat to Your Health Freedom_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/14/codex.aspx)
_http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/14/codex.aspx_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/14/codex.aspx)
_The Codex Conundrum and How it Affects Supplements in America_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/04/codex-conundrum.aspx)
_http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/14/codex.aspx_
(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/14/codex.aspx)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080809/3a2977a7/attachment.html
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
