Bill c-51

[url=http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11529874237]C-51 on Facebook[/url]

excerpt:

Among the changes proposed by the bill are radical alterations to key terminology, including replacing the word "drug" with "therapeutic product" throughout the Act, thereby giving the Canadian government broad-reaching powers to regulate the sale of all herbs, vitamins, supplements and other items. With this single language change, anything that is "therapeutic" automatically falls under the Food and Drug Act. This would include bottled water, blueberries, dandelion greens and essentially all plant-derived substances.

excerpt:

C-51 is the Canadian government's "final solution" for the health products industry. It's a desperate effort to destroy this industry that's threatening the profits and viability of conventional medicine. Natural medicine works so well -- and is becoming so widely used -- that both the Canadian and American governments have decided to "nuke" the industries by passing new laws that effectively criminalize anyone selling such products. They simply cannot tolerate allowing consumers to have continued access to natural products. To do so will ultimately spell the destruction of Big Pharma and the outdated, corrupt and criminally-operated pharmaceutical industry that these criminally-operated governments are trying to protect.

That sounds pretty extreme - any truth to it?

Since this thread is about the bill- it should be remembered that it does more than extend the definitions of what will be covered. It also waters down the need for advance testing so that dangerous drugs will be released into our country (read testing ground) and then the safety issues considered later.

One byproduct of this is that safer established drugs can even disappear altogether as doctors are pushed to prescribe the newer ones.

Perhaps by extending the definitions and getting the attention there the government is seeking to hide the weakening of regulations on prescription drug safety.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
[b]It seems to me that the government should be regulating so-called "natural" products that are sold with a claim of drug-like effects.[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Doug ][/b]

---

I disagree. First, it is very expensive to do testing and research so many natural products have not undergone testing. This does not mean that they do not have important health benefits. It does mean that small companies lack funds to pursue research. It would concern me if only wealthy drug giants could produce health products because they are the only ones with the funds to sponsor research initiatives.

Second, there is cultural value to natural health products. Should norms and traditions be removed from the market just because suppliers do not have the funds for Western style research? It should be noted that critics state that quantitative research is biased towards white, Eurocentric, masculine beliefs and values. I would argue that many natural health products do have enormous value, but their value can't be seen or quantified through a Western lens. Therefor, should norms and traditions be excluded from the market just because they do not meet the standards of the ruling class in Western society? From my standpoint, Bill c-51 reinforces the beliefs, values, and agendas of the ruling class, and it's homogenizing effects run counter to notions and initiatives of Canadian multiculturalism.

Media Advisory

For Immediate release,

(Toronto) May 8, 2008

Concerned Citizens and Natural Health Practitioners against Bill C-51 will hold a rally and press conference to protest the Amendment of the Food And Drug Act at 11:00 am on Saturday May 10 South Side of Queenʼs Park. (march to follow)

Where: Queenʼs Park South Side. March Route: South on University to Queen.
East on Queen to Yonge. North on Yonge to College. West Back to Queens Park.

Why are people protesting?

The government could designate any natural health product as a prescription drug making it available by prescription only (Section15.1) placing greater strain on our already overwhelmed healthcare system. Bill C-51 could increase health costs by limiting Canadians choice of Natural Health Products.

Bill C-51 is promoted as a means to protect the safety of Canadians from untested natural health products. At the present time, pharmaceuticals are being passed faster the ever before without adequate time for testing and clinical research. Natural health products and therapeutic foods that have been historically used safely for 1000ʼs of years could be potentially pulled from shelves and subject to strict licensing requirements. Bill C-51 is too vague. "New" definitions are open for interpretation. Bill C-51 favours pharmaceutical drug and medical treatments.

We must ensure that every Canadian have the right to protect their own health naturally and are given time to react and suggest alternatives to Bill C-51.

Media contacts: Brett Hawes (416.432.4875), Julia Rickert (416.906.6974) and Julie Daniluk (416-771-4496)

Sincerely,

Daniel Chiang
Inspired Life Health Centre
[url=http://www.inspiredlife.ca]www.inspiredlife.ca[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lost in Bruce County:
[b]I disagree. First, it is very expensive to do testing and research so many natural products have not undergone testing. This does not mean that they do not have important health benefits. [/b]

---

That's right. It simply means that they make CLAIMS of having health benefits without feeling like they have to do anything so inconvenient as maybe, oh, PROVING it, before bilking gullible consumers.

If they want to sell this stuff as "cultural products" then go ahead, sell it as food. Don't sell it as "medicine" or "remedy". If you sell it as medicine, even "natural medicine" or "herbal remedy" then you'd better be able to back up your claims, and if you can't, then you don't get to make the claims.

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

WZ,

quote:

---

In fact from what i see it is the people who use these products who are very angry about this bill, and it is the people who do not use them, who are calling them snake oil, who think they need regulation. Why put in regulation for the people that aren't going to use the products anyway.

People don't trust the government or regulatory bodies to keep them healthy.

---

It's the nanny state. Get used to it.

One of the basis for this approach is that we all pay for healthcare. If you want the right to drink lead, play with grenades, etc. as an individual, I know a big country just south of us that would love to have you sneak in...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]WZ,
It's the nanny state. Get used to it.
[/b]

---

Nanny is the cover, not the reality--or the cause.
Behind the benign smile of the "nanny state" is the jackboot, the relentless work and limitless money of the pharma lobby.

There are a number of issues here, including legitimate concerns about snake oil.

But this proposed C51 legislation is not the answer--except for the drug companies who are delighted.
Their c-51 assault is twofold:
On one hand is crushes the use of competing non -patentable herbals, etc (many of which are demonstrably effective and do not equate to "drinking paint" ).
Pharmaceutical companies mine the planet for medically potent naturally occurring plant and animal products that they can work their "now its patentable!" re-constructive magic on.

But C-51 also makes new potentially dangerous pharmaceutical marketable by "progressive licencing" making the public the guinee pigs before adequate testing is done:

"New drug licencing bill gambles with lives of Canadians
'Rushing new drugs to market as swiftly as possible.' - NUPGE President
James Clancy

Ottawa (25 April 2008) - The Harper government is gambling with the lives
of Canadians by introducing Bill C-51, a package of Food and Drug Act
amendments that would open the door to the so-called "progressive
licencing" of new medications in Canada.

"The Canadian public would be poorly protected if our drug approval policy
is shifted to one with an increased reliance on research conducted by the
drug manufacturers," says James Clancy, president of the 340,000-member
National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)...."
[url=http://www.nupge.ca/news_2008/n25ap08a.htm]C-51[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lost in Bruce County:
Second, there is cultural value to natural health products. Should norms and traditions be removed from the market just because suppliers do not have the funds for Western style research?
It should be noted that critics state that quantitative research is biased towards white, Eurocentric, masculine beliefs and values. I would argue that many natural health products do have enormous value, but their value can't be seen or quantified through a Western lens. Therefor, should norms and traditions be excluded from the market just because they do not meet the standards of the ruling class in Western society?

---

About a year ago after a discussion with a friend I started noting the customers in the store that I go to for "health" foods and she goes to for alternative medicines. The customers are almost always <40, at least 2/3 female, and always, always, always 100% white. It is the least culturally diverse store I have ever been in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
Does anyone know if there are any groups currently lobbying the government for regulation of natural remedies? Nobody i know who's into alternative health treatments seems to feel a need for this. I buy these "therapeutic products" and i'm certainly not looking for regulation.

---

Undoubtably true. Like the email I got from a friend yesterday in regards to C-51 who said that natural alternatives medicines were more effective than conventional medicines and side effect free! Well which is it? Anything that has an effect on the body has side effects. If it is side effect free then it is because it is effect free. He has been duped - like so many people I know - into believing that if something is natural then it be must without risk - and the industry has played this up showing they are absolutely unwilling to and incapable of regulating themselves.

This is a website for a product that a friend of mine has taken - who knew that Black Salve must be side effect free because it is natural -
[url=http://www.blacksalveinfo.com/index.html]Black Salve[/url] and while I haven't read through the whole site my suspicion is you not read about side effects on it (although you will definately read about the side effects of conventional treatment).

Should people not be made aware that reason why the FDA banned it was not because as the site says "it interfered with the drug companies making every dime off of sick people." (Never mind the fact that anyone who has the superficial skin cancers that black salve works on are not "sick people" and if the skin cancer is not superficial then black salve will only work on the superficial part and leave the person with the belief that their cancer is gone when the reality is it is still underneath the surface.) But, because it disfigured several people's faces, burned gaping wholes through their
[url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/eschar.html]nos...?

Should something like Black Salve be banned? I don't think so. Should it come with a HUGE warning label? Yes, especially because so many young people have duped into believing that alternative medicine is risk free.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
I am signing every petition I can find on this thing. This is nothing more than a profit grab by big pharma with the Canadian govt's backing. Not enough testing?? JEEEBUS. I have RA, I took vioxx for a YEAR before they decided that it might not be such a good thing, and then they dilly dallied before yanking it.

---

So let me see if I understand your argument: 1) There is not enough testing of the drugs from Big Pharm. We need much more so we are safe and so that we can trust the information we are given about these products. 2) Testing natural and alternative medicines is bad. Information schminformation.

I agree with number 1, but not number 2. On a similar vein many of friends complain about people in this country being over medicated and treated (I agree) while at the same time they take alternative medicines (they don't need as they are not sick) and weekly or monthly recieve alternative treatments and procedures (which are completely unneccessary). Pot meet Kettle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]

So let me see if I understand your argument: 1) There is not enough testing of the drugs from Big Pharm. We need much more so we are safe and so that we can trust the information we are given about these products. 2) Testing natural and alternative medicines is bad. Information schminformation.
[/b]

---

I also am in favour of better labels, warnings, and accurate listing of "natural products"

But I know nobody who thinks "2) Testing natural and alternative medicines is bad."

Testing all products is Very Good and more should be done--but that is not the real world of economics.

Required drug testing for government approval is an admittance fee that only the drug companies can afford--with the golden prize of an exclusive patent--followed, after some years, by a limited patent.

Chamomile is an age-old known soporific, a natural plant that grows on my lawn so it is non-patentable. So who will/should put up the truckloads of money required to vet this "drug" or "therapuetic product" for use?

Human hormones are another example how the patent game works. Human hormones are non-patentable, and whatever you think of Hormone Replacement Therapy, you would think that would mean replacement of hormones with the same hormones that occur in the body--not some patentable drug that mimic SOME aspects of human hormones. This is the story, for example of "progestin", a patented replacement for human progesterone (which, by the way, is also easily synthesized bio-identical agent). Although there are many smaller studies that show bio-identical progesterone as having far fewer side effects than progestin, progestin is still the drug marketed and most prescribed. The amount of money to make a major study to definitively compare the two products is not likely to materialize anytime soon.

And if you think that this government and Health Canada endorsed legislation is there to protect the safety of Canadians rather than the wealth of industry, the stories of whistlebowers and corruption is just a click away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:

But I know nobody who thinks "2) Testing natural and alternative medicines is bad."

---

I do. Plenty of people I know think that testing is completely unneccessary. A whole lot of people I know think that the people who work for big pharma are evil and only motivated by profits, but that those involved in alternative medicine only have their best interests at heart.

If I was a psychopath who was only intent on making lots of money no matter how many people I hurt and defrauded out of their money I would be heading straight towards alternative medicines (or religion) because it is just so damn easy. All you need to say is a couple key phrases like "Big Pharma is only after money and they are keeping secret the real cures because there is no money in cures" etc, etc, etc and jackpot.

Indeed after career super fraud Kevin Trudeau graduated from larceny, credit card frauds and pyramid schemes etc he and his former cell-mate realised that the best way to defraud the public was natural medicine. No training? No reasearch to support your claims? No problem!

Now of course I know that majority of people who enter the fields of alternative medicine are good people who are truly interested in helping people. I would have far more sympathy for them, however, if I didn't see books and products by Kevin Trudeau and other known frauds front and centre everytime I enter health food stores. Isn't that putting profits over people? Isn't that the same thing we complain about big pharma doing?

Edit:

As for the costs of doing testing being too demanding again I sympathise but only to a point. For far too long alternative health products have made claims - often significant medical claims - that were not backed by any evidence - I have no sympathy for those companies what so ever. Furthermore I think that a whole lot of money has been made in the C&AM field.

However there is a branch of the US government (can't remember the name) that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding legitimate scientific research and testing of C&AM and the results have been far from spectacular. I would have no problem with the Canadian government providing similar funding for legitimate tests - although I would be annoyed if they repeated the same tests of products and claims that were shown to be duds in the US. Then if the product has been shown to not work, they can't make any claims unless they can prove with their own money that it does. See you later homeopathy.

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Polly, it sounds all wonderful but we keep seeing case after case of a natural supplement containing undocumented additives. Look at the number of athletes banned for using a natural supplement which ended up containing banned drugs.

quote:

---

I do. Plenty of people I know think that testing is completely unneccessary. A whole lot of people I know think that the people who work for big pharma are evil and only motivated by profits, but that those involved in alternative medicine only have their best interests at heart.

If I was a psychopath who was only intent on making lots of money no matter how many people I hurt and defrauded out of their money I would be heading straight towards alternative medicines (or religion) because it is just so damn easy. All you need to say is a couple key phrases like "Big Pharma is only after money and they are keeping secret the real cures because there is no money in cures" etc, etc, etc and jackpot.

---

I second that.

Big Pharma is profit oriented, without a doubt but there are advantages to having large institutions responsible for these things.

I knew a trusting and naive person who followed the siren song of 'natural cures' when she got cancer and she died from it.

Our society developed safety standards in the 20th century to improve all of our lives. Why should we turn away from this now ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
I guess this means we should shut down Farmers Markets too. They are promoting natural products, are largely unregulated, and everyone knows that real garden veggies are grown in poop, which would fall under the "unsanitary" legislation. (I just read the whole 62 pages...)

---

A wee bit of a stretch there seeing as the old act said:

"unsanitary conditions" means such conditions or circumstances as might contaminate with dirt or filth, or render injurious to health, a food, drug or cosmetic.

and the new act says:

"unsanitary conditions" means conditions or circumstances that could contaminate with dirt or fifth, or render injurious to health, a food, therapeutic product or cosmetic.

The only difference is that they are applying the same "sanitary conditions" standards to alternative medicines as currently exist for food, cosmetics and drugs. Oh the humanity.

quote:

---

I don't disagree that the industry could use more testing and needs to prove claims of miracle cures. I would back that. This legislation calls for testing and regulating ALL natural products, and gives the enforcers broad rights of search and seizure and imprisonment and fines for the guilty party.

---

So alternative medicines should be above the laws currently in place for food production and drugs? I personally think that there should be repercutions for guilty parties and when we are dealing with people's health I think that even more strongly.

quote:

---

I wonder how this will affect pot growers - natural product and all that. And horseradish, tomatoes, potatoes and rhubarb all have components that can be harmful, need to register to grow those too? (Bill C51...food that is injurious to humans....)

---

Where have the rules for food producers changed from the old act?

quote:

---

If I want to grow some mint on my windowsill, and steep it for my elderly neighbour, am I breaking a law and leaving myself open to the feds kicking in my door? According to Bill C51, I am if I tell her it will be good for her.

---

I don't wish to reread the act right now. Could you please point out the section and subsection in question.

quote:

---

It's overkill. Introduce warning labels - this product has not been tested for efficacy or side effects. Put the information out there and let the people decide, just like they do for cigarettes and booze and junk food and dirty movies.

---

Do they still allow alcohol and cigarette companies to make unproven medical claims on their labels?

quote:

---

Give people the right make their own decisions, even if you disagree with them.

---

Sure, but I support people being able to make informed decisions. Such as quality control which allows someone to have decent certainty that if the label says it has 10 mcg of something that it has as close to 10 mcg as possible in every single bottle - not just as likely to have 0 mcg or 500 mcg as is the case today. Nor do I think that people should have to go to the actual processing plant to have reasonable certainty that the product was made under sanitary conditions. Nor do I think that people should have to do research and wade through piles of poorly designed trials or fraudulent research in order to try to find out if the claims on the label are true or false. Make a claim, back it up. What are they afraid of?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]

I do. Plenty of people I know think that testing is completely unneccessary. A whole lot of people I know think that the people who work for big pharma are evil and only motivated by profits, but that those involved in alternative medicine only have their best interests at heart.

If I was a psychopath who was only intent on making lots of money no matter how many people I hurt and defrauded out of their money I would be heading straight towards alternative medicines (or religion) because it is just so damn easy.... ][/b]

---

I guess you know different people than I do, but I don't dispute that some people believe that.

Your position seems to be that since there are mountebanks under one flag ("as seen on tv" and other venues) you are content to let the other mountebank creators of C-51 determine what you can and can't put in your body--and how much you will damn well pay for the restricted choice.
The far-reaching Bill c-51 does not, as pointed out before, guard the public as it lessens pharmaceutical requirements through "progessive licencing".

I'm positive that both industries (and there is considerable overlap) have their share of psychopaths.

=================
It's just that some people have better connections than others:

"Former adviser to Harper and Day lobbies for Taser International
By Sue Bailey, THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - A Tory election strategist and former adviser to both the prime minister and public safety minister became a lobbyist for Taser International soon after use of its stun guns came under intense scrutiny.

Consultant Ken Boessenkool registered the Arizona-based Taser maker as a client on Nov. 28, two weeks after the videotaped death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski unleashed international outrage.
....
Boessenkool, of the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, was a senior adviser in opposition to now Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He played key strategic roles in the 2004 and 2006 Conservative election campaigns, and was a policy adviser to Stockwell Day - now public safety minister - when Day was treasurer of Alberta.
....
Dosanjh also cited Boessenkool's lobbying links to pharmaceutical firm Merck Frosst, which benefited from a surprise $300-million fund in the last federal budget to vaccinate girls against cervical cancer...."
================
And as for "easy money":

"Profits:
"Although the pharmaceutical industry claims to be a high-risk business, year after year drug companies enjoy higher profits than any other industry. In 2002, for example, the top 10 drug companies in the United States had a median profit margin of 17%, compared with only 3.1% for all the other industries on the Fortune 500 list.1 Indeed, subtracting losses from gains, those 10 companies made more in profits that year than the other 490 companies put together. Pfizer, the world's number-one drug company, had a profit margin of 26% of sales. In 2003, for the first time in over 2 decades, the pharmaceutical industry fell slightly from its number-one spot to third, but this was explained by special circumstances, including Pfizer's purchase of another drug giant, Pharmacia, which cut into its profits for the year. The industry's profits were still an extraordinary 14% of sales, well above the median of 4.6% for other industries.2 A business that is consistently so profitable can hardly be considered risky...."

The other bolded headings of this article are:
"Me-too" drugs
Influence on the medical profession
Influence on government
References

I'd recommend the whole short article but it comes from that new-age whackjob publication:
[url=http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/12/1451]Canadian Medical Association Journal[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
[b]Polly
This is crap.

Your friend is a fool.

Chemotherapy works and can kill cancer if caught early enough, but people afraid of it can be convinced that the evil medical establishment won't help them while some rosewater oil behind the ears will.[/b]

---

Umm you do not know my friend, who is dead now by the way, I made that very clear in the post. And no Michael, she was told that her body would not tolerate any more chemo, that it was fucking killing her, and that she might as well pack her bags. She was told they would "make her comfortable" for the next few months. She was told she had no options.

And she lived for two years more, and got to spend time with her daughter.

And fuck you on the rosewater oil behind the ear comment, where the fuck did I say that.

Not a hope in hell.

Michael Hardner, please reread your post to Polly Brandybuck. If you object to nastiness, you've got a big apology to make, yourself.

To post something so brutal, then get yourself all worked up when a small dose of your own medicine is thrown back at you - it's a little rich, no?

I didn't realize that her friend had passed when I wrote that, sorry...

I know someone who works in the big pharma/bio-tech industry and this person is of the opinion that this bill has less to do with protecting the consumer and more about big pharma controlling the natural product business. Glaxo is buying up smaller companies that uses natural based products. I guess if they can't patent natural products they will try and control the sale of them.

quote:

---

I've heard that over 99% of natural products sold in Canada would not have to change a thing if C-51 is passed

---

Pretty generalized statement - would you care to share your info source with the rest of us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]

Yes, I am content for the alternative medicine and health food industry to be subject to the same laws and standards as other industries like the food industry. It is about putting people over profits and protecting people from predatory and unsafe practices, a position which many babblers often take.[/b]

---

So far, so good. But...

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
[b]
But C-51 also makes new potentially dangerous pharmaceutical marketable by "progressive licencing" making the public the guinee pigs before adequate testing is done.[/b]

---

Now this is more worrisome- or could be, at least. The article you link to doesn't cite the relevant section(s) of the bill, so I don't know how much of this is fact and how much is being read into it.

Another legitimate concern is the cost of testing, although I suspect that the large companies who are already in the natural medicine business would have an incentive to do testing. It's still a damn big market, after all. Of course, the lack of patents might make the companies unwilling to take the first step, but maybe industry consortia would develop to test unpatentable products. The ideal situation, of course, would be for [i]all[/i] testing of health products, natural or synthetic, to be conducted by a government body, paid for (partly?) by taxes on the products, so as to level the playing field as well as to eliminate the bias that occurs when one stands to make money from the product being tested. However, I suspect that a policy like this is a long way off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
[b]This bill goes far beyond ensuring the safety of products sold in the store. This bill also bans you from personally using the medicines and herbs of your choice, and it can stop you from growing and using certain plants from your own garden.[/b]

---

OK, if this is in the bill, this is a real stroke against it. Again, though, I have to ask- where in the bill does it say this? Is it explicitly there, or has this been read into the bill by its critics?

In any case, it seems to me that neither the defeat of this bill nor its passage without amendment is an entirely satisfactory outcome. I'd have to know more about the actual contents of the bill to say which outcome I would prefer, though.

I also wonder about the part of the definition of therapeutic product that says it includes "cells, tissues or organs".

Does this then include living things like fruit and vegetables and meat? Those are all made of cells and tissues. It seems to me like this could be a way of encompassing pretty much every living thing into the status of therapeutic product.

Every fruit and plant has some therapeutic and medicinal value. Virtually all of them prevent disease in some form, as deficiency in many different vitamins will lead to disease.

quote:

---

“therapeutic product” means

(a) a drug,

(b) a device,

(c) cells, tissues or organs that are distributed or represented for use in

(i) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in human beings or animals, or

(ii) restoring, correcting or modifying the body structure of human beings or animals or the functioning of parts of the bodies of human beings or animals, or

---