crohnscanada.myfastforum.org

Exploited · Joined: 24 Jan 2008 Posts: 42

http://www.naturalnews.com/023121.html

I've already been hounding my MP all day about this.
The greedy pharmaceutical 'bad people' are trying to rush this bill through.

They want to outlaw all vitamins, herbs, and supplements.

This isn't good people, I use a lot of vitamins and herbs to make sure I stay in top shape.

If this bill goes through I might have to leave the country!

dr.nick.riviera · Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 15

They are not banning most natural health products. That website's article is ridiculous and discredits this forum, in my opinion. Go to the facts and see what the proposed changes actually are. As an introduction, here is what Tony Clement said about natural products, and any common sense person would not believe that a mother is going to go to jail for giving her child an herb.

"Mr. Speaker, I [Tony Clement] am happy to address the member's comments at this time. I state categorically and for the record, there is nothing targeted to the natural health products industry in the bill. There is nothing that is draconian in terms of the effects of pricing and availability in the bill. Indeed, we seek to ensure that natural health products are available to Canadians.
Of course we are always concerned about safety and efficacy, particularly safety. Natural health products, just as prescription drugs and certain other therapeutic products, have to be available in a safe way to Canadians.
I would say for a purveyor or manufacturer of a natural health product, if what is on the label is accurate and if what is claimed about the natural health product is accurate, there is nothing to fear from the legislation. Indeed, our government and our caucus want more natural health products on the marketplace for more choice for Canadians, but we will not stand by if there is a dangerous product.
I issue warnings practically every week about this or that dangerous product, some of which are natural health products, which can have an impact on cardiac arrest, strokes or liver damage. Things can have this kind of impact. We do not want those products available. We want Canadians to be warned and we want them to be safe."

And Mr. Robert Thibault's response:
"I am pleased with the answer he gave to the member for Mississauga South. It is consistent with the discussion I had with the parliamentary secretary as to the fears out there about natural health products and natural therapeutic products not being targeted by this bill. I think that fear was out there, so I think this will be necessary. As I understand it, we can be assured of the government's cooperation if modifications have to be made in the definitions or in the bill so that this can be clearly drawn out."

So I, Dr. Nick, don't think they are going to be criminalizing vitamin d any time, what they are saying is that manufacturer's can't say a natural product cures a disease without the requisite testing - sounds good to me. And they are also saying that some natural products can be dangerous and will be prohibited if dangerous - sounds good to me.

Below are extracts from the Bill; any proposed changes to the 50 year old current Act are underlined, and seem prudent, to me. Italics are mine for emphasis.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/i...e=I&query=5420&List=toc-1

“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

(d) a combination of two or more of the things referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c);

Foods

Prohibited sales and imports

4. No person shall sell or import for sale a food that

(a) has a poisonous or harmful substance in or on it;

(b) is unfit for human consumption;

(c) is injurious to human health;

(d) is adulterated; or

(e) was manufactured, processed, prepared, preserved, packaged, stored or conveyed under unsanitary conditions.

Here is a quote from the Minister of Health, taken from the same speach as the intro on natural products in the House of Commons:
Currently under Canadian law, no one can simply start to manufacture or sell the kinds of health products covered by this bill. No one can simply start a clinical trial designed to test a new health product. A Government of Canada licence is needed, which is only issued after important conditions are met. When it comes to health products, the basic test for licensing is this: Do the product's potential benefits outweigh the potential risks?
The problem with the old approach under the Food and Drugs Act is that once a company has that licence, there are few measures to require ongoing confirmation that a drug or some other product meets this safety test, even if new or greater risks become known. As a result, Canadian requirements for companies to track the safety of their marketed therapeutic products are out of step with other leading regulators.

The Bill seems prudent, is only passed first reading ( http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/i...pe=I&query=5420&List=stat) and will undoubtedly undergo any required changes.

.
_________________
"Hi ev-ery-body, I am doctor Nick Riviera!"

Exploited · Joined: 24 Jan 2008 Posts: 42

I've read the bill, and while it sounds sweet and innocent, changing the definition from "Drug" to "Therapeutic product" it essentially makes it so broad they could regulate anything.

Now here is why I don't like it.

The Vitamins I take are from natural sources, however they are strong, and exceed the RDA (Which is far too low anyways).

The government will claim it is not safe to consume more than the RDA, therefore my vitamins are injurious to health (even though they are not).

They could claim Ionic Silver will turn you blue, and is therefore injurious to human health, and ban it.

Garlic is known to kill braincells, they could ban it as well.

Regulating drugs is fine, but this is too broad and the potential for abuse is great.

dr.nick.riviera · Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 15

the potential for abuse of unsuspecting persons by natural health product companies is also great
_________________
"Hi ev-ery-body, I am doctor Nick Riviera!"

Exploited · Joined: 24 Jan 2008 Posts: 42

If they are so concerned about people being abused and sold dangerous products, why are cigarettes and booze still legal? How about our milk contaminated with MAP? Or the MAP burgers made from downers?

There is no regulation on cigarettes, but god help you if you exceed the RDA on a vitamin product. They put just about every toxic substance known to man in cigarettes and sell them without a problem.

Get real, see through the lies.

dr.nick.riviera · Joined: 15 Apr 2008 Posts: 15

Two wrongs don't make a right and besides, the two are categorically different. Everyone knows cigarettes are dangerous and the government has regulated that this be put on all packaging. Conversely, not everyone knows that some natural health products may be dangerous or that the claims of cures are not proven in the least.

Canada does regulate tobacco, not sure what you are talking about. Quote taken from the World Health Organization Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation:
"Tobacco control in Canada is a major public health success story. [...] Canada, one of the first 40 Contracting Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, has been identified by the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative and the WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation as having one of the best regimes for tobacco product regulation."

And alchohol is obviously regulated as well. The sale of alcohol is regulated in stores and bars/restaurants, the production of alcohol is regulated, the consumption of alcohol is regulated. Would you want prohibition again? Because that worked.

The government is doing research with regard to MAP in milk:
Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in Raw Milk (HC0353) project, several sub-projects have been completed or are currently underway: Improving MAP DNA detection from milk: Improved Template DNA Preparation Procedure for Detection of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in Milk by PCR. A Gao, L.Mutharia, M. Raymond, J. Odumeru. J Microbiol Methods. 2007 May; 69(2): 417-20.
-Estimating the prevalence of MAP in raw milk (in progress).
-Determining the correlation between fecal contamination and milk contamination by culture and PCR (in progress).
-Use of labelled magnetic beads to detect MAP via the Pathatrixtechnology and batch isolation (in progress).
-Detection of MAP from the environment (in progress).

But yes, more can always be done.

"Get real, see through the lies." Not everything is a conspiracy. If a product is being unreasonably disallowed under the new amendments, resort to Charter s. 7 is always possible - life, liberty and security of the person.
_________________
"Hi ev-ery-body, I am doctor Nick Riviera!"

admin · Site Admin Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Posts: 45

Hi Exploited

I understand your frustration but I cannot allow any cursing on this forum. So, please refrain from any swearing. Thank you Diane

Exploited · Joined: 24 Jan 2008 Posts: 42

We will have to see what happens with this bill.

I certainly hope this is a positive development and isn't abused.
Only time will tell.

david.crichton · Joined: 02 May 2008 Posts: 42

Yeah, hopefully it isn't abused. You're right that there is a chance: i guess maybe silver or things like samento and mutaflor may be questioned by the beauraucrats