Canada's Risk to Health and Freedom

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]GumsMagoo wrote:
Wow, I’ve never come across someone on T-Nation who actually quoted themselves! You’re so awesome dude![/quote]

I didn’t think that at the time that a quote from someone important would make a difference. And quite frankly it still doesn’t. So, I figured I was the only one who could sink to that level without sullying my reputation or rather lack thereof.

Sadly, the relevance is still there and better than the OP’s misguided appeal to reader emotion by tying his paranoid delusions to quotes from a drugged out lunatic and a great civil rights leader who actually helped make the US a better and freer place for millions of people.

22

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nice rack[/quote]

That’s exactly what I thought when I saw that on the news the other day. They actually looked better when she was walking than they do in that still pic. But still, not too shabby.

23

[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
GumsMagoo wrote:
Wow, I’ve never come across someone on T-Nation who actually quoted themselves! You’re so awesome dude!

I didn’t think that at the time that a quote from someone important would make a difference. And quite frankly it still doesn’t. So, I figured I was the only one who could sink to that level without sullying my reputation or rather lack thereof.

Sadly, the relevance is still there and better than the OP’s misguided appeal to reader emotion by tying his paranoid delusions to quotes from a drugged out lunatic and a great civil rights leader who actually helped make the US a better and freer place for millions of people.[/quote]

Just to make it clear. You feel that the pharmaceutical companies are in no way involved or looking to get into this market and that regulatory bodies are in no way looking to favor pharmaceuticals versus NHP. More regulation is better and in no way will this impede people from getting access to NHP.

24

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Just to make it clear. You feel that the pharmaceutical companies are in no way involved or looking to get into this market and that regulatory bodies are in no way looking to favor pharmaceuticals versus NHP. More regulation is better and in no way will this impede people from getting access to NHP. [/quote]

Not at all, simply that the reaction and claims made by opponents are silly. No regulatory system is perfect and the unintended consequences are yet to be determined.

It will not impede people from access to NHP products like fish oil, creatine, BCAA, green tea extract, and the like (ie. stuff that works).

I think many times people forget that the pharma industry in Canada is limited compared to the US and that the profit margins are a lot lower as the government often sets price limits (remember the US pharma companies taking a shit when people were buying drugs from Canadian internet sites).

70% of the population chooses to purchase NHP products of their own accord - self medication for the most part - this is different from being prescribed drugs when going to a doctor and presenting with a medical condition. One of the reasons I chose not to go to med school was the ignorance of the medical community of supplements, but that does not mean that ‘natural’ cures are better than medicine in all cases - ever hear of a natural polio prophylactic?

I think that the reaction is misconstrued and could have shown forethought in recognizing that there were previously gaps in the regulatory system. If there are really serious issues with the legislation, then new legislation can always be enacted to amend or repeal parts of the bill that need changes.

The vilification of corporations and governments, and confusing proximal and ultimate causes with self interest does not serve to strengthen the argument against the bill as made in this thread. It is a cheap emotional appeal made by someone who has demonstrated a lack of understanding of how laws, governments, and people work together to make up a society called Canada.

I would also like to point out that there is a problem with the ‘freedom’ argument itself in a country that provides medical care to its citizens. To me it is one step away from saying your freedoms are restricted because you cannot willingly harm another person as the government holds the monopoly on violence - a restriction in freedom that we have agreed to to prevent the escalating cycles of violence seen in other places in the world.

25

Good response Peter, thank you. I was just curious because we have been working for a year + to get products registered with the health ministry with multiple candidates that have other products already in Canada but it has been a long drawn out process that seems overdone and stupid and this includes simple stuff like fish oil and greens, etc.
I know they have their panties in a wad over hormonal stuff and the whole rule about tryptophan on the label is retarded. Do they not realize that it occurs naturally in protein whether it is on the label or not?

26

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I was just curious because we have been working for a year + to get products registered with the health ministry with multiple candidates that have other products already in Canada but it has been a long drawn out process that seems overdone and stupid and this includes simple stuff like fish oil and greens, etc.
I know they have their panties in a wad over hormonal stuff and the whole rule about tryptophan on the label is retarded. Do they not realize that it occurs naturally in protein whether it is on the label or not?[/quote]

storey420 I’m glad you raised the issue of Tryptophan. Also known as L-Tryptophan, it’s an essential amino acid that was sold as a nutritional supplement in USA until Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned it on March 22, 1990. Is it just a coincidence that Eli Lilly makers of Prozac commenced their heavy marketing campaign featuring a lead article in Newsweek titled ‘Prozac: A Breakthrough drug for Depression.’ on March 26, 1990?

Q: Do you know what L-Tryptophan is often referred to as?

A: Nature’s Answer to Prozac

Q: How many patients taking Prozac have gone on a shooting rampage?

A: Several. ‘In 1989, Joseph Wesbecker shot dead eight people and injured 12 others before killing himself at his place of work in Kentucky. Wesbecker had been taking the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant fluoxetine for four weeks before these homicides, and this led to a legal action against the makers of fluoxetine, Eli Lilly.[44] The case was tried and settled in 1994, and as part of the settlement a number of pharmaceutical company documents about drug-induced activation were released into the public domain. Subsequent legal cases…have further raised the possibility of a link between antidepressant use and violence.’

Q: How many have died from taking NHPs as regulated by the current laws?

A: None that I’ve come across.

Conclusion: FDA doesn’t control Big Pharma, Big Pharma controls FDA.

27

The Bill C-51 does not implicitly outlaw certain herbs or NHPs. It is the possible applications of the bill and the implications of its regulatory standards that could eventually create problems.

storey420, if you think that it has taken you company a long time to get its products to the Canadian market, it is nothing compared with time and expense involved once Bill C-51 passes.

NHP’s are not patentable and therefore, far less profitable then their synthetic counterparts. Who is going to pony up the cash for the clinical trials required by this new legislation for every vitamin and mineral sold today? The bulk costs of most clinical trials are funded by the pharmaceutical companies and are prohibitively expensive to smaller companies - like most of those who produce and sell NHP’s. Big Pharma answers to its stockholders and are not interested in laying out millions of dollars to prove the efficacy and safety of supplements that can’t be patented. If clinical trials are to be the only way that products can be cleared for market, we are definitely heading for some scary times. What about the thousands of years of history that humans have utilized these naturally derived substances for health and healing?

Bill C-51 does not address the need for unbiased trials, however it will ease the fast tracking of certain drugs to the market. This will mean that unproven pharmaceuticals can be rushed into the hands of Canadians so we can be the test subjects. It will be up to the pharmaceutical companies themselves to follow up on any adverse reactions, inform the public, and initiate a recall.

Basically they will be allowed to police themselves. Any of the positive steps this bill proposes (of which there are some), are heavily outweighed by the abdicating of responsibility to Big Pharma, while at the same time as selling out our right to choose what we ingest.

If FDA managed to f’up with Vioxx, Bextra and Celebrex, why not in Canada?

28

For those that still doubt Bill C-51 is a risk to health and freedom, please compare it with the EU’s food and supplements directive (FSD) through articles published before and after its inception. You’ll discover that it was sold to the Europeans under much the same marketing as Bill C-51.

European Food Directive
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1924R(01):EN:NOT

Some people seem to be ignoring the biggest problems with this bill.

"In the “Definitions Et Interpretation” section of C-51, the term “government” will now mean any of the following “or their institutions, as applicable:”

a) the federal government;
b) a corporation named in Schedule III to 10 of the Financial Administration Act,
c) a provincial government or a public body established under an Act of the legislature of a province,
d) an aboriginal government as defined in subsection 13(3) of the Access to Information Act,
e) a government of a foreign state or of a subdivision of a foreign state, or
f) an international organization of states. [Emphasis added.]

Why would a Bill for the regulation of NHP’s need to redefine the term government? Especially if the new definition includes unelected foreign bodies?

As it stands right now, for an amendment to be passed into law in Canada it must first successfully navigate three readings in the House of Commons, and three readings before the Senate. On the other hand, REGULATIONS need only be published twice before becoming law, and it is through regulations that Bill C51 would like to do away with all the scrutiny and make possible the creation of Canadian law by unelected, foreign bodies.

“30(7) A regulation may incorporate by reference documents produced by a
person or body other than the Minister of the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency including
(a) an organization established for the purpose of writing standards,
including an organization accredited by the Standards Council of
Canada;
(b) an industrial or trade organization; or
(c) a government.”

This could pose a serious threat to Canadian sovereignty. Bill C-51 is part of a bigger political picture, that’s why it’s important for Canadians to understand its implications on our health and freedom.

29

We all know the efficiency of Big Government at ‘fucking shit up.’

Case in point: Canada’s Gun Registry

When introduced it’s estimated cost was meant to be approx $120 Million. The latest estimate pegs the cost at $2 BILLION. That’s only a 1667% cost over-run.

Efficient? Debatable.

Effective? I’m not fit to decide, however ‘The Auditor General’s report found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety.’

I may not write as eloquently as Peter Orban does, and given the chance to go to Med School I probably would have accepted the challenge instead of debating on the internet forums while pompously quoting my self.

It is the mere threat to our health and freedom that has me speaking out against Bill C-51. Considering the above mentioned facts, our government’s track record and the potential issues once the bill becomes law, I take this matter very seriously.

I love my country Canada; the high standard of living, the peace and the freedom within. I dutifully, and sometimes reluctantly pay my taxes so those government elected officials continue protecting my freedom, not to obstruct it. I hope that you, my fellow Canadians will also join me in the fight against Bill C-51 and the possible threat it may pose on our health and freedom, as once passed laws are very difficult to repel. Do we really want to take the chance with Bill C-51?

30

[quote]TKOWKD1 wrote:

I may not write as eloquently as Peter Orban does, and given the chance to go to Med School I probably would have accepted the challenge instead of debating on the internet forums while pompously quoting my self.

I love my country Canada; the high standard of living, the peace and the freedom within. I dutifully, and sometimes reluctantly pay my taxes so those government elected officials continue protecting my freedom, not to obstruct it. I hope that you, my fellow Canadians will also join me in the fight against Bill C-51 and the possible threat it may pose on our health and freedom, as once passed laws are very difficult to repel. Do we really want to take the chance with Bill C-51?

[/quote]

Word.

31

TKOWKD1:

What can Americans do to help stop this madness?

32

So for kicks, I went and emailed each of the major parties to ask them why they weren’t fighting this and then I ask the Conservatives why they were doing this. I never received a response from the NDP but here is what the other two said:

Liberal:Thank you for your letter regarding Bill C-51, in which you have expressed concerns the legislation may negatively affect access to natural health products.

The health, safety and wellbeing of Canadians has been and will continue to be at the heart of the Liberal Party’s examination of this legislation.

As such, we firmly believe that Canadians have a fundamental right to have access and choice in treatment options regarding their health. We will work to ensure that this legislation does not further restrict the use, sale, or distribution of safe natural health products. Please be assured that we will continue to be vigilant in our study of this issue and we will keep your concerns in mind.

Conservative:I want to emphasize at the outset that Natural Health Products are not regulated as food or as drugs; they have been regulated as a unique category since 2004. Bill C-51 does not contemplate any changes to the Natural Health Products Regulations.

Moreover, the intention of the Bill and Regulations is to facilitate access to safe and effective Natural Health Products rather than keep them from Canadians. For your information, the Natural Health Products Regulations can be found at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/SOR-2003-196///en?page=1.

I want to clarify the term �??therapeutic product�?? in the legislation. This term is general in nature because it includes drugs, natural health products, medical devices, veterinary drugs, and blood and blood products. They all share one common element: they claim to enhance human health, and Canadians rely on them to do that.

When a health claim is made, it needs to be tested in order to ensure public safety. The regulations to make this possible for Natural Health Products have been working now for five years.

There has been some misunderstanding regarding the approach of government toward Natural Health Products. I want to clarify that the legislation now before the House of Commons requires that compliance and enforcement measures be gauged to the degree of risk of the product.

On products of low risk, which includes most Natural Health Products, pharmaceutical standards of evidence are not required. On the other hand, the legislation also requires vigilance to ensure that tainted products are found and recalled, that what is on the label is actually in the bottle, and that health claims are supported by evidence.

In the future, under a modernized Food and Drugs Act, the numbers and variety of Natural Health Products will continue to grow, and Canadians can be confident that they will always be able to access innovative, safe and effective Natural Health Products.

I was surprised at the detail I got from the Conservatives. But let’s be honest, none of the other parties are going to stop this and cause a vote when they are ready…

33

“On the other hand, the legislation also requires vigilance to ensure that tainted products are found and recalled, that what is on the label is actually in the bottle, and that health claims are supported by evidence.”

Those bastards… :wink: