i would think many americans....mexicans....canadians might be interested in a proposal before the canadian government at this moment...called Biill C-51...it is last step for implementing the Codex Alimentarus...which will outlaw any herb or natural substance grown...used...personally or administered...not on the list of controlled substances...and what is on the list is tiny which will be administered by the pharmaceutical machine
but...no...no-one can see it appears
though...you realise if i post links here this website will become known
so....bolltcutters anyone?
please...wake up !
I can't actually fathom why the gov't would want to do this.. Or how we could allow it.
Scarey, really
Bill C-51, which would lead to more regulatory scrutiny of natural health products sold in Canada, is drawing some criticism.
A rally was held Friday at the Federal Court in Calgary to protest passage of the proposed legislation, which would amend the federal Food and Drugs Act.
One hundred protesters showed up to voice their opinions about the legislation, which received second reading in April.
Websites and online groups have sprung up across the country imploring their members to lobby their MPs to halt the progress of the bill.
Critics feel the bill will outlaw up to 60 per cent of natural health products currently sold in Canada, making many natural health products that have been sold in Canada for decades unavailable for purchase and penalizing parents who give herbs or supplements to their children.
They also argue that the government could designate any natural health product a prescription drug, making it available by prescription only. They say these types of provisions will force small companies out of the market.
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/09/bill-c51.htmlYesterday the Minister of Health introduced Bill C-51 into the House of Commons. The Bill passed first reading. The following is a link to a version of the Bill:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3398126& The need for pre-market approval becomes part of the Act as opposed to part of the Regulations – And the Criteria Changes.
The new section 12 provides:
12(1) No person shall advertise, sell or import for sale a therapeutic product that does not have a market authorization or is not a designated therapeutic product.
The Act does not currently require Health Canada pre-approval for the sale of drugs. For there to be a pre-approval requirement, it has to be added in the Regulations. So for example, the NHP Regulations require pre-approval.
This change will mean that there is a blanket need for pre-approval and any exception needs to be added to the Regulations.
What has changed is that the Act will now presume that all “therapeutic products” are dangerous and need pre-approval unless specifically exempted.
Again part of the general tightening in Bill C-51.
Concerning the criteria change: section 18.7 will only enable Health Canada to issue market authorization if satisfied “that the benefits that are associated with the therapeutic product outweigh the risks.” Risks are not defined and so it is unclear if Health Canada will continue to use risk factors such the risk people will not seek “proper” (i.e. read mainstream medical) treatment if they take an NHP.
This criteria change is legislating an efficacy requirement. The NHPD will have to have evidence of efficacy before they can determine that the benefits outweigh any risks.
This balancing is appropriate for chemical drugs that carry a high risk profile. The industry will have to discuss whether it is appropriate for the NHP industry which has never caused a single death in Canadian history. In any event, if Bill C-51 passes, the goal posts for the NHP industry will change which should require re-licensing of NHPs.
After the Act is changed to require NHPs to demonstrate their benefits outweigh their risks, NHPs can only be exempted from this requirement if the federal cabinet is satisfied that their nature is such that a risk assessment is not necessary
I have just discussed how the Act will now require proof of efficacy before a product can be licensed unless it is specifically exempted. It needs to be appreciated, however, that there are limits on exempting products from this requirement. The new subsection 30(1.1) contains this limit as follows:
30 (1.1) a regulation may be made under paragraph (1)(d) [the section governing the designation of therapeutic products] only if the Governor in Council is satisfied that the therapeutic product is one that by its nature does not need to be the subject of an assessment of its benefits and risks.
This means that the federal cabinet could only exempt NHPs or a class of NHPs from the new proof of efficacy requirement “if” they are satisfied that “by its nature” it does not need to be subject to a benefit and risk analysis. This is very vague and there is no mechanism in place for making submissions to the cabinet.
If Bill C-51 passes, those in the industry such as our advisory board who would like to see NHPs to be presumed safe until proven to be dangerous will be disappointed. It would require a change to the new Act as opposed to a change to the regulations.
http://www.healthcanadaexposed.com/discussion.htm~Honestly, what is the point of all of this? Doctors and the gov't don't make enough money already? The have to have their finger in the Natural Health pie as well?
Come on...