Health bill raises concerns

OLGA LIVSHIN AND CYNTHIA RAMSAY

By now, almost everyone in the natural health product (NHP) community is worried about a new bill being discussed in Ottawa – Bill C-51, a proposed amendment to the Food and Drugs Act.

Many Canadians have used or are using NHPs: vitamins, minerals or herbal remedies. While there is controversy surrounding the effectiveness of such remedies, there is research to support the contention that certain ones do help keep people healthy and away from more chemical alternatives. Some people claim that NHPs have been life-savers for them. Nonetheless, by some estimates, if Bill C-51 becomes law, up to 75 per cent of NHPs might become illegal and disappear from the market.

The history of Bill C-51 goes back to 1998, when the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health presented its report with 53 recommendations to the government. The first recommendation of the report was to define NHPs separately, with their own regulations to distinguish them from foods and drugs. However, despite the often drastic differences between pharmaceutical drugs and natural health products, NHPs were instead placed in the drugs category, with a set of special regulations pertaining to NHPs only. In 2008, with Bill C-51, NHPs are defined as "therapeutic products," but are still in the same category with drugs (with NHPs as part of them), medical devices and cells.

Bill C-51 was introduced to the House of Commons on April 8. It has passed the first reading. Some Canadians have responded with a flood of letters, e-mails and telephone calls, urging their members of Parliament and the prime minister to vote against the bill, because they fear that, if it passes, it could strangle alternative medicine in Canada.

Part of Bill C-51 will change the law of trespass. If it becomes law, the bill will allow Health Canada inspectors to enter private property without a warrant, confiscate or dispose of property at their discretion and even seize bank accounts without a warrant. Health Canada wouldn't have to prove that the herbs being produced, sold, researched or shared are harmful.

One of the organizations spearheading the opposition to the bill is the Health Action Network Society (HANS), a nonprofit body with the mandate to advocate wellness and educate people about natural health products. Lorna Hancock, the executive director of HANS, said that NHPs help people take better care of themselves, reducing the need for doctors and drugs. She contends that NHPs promote healthy diet and healthy lifestyle, and that both are threatened by C-51.

In the House of Commons debates on April 30, the federal minister of health, the Hon. Tony Clement, defended the bill.

"At the outset," he said, "there must be a declaration of the government that the implications of Bill C-51 will not be draconian in regard to the pricing or availability of natural therapeutic products, so those who believe that those products are necessary for themselves or their family members will continue to have reasonable and appropriate access with appropriate health safeguards."

Some of the citizens who have written to the government, expressing their anxiety over Bill C-51, have also sent copies to HANS. "This bill hits home," Hancock said. To date, she has received more than 300 letters and 2,000 e-mails – and the letters keep coming. If the bill passes, many of those correspondents say, their hope will be gone, leaving only pain; others fear the deterioration of their health if denied the herbs or supplements that they have been relying on for years.

"Of course, we are always concerned about safety and efficacy, particularly safety," Clement told Parliament. "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."

Hancock, however, believes that the bill benefits pharmaceutical companies. "This is a 'turf war,' a war for customers," she said of Bill C-51. For her, the main goal in the struggle against Bill C-51 is to separate the two products, NHPs and drugs.

"They don't belong together," she said. "NHPs require a separate set of regulations because they have a much lower risk factor than drugs."

Shawn Buckley, a lawyer representing many manufacturers of NHPs, shares that sentiment. "I'm not aware of a single death caused by NHP in Canadian history," he said during his presentation at a rally at St. Andrew's Welsey Church in downtown Vancouver on June 2. "On the other hand, deaths caused by pharmaceutical products are among the leading causes of death in Canada."

That rally attracted at least 500 or 600 people, and such rallies are happening all across Canada. Those opposed to the bill have set up a website, www.stopc51.com, and the Natural Health Products Protection Association is also responding the proposed legislation online, at www.nhppa.org.

In Parliament, Clement said that the government has "engaged in numerous discussions with various stakeholders in the natural health products area. We continue to have those discussions.

"There is a lot of misinformation out there," he continued. "Quite frankly, there has been some scaremongering about the intent and the effect of the bill. We are trying to have a reasoned conversation with people to ensure they realize that this is not an attack on the industry. This is not designed to shut down the availability of their products."

Olga Livshin is a Vancouver freelance writer.

^TOP