Bill C-51 is pharmaceutical protectionism
May 6, 2008 · By Charles Anthony
Protecting the public? I am not so gullible. There really is no need nor is there a demand for this nonsense. Naturally — pardon the pun, the pharmaceutical companies benefit from this control of the market. You can not patent a naturally occurring product. Sorry but I am having a lot of trouble accepting more government control and intrusion in my private life. If I want to peacefully consume or trade natural remedies, I should be allowed to do so.
This sounds awful:
23. (1) Subject to subsection 23.1(1), an inspector may, for the purpose of verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance with this Act or the regulations, at any reasonable time enter a place, including a conveyance, in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that an activity that is governed by this Act or the regulations is conducted or a document relating to the administration of this Act is located.
If you read the rest of the bill, it can be summarized as follows “The Inspector can do whatever he wants at your expense and can coerce you (or anybody else who happens to get in between) to help the inspection.” I find this quite ugly and this is only part of the whole bill.
“May I have some more garlic sauce on my shawarma, please?”
“Nope. Sorry. Not allowed anymore.‘
ADDENDUM (Thursday, May 29th, 2008):
I just noticed this: I Withdraw My Support From the CPC
Kudos to Mike Brock for taking a strong stand.
At one point you say:
“If you read the rest of the bill, it can be summarized as follows…”
Then later in the same paragraph:
“and this is only part of the whole bill.”
Are you talking about part of the bill or the whole bill?
What does this have to do with patents? This bill gives teeth to product recalls and inspections, specifically for food, drugs, cosmetics, etc. This is about inspections & mandatory recalls for potentially unsafe food, drugs, and cosmetics.
I really have no idea where you’re going with that garlic on the shawarma remark. Explain?
Natural remedies are in competition with the pharmaceutical industry. Patents cut out competition and are a form of market protection. Natural remedies are not patentable. Therefore, the competition to the pharmaceutical industry is crushed a different way: this Bill.
In my opinion, the powers granted for these inspections are extreme. We do not need that much of a nanny state.
Garlic can be a natural remedy — sorry, I thought everybody new that.
Under this bill, an Inspector can plow through my house if he suspects that my crushed garlic is being supplied for the purposes of resolving an ailment.
Charles, do you often use extra garlic sauce on a shawarma therapeutically?
It is simply one more area where we are giving over control of our lives to the government.
Legislatures only do one thing well; legislate. Every bill that is passed is one more restriction on our lives that will likely never go away, whether it is proven effective, good for society or not.
Some are prepared to take responsibility for themselves, some are not. Those of us who are should not be made to pay for those who will not.
Wayne, I’m a little confused by what you say — maybe you could clear it up for me. On the one hand you say that legislatures legistrate well:
“Legislatures only do one thing well; legislate.”
And on the other you seem to think that bills passed can be effective, and good for society or not. Perhaps it’s a matter of definition.
How are you defining legislating “well”?
I am concerned about this bill too regarding the natural health products, as are many of my family members. There needs to be some control of what goes into the products, and whether or not they’re safe, but many otherwise conservative supporters are telling me that this bill goes over-the-top.
Also, there is an article in today’s Post about generic drugs companies being at a disadvantage over recent changes and I wonder if this is part of the bill too?
We need more discussion on this.
My wife lost her temper and burnt her hand changing the oil in the car. I take a clipping from the plant we have in the kitchen just for this type of thing and squeeze some on her hand . I boil the kettle for some chamomile tea because I think a monthly visitor is coming to call hence the lost temper . I look in the fridge past the cranberry juice ( good for preventing bladder infections ) too see what we will have for dinner ,, umm spaghetti, will add some extra garlic to help prevent infection in the wife’s hand …..Then the police break down my door , seize the house and bank account and fine me a million dollars .
Sounds reasonable
Mike, have you read the act?
Charles:
You seem to be making a rather overly cycnical interpretation of the Bill. Indeed, your preference for extra garlic on your shwarma remains safe.
The issue that this Bill seems to tackle is the unsubstantiated claims made by companies regarding the supposed health benefits resulting from consuming their products. Natural remedies can be powerful and lead to awful consequences if this sector is not properly regulated. Basically, right now health food companies can claim just about anything about their products and recommend unhealthy dosages without consequence. Claiming that this bill becoming law will endanger garlic consumption in a private home makes for interesting reading, but is an example of some pretty lazy thinking. Try eating more fibre.
how about illustrating the absurd with the absurd. we have too many laws and too much government. whenever anything happens in this bloody country the cry goes up, what is the government going to do. jeez folks try doing something ourselves.
Well jmorrison, I, and many other Canadians I am sure, are not interested in becoming experts in evaluating the efficacy of all the pharmaceutical products available to us on the market. Seems like a logical role for government to me.
I think this Bill has been prompted by several rather important incidents that have occurred internationally affecting Canadian drugs. For example:
-a contaminated batch of heparin, originally made in China appears to have been purposefully adulterated with something that tested like heparin but wasn’t. Canadian and American companies did not retest. These sites in China….some were basically backyard slaughterhouses. There have been several deaths in the US, unknown in Canada and lots of serious side effects.
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/.....trage.html
-a vaccine company with violations so severe they could not verify if the lots of vaccine were as labelled.
I think this bill is to force manufacturers to label accurately and to get information in the event of imminent serious health risk due to counterfeiting. There is provision in there for whistleblowers too. Nothing about WHAT is being manufactured and nothing about CLAIMS OF EFFICACY. Just about good manufacturing practice. At least that’s my read on it.
Ryan,
Who are those “many other Canadians” pray tell? Are you truly suggesting that the demand for this bill is coming from the consumers?
I have only anecdotal evidence myself. I know a few people who consume super-natural remedies and they say this bill will limit their supply. These people do not thrive on a nanny-state as you seem to demand because they are willing to do their own research.
The next time a politician exerts more government intrusion in your life for your own good, be careful: that politician may use your logical argument against you.
You call me cynical and I will call you vulnerable as well as gullible.
Charles:
The many other Canadians I am referring to are people like me. Folks that go to stores and expect that the information to support a wise purchase is available and verifiable. Therefore, yes, I think the demand for this bill originates from consumers. People want to know that products, if used properly, are safe. What we don’t want is a wild-west marketplace that benefits snake-oil merchants; which I don’t think describes most purveyors of natural-remedies, but it does describe some (I would also include big-pharma in that equation as well. If companies are importing unsafe products it only makes sense that we have a law that deals with that and that there be provisions in a statute to enforce our laws. The scenario you discuss in your post is, frankly, ridiculous (a prohibition on garlic sauce?). Further, the anecdotal evidence you speak of isn’t even anecdotal because the bill hasn’t become law and hasn’t been implemented yet – it is anecdotal speculation.
Vulnerable and gullible – whatever . . . If you are just counting on the arguments from super-people who use super-natural remedies (but seem to lack the ability to read and logically consider proposed legislation) I would suggest that you are gullible. If the products they use don’t endanger public health then what is their issue?
Now, if the government does crack down on garlic sauce I will join you in outrage because I love garlic sauce.
Ryan, I’d heed Charles’s warning if I were you. First they come with logical arguments. Then they come with facts.
C – no thanks. If folks are afraid of logical arguments and facts then we have bigger problems than what is being suggested about this bill here.
How should Canadians deal with dangerous products that claim to be natural and beneficial? It is clear that the market is incapable of dealing with this issue. All one has to do is look at the product warnings issued by Health Canada to get an idea of how the market is currently behaving. When there is a market failure of this nature I see a role for government. My home chemistry kit and bio-chem skills are not up to the task.
Charles,
Thanks for clarifying your comments. I’ve read the bill, and I have to disagree with your reading of it. I’m afraid I don’t see much in there that could limit your options for taking natural remedies.
If you want to take garlic, echinacea, or St. John’s Wort for what ails you, go to town. This bill would prevent a manufacturer of a garlic pill from claiming that it cures cancer. It would even prevent makers of echinacea from claiming it is a treatment for the common cold, unless they can substantiate those claims. However, it doesn’t stop anyone from selling echinacea or garlic pills.
Your garlic sauce example, while amusing, lacks any kind of intellectual honesty. Please try to back that one up with a source in the bill. Exactly which clause(s) could stop you from eating garlic to fight infection? Or, for that matter, vampires?
Abat,
Good shot! I like the vampire repellent. I wish I had thought of that one before I wrote my garlic sauce lines. Kudos!
My options for taking natural remedies are limited if there are regulations placed on the supply. I refer you to sections 24. (1), (2) and (3) under Other Measures of the bill. I just do not want that much government control nor do I want the associated costs involved with the extra bureaucracy.
I believe you should have the right to sell garlic extract without having to substantiate any claims whatsoever.
You see, if I make a claim that the garlic will repel vampires and it fails to do so, there is already enough legislation to handle it: you can sue me for misrepresentation or false advertizing or simply fraud, depending on the situation. If I copy your secret vampire-repellent formula, there is also enough legislation deal with such a dispute too. This legislation is redundant if we assume the intention is honest. I genuinely believe that this bill is insidiously concealing protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.
Ryan,
Market failures do not exist. The reality is that costs are high.
The term “market failure” is a fallacious concept and a euphemism to conceal a situation where the cost of something is high and an interested party wants government help. A person (usually a business) seeks government privilege to intervene in the market while justifying it by calling it market failure. The intervention usually translates into a subsidy for consumers too and so it is easy to rally public support for the market failure.
“It is clear that the market is incapable of dealing with this issue.”
I disagree. It is clear that some people in the market want to off-load the costs of dealing with this issue onto the tax-payer. I also believe that other people in the market — specifically, pharmaceutical companies — are seeking to stifle competition with the promise of “public safety” at heart.
Section 24 (1) to (3) relates to therapeutic products or cosmetics that present a “serious or imminent risk of injury to health”.
I have no problem giving the government the authority to order a mandatory recall of defective toothpaste, with or without the company’s voluntary cooperation. As it stands now, the government can stop production and importation of said product, but has no power to order a mandatory recall to remove the product from store shelves. Therefore, the bill is not redundant.
The sections you quoted have absolutely no impact on your ability to eat enough garlic to repel Dracula himself, unless the Minister determines that garlic is suddenly dangerous.
I’ll admit to seeing your point in other areas of the bill however – there is the potential for abuse of power.
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 then ever before without adequate time for testing and clinical
research. Natural health products and therapeutic foods that have been histori-
cally 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
http://www.inspiredlife.ca