Big Pharma's BILL C-51

Big Pharma's BILL C-51

Postby Oscar » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:08 pm

STOP BILL-C51

Our Government of Canada is going to "CRIMINALIZE" Natural Health Products so that they can put a mother in Jail that chooses to feed her children natural herbs and supplements...this is very important to understand...we only have 500 votes...we need over 100,000 votes to have an effect...BY MAY 9TH…PASS THIS ON TO EVERYBODY PLEASE….

Sign Petition: Stop Bill C-51

You can view this petition at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/409724

===================================
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/235930048-canadas
-c51-law-to-outlaw-60-of-natural-health-products

Canada’S C-51 Law To Outlaw 60% Of Natural Health Products
Posted on Monday, May 05 2008 by ImRevolting

A new law being pushed in Canada by Big Pharma seeks to outlaw up to 60 percent of natural health products currently sold in Canada, even while criminalizing parents who give herbs or supplements to their children. The law, known as C-51, was introduced by the Canadian Minister of Health on April 8th, 2008, and it proposes sweeping changes to Canada’s Food and Drugs Act that could have devastating consequences on the health products industry.

===================================
Canada's C-51: Trojan Horse Legislation Sponsored by Big Pharma

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/canadian ... pr08.shtml
Bill C-51 Unlawfully Suppresses Canadian Citizens' Rights and Freedoms

[Editor's Note: Bills such as C-51 are but thinly disguised variations on Nazi Germany's 1933 Enabling Act which removed Parliamentary decision making and oversight from national legislation. Stated in its simplest terms, these bills are intended to replace democratic representative government with un-elected, closed-door decision making which will bind all citizens. We are witnessing the transformation of North American democratic government into oligarchic tyranny. Will Canadian citizens wake up in time?.. ..Ken Adachi]

From Kenn d'Oudney, The Democracy Defined Campaign
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/canadian ... pr08.shtml
April 27, 2008

Canada's C-51: Trojan Horse Legislation Sponsored by Big Pharma (April 27, 2008) http://www.democracydefined.org

Dear Members,

See below info relating to Canadian Bill C-51. It is something to make every democratic person's blood run cold. The owners of the pharmaceutical giants are behind this -- it is the shape of things to come throughout the West and elsewhere.

Attend our rally at the Calgary Federal Court on May 9th 2008. Call 1-888-878-3467 for Details

Yours sincerely,
Kenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Rights and Freedoms are at Risk, An Important Notice Regarding Bill C-51

On April 8th, 2008, the Canadian Minister of Health introduced Bill C-51 into the House of Commons. This Bill proposes significant changes to the current Food and Drugs Act that will have wide-ranging negative implications for Canadians.

Bill C-51 will:

· Remove democratic oversight, bypassing elected officials to vote in laws and allow bureaucrats to adopt laws from other countries without our consent.

· Remove 70% of Natural Health Products from Canadians and many others will be available by prescription only.

· Restrict research and development of safe natural alternatives in favor of high risk drugs.

· Punish Canadians with little or no opportunity for protection or recourse for simply speaking about or giving a natural product without the approval of government. More than 70% of people in Canada use a Natural Health Product. The new law goes so far as to warrant action against a person who would give another person an unapproved amount of garlic on the recommendation that it would improve that persons health.

Proposed New Enforcement Powers:

· Inspectors will enter private property without a warrant

· Inspectors will take your property at their discretion

· Inspectors will dispose of your property at will

· Inspectors will not reimburse you for your losses

· Inspectors will seize your bank accounts

· Inspectors will charge owners shipping and storage charges for seized property

· Inspectors will be empowered to store your property indefinitely

· Inspectors will levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or seek 2 years in jail per incident

With your assets and money under their control will you be able to defend yourself in Court?

Can you trust government with this new law and enforcement power?

Would our government really ever turn this law against us? Read the following account.

In 2003 Health Canada launched an attack on a group of mentally ill patients and the company who supported them naturally. They seized shipments of a safe natural therapy required by the patients and stormed the support center with 17 armed officers and agents. The company (Truehope) reported that they lost contact with more than 300 of their Canadian participants. The Canadian Mental Health Association told of suicides as a result of government action.

Health Canada then charged the not for profit company, burdening them with heavy legal costs. Truehope was found innocent by necessity and instructed by the judge to continue under legal and moral responsibility. Although the agents admitted knowing they were injuring people through their actions, they stated under oath they care only about policy and directive. And what happened to the more than 300 mentally ill Canadians that became unreachable? In the months and years following, reports of hospitalizations and suicides during the seizures have surfaced. No Health Canada agent has ever been charged.

Will this new law be used to abuse and punish special interest groups, minorities, religious groups or others?

Why do bureaucrats want to bypass the Parliament and approval to create new laws?

Why do bureaucrats want seizure warrants without judge approval ?

With fines being increased a 1000 times, and seizing authority without a warrant, is Bill C-51 meant to bankrupt and silence its target audience?

Here's what you can do to protect your rights:

Educate Yourself

· Go to http://www.stopc51.com/ and read more about Bill C-51

· Read bill C-51 on www.parl.gc.ca

Tell others

· Talk to your local Press

· Contact your local MP Click Here
(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/
HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC)

· Ask the leaders in your community to get involved

· Contact your MLA

· Tell your Friends

Get involved

· Attend our rally at the Calgary Federal Court on May 9th 2008. Call 1-888-878-3467 for Details

· Print off this fact sheet and hand it out in your neighborhood.

· Forward this email to all of your concerned friends, family and community leaders
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8259
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

ACTION ALERT: Withdraw C-51, strengthen Canada's drug approv

Postby Oscar » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:12 pm

ACTION ALERT: Withdraw C-51,strengthen Canada's drug approval process

May 22, 2008

As recently noted by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), "The Harper government has introduced Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, which dramatically reduces safety requirements for drug approval. The current system of drug approval requires prior evidence of a minimum of safety and efficacy. However, C-51 reverses existing process by bringing 'promising' new drugs onto the market and then monitoring their effectiveness. This practice will expose Canadians to new drugs before their potential dangers are known. C-51 would permit the speedy marketing of expensive new drugs – many of which have no therapeutic advantage over safer, cheaper drugs – before research on effectiveness and safety is completed.”

They add, "Even post-marketing ‘surveillance’ to be done after new drugs are marketed will be carried out by the drug manufacturer involved, and thus will be biased in favour of the product being reviewed. For patients with rare diseases, who require access to groundbreaking new medications and can’t wait for a long approval process, a special access program already exists, one that does not include a general lowering of standards."

We argue that a key initiative within the Security and Prosperity Partnership calls for the, "Identification and appropriate adoption of best practices in maintaining the safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products." Two milestones within this initiative are to, "Evaluate best practices related to pharmaceutical review processes," and "Examine the use of International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines and adopt best practices in maintaining the safety, efficacy and quality of medicines within the next 36 months (June 2008)."

The Harper government's Bill C-51 would introduce the ‘progressive licensing' of new pharmaceutical products in Canada. Progressive licensing means an increased reliance on research conducted by the drug manufacturers themselves, fast-tracking the drug approval process, and the appraisal of the safety of drugs once they are on the market, again primarily by the drug companies themselves.

The Globe and Mail reported on April 9 that, "A study published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine found that drugs approved quickly in the United States to meet government-imposed deadlines were significantly more likely to be subject to recalls and safety problems." That same article quotes Joel Lexchin, a health policy professor at York University and drug safety expert: "I think that's a pretty dangerous thing to be doing. This is part of a general trend in a lot of countries, at least with respect to the drug-approval system, [which] is deregulation, turning over more responsibility to the drug companies."

The Edmonton Journal reported on April 9 that Canada will also be matching the U.S. penalty ceiling of $5 million for companies caught selling unsafe drugs. With profits last year of $8.144 billion, a company like Pfizer would have little difficulty shrugging that off.

Additionally, the CBC recently reported that, “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.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION

To read the Council of Canadians fact sheet on C-51, please go to http://canadians.org/integratethis/back ... theSPP.pdf.

To read our Integrate This! posting, go to http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/ ... May-6.html.

For additional background please read pages 164 to 168 of Maude Barlow’s book ‘Too Close for Comfort: Canada’s Future within Fortress North America’.

To read NUPGE’s letter to Health Minister Clement, go to http://www.nupge.ca/publications/MiscPD ... _apr08.pdf.

To read the CBC report ‘Criticism of natural health products Bill C-51 mounts’, go to
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/ ... ml?ref=rss.

TAKE ACTION

Write federal Health Minister Tony Clement at Clement.T@parl.gc.ca to express your opposition to C-51.

The Canadian Health Coalition is also asking Canadians to contact their MPs to voice their objections about C-51. You can access the action request by going to http://www.healthcoalition.ca/eC51.pdf.

SAMPLE LETTER

Minister Clement,

As a supporter of the Council of Canadians, I ask that you withdraw C-51 and take measures to ensure that Canada’s drug approval process is improved and strengthened, rather than deregulated with a greater dependence on research conducted by drug manufacturers.

According to an Environics poll conducted in April, 87% of Canadians agree that Canada should maintain the ability to set its own independent environmental, health and safety standards, even if this might reduce cross-border trade opportunities with the United States. With Bill C-51, Prime Minister Harper appears to be more concerned with corporate and U.S. priorities than the health and safety of Canadians.

Bill C-51 would introduce U.S.-style 'progressive licensing' for new pharmaceutical products in Canada. This means relying on corporate information to fast-track the drug approval process, and then letting drug companies keep track of the impact on our health. Yet, a recent study from The New England Journal of Medicine found that fast-tracking drugs to market in the United States has led to significantly more call-backs for safety reasons.

I look forward to your response.


<your name>


Brent Patterson
Director of Campaigns, Organizing,
& the Blue Planet Project
The Council of Canadians
700-170 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5V5
1-800-387-7177 ext. 291
bpatterson@canadians.org
www.canadians.org
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8259
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

BIG PHARMA'S Bill C-51

Postby Oscar » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:19 pm

Big Pharma's Bill C-51

(see full article by Helke Ferrie in The CCPA Monitor, June 2008 issue)

1. Go to www.stopc51.com and www.healthcoalition.ca and read their beautifully organized information, especially the “Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-51” by lawyer Shawn Buckley.

2. Schedule a visit to your local MPs as soon as possible. Do not go alone, always have a witness or two or three. Hand them Buckley’s analysis and demand that C-51 be killed.

3. Hear Shawn Buckley, Dr. Shiv Chopra, and Mike McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition at OISE on June 26. I am the moderator. Health Canada spies are welcome!

4. Write to Prime Minister Harper and tell him what you think. Be polite.

Resources & Sources:

S. Chopra, Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Scientists, Kos, 2008, in press, orders 519-927-1049

M.McBane, Ill-Health Canada: Putting food and drug company profits ahead of safety, CCPA, 2005

Regarding Bill C-51 – sample of provisions, not complete:

Sections 13 & 18.7 restricted availability of natural health products

Section 15.1 (4) arbitrary powers to grant prescription status

Sections 31 & 3 (3) historically unprecedentedly high fines and jail terms associated with new definition of “sell” and “person”

Sections 3 (6) & 18 academic freedom stopped and research dependent on Health Canada’s permission

Sections 3(6) & 30 (7) importation of international regulations without Canadian input or parliamentary debate (e.g. Codex)

Section 23 unprecedented powers of search and seizure (including bank accounts); powers exceed those of police

The debate in Parliament on Bill C-51 following First Reading can be accessed from the parliamentary website by putting “Bill C-51 + Canada” into google.

Groups opposing C-51 (only those I knew about at time of going to press):

International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine (founded by Dr. Abram Hoffer) centre@orthomed.org phone 416-733-2117

National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE); President J

James Clancy Ontario Medical Association’s Section on Complimentary Medicine, Chair Dr. Linda Rapson drrapson@sympatico.ca

Canadian Health Coalition, Director Michael McBane,
www.healthcoalition.ca

Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom trueman@tucksprofessionalservices.com

Natural Health Product Protection Association (their lawyer is Shawn Buckley)

Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd (they won their case in court against Health Canada when the latter shut down a clinical trial using natural substances to treat bi-polar disorder at the University of Calgary

To access the above as well as new organizations go to
www.stopc51.com and www.healthcoalition.ca

Important documentary material analyzing the issues:

Discussion Paper on Bill C-51 by lawyer Shawn Buckley, President of the Natural Health Product Protection Agency (NHPPA) – may be accessed on the two websites above. It contains all the legal details, section by section, analyzed in ordinary language.

Dr. James Lunney, PC Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Albertini, BC. He wrote an Excellent article for Vitality Magazine’s September 2003 issue available on their website. It presents the reasons why he introduced Bill C-420 then with the support of then PC Leader, Stephen Harper. To understand how outrageous the current Bill C-51 is, it is imperative to read Dr. Luney’s article. He is now on record as being opposed to C-51. He called me after First Reading of C-51 and said : “You have to start a prairie fire to stop this bill!”

Garry Anderson wrote an excellent in-depth analysis of the principles violated by Bill C-51. The important point he makes involve the secrecy of the Governor-in-Council method to by-pass parliamentary and public debate, the abuse of science and the abuse of the international Precautionary Principle evident in the wording of C-51. Must read! Available from him at garryanderson@shaw.ca

For the background information on Direct-to-Consumer-Advertising (DTCA) go to Canadian Medical Association Journal January 2, 2007, p.19, which explains the current legal action by CanWest against health Canada to remove prohibitions against DTCA on the grounds of Being a violation of the Charter rights of free speech (Big Tobacco was defeated on that argument by the Supreme Court years ago). Bill C-51 proposes dropping Section 3 of the current Food and Drugs Act which would be dropping that prohibition. The experts on DTCA, its effects on public policy, health and Medicare are Professor Joel Lexchin of York University, Professor Barbara Mintzes of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and Professor Alan Cassels of the same university and co-author (with Patrick Moynihan) of Selling Sickness: How The World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients, Nation Books 2004. The research and published letters to the media are available on the website of the Canadian Health Coalition www.healthcoalition.ca

What happened in Australia when a similar bill was introduced and how it effectively killed all choice in natural health products came to me via on May 9, 2008, from Croft Woodruff at croft.woodruff@gmail.com For details on how Canadians feel about the issues involved in Bill C-51 as well as the recently killed Bill C-517 (which would have made labeling of GMO products mandatory) go to Council of Canadians
www.Canadians.org and read the latest document published by them entitled “Not Counting Canadians: The Security and Prosperity Partnership and public opinion”. C-51 harmonizes Health Care with this newly proposed treaty which would eliminate public debate, as the treaty over-rides national rights and citizen involvement in policy. According to independently conducted polls, 87% of Canadians want to retain our ability to set our own standards with regard to environment, health and safety issues – which this treaty would stop.
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8259
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

NEWS: C-51 revised on natural health products

Postby Oscar » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:25 pm

June 14, 2008

NEWS: C-51 revised on natural health products

Dear chapter activists,

As reported by the Canwest News Service this morning, "In a surprising about-face, Health Minister Tony Clement has agreed to key demands of the natural health products industry after the sector launched a grassroots campaign against restrictions on homeopathic medicines and herbal remedies in new legislation."

The article continues, "The government is now proposing to insert a definition of natural health products into the Food and Drugs Act to 'clearly recognize' that they're distinct from foods and drugs under the law...The new amedments make explicit mention that traditional knowledge and history of use can be considered for obtaining authorization to sell a natural health product...The new amendments (also) clarify that inspectors can only detain a product to identify or prevent a health risk or to prevent inacurate representations."

Thanks, Brent Patterson
Council of Canadians

===============================================

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/
story.html?id=7c0782b9-1e34-4d39-8cc3-688bdb1e0b53

About-face on natural health products

Health Minister won't lump in natural medicines with pharmaceutical drugs
Vancouver Sun
Published: Friday, June 13, 2008

OTTAWA - In a surprising about-face, Health Minister Tony Clement has agreed to key demands of the natural health products industry after the sector launched a grassroots campaign against restrictions on homeopathic medicines and herbal remedies in new legislation.

When Clement proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act in April, natural medicines were lumped in with pharmaceutical drugs, raising concerns they would be subject to the same type of oversight. He now admits it was a mistake not to create a separate category under the law.

"My attitude is a bill is a work in progress. Let's see whether we are clearly getting out the things that we want to do in a particular bill. In this case, obviously protecting the health and safety of Canadians was and remains the motive for the bill," Clement said in an interview Friday.

But he added it "became clear that some things that we thought were implicit in the bill" needed to be spelled out.
"So, I listened to that, I listened to my own caucus who were getting the feedback from people as well, and to me it was a no-brainer. We can make the bill a better bill. We can make it explicitly, as well as implicitly, more balanced, and we still achieve our goals, which is protecting the health and safety of Canadians," said Clement.

The government is now proposing to insert a definition of natural health products into the Food and Drugs Act to "clearly recognize" that they're distinct from foods and drugs under the law.

"Canadians have clearly expressed the desire to recognize natural health products as a unique category of products," a ministry backgrounder states about changes tabled in the House of Commons.

Full article at: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/
story.html?id=7c0782b9-1e34-4d39-8cc3-688bdb1e0b53
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8259
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Bill C-51 Pharma interest

Postby Oscar » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:45 pm

June 22, 2008

Subject: Bill C-51 Pharma interest, Genetically engineered plants become "natural"; no labelling requirement

There needs to be an explicit statement in the "Natural Health Products" Act: genetically engineered plants do not qualify for inclusion. They are not "natural"; they are a separate category that requires label standards.

My letter to the Government is appended with email addresses in case you are equally dismayed and wish to write the Government.

This is a continuation of the battle over herbicide-tolerant (genetically-engineered) crops. It is also part of the battle over labeling requirements. And corporatist Government.

In this discussion, remember that in the current economic model small, successful innovators (e.g. "bio-pharmaceuticals") are quickly gobbled up by the large transnational corporations. People often develop a business with the idea that they will strike pay dirt when the buy-out happens.

==========================

Bill C-51 is proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

(Government web-site http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/about-apropos/

I attended the Government-sponsored meeting over C-51 when it was in
Saskatoon last month.

A strong lobby organized by natural health practitioners and product sellers has caused the Government to make changes to the proposed legislation.

HOWEVER, there is a critical issue that is being missed. Most natural health products are plants - roots, leaves, seeds used by First Nations people, by Chinese people, by Africans - ground flax seed, ginseng, hemp seed - the list goes on for days.

The pharmaceutical companies are well along the road of plant engineering.

I asked the Government officials at the C-51 meeting if genetically-engineered plants (that become alternative "remedies") are required to be labeled under the Natural Health Products Act. The answer is "no".

Ipso facto they become "natural" health products.

Because of our work on wheat that has been engineered by the chemical companies to be resistant to chemical applications, I draw connections.

(1) IT IS GOOD BUSINESS TO BE AHEAD OF THE TRENDS

Connection:

- Monsanto has been invested in "organic" companies for a number of years because of the flight of money into organic markets.

- the pharmaceutical companies have been into "bio-pharmaceuticals" for years. The flight of money out of the drug culture of medicare into alternative/complementary therapies threatens their profits.

(2) EVIDENCE OF THE CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA BY THE BIOTECH/CHEM/PHARMA COMPLEX OF CORPORATIONS, WORKING WITH THE GOVERNMENT

Connection:

- The Patent Act was never intended to be applied to life forms and yet it is. This is in spite of admonitions by the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in two separate court cases (onco-mouse and Monsanto vs Schmeiser) telling the Government that the Patent Act needs to be updated. The Patent Act remains unchanged.

- Europeans have insisted that genetically-engineered foods must be identifiable - they must be labelled. Canadians have consistently stated that they want labelling of genetically-engineered foods. Do we get the labelling? No.

- Bio-technology has NEVER been debated in the Canadian House of Commons.

(3) CONTROL OF THE PLANTS

Connection:

The consequences of biotechnology as presently practiced in Canada, in-step with the U.S., based on earlier work in this network:

- the corporations seek control through ownership (patenting) of the seeds

- the corporations use the police and judicial system to intimidate people who grow the plants, or who are a threat to their profits (think of the court cases brought by Monsanto in the U.S., against the small dairies who label their milk as coming from cows that are not injected with bovine growth hormone).

- we are talking about very corrupt corporations/people, both in the chemical and in the pharmaceutical industries

- little information provides control. The mainstream media in North America doesn't do a good job of investigative journalism. Advertising revenues influence the tune played by some of the media. The public has very little idea of what is going on in the biotech field. Growth genes inserted into fish to make them grow to 6 times the size of normal fish within a year. What happens when they are "accidentally" released into the wild? Pigs whose genes have been manipulated to include human growth genes. Engineered trees. Nano-technology.

- bio-engineered plant seeds soon contaminate natural seed stocks.

- there are no natural predators or controls on introduced plants. They take over. They are a large threat to natural species.

- the "science" behind the bio-teched corporate products is bought by the corporations. They fund the universities and they fund the "scientists".

- corporate "ownership" of life forms is wrong. The Patent Act does not make it right.

Always the question: in whose interests?

Always the answer: the Government serves the corporate interest. Bill C-51 is yet another example; engineered plants bought and owned by corporations, expensive, not labeled as genetically engineered, serve only the corporate interest.

It will happen only if we are uninformed - if we don't know the connection between the pharmaceutical companies and bio-pharmaceuticals, the connection between plants and "natural" health products.

------------
At the outset of the meeting on Bill C-51 the Government officials emphasized that Canadians want labelling of ingredients so we know what we're ingesting. They said that Bill C-51 addresses this expressed desire of the Canadian public.

No it doesn't. Not if bio-engineered plants don't have to be labelled. And worse, the effect of the legislation is to make genetically engineered plants into "natural" products. If ever there was a scam, there it is.

Until the Government stops working for the corporations, they destroy their own credibility. There can be no respect. They are actively undermining our system of governance.

An official from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (Agriculture
Canada) attended the meeting on Bill C-51 (an initiative of Health Canada).

There were people that, when asked, were from the bio-pharma industry.

========================

LETTER TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

TO:

(1) Tony Clement, Minister of Health
Minister_Ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca

(2) Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture
sthomas@agr.gc.ca

(3) Health Canada Working Group on Bill C-51
fcsap-paspac@hc-sc.gc.ca
Telephone: 1-866-891-4542

(4) Carole Swan, President
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Agriculture Canada
swanc@inspection.gc.ca
(613) 221-3737

Dear All,

There needs to be an explicit statement in the "Natural Health Products" legislation: genetically-engineered and "mutagenesis" plants do not qualify for inclusion. They are not "natural"; they are a separate category that requires label standards.

From the Health Canada web-site:

" Health Canada's mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. Part of this includes having appropriate checks in place to help ensure that the natural health products Canadians use are safe, effective and of high quality and also that products are labelled accordingly and truthfully (including any warnings or cautions) so that Canadians can make safe and informed choices." (Item 38 at
http://www.canadiensensante.gc.ca/pr-rp/billC-51_e.html )

Truthful labelling requires that genetically-engineered plants will be labelled.

Failure of the Government to insist upon the labelling of genetically-engineered plants through the "Natural Health Products" legislation will be, once again, confirmation that the Government serves corporate interests at the expense of the public interest.

Should the legislation fail to require disclosure of genetically-engineered and mutagenesis ingredients, please provide your reasons.

Thank-you.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley
Saskatoon SK Canada
sabest1@sasktel.net
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8259
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm


Return to GMOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron