Canadian Bill C-51
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 6/21/08
What if, just for taking vitamin C, you could be thrown in jail for up to 2 years and fined up to $5,000,000?

That scenario could very well soon become a reality in Canada..

The Canadian Government is trying to pass a bill known as Bill C51; According to some interpretations of the bill, it would remove all supplements from over-the-counter availability, by only allowing MD's to prescribe them as they see fit

This would mean that if you wanted to take a multivitamin, you would have to book an appointment with your doctor and try to convince your doctor that you are in need of these supplements; If your doctor decides a certain drug would be better for you, then you won't have access to your supplements anymore

Consequences of the bill could include:

*No more supplement stores

*Supplements made illegal unless obtained through a prescription; 70 percent of all current supplements on the market could be removed

*Fines of up to $5,000,000 and/or 2 years in jail per incident of being caught breaking this law

Dr Mercola's Comments:

For many, this sounds inconceivable; Surely someone is misinterpreting the proposed law?

After hours of cross-checking, I must admit, I'm still a bit confused about its true potential ramifications

In reading the proposed law itself (for the full act see this link), the statements above appear to be potentially accurate interpretations; Ditto on the dire predictions made by Stop51. com

And, although the Canadian government's site Healthy Canadians claims that none of the above statements are true, it offers very little in terms of guidance on just how and why the law doesn't mean what it says

Why Should Americans Care?

If you're one of the millions of people in Canada, the United States or Mexico, who has never heard of the Trilateral Union, the North American Union (NAU), or Codex, I'm afraid you may be in for a quite a surprise; But don't feel bad, neither of our respective governments or major media outlets are speaking publicly or frankly about these plans

These issues are far too broad and deep to go into in this article, but they are the reasons why you should care about this law passing in Canada, even if you don't live there now – because in the foreseeable future the borders between our three countries might disappear

If you're reading this newsletter you obviously have access to the internet, so just Google "North American Union" or "Codex" and you'll get more than 74point6 million and 13 million hits respectively on these two topics

You can also search my website for previous articles on Codex and what these international food and supplement standards may mean for the future of nutritional supplements

If being an informed citizen matter to you, don't let these topics slip under your radar – they have the power to change our respective countries and our ways of life in more ways than you could imagine

What Does Codex Have to Do With C-51?

To answer that question we have to back up a couple of paces and start with a quick explanation of what Codex is

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, conceived by the United Nations in 1962, was birthed through a series of relationships between The World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the American FDA and USDA

The Codex Alimentarius itself is a compilation of food standards, codes of practice and guidelines that specify all requirements related to foods (whether processed, semi-processed, genetically engineered, or raw); Their purpose is to protect consumers' health, ensure fair business practices within the food trade, and eliminate international food trade barriers by standardizing food quality

Sounds good in theory, right?

However, the two most potentially dangerous prospects of Codex are: 1) these standards are being devised as international rules intended for world-wide adoption, and 2) Codex has classified nutrients as toxins

Yes, toxins; That's not a misprint

The Codex Commission decided—with the support of the United States—to use something called Risk Assessment, which assesses the maximum level of a substance – in this case a nutrient -- that may be ingested without causing any discernable biological effect

Did you get that one? Let me explain further

Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, a.k.a.. the science of toxins (as opposed to the science of nutrition); In a sane world, it is used to assess how much of a toxic substance you can safely eat without noticing any physical effects or problems; As soon as there is a biological effect, you have hit the upper, maximum limit for that substance

Codex is slowly but surely shimmying into position to mandate the universal maximum "safe" level of every vitamin, mineral, supplement and herb that may legally be manufactured, used or sold -- with "safe" being a level that has no physical effect

So, what does this have to do with Canada's potential adoption of C-51?

Well, C-51 also amends the Canadian law to allow trade agreements to become law without Parliamentary approval, and for the regulation to incorporate documents produced by a foreign state or subdivision of a foreign state

What that means is that the Codex treaty could become Canadian law without Parliamentary approval simply by passing a regulation saying it is now part of the Canadian regulations

If the Codex rules become the law of the land in Canada, the safety of supplements might become judged on the toxicology scale, and if Canada has these laws in place when the NAU becomes reality – guess what? The US and Mexico may have little choice but to fall under the same umbrella of laws and standards

And, even if you refuse to believe that the North American Union will ever take place, passing similar, potentially restricting natural health laws in the US will be a whole lot easier if Canada sets the precedent

The Fine Art of Double-Speak

The Canadian law, known as C-51, was introduced by the Canadian Minister of Health on April 8th, 2008, proposing far-reaching changes to Canada's Food and Drugs Act; The question on everyone's mind is whether or not it might have devastating consequences on the health products industry

According to the government website Healthy Canadians, Canadians will continue to have access to natural health products that are safe, effective and of high quality, and claims that:

Natural health products will not be regulated as pharmaceutical drugs; they will continue to be regulated under their own regulations - separate from drugs and foods

Bill C-51 will not increase the costs of natural health products

Bill C-51 does not regulate growing an herb garden

Bill C-51 does not target practitioners who compound products for their patients

Bill C-51 does not target Canadians' personal use of natural health products

Health food stores will not require a special license to sell natural health products

Canadians will not require a prescription from a doctor for natural health products

However, the site also makes somewhat confusing statements like:

"Under Bill C-51 the term 'therapeutic products' encompasses a range of products sold for therapeutic purposes, including drugs, medical devices, biologics, and natural health products; This does not change the classification of a natural health product nor impose additional requirements"

Personally, I've not been able to sort out why or how a natural health product -- if now lumped together with drugs under the term 'therapeutic products' -- would not change its classification, and why they would not have to abide by the same rules as all other 'therapeutic products'

The Power of Words

One of the most opposed changes is this radical alteration to key terminology, including replacing the word "drug" with "therapeutic product," which is the same term used for all natural products as well

To get a better idea of the many questions and confusing pitfalls this law change brings to fore, I recommend reading the NHPPA Draft Discussion Paper on Bill C-51

Clearly, I'm not the only one who can't make heads or tails out of this legislative doublespeak, and the paper (written by a defense attorney specializing in the Food and Drugs Act) succinctly points out the power of language and key words in legislative debate

For example, the old definition of "sell" is:

"includes the offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale and distribute, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration"

That's clear; In fact, I think most of us have a decent idea of what "selling" means; The NEW definition of "sell," however, opens the door for a very broad interpretation:

"includes offer for sale, expose for sale or have in possession for sale, or distribute to one or more persons, whether or not the distribution is made for consideration and in relation to a device, includes lease, offer for lease, expose for lease or have in possession for lease"

Now, what's the reason for redefining the meaning of the word "sell" to include the simple act of "distributing to one or more persons"? Who does this new meaning benefit? Who does this now include that was not included before? Why the need for such a broad definition?

In plain English, it appears the law now applies if I were to simply give something to another person for free, whether it's a stranger or a family member

More Questionable Interpretations

Another interesting rebuttal by the Canadian government is the issue of whether or not an inspector would be allowed to enter private property without permission or a warrant

The Healthy Canadian site states, "Inspectors will not be able to enter a private home without permission or a warrant"

And yet the law, Section 23 (4), clearly reads: An inspector who is carrying out their functions may enter on or pass through or over private property without being liable for doing so and without the owner of the property having the right to object to that use of the property

Since when does "without the right to object" mean that they have to ask for permission or present a warrant?

What Can You Do?

I don't pretend to know or understand the full potential implications of this proposed law; However, if -- after reading through the many source links I've included in this comment -- you believe that C-51 is a law that is not in your and your family's best interest, you can make your voice heard by signing the StopC51 petition
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 6/21/08
i think i got the gist of what u said. from what i understand, the US will have to implement this law too?
how stupid,they might as well ban oranges too.
Posted 6/21/08
I don't understand the reason for outlawing vitamin supplements :\ what is the point?
1059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / A small town in t...
Offline
Posted 6/21/08
this is so screwed up man, going to jail for vitamins, come on.
1059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / A small town in t...
Offline
Posted 6/24/08
You were not kidding at all!!!!!!!



According to the stop c-51 site

they can seize your property, and sell your property without compensation.

I think this would be an unconstitutional law here, but look at the patriot act.


I have a question who really stands to gain from all of this?

16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 6/24/08
screw cocaine. vitamins are the 'in' thing,bitch!

1498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Why do you wanna...
Offline
Posted 6/26/08
they're freaking crazy!
350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Vancouver, BC Canada
Offline
Posted 6/26/08
wow, just in time for the world wide food price crisis too :/
Posted 6/26/08 , edited 6/26/08

Weapon-01 wrote:



Talk about fucking mega plagiarism!


h4x0rz wrote:

screw cocaine. vitamins are the 'in' thing,bitch!



Christ is that a bad angle of Whinebitch or what! If vitamins are the 'in' thing as you claim, then the cause for its ban in Canada must be the all too willing scene kids jumping onto that bandwagon and abusing good ol' C with their only line of defense to be: Keeps the scurvey away. To which they would immediately realize that would put an end to their horrible interpretation of outlandish pirate fashion and suddenly there will be a gradual shift back to the emo entourage.

Either way, we're all fucked. =(
Posted 6/27/08
usa already tried to pass this shit - it got smashed in congress.

just greedy doctors who want extra $$$
6904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Newfoundland , c...
Offline
Posted 6/27/08
I never heard nothing of this bill and i live in canada
Posted 6/27/08
Interesting, soon you can't eat what you want because the Governement wants to know it....BIG BROTHER FTW!

Floetry~
1026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/27/08

amafiahitman wrote:

I never heard nothing of this bill and i live in canada


Same. All I hear on the news these days are the oil prices going up xD
You must be logged in to post.