Dr. Mercola June 19 2008 231,564 views
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:
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 74.6 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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:
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.
As I understand Codex (and I could be mistaken), our elected officials have nothing to do with it. This whole travesty is being decided across the pond. The folks at Natural Freedom (www.HealthFreedomUSA.org ) have been involved personally with the meetings. For those interested, it would be great to have many more people involved, supporting what they're doing. The aim of Codex is to control food production as well.
hasn't anyone seen the documentary called "we become silent"??? judy dench narrates and it is shocking!! you can watch it on youtube and it's funny beacuse they interview ron paul:)
When it is fully and completely understood that modern medicine is about TREATMENT and Not about CURE then, and only then, will all the actions of government, insurance, pharmaceutical and medical behaviors be comprehended.
I constantly see the same thing in the health food store where I work. Customers try doctors and things just get worse.
One man had a full head of black hair until he had open heart surgery. When he left the hospital a few days later, his hair was snowy white.
Now he's taking all sorts of supplements, and watching his 'liver spots' go away.
How far will the government go to suppress natural cures. In my case, they'd have to ban garlic and peppers I bought in the grocery store to cure my Stage 4 cancer: www.squidoo.com/stage4cancer
Kelley Eidem
Our oxymoronic Health Canada does whatever it wants to; it has ignored parliamentary mandates to respect the desire of a vast majority of Canadians to have a seperate category for natural health products. This was ten years ago, when we thought we had scored a victory.
Our "health" minister, Tony Clement, owns 25% of Prudential Chem Inc. How absurd is that? When this became public, his party requested that he sell his interests in this chemical company. I've heard nothing about whether he had done this or not.
I bet he makes a lot of money.....
First of all, we have to remember that there is just as much room for fraud in the "natural" industry as there is in the drug industry.
The only way to take in nutrients that actually nourish your body, is in the form of FOOD. These OTC, "vitamins", are isolated, fractionated, chemicals, and are not real food that your body can actually use. It is a bogus industry in itself. If you need a supplement you must take one that is made from whole foods, that actually contain all of the constituents that whole food contains, both known and unknown. There is millions of parts that make the whole, and not just a few discovered things sticking out there like a sore thumb. The body struggles for Homeostasis. These artificial forms of vitamins throws it off balance. The body will scavenge itself, looking for all the nutrients to make this OTC "vitamin" complete, and therefore useful. At least it tries to, and it causes other deficiencies in the process as time goes on.
This is how it works folks. You do not do yourselves any good by taking a dose of an isolated, dead, chemical into your body, even if it says "vitamin" on the label. They are not "natural" as far as the body's ability to utilize them properly and actually get some good out of them. You need whole food nutrition; green food; proper oils, etc. That's it in a nutshell.
So, it doesn't bother me at all if this whole, multi billion dollar industry shuts down. They have been fooling the public for way too many years, with all the hype and bs.
Every time they make a "new discovery" and put it in a pill in a mega dose, that same "new discovery" will be found in whole food when looked for. The difference being, in whole food, there is a synergistic effect because of all the other nutrients also there, both known and unknown which makes it in a form the body can use.
Fortitude, i suspect that you may have misunderstood the meaning of "laissez-faire." A "laissez-faire" economy is one in which the government does not enact legislation to interfere with private transactions. The legislation reported in this article represents the very opposite of laissez-faire. It is government interference in private transactions on a grand scale. In a truly laissez-faire system, private individuals and companies (large or small or mom-and-pop) would be free to buy or sell or give away any health-related substances of their choosing, without government input. I cannot comprehend your complaint that the scenario outlined in this article is the result of "laissez-faire" economics, when in fact a laissez-faire policy would nip this kind of legislation in the bud and allow all citizens of Canada (or whatever country) to purchase whatever foods or supplements they thought would be best for them, without the interference of the government, the medical oprofession or the pharmaceutical industry. The problem here is almost certainly that powerful lobbies associated with the medical profession and the pharma companies have supported this bill. That's NOT laissez-faire. It's government control.
I like what Judy Miller says about food in relation to vitamins. But I have problems/issues with this entire thread as far as it perpetuating potential false fears. For example the headline of the article: Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada! to me is really an ill-informed scare tactic and I am ashamed to see it because if you read the bill as I have you'll see it really isn't true. And then everyone goes on and on as if they are informed or buy into it and thusly they perpetuate bad information. If we just assume that what one person is saying is true and then perpetuate it as being so that's part of the problem.
You see, I actually went and read the entire bill. And, I will say this. If the headline Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada! is true then it should be changed to read: Vitamin C and all FOOD About to be Made Illegal in Canada!
Because in reality, the bill for everything it is doing/saying with regard to supplements also broadly covers all food in each and every statement when it talks about supplements. Personally, I don't think it is that much different than laws already in place by the FDA here to regulate the sale, advertisement of and quality of supplements and food here in the US.
Now, with that said, does it give the government more teeth in which to ban or regulate a supplement? Yes, it does. But does it patently cause all supplements to be scheduled for classification as a drug, regulated as such and so forth. No, it doesn't. If it does, it does the same for all food in the same breath.
Does that mean the government won't regulate supplements or pick and choose which ones to ban? No, it doesn't. Does this post mean I trust the government to do the right thing? I'm an American Indian, what do you think?
Judy, unfortunately with companies like Monsanto taking over the seed and food production in this country and the world, it is awfully hard to get the nutrients you need in food alone, what with chemical ferterlizers, chemical pesticides, GMOs, etc. Unless you have your own farm and raise your own meat and produce organically, you're doomed to the control of government and pharmaceuticals. And there are some of us for which food just isn't enough for a certain nutrient. Such as if you are under a lot of stress -- work, money, rising cost of GAS!, you would need more than the RDA or even what you can get from food of B complex vitamins, vitamin C, and many others (unless you eat to excess and get fat to get your nutrients). And those who live in northern climates need more than they can get from food (i.e. milk) of vitamin D as it comes mostly from the sun. Without vitamins and supplents, we are all doomed!
Well said Judy. I am currently taking whole food supplements myself for a health issue and there is definitely a difference.
Substructure, I do believe you've got that backwards. To these big corporate conglomerates (not just Big Pharma) laissez-faire means they want to be left alone to do business their way. Look how they cry about their "freedom" being stepped on when the gov't does try to regulate them. To them freedom means they are the only ones with any right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so they are free to screw everyone else (pardon my language) with no fear for any consequences. Since these people are not principled enough and responsible enough to do business in a way that doesn't cause massive harm, there needs to be some form of government regulation, and it needs to be enforced, to keep them in line. Not only does the current administration not want new consumer protection laws, I doubt they're doing much at all to enforce the old ones.
On the other hand,something like this Canadian law is frightening. It claims to be protecting the consumers from harmful substances while forcing them into a situation where they'd be consuming nothing but! I wanted to sign the petition at the link but it's been closed.
Judy, I'm not sure why you've been modded down so severely, you're absolutely right. However, it's harder and harder to get good nutrients in foods anymore--for those who can't afford or don't have access to organic, locally grown foods, vitamin supplements are at least a decent way to try and get some of that nutrition. I hope that option does not get removed altogether.
Impruv, i was simply correcting Fortitude's understanding of what the term "laissez-faire" means. It is a term that has a meaning which can be objectively stated; we could go round and round on the very interesting topic of what large pharmaceutical companies "want" it to mean, or what small business owners tired of being regulated by the government "want" it to mean, or even what private individuals who wish to make their own nutritional decisions "want" it to mean. But i was simply correcting Fortitude's badly mistaken understanding of what the expression IN FACT means. :) And it means a scenario in which the government does not regulate transactions within the private sector. Apply the concept however you wish, but that's what it means.
And as i see it, one of the major problems with this item of legislation, as it has been explained in Dr. Mercola's report, is that it attempts to take away from private individuals and companies the right to make their own decisions concerning the appropriateness of any given nutritional product. This is a grotesque violation of the basic concept of laissez-faire, and is rightly to be opposed.
It is a violation of laissez-faire principle to regulate one economic community (in this case, the manufacturers of nutritional supplements) in order to give an unfair advantage to another (the unholy alliance of the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical corporations). A proper application of laissez-faire philosophy here would work AGAINST the big drug companies, not in their favor.
Ladies and Gentlemen, i respectfully ask you to stop fighting...
I think Judy is very right in encouraging people to eat more whole foods, and it's refreshing to see there is Hope.
On another level, it's outrageous to see how Governments try to manipulate masses, that's wrong (in everybody's opinion, i'm sure).
Personally, i take a multivitamin and vit. D supplements from natural sources everyday (and i live in Canada), but if these will disappear from the shelf one day, i'll put more effort into eating more whole foods and getting more sunshine (btw, great to bring sunshine back into our lives, dr. Mercola, thanks again :) )
God knows what we need and always takes care of us. Have faith...
Regarding what Judy Miller has to say here, the issue isn't what is the most healthful. The issue is whether the state should be permitted these powers. I sure as heck don't think so. We're rapidly becoming slaves of these cowardly, ignorant, self-serving bureaucrats. But if you're comfortable with some mega-government telling you what you can ingest (as opposed to, say, gathering and providing information for you to make your own decisions), then how much longer do you think you're going to have access to "whole foods"? How much longer before they ban natural plants because of their economic inefficiency and replace them with GMO? Won't be long. This is a very slippery and hazardous slope.
This Canadian bill shows the obvious and intended vagaries of Codexesque influence. The bill is written so as to allow gross misinterpretation depending on which judicial idiot is interpreting it for his or her personal crony's best financial interest.
Fortitude... you are confused, We don't have a laissez-faire economy and never had one. And that's where the problem lies. In a truly free economy (free from government regulations, special interests, corruption) these things we are discussing are not possible. Read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The unknown ideal".
Impruv, what do you know about laissez-faire? Our Big Farma would look quite different from what we have now if it weren't for Government interference with business: regulations, grants, subsidies, special treatments, privileges, lobbying.
Those are all deceases of our government and every other one on this planet.
Any government should only have a few functions: creating and enforcing the laws that protect citizens' rights and arbitrating citizens' disputes. That's it.
Business is self-regulated in a free market economy. One who's practicing fraudulent business would very soon go out of business. There would be no one out there to bail them out... just read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: the unknown ideal", and you will hopefully understand what I'm talking about.
Given the size to which our bureaucracy machine has ballooned in the past century, one would think that going back to a "slim" government would be a total utopia, like loosing weight for someone who's 500lbs overweigh...
Judy, you are correct about there is room for fraud in the 'natural' industry and I agree with you about CHEMICAL vitamin suppliments. However to include ALL suppliments as useless or harmful is erroneous. The vitamin supplments and enzymes we take from our Naturopath are not synthetic and are of the highest standard. They have greatly helped my husband (84) and myself (58). And the amino acids (natural) have had a noticeable effect on my skin. That is enough proof for me that they are helpful, useful and effective.
Of course, we eat no processed food etc. But after taking the recommended supplements, there was a noticeable improvement especially for my husband. Aged folk are often too stubborn to eat the amounts they should or the particular foods they should. This is where good natural supplements are particularily useful.
Tjis is to Judy Miller. Yes, our best defense is whole foods...but if not for vitamin e supplements my varicose veins would hurt so much I could hardly stand the pain in my legs. With it, they feel good. So give me a break, Judy. Without the natural foods and supplements industry, even with its flaws, BIG PHARMA would have us all in a corner....and they love keeping folks sick enough long enough, to pick our pockets on the way to the grave!
I just tried to sign the petition but it had been closed after only 17,157 out of the goal of 111,111 signatures. The pharmaceutical companies get more frightening every day. I actually know someone who works for a major Pharm company and they are so clueless to what's going on. He is a physicist and doesn't even understand the implications of some of the things the company is doing. They are so tricky they even have their employees brainwashed.
Bill C-51 Will:
Allow Government agents to:
-Enter private property without a warrant [Section 23.4]
-Confiscate your property at their discretion [Section 23.2 a]
-Dispose of your property at their discretion [Section 23.3 c]
-Seize your bank accounts without a warrant
-Charge you for shipping and storage of your property [Section 23.3a-b]
-Store your property Indefinitely without paying you for damages [Section 23.2 d]
-Levy fines of up to $5,000,000.00 / 2 years in jail per offence. [Section 31.1]
Introduce new legislation that will:
-Allow laws to be created in Canada, behind closed doors, with the assistance of foreign governments, industrial and trade organizations [Section 30.7]
-Allow "Crack house style" of enforcement on natural health providers [Section 23.1]
-Allow enforcement to be considered on more than 70% of Canadians who use NHP's
-Allow the minister, based on opinion, to shut down research without any scientific reason or evidence of risk or harm [Section 18.5]
-Allow the minister, based on opinion, to allow or disallow market authorizations for Natural Health Products [Section 18.7 (1)]
Vitamin C in tablet form.. IS NOT NATURAL.. indeed it can be toxic.. get your vitamin C from natural sources.. kiwi, oranges, vegetables, etc.
The Canadian Government seems to be encouraging its population not to be ripped off by alternative supplement people..
Ask your doctor.. a healthy diet, good nutrition is what it is all about.. not pill popping..
katie5757,
I think you're missing the point--the gov't has already taken away too many of our freedoms as is. This will lead to your not even be able to grow your own garlic, rosemary, basil, kiwis, oranges, etc.
If the average MD had 1/3 of the Nutritional education that I got from Western States Chiropractic College, then they would know enough to actually do some good. They don't get 1% of what we learned.
Dr Rik, having gone through the DC program and learning a substantial amount about nutrition, wouldn't you agree that the ingredients in most vitamins, while being the same chemicals that are found naturally in foods, are very difficult to digest when dumped into the body in mass quantites? The problem with these products is the same thing as with medication, people are MISINFORMED of how these products and the human body work.
I am a huge proponent of healthcare alternative to medicine. I do have fears that the government will not stop with their restictions as they do seem to become carried away with things once they get started. I would be very frustrated if a bill were passed that restricts our ability to decide what is right, but I am equally frustrated with large corporations (which vitamin and supplement companies mostly are) misleading the general public into believing things that simply are not true.