• Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
  • Charter of Health Freedom
The Truth About Public Safety

First, Do No Harm

There has never been a death in Canada caused by a natural health product.

There are multiple deaths every year caused by common foods such as peanuts and shellfish, by smoking or by adverse drug reactions. In comparison natural health products are extremely safe. When you think about the health benefits of NHPs, including that many of us rely upon them for our very lives, it is clear that the real danger in regulating them is to “over-regulate” them off of the market.

Follow The Money

NHPs have the best safety record of all classes of medicaments.

Current proposed regulations for NHPs directly harms the economic welfare of the large number of Canadians whose livelihood is invested in this growing business sector.

There are a lot of jobs at stake. Growers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, health professionals and researchers all will suffer if these new regulations take effect. The regulatory chill that has been directed towards natural health will confine Canada’s ability to participate in this high-growth international industry. Members of Parliament must support the development of a healthy NHP industry that is rich in entrepreneurial vitality instead of allowing regulation to strangle it.

The greatest crisis facing Canadians in our health care system is the growing tension between constantly rising costs and declining outcomes. When Canadians use NHPs they ease the burden on the health care system. This deserves to be recognized by our federal government.

NHPs are clinically effective; their preventative properties benefit consumers and this reduces the demand on high priced taxpayer-funded conventional medicine. They are largely used by people who have actively taken control of their health. The net effect of this is a sustainable health care system.

It should be the case that the widest possible use of NHPs is formally promoted.

As A Matter Of Fact

Every year in Canada people die from eating peanuts.
And it is a fact that Canadians are more likely to be bitten by a shark than harmed by a natural health product.
See full story on an actual risk analysis from Canadian government statistics that says so.

Click here to Watch Video

Risk Relative To Legal Dietary Supplements 1
© Ron Law 2002
http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/medical_injury_law.pdf

Risk of Dying in Canada Compared to Being Killed on a Boeing 747 Flight
© Ron Law 2004
http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/ronlaw/relative_risk_boeing72.pdf

It Doesn’t Work?

The fact that most NHP licences are being refused on the efficacy ground is staggering.

Especially when, after some digging, it was found that only a couple of dozen NHPs have been refused due to safety concerns. In a January 2009 in an Alive Magazine interview with NHPD Director General, Michelle Boudreau it was clear that roughly 10,000 applications have failed. An NHP consultant (article below written in 2008) points out that only a few dozen of these have failed because of any safety concern.

In a 2011 report for MPs, industry stakeholder John Biggs investigated these claims even further. He wrote:
‘Health Canada maintains that safety is their utmost priority for the regulations, yet less than 5% of licenses were denied due to safety concerns. This includes a dried parsley product. The agency doesn’t specify how small this category actually is because several causes are lumped together, as being “…refused due to quality, safety, and/or efficacy issues…” i.e. safety could actually account for less than 1% of license refusals. Even this would not necessarily mean these products weren’t safe, rather it often just indicates a paperwork deficiency. If an application fails to prove safety, it gets refused, even if other products with identical ingredients received approval on their applications. Such was the case with the parsley refusal.One might think that this would apply to products that don’t work, but in fact, often the opposite is true. When a product produces beneficial results in the health of a consumer, it is also likely to be refused.’

This means that almost every single failure is due to paperwork and/or efficacy issues. How is the government justifying Health Canada’s ability to take away our freedom to choose over a “safety” issue?”

Different things work for different people. Efficacy is about “intended effect” or "beneficial change" with drugs and NHPs. Efficacy is as much the responsibility of the individual as it is the NHP or drug.

Efficacy issues with NHPs have not cost anyone their life.

How Will The Industry Respond?

Article: if the NHP Regulations are not really meant to protect you, then who are they for?
By Shawn Buckley
March 2012

Whenever a government imposes strict regulations that will restrict consumer choice and raise the price of the products that remain, a justification must be given to consumers so that they will support the new regulations. Almost without exception the justification is safety. The average consumer has become so accustomed to accepting restrictions in the name of safety, that seldom is there any resistance to new regulations.
Few consumers are savvy enough to understand that instead of blindly supporting “safety” regulations, that they should be wary whenever any government says their freedom needs to be restricted for “safety” reasons. This will change in the near future, but for now the average consumer accepts safety regulations without any critical analysis. This has been largely true with the Natural Health Product Regulations (the “NHP Regulations”).

Click here to read a pdf of the article

Article: Betrayed!
By Brian Wagner
Summer 2008

There is no light regulatory touch. We do not have a risk-based system. Products are not allowed to be on the market without claims. The Inspectorate still abuses their power with seizure and, with Bill C-51, they will gain even greater power. Products are “not being approved”, not because they are dangerous or contaminated. They are being banned because there are insufficient clinical trials published on their ingredients.

Our industry must stop hoping beyond hope that the NHPD will somehow change their tune and start licensing more products, out of kindness or consideration. As a directorate, their business is to “process” submissions. And, the fastest way of doing this, is by refusing them, not licensing them. The NHPD’s self-preservation depends on their banning most products on the market. So, the real question is, how will this industry respond? Will we roll over and play dead, or stand up and fight?

Click here to read a PDF of the article

Article: Give This Man A Cape
By Tamara Letkeman
October 2008

Shawn Buckley climbs the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery to the sound of ardent applause, whoops, and whistles. With his dark good looks (think Christian Bale or George Clooney), he could be mistaken for a celebrity who’s hit town to hold court with his fans. And in a way, he is…

Article original posting: http://www.shared-vision.com/20080929/give-this-man-a-cape

Risk Relative To Legal Dietary Supplements 2
© Ron Law 2002
http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/ron_law_tables/tabella.html

The question is this: How then can we subject these two completely different forms of medicine to the same regulations? We can’t. We need to respect the fact that they are not the same and as such should be regulated separately.

Imagine if we had two un-identical twins. Two sons. At the age of 16 they both want to use the car and drive. We let both use the car but after some time we learn that one son was prone to fender benders followed by a crash. This would appear to be irresponsible. The other has a good driving record, is responsible and is free of incident. Now given the fact that one son might be a danger to others on the road, we would imagine we would want to put some restrictions on him, say no driving at night, only being allowed to use the car for an hour a day or restricting him until his driving style changed.

It wouldn’t make sense – or be fair – to subject the road-savvy son to these same restrictions.

NHPs should be presumed safe until proven dangerous and should not be restricted in the name of safety. By adhering to Good Manufacturing Principles (GMP) with rules and regulations guided by the Charter of Health Freedom, we know a safe and fair system can be created for those with “a clean driving record”.

In On The Action

Help build the new and independent law to expressly govern Natural Health Products.

Each and every one of us who believes in their rights and freedoms needs to speak out. Not just speaking out amongst ourselves. But speaking out in public. We can address any concerns or questions the public, industry, researchers or complimentary and allopathic professionals may have.

Fear and assumption will suffocate our cause. Be courageous, active and positive. Help make this desired fundamental change by stopping any domestic or global threats to our natural health industry.

If we feel we are worthy of freedom, let’s come together with Parliament to create true and lasting health reform in Canada.

 
Today is May 29, 2017
 

Wrong version or no version of Flash detected

You might also have JavaScript disabled. If so, please enable scripting in your browser's preferences or internet options or download the latest Internet Explorer or Firefox browser.

If you'd like to download the latest Flash plug-in, click here.

Donate Today
Bill C-51 Dead or Alive?
Bill C-51 Dead or Alive?
Know Your Rights

Public Opinion Poll

Do you think you are FREE?