Where Have All the NHP's Gone?

For those of you that are unfamiliar with Bill C-51, it is a new bill that has been under hot debate for the past year because it deals with Natural Health Products (NHP's) and pharmaceuticals. I researched both sides and I present to you, Pt. 1 of a two part look into Bill C-51, what it is about, what the arguments are on both sides and how it can effect us all in the long run....

The Bill that caused a thousand arguments has been tabled for the time being as Ontario residents gear up for an election, but that doesn’t mean that the big bad Bill has been put out to pasture. The issues with Bill C-51 are two-fold, in this article we will discuss the increased regulation of natural health products (NHP) and what this could mean for you. In part two, we’ll look at the pharmaceutical issues connected with Bill C-51 and how that ties our health care breakdown together, but let’s start with vitamins….

Bill C-51 seems to be a hot button topic in the GTA, and why not, a proposed Bill that limits our ability to both purchase and store natural health products? That seems crazy when you consider an NHP can be anything from a vitamin C tablet to ground up mushrooms from the rainforest. Before touting the advantages of natural health products over pharmaceuticals, let’s consider the first fundamental issue with Bill C-51, the language.
The language of the Bill seems to make these debates more heated because, as many government documents tend to be, it is vague and leaves a lot of important issues open to interpretation. For example, on page 14 of this 62 page monster, under section 15.1 (4) the Bill states
“…The Minister may, by order, designate a therapeutic product-either individually or by class-as a prescription therapeutic product..”
Here is what appears to be a simple sentence, giving the Minister the ability to label anything previously considered an NHP as a prescriptive NHP, and thus severely limiting the average person’s access to the product. The language is much too vague and gives this illustrious ‘Minister’ what appears to be complete power to designate prescriptions. There is no mention of required scientific research to support such a change in status, nor is there any committee or group that needs to be consulted. This makes many people nervous, especially when you consider the individuals who are being handed this power. Take a look at Tony Clement, our Health Minister and you might see what can cause these concerns. The individuals in power do not generally look like the healthiest people. Take Mr. Clement, pretty soft in the middle, carrying a little extra weight in that oh-so dangerous ‘spare tire’ area . For a man who is supposed to be concerned with the health of every Canadian, he looks remarkably unhealthy.
So, we have just agreed, through the vague language of Bill C-51, to allow an individual, perhaps someone who has never taken an NHP, to decide which NHPs should be available over the counter and which should be prescription only. One of the supplements you can look forward to asking your GP to prescribe is St. John’s Wort, a mild and natural mood enhancer that has been used for centuries as a solution to depression and anxiety. How many doctors do you think will be handing out prescriptions for St. John’s Wort when Zoloft and Prozac keep dropping off trunk loads of samples?

The imprecise language is prevalent throughout the Bill with vague references that allow for great things like free reign search and seizure perpetrated by an inspector who can be chosen, just like the Minister, from a pool of individuals with no previous experience with NHPs. This inspector can;
(pg 24. Section 23.1)
“Enter a place, including a conveyance and
(2) examine or test anything
(2b.) open a receptacle or package
( c ) examine a document
( d ) seize and detain for any time that may be necessary.”

The inspector has the ability to do all of these things without a warrant or member of law enforcement present. That seems like that have more ability to seize and detain than our anti-terrorism laws and regulations allow. Odd, last time I checked, Canada has never seen a loss of life from NHPs.

Let’s move away from the language, otherwise we will be here until after the American election, let’s just suffice it to say that the authority granted to inspectors and ministers under Bill C-51 makes me very nervous, and I have always been a law abiding citizen. Onward and upward, let’s look at some of the reasons why this bill may have been introduced in the first place and examine those motives.
John Biggs of the Edmonton Journal mentions a study conducted by Health Canada in 2004, shortly after the initial Food and Drug Act began to include NHP’s. In this study, Health Canada polled Canadians coast to coast to find out what concerned them most about the Food and Drug Act and what they would like to see amended/included. Overwhelmingly, the polls came back telling Health Canada that Canadians wanted easier access to NHPs and a basic regulation system to ensure that pharmaceuticals being brought into the country were sufficiently tested before finding their way to the marketplace. What Canadians ended up with, was the beginning of NHPR, natural health product regulations.
The NHPR were supposed to create a safety net for Health Canada, allowing them to eliminate dangerous products quickly and efficiently. What we ended up with was a jumble of information, exaggerated on both ends by alarmists who didn’t want change. The hard science group was alarmed that NHPs were being given the same consideration and respect that had been reserved exclusively for pharmaceuticals until recently. Those who supported NHPs were worried that increased regulations would make it harder to find NHPs and also increase the current price point. In an effort to appease both sides of the issue, Heath Canada created a new blanket term, ‘therapeutic products’ that can cover both NHPs and drugs.

Our quick history lesson takes us up to the inception of Bill C-51 that continues to keep both categories under the ‘therapeutic products’ umbrella. Strangely enough, this Bill has done the exact opposite of what Canadians asked for 4 years ago. Now, NHPs can be denied access to Canada, even products that have been sold in Canada for decades can be re-assessed and denied entrance. The cost of licensing and testing to sell an NHP in Canada has gone up exponentially and although the government consistently tells us the cost of NHPs will not increase due to Bill C-51, how can any consumer in their right mind assume that an increase in cost to sell in Canada will not be reflected in the retail price. On top of all that, by classifying drugs as ‘therapeutic products’ the Bill has made provisions for new and exciting drugs to flood the market place with very little research to back up it’s claims.

I think perhaps the most frustrating part of researching Bill C-51 is the complete lack of acknowledgement that the government seems to have initially given the Canadian people. After checking the Government of Ontario’s health website, www.healthycanadians.ca, I was angered by their assumptions. The FAQ page for Bill C-51 made statements like;
“ NHPs will NOT be regulated like pharmaceuticals.
Bill C-51 will NOT increase the cost of NHPs
Bill C-51 will NOT regulate the growing of personal herb gardens.
Bill C-51 will NOT target practitioners.
Bill C-51 will NOT require all individuals to obtain a prescription for NHPs”

They make these statements just as I have written them, with capital letters and a simplicity that implies we are too simple to understand the language of the Bill. If NHPs aren’t meant to be regulated like pharmaceuticals, then why are they placed in the same category and treated the same in the document? In fact, you created a brand new blanket term to include NHPs and drugs. Seems an odd move if you don’t want to treat them the same.
Bill C-51 WILL in fact raise the cost of NHPs. How can anyone with any concept of money disagree? Bill C-51 requires more documentation, more scientific trials and more intense licensing programs. When the companies suddenly have to spend more to get the same amount of product sold in Canada, where do you think the increase expenditure will be placed? On the retail cost of course! On top of all that, now all stores/locations that sell NHPs will also have to go through a more stringent licensing process, which costs them more money and thus, will increase their mark-up on such products.
Bill C-51 MIGHT regulate your herb garden. After researching this topic, this is one of the topics batted back and forth most frequently because it seems very unreasonable. Most politicians say that such paranoia is absurd, but answer me this; If you don’t want to regulate my herb garden, why allow for language that makes that a possibility? Don’t you want to protect your citizens? Once this Bill is in place, any desired changes are a major issue, involving appeals and amendments. Perhaps today the government doesn’t want to peek into your vegetable garden, but ten or twenty years down the road, if that Bill makes it legal, who’s to say what will be happening?
If you don’t want to regulate private gardens and self-sustainability, then clarify the language.
The same point can be made for the final two statements. Our government’s official stance is that they do NOT target practitioners and will NOT require prescriptions for general NHPs but again, if they don’t want the power, then change the language. As it currently sits, even if the government doesn’t exercise the authority now, it still exists and can be exercised at any time in the future, so just relieve our minds, and adjust the language, give us back our piece of mind and our privacy, not to mention our vitamins and herbs.

A few amendments have been proposed to Bill C-51, and unfortunately, the majority of the C-51 fighters do not bother to stay current with the positive changes, I suppose, similar to the pharmaceutical warriors, anything that doesn’t make their point, breaks their point. The new amendments would give NHP’s their own category apart from food and drugs, which honestly, would probably solve many of the problems with the Bill hopefully loosening the restrictions slightly on NHPs and tightening them for drugs. The amendments would also potentially acknowledge traditional and cultural uses of NHPs. Finally, the amendment would include wording to regulate the inspector’s abilities to search and seize, giving Canadians back their piece of mind. If these amendments pass after the election, many of the arguments should subside and Canadians can focus on the next hot button topic, because let’s be honest, there will always be one of those.