On June 24, the Herald ran a column by Kashif Ahmed and Eric Miller criticizing the federal health minister for Bill C-36, the proposed consumer safety legislation. Their criticism focuses on an amendment to the Bill which explains that it does not apply to natural health products (NHPs).
They assert this leaves a "safety" gap. This is unfair criticism of the minister. Bill C-36 was first introduced as Bill C-52 in April of 2008. The bill in its original form never covered NHPs or anything else regulated under the Food and Drugs Act. The amendment did not "exempt" NHPs as the authors claim. Rather it restated the obvious.
It is also difficult to understand how Canadians would be served by subjecting NHPs to consumer protection legislation which is not structured to regulate health products. Currently NHPs are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and the NHP Regulations. Contrary to the assertion of Ahmed and Miller, NHPs are not exempt from safety regulations. Before an NHP can be licensed for sale, both its safety and its efficacy must be proved. The complaint of a large number of Canadians is not that the regulation of NHPs is too soft. Rather the complaint is that regulation is so strict that the majority of NHPs are being taken away.
NHPs are not being driven off of the market by Health Canada for safety concerns. This is not surprising. As far as I am aware, there has never been a documented death caused by a natural health product in our 143 years as a country.
To read the full article go to:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/story_print.html?id=333...=