Canadians Demand Balanced Health Legislation
CategoriesThe Canadian Health Coalition in Ottawa, a group of medical doctors and health workers, has addressed Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, with an urgent plea to not implement proposed legislation that would make pharmaceutical medicines less safe and allow direct public advertising for prescription drugs.
It is remarkable, how the Canadian government is proposing a major relaxation of the rules for pharmaceutical products, while clamping down on the natural "competition". One could think that the government favours one type of industry (pharmaceutical) over another competing type (natural and nutritional products), and that the government-favoured industry has enough clout to make the government act on its behalf.
Democratic controls seem to not be working in this particular case.
Chris Gupta from Canada:
I am forwarding this "Important Message from Helke Ferrie" , with some embellishments, as a follow up on earlier post "Risk First, Safety Last!" to further expose the Health regulation shenanigans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an open letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin from Dr. Nancy Olivieri, Dr. David Healy and the Canadian Association of University Teachers all of whom are staging a public meeting on January 28th protesting the proposed changes to the Canadian Food and Drugs Act.From this letter you will see that if those changes go through we would abandon the precautionary principle and all drugs approved by the Health Protection Branch would be assumed to be safe until proven otherwise. And this in the wake of the HRT scandal, the SSRI scandal, and the statin drugs scandal! Frankly, it takes my breath away and I am used to a lot of skullduggery on a daily basis. I urge you to add your signature to this letter by contacting Dr. Olivieri's group at the following address: noliv@attglobal.net. (You also include what title you would like to appear with your name on the letter, for example it could be parent, concerned citizen, patient, MD, PhD, voter, Professor, etc...) I will attend the meeting on January 28th in Ottawa and will be writing a full-length article on the event in this issue for the March issue of Vitality.
Cheers, Helke
..."A key element appears to be the redesign of the federal approach to health and safety regulation in order to create an advantagefor industry by means of weaker safety standards.
Of particular concern are Health Canadas proposals to: a) abandon the Precautionary Principle to a narrow risk-benefit regime; b) shift the burden of proof from industry to the public products are presumed safe unless harm is proven; c) speed up drug approvals; and d) allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. If the government abdicates its health protection duty of care, Canadas health care system will not be able to cope with the negative health outcomes. The negative effects of these proposed regulatory changes would also be felt throughout the international community."...
Open letter to Prime Minister Right Hon. Paul Martin
Dear Prime Minister,
We are writing you to express our deep concern with your governments proposal to replace Canadas Food & Drugs Act with a new health protection legislative regime. We have noted a series of changes announced by your new government that reflect the commitment to building a 21st century economy. A key element appears to be the redesign of the federal approach to health and safety regulation in order to create an advantagefor industry by means of weaker safety standards.
Of particular concern are Health Canadas proposals to: a) abandon the Precautionary Principle to a narrow risk-benefit regime; b) shift the burden of proof from industry to the public products are presumed safe unless harm is proven; c) speed up drug approvals; and d) allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. If the government abdicates its health protection duty of care, Canadas health care system will not be able to cope with the negative health outcomes. The negative effects of these proposed regulatory changes would also be felt throughout the international community.
Societies need both commercial and guardian functions. But these two types of work are contradictory and are prone to corruption if they stray across either their moral or functional barriers. When the governments in Canada mix trade and industry objectives - like deregulation, self-regulation and privatization - into health protection functions, people are killed. These are the painful lessons from the tainted blood disaster, drinking water contamination, adverse drug reactions, and deadly pathogens in food. Canada has not learned from the Mad Cow crisis in the U.K. Food safety and food promotion functions must not be housed within the same government agency. The federal regulator may have helped the Canadian beef industry economically in the short term by not adopting precautionary measures to stem the spread of Mad Cow disease. However, in the longer run, this lack of attention to safety will cost the industry much more.
The purpose of health protection legislation is to safeguard health and safety, not trade and investment. Government can't regulate to protect health and the environment as the laws of Canada currently require - if it is in bed with the industries it regulates.
A health and safety regulatory agency that puts industry self-regulation for profit (smart regulation) ahead of protecting public health is not moral, wise, or legal. Similarly, direct-to consumer advertising of prescription drugs has only one aim: to promote product sales. Why would the federal government knowingly introduce a policy expected to undermine the sustainability of its health care services?
What kind of society builds a 21st Century economyby exposing those least able to defend themselves - children and future generations - to uncontrollable hazards and unknown risk? This is not the kind of Canada Canadians want. This is not the kind of Canada the world wants. This policy will not only put Canadians at risk, it will destroy Canadas international reputation. The end result will be to brand Canadian products as dangerous. We therefore urge you to instruct your Minister of Health to do the following:
1. Adopt the Precautionary Principle as the basis for a broad, transparent, and independent assessment of risk to protect those least able to defend themselves from health hazards especially children and future generations.
2. Terminate the Health Protection Legislative Renewaland uphold the duty of carein the current Food & Drugs Act.
3. Restore the burden of proof on industry to demonstrate the safety of their product or technology before regulatory approval is granted.
4. Allow full public access to the information upon which federal regulators base approval of a product or technology.
5. Strictly enforce the ban on direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs.
6. Terminate all partnerships and promotional activities so regulatory agencies regulate only in the public interest and not in the interests of the regulated.
Prime Minister, we are appealing to you for moral leadership into the 21st century so that powerful economic interests cannot trump the protection of citizenshealth in Canada and throughout the world. As the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel on GM food said, it is better to err on the side of protecting human and environmental safety than to err on the side of the risks.
Sincerely,
Shirley Douglas, OC Nancy Olivieri, MD David Healy, MD Joel Lexchin, MD Barbara Mintzes, PhD Jim Turk, PhD Kathleen Connors, RN Terence Young Michael McBane
See properly formated letter (PDF) here!
www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/
See also relatedFoods are not Drugs - Canadian Parliament votes
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Saturday January 17 2004
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/01/17/canadians_demand_balanced_health_legislation.htm
