Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada!

[Guest guest]

Vitamin C About to be Made Illegal in Canada!

_http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about

-to-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/19/vitamin-c-about-t\

o-be-made-illegal-in-canada.aspx)

 

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:

 

* No more supplement stores

* Supplements made illegal unless obtained through a prescription; 70

percent of all current supplements on the market could be removed

* Fines of up to $5,000,000.00 and/or 2 years in jail per incident of

being caught breaking this law

 

 

Sources:

* _EZine Articles_

(http://ezinearticles.com/?Vitamin-C-Is-About-To-Be-Made-Illegal-In-Canada!-Nutr\

itional-Supplements-Banned-In-Canada!-Bill-C-51 & id=

1174122)

 

 

 

_Could Your Fatigue be Low Levels of a Simple Vitamin?_

(http://store.mercola.com/b/abmc.aspx?b=235 & z=1)

Perhaps you’re relying too heavily on caffeinated beverages to get you

through the day. Or maybe you’re just suffering silently with that lack of

‘

get-up-and-go’. Although there are many causes for fatigue, low levels of

this

simple vitamin may not only lead to a lack of energy, but also moodiness,

nervousness, memory issues, and numerous other concerns.

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

 

 

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_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3398126 & File=48\

) ),

the statements above appear to be potentially accurate interpretations.

Ditto on the dire predictions made by _Stop51.com_ (http://www.stopc51.com/) .

And, although the Canadian government’s site _Healthy Canadians_

(http://www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/facts-c51-fiches_e.html) 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_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/04/codex-conundrum.a\

spx) 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_

(http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp) , conceived by the United

Nations in 1962, was birthed through a

series of relationships between The _World Health Organization_

(http://www.who.int/foodsafety/codex/general_info/en/index3.html) (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_

(http://www.healthycanadians.ca/pr-rp/facts-c51-fiches_e.html) , Canadians will

continue to have

access to natural health products that are safe, effective and of high

quality, and claims that:

* Natural health products will not be regulated as pharmaceutical

drugs; they will continue to be regulated under their own regulations -

separate

from drugs and foods.

* Bill C-51 will not increase the costs of natural health products.

* Bill C-51 does not regulate growing an herb garden.

* Bill C-51 does not target practitioners who compound products for

their patients.

* Bill C-51 does not target Canadians' personal use of natural health

products.

* Health food stores will not require a special license to sell

natural health products.

* Canadians will not require a prescription from a doctor for natural

health products.

 

 

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.â€

 

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,â€

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_ (http://www.stopc51.com/c51/legal_review.pdf) .

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.â€

 

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.â€

 

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.â€

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_ (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/StopC51) .

 

Related Articles:

 

 

_How the Government is Threatening Your Freedom to Use Supplements_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/03/15/how-the-governmen\

t-is-th

reatening-your-freedom-to-use-supplements.aspx)

 

_What You Can do About Codex, A Threat to Your Health Freedom_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/14/codex.aspx)

 

_Flawed Codex Guidelines Passed_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/07/19/codex-guidelines.\

aspx)