There needs to be an explicit statement in the “Natural Health Products” Act: genetically engineered plants do not qualify for inclusion. They are not “natural”; they are a separate category that requires label standards.
My letter to the Government is appended with email addresses in case you are equally dismayed and wish to write the Government.
This is a continuation of the battle over herbicide-tolerant (genetically-engineered) crops. It is also part of the battle over labeling requirements. And corporatist Government.
In this discussion, remember that in the current economic model small, successful innovators (e.g. “bio-pharmaceuticals”) are quickly gobbled up by the large transnational corporations. People often develop a business with the idea that they will strike pay dirt when the buy-out happens.
((1 of 2) was about the familiar “pill” side of the drug companies. This is about their less-well-known forays into “alternative” (“natural”) therapies.)
==========================
Bill C-51 is proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. (Government web-site http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/about-apropos/
I attended the Government-sponsored meeting over C-51 when it was in Saskatoon last month.
A strong lobby organized by natural health practitioners and product sellers has caused the Government to make changes to the proposed legislation.
HOWEVER, there is a critical issue that is being missed. Most natural health products are plants – roots, leaves, seeds used by First Nations people, by Chinese people, by Africans – ground flax seed, ginseng, hemp seed – the list goes on for days.
The pharmaceutical companies are well along the road of plant engineering.
I asked the Government officials at the C-51 meeting if genetically-engineered plants (that become alternative “remedies”) are required to be labeled under the Natural Health Products Act. The answer is “no”.
Ipso facto they become “natural” health products.
Because of our work on wheat that has been engineered by the chemical companies to be resistant to chemical applications, I draw connections.
1. IT IS GOOD BUSINESS TO BE AHEAD OF THE TRENDS
Connection:
- Monsanto has been invested in “organic” companies for a number of years because of the flight of money into organic markets.
- the pharmaceutical companies have been into “bio-pharmaceuticals” for years. The flight of money out of the drug culture of medicare into alternative/complementary therapies threatens their profits.
2. EVIDENCE OF THE CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA BY THE BIOTECH/CHEM/PHARMA COMPLEX OF CORPORATIONS, WORKING WITH THE GOVERNMENT
Connection:
- The Patent Act was never intended to be applied to life forms and yet it is. This is in spite of admonitions by the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in two separate court cases (onco-mouse and Monsanto vs Schmeiser) telling the Government that the Patent Act needs to be updated. The Patent Act remains unchanged.
- Europeans have insisted that genetically-engineered foods must be identifiable – they must be labelled. Canadians have consistently stated that they want labelling of genetically-engineered foods. Do we get the labelling? No.
- Bio-technology has NEVER been debated in the Canadian House of Commons.
3. CONTROL OF THE PLANTS
Connection:
The consequences of biotechnology as presently practiced in Canada, in-step with the U.S., based on earlier work in this network:
- the corporations seek control through ownership (patenting) of the seeds
- the corporations use the police and judicial system to intimidate people who grow the plants, or who are a threat to their profits (think of the court cases brought by Monsanto in the U.S., against the small dairies who label their milk as coming from cows that are not injected with bovine growth hormone).
- we are talking about very corrupt corporations/people, both in the chemical and in the pharmaceutical industries
- little information provides control. The mainstream media in North America doesn’t do a good job of investigative journalism. Advertising revenues influence the tune played by some of the media. The public has very little idea of what is going on in the biotech field. Growth genes inserted into fish to make them grow to 6 times the size of normal fish within a year. What happens when they are “accidentally” released into the wild? Pigs whose genes have been manipulated to include human growth genes. Engineered trees. Nano-technology.
- bio-engineered plant seeds soon contaminate natural seed stocks.
- there are no natural predators or controls on introduced plants. They take over. They are a large threat to natural species.
- the “science” behind the bio-teched corporate products is bought by the corporations. They fund the universities and they fund the “scientists”.
- corporate “ownership” of life forms is wrong. The Patent Act does not make it right.
Always the question: in whose interests?
Always the answer: the Government serves the corporate interest. Bill C-51 is yet another example; engineered plants bought and owned by corporations, expensive, not labeled as genetically engineered, serve only the corporate interest.
It will happen only if we are uninformed – if we don’t know the connection between the pharmaceutical companies and bio-pharmaceuticals, the connection between plants and “natural” health products.
————
At the outset of the meeting on Bill C-51 the Government officials emphasized that Canadians want labelling of ingredients so we know what we’re ingesting. They said that Bill C-51 addresses this expressed desire of the Canadian public.
No it doesn’t. Not if bio-engineered plants don’t have to be labelled. And worse, the effect of the legislation is to make genetically engineered plants into “natural” products. If ever there was a scam, there it is.
Until the Government stops working for the corporations, they destroy their own credibility. There can be no respect. They are actively undermining our system of governance.
An official from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (Agriculture Canada) attended the meeting on Bill C-51 (an initiative of Health Canada).
There were people that when asked, were from the bio-pharma industry.
========================
LETTER TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
TO:
- Tony Clement, Minister of Health Minister_Ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca
- Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture sthomas@agr.gc.ca
- Health Canada Working Group on Bill C-51 fcsap-paspac@hc-sc.gc.ca Telephone: 1-866-891-4542
- Carole Swan, President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Agriculture Canada swanc@inspection.gc.ca (613) 221-3737
Dear All,
There needs to be an explicit statement in the “Natural Health Products” legislation: genetically-engineered and “mutagenesis” plants do not qualify for inclusion. They are not “natural”; they are a separate category that requires label standards.
From the Health Canada web-site:
” Health Canada’s mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. Part of this includes having appropriate checks in place to help ensure that the natural health products Canadians use are safe, effective and of high quality and also that products are labelled accordingly and truthfully (including any warnings or cautions) so that Canadians can make safe and informed choices.” (Item 38 at (Link no longer valid: http://www.canadiensensante.gc.ca/pr-rp/billC-51_e.html )
Truthful labelling requires that genetically-engineered plants will be labelled.
Failure of the Government to insist upon the labelling of genetically-engineered plants through the “Natural Health Products” legislation will be, once again, confirmation that the Government serves corporate interests at the expense of the public interest.
Should the legislation fail to require disclosure of genetically-engineered and mutagenesis ingredients, please provide your reasons.
Thank-you.
Yours truly,
Sandra Finley
Saskatoon SK Canada