HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 10, 1998

• 0908

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. This is the twenty-fourth meeting of the Standing Committee on Health. We're studying natural health products.

We welcome our witnesses this morning. We have with us Stephen Case, health educator and representative for alive magazine. I think we have copies of that. From My Health, My Rights Inc., we have Ronald Dugas and Gertrude Whelan; and from Nutri-Chem, Kent MacLeod and Debbie Clements. We'll start with Stephen.

If you keep your comments fairly short that gives the members more time to ask questions.

Mr. Stephen Case (Individual Presentation): Sure. No problem.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stephen Case: Good morning, Madam Chairperson and honourable members. I guess there are four—

The Chair: Congratulations for being here and being on time. All the witnesses were on time this morning.

Mr. Stephen Case: Thank you. I'd like to thank the fellow panellists and the guests. I would also like to thank Grant Hill for forwarding my name so that I could come here today and speak as a witness, as well as Sharron Scullion for arranging my flight and hotel, Roger Préfontaine for taking time out of his busy schedule to answer some of my questions, and of course the researchers.

• 0910

I'm here today to speak to you as a consumer and an independent health researcher.

In addition, my employer gave me permission to be a spokesperson for the readership of both alive magazine, which has been educating consumers on natural health products for almost 25 years, and the Healthy Living Guide. I believe you each have copies. These two national magazines have a combined readership of about 1.5 million readers. Although I am honoured to speak on their behalf, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to jeopardize my employer's business because of the possible repercussions resulting from the truthful statements I'm about to make, so after much deliberation I have chosen to speak as an individual.

My main concern here is that Health Canada and the Health Protection Branch are needlessly endangering the lives of Canadians by allocating their resources to the over-regulation of low-risk natural health products rather than dealing with the many thousands of deaths resulting from high-risk pharmaceutical drugs. In support of my statement, I offer the following.

Natural health products are low-risk products. They include common foods, amino acids, essential vitamins and minerals, herbs, spices and homeopathic preparations. All of these have traditional uses, some of which date back thousands of years. Fruits, vegetables, grains, tubers, spices, common plants, gentle herbs, essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes are all foods or food concentrates. They should therefore continue to be regulated as foods under the Food and Drugs Act because they are all essential to human life.

According to Statistics Canada, in 1995 alone 193 people died from nutritional deficiencies. The majority of those deaths were in Quebec and Ontario.

Herbal and homeopathic remedies can be effectively regulated as foods under sections 4 and 5 of the Food and Drugs Act. If properly enforced, these provisions will ensure a high degree of safety for Canadians.

These products should be widely available, and labels should state lot numbers, directions, dosage and traditional uses and known contraindications, precautions and warnings, especially for pregnant women and children.

It must be understood that these products are natural. They are not synthetic drugs. They do not have multiple listings of adverse side effects and therefore should not require drug identification numbers. Based on traditional literature and empirical evidence, these natural products should be allowed to stand on their own merit unless proven harmful under suggested use—innocent until proven guilty.

The Food and Drug Act needs to be amended to redefine the term drug in order to exclude natural health products.

Canadians are dying by the thousands from regulated, high-risk prescription drugs. Prescription drugs regulated by the Health Protection Branch under Health Canada are killing Canadians—and they remain ultimately responsible for those deaths. Statistics Canada's issue Causes of Death details over 8,512 deaths resulting from pharmaceutical drugs between 1988 and 1995. The total for 1995 alone is over 1,794 deaths related to pharmaceutical drugs. This is an enormous amount.

I would also like to point out that these deaths are not suicides, as you will read under the World Health's Organization's definitions on the last page of the Statistics Canada document. There are many more deaths resulting from pharmaceutical drugs hiding under specific names and allergic reactions, and the more I look, the more I find.

• 0915

In 1995, B.C. had 181 accidental drug poisonings. This was the largest in Canada by sheer volume. The vital statistics document I have provided you shows that in 1996 this figure rose sharply to 267 deaths. That's an increase of 68% in one year.

Also according to Statistics Canada and the Health Protection Branch, deaths resulting from natural products use are zero, versus the 8,512 pharmaceuticals-related deaths from 1988 to 1995.

When are we going to wake up? This is unbelievable. To quote Health Canada, our mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. The fact that our valuable health resources are being allocated to discussing further regulations for low-risk natural products while thousands and thousands of our fellow Canadians are dying needlessly from high-risk pharmaceuticals year after year is absolutely frightening.

My recommendations are to launch an immediate, full, public investigation of the Health Protection Branch, and to take immediate action with regard to the high-risk products that have been, and are still, causing needless deaths. These pharmaceutical products may need to be taken right off the market. I also strongly feel that we should reopen government laboratories for high-risk product testing and random testing of all products. Once this has been done, if the government still pushes for natural product regulation, I recommend that we follow our health minister Allan Rock's October 4 announcement and conduct a full public review. Your fellow Canadians deserve it, and based on the 1995 figures, by the end of today another five Canadians will die.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'd just like to clarify something for the record. The instructions we're following are from the letter from Mr. Rock. In that letter Mr. Rock didn't say anything about putting on further regulations. He said to look at what's there and see if we thought they were suitable. It might mean less, for all we know, when we're finished, and that's exactly why we have you here today. We're not here to put on further regulations.

And it is for public review. The only reason we're not travelling is that one party in the committee has decided that he doesn't want us to travel. So it's meant to be a public review, and we're sorry if it's not.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): You could maybe speak to Dr. Hill about why we're not travelling.

Mr. Stephen Case: Okay. People were surprised that I knew this was going on. Well, how did you find out?

The Chair: Well, it's been widely advertised.

Mr. Stephen Case: Okay.

The Chair: Our next witnesses are Ronald Dugas and Gertrude Whelan from My Health, My Rights.

[Translation]

Mr. Ronald J. Dugas (National Chairman, My Health, My rights Inc.): Good day Ms. Chairperson. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Health.

[English]

My name is Ron Dugas, and I am the president of My Health, My Rights. I also serve as a member of the Advisory Panel on Natural Health Products. I would also like to introduce Trudy Whelan, who is a director of My Health, My Rights.

My Health, My Rights' philosophy can be summed up by the following guiding principles: the right to complete information to make an informed choice on health care matters as a responsible consumer; the right to access any type of safe health care service or product; and finally, the right to be heard in the making and executing of government policy in health care matters.

My Health, My Rights is incorporated under a federal charter and has over 6,000 members.

• 0920

The issue of natural health products is not a simple matter of who may process, purchase or sell. The matters we bring to your attention are not simple commercial matters, but important matters of life and liberty related to constitutional and charter guarantees. They particularly relate to consumer freedom of choice and health care matters.

We speak for the consumers of health services, who are making the choice for an alternative method of health care delivery and are taking more and more responsibility for their own well-being. This not only enhances and lengthens their own lives, but it takes a considerable expense away from the budgets of federal, provincial and local governments.

The Food and Drugs Act, which is 20 pages long, has added over 500 pages of regulations since 1952, without being subjected to full parliamentary procedure or scrutiny.

According to the Food and Drugs Act, there is no such thing as a natural health product; there are only foods and drugs with nothing in between. Under the act, the definitions of food and drug are entirely subjective. Whether an article is food depends on how it is used. Similarly, whether a substance is a drug depends on the use or claims made for it, not on what it is or what it does. Intent is the key issue, not fact.

In the courts, what one might normally consider food becomes a drug when one attributes healing powers to it or when it is recommended to curb certain diseases.

Under the current flawed definition, foods are turned into drugs for regulatory purposes. It can be a federal crime to make true, non-misleading health claims for harmless, wholesome foods because of regulatory requirements.

Recently in many countries, including the United States and Japan, there has been a shift of emphasis from a largely negative orientation toward health claims for natural health products to a more positive realization that labelling and advertising for these products represent a potentially powerful mechanism for the promotion of health, and should be permitted.

In the United States specific legislation exists for approval, labelling and advertising of dietary supplements under Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. In addition, the nutrition labelling requirements under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act in the United States also serves to promote consumer awareness of the attributes of specific food types and products.

The regulatory framework in Japan is supportive of the development and marketing of functional foods. It is called foods for specified health use.

International trends suggest that regulatory authorities are moving toward an approach that would focus regulatory requirements on the safety and quality of herbal remedies. We agree with this approach, that there should be standards for safety and a mechanism to ensure they are met.

There should also be standards for quality, with the necessary safeguards, including the assurance that what is on the label is in the bottle.

However, in the determination of the efficacy of herbal remedies, international trends suggest that regulatory authorities are now more flexible. They recognize the traditional use of these products and accept therapeutic claims based on references from recognized documented sources.

• 0925

In terms of their effectiveness, the evaluation of a drug for efficacy is a must, and for obvious reasons. The benefits being claimed are always assessed against the obvious risk being presented by any drug, in order to mitigate the risk with additional information or particular caution with respect to a drug.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to determine that the majority of natural health products, which carry a very low risk, have not proven to be harmful, with no side effects compared to a drug, and they should not require the same standards for efficacy.

In fact, in 1992 the World Health Organization adopted guidelines for the review of herbal medicines. Basically it was based on the principle that natural health products that have no demonstrated harm should not be treated within a very restrictive regulatory framework.

My Health, My Rights firmly believes that the level of efficacy for a low-risk natural health product should not be the concern of the state. Efficiency is a subjective concept that lies within the realm of beliefs and individual freedoms.

Therefore, to try to demonstrate at all costs the efficiency of a natural health product or a procedure consisting mostly of non-conventional practices can often lead to discriminatory prohibition of that product, rather than to installing a public protection process. There is a very fine line between protecting the public and denying their rights to those protected.

Canadian consumers are very frustrated when their regulators are forcing their partisan viewpoints on them, even though they are paying for their natural health products out of their own pockets at no cost to the taxpayers. It is inconceivable to permit Canadian consumers to cross the border and buy natural health products for their personal use, while declaring them dangerous if bought in Canada.

These actions by the government are arbitrary, unfair, and costly to the Canadian consumer and should be removed. Not only are they detrimental to the Canadian consumer, but in the current framework there are several limitations that affect international competitiveness and decrease the attractiveness of the Canadian market for investment in research and development of natural health products.

The Health Protection Branch suffers from a total lack of objectivity. It is staffed and advised by health professionals, none of whom have had any significant training in natural health products.

And let me point out to you that this is what Dann Michols, director general of the Therapeutic Products Programme, had to say to the parliamentary committee when he appeared on December 2, 1997:

We have 750 people within the therapeutic products program dealing with these products, most of whom are scientists, medical officers who have knowledge in toxicology, chemistry, biology, medical sciences, and so on. Also, when we need to augment that expertise, we do go outside.

Does this really sound like individuals who understand the nature and applications of natural health products? How can they fairly regulate an entire industry about which they know very little?

The costs of the current system are astronomical, and rising rapidly. It has become apparent that dwindling government budgets can no longer support this system in its present form. It is therefore imperative that the system be changed in a way that will provide more effective health care for Canadians at a considerably lower cost.

• 0930

In view of these considerations, we would like to submit the following actions to the Standing Committee on Health. This first one, which is really the cornerstore of the whole project, is that the Food and Drugs Act and regulations be amended to recognize a separate category for natural health products.

We believe there are two distinctive actions that have to be taken in order to remedy this situation. In the first place, we propose an interim policy in the form of a regulatory change to the Food and Drugs Act. We feel this can be accomplished through paragraph 30(j) of the act, which states:

exempting any food, drug, cosmetic or device from all or any of the provisions of this Act and prescribing the conditions of the exemption;

This is the regulation section in the act, by the way.

As a longer-term project we propose a necessary and required legislative change to the Food and Drugs Act. We recommend that the term “drugs” be redefined under health products. We would also propose that health products be further subdivided into three separate categories, namely pharmaceutical products, natural health products, and functional foods.

I remember reading these testimonies where Dr. Bennett asked Dann Michols what got us into this pickle. To me it's very obvious. This is the act; it's 20 pages. These are the regulations. Just have a look at the thickness. I think it's about time someone went over the act to see what's wrong with some of the terms listed in there.

Second, we would like to recommend that a separate, permanent structure with decision-making powers be created and that it be composed of individuals who have expertise, experience, and understanding specific to natural health products.

Third, we recommend that the natural health food industry be permitted to make health claims for their products where such claims can be reasonably substantiated by scientific evidence or historical, ethnic, and traditional experience, provided that such claims are not false or misleading.

Fourth, we recommend that a series of labelling requirements be established to provide consumers with greater information and assurance about the quality and content of natural health products.

Fifth, we recommend that schedule A of the Food and Drugs Act be eliminated, as it is out of date and no longer reflects the reality of the products available on the market today and as it also restricts the consumer's freedom to make informed choices.

Some minor conditions are listed in schedule A, such as anxiety, depression, and nausea. They respond quite well to changes in lifestyle, diet, exercise, and supplementation. There's also a very serious problem in listing a disease in schedule A that can also unintentionally restrict the determination of information that can be considered to be in the interests of public health. For example, the listing of liver disease in schedule A prevents the promotion of a vaccine for hepatitis.

Sixth, we recommend that natural health products proven to be harmful be restricted in a manner commensurate with the circumstances. In some cases a simple precautionary warning on the label might be all that is required.

Seventh, we recommend that natural health products that are sold in other countries, specifically in the United States, be available in Canada.

Eighth, we recommend that all amendments, revisions, and additions to the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act be subject to review by the Standing Committee on Health no less frequently than once every four years.

• 0935

Ninth, we recommend that Health Canada conduct itself in a spirit of full cooperation with industry and interested consumer groups, using prior consultation with their representatives whenever changes to regulations, their interpretation or their enforcement are being considered.

Thank you. We're prepared to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dugas.

From Nutri-Chem could we have Kent MacLeod.

Mr. Kent MacLeod (President, Nutri-Chem): Thank you for having me. I come as a pharmacist. I own a retail pharmacy here in Ottawa. I also sell products into the U.S. that are regulated under DSHEA, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, and the FDA health reform bill. As well, I'm president of a research-based testing facility involved in testing markers of oxidative damage in different disease entities.

Basically what is happening with respect to nutraceuticals, functional foods, vitamin and mineral supplements in Canada is that they are regulated as drugs compared to in the U.S., where they're regulated as foods with no distinction or any in-between or grey area.

I'm going to quote from an excellent report commissioned by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in December 1995. It is a comparative analysis of the regulatory framework affecting functional food development and commercialization in Canada, Japan, the European Union and U.S.A. It's quite good. I hope that this is available to the members.

The Chair: Okay, we have it.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: In this in-depth report of the nutraceutical industry in these companies the following conclusion was made:

In Canada, the regulatory framework is so restrictive that the development of a functional foods industry or even functional food products in Canada will be severely impaired, if not entirely precluded.

This kind of distinction of foods as drugs and drugs as foods has resulted, as we said, in a whole host of inane situations that I deal with on a regular basis as a retail pharmacist. I'll just give you one as an example. This is where products are okay if Canadians are not told what is in them, but they're not okay if they're told what is in them.

For example, we have a situation of DHA, which is actually a normal constituent of human breast milk. In European studies premature infants supplemented with DHA have twice the survival rate, half the incidents of seizures and other sequelae...cerebral palsy. What's also an interesting concept is that it's also the deficiency of this essential fatty acid that is implicated in attention deficit disorder, which has a lot of consequences to Canadians.

It's also a normal constituent found in fish oils, tuna and cod liver oils from the east coast. What is interesting is that if I assay the actual DHA content of a cod liver oil, a salmon oil or a tuna oil and list on the label that it has so much DHA, that is actually illegal in Canada and considered a new drug. If I actually give a supplement of fish without telling the consumer actually what is in the product, then that is okay as a food.

This also leads to situations where this information on DHA or its applications and the consequence of this is readily available to every Canadian consumer, whether from the Internet, from a virtual realm, or from stacks of consumer-based publications that are scanning the research that's happening around the world and finding out that DHA is very important.

The Chair: Mr. MacLeod, could you just explain something? We've been hearing about DHEA, which is a steroid, I believe. You're talking about DHA. Could you explain the difference, please, so we have it on record.

• 0940

Mr. Kent MacLeod: DHA is an omega-3 essential fatty acid, which is, again, a normal constituent of human breast milk. It's found in a variety of fish sources. It can come from vegetable source as well.

DHEA is an actual precursor; it's docosahexaenoic acid. DHA is dihydroepiandrosterone, which is a precursor to normal human steroid hormones, estrogen and testosterone. They are two different things entirely.

So what happens is, of course, these consumers now have this information, which is completely accessible to them. So the consumer walks in to me and says, “You know, I've been hearing a lot about this DHA; my kid has attention deficit disorder”, or “I'm not breastfeeding and I know there are studies that are showing that giving the DHA to non-breastfed babies has important health consequences; can you give me DHA and actually tell me that I'm getting DHA?” The answer is, well, no. But that same consumer can order this product by mail from the U.S., bring it in with a correct label, actually with no problem whatsoever.

Of course, I've made these queries to Health Protection Branch, saying, how come I can't sell my Canadian consumer a product when they actually know how much DHA they are getting, and they can bring that product in by mail, or at leisure, by mail or transport it? The answer, of course, is that this is a customs problem, not our problem.

Of course, again, when you read even the regulations, we're the only country that has these types of issues....of this new drug as an actual Criminal Code issue. So technically, I guess, even by virtue of the act as it stands, of all these four countries, we're the only one that would deal with this issue as a criminal matter. What's happening is that these consumers bringing in the DHA...or if I were ever to tell them how much DHA they're actually getting, I guess we would now be criminals, which again is an interesting observation.

For the pharmacists as well.... You're always dealing with a very basic issue with any substance that you actually ingest, and that is what's called the benefit-to-risk ratio. Is there any risk in consuming this product? What is the evidence of benefits?

The use of these nutraceuticals is quite interesting in that they afford therapeutic or preventative interventions for the chronic degenerative diseases that are facing us as Canadians, with very little downside or risk.

If we look at Alzheimer's disease, for example, we have a disease that is going to be quite profound in the future. It actually affects 10% of Canadians over the age of 65, with disastrous consequences in terms of costs and quality of life issues for the families and these individuals. We have three current treatments that are actually proven to be effective in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. They are: vitamin E; a herb, ginkgo biloba; and a drug called Aricept.

In fact, vitamin E is now in the current guidelines by the American Psychiatric Association in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. It's mainstream. The actual study showing the benefits of ginkgo biloba was, I believe, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. What we have basically is a situation where we have two of the three most useful treatments, as we stand here today, in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, whereas actually in Canada I cannot in reality tell anyone about these from a manufacturer's point of view.

So if I were to make vitamin E as a manufacturer and actually tell someone that this may have some implications in the maintenance of health for the brain, that would be illegal in Canada.

In terms of looking at benefits of these substances, there are a couple of things I did. There was one study that came out in the Western Journal of Medicine—page 3 of my brief—that just reviewed in the U.S.A. the potential reduction of hospital and medicare costs with a variety of diseases where there is significant evidence with respect to the prevention and treatment of diseases, such as coronary heart disease, neural tube defects, and low birthweight, with folic acid and multivitamins. These are just some of the four or five diseases that were reviewed in this journal.

• 0945

Currently, from our quick review of the literature, certainly we have evidence for the use of vitamin E in Alzheimer's disease and multivitamins with B6 and folate, with again a 24% reduction in the risk of heart disease in women. The work coming out of Newfoundland from Dr. Chandra is suggesting that in the elderly or others with compromised immune systems, you can actually reduce the number of sick days by 50% in the elderly population. And some of the big trials show some dramatic reductions in cancer rates with the use of multi-nutrients.

At the same time, in reviewing the risks, again we have an interesting situation. I'll just repeat some of the other stuff that the other panellists suggested.

As a pharmacist, I am certainly aware that a significant number of deaths are caused by side effects of pharmaceuticals. Again, I quote the U.S. figures from the American Association of Poison Control Centers, in an article published in JAMA. From drug-related side effects, iatrogenic diseases, we have over 100,000 deaths per year in the U.S. from pharmaceuticals. There are certainly fewer than 10 deaths per year from herbs or vitamins, and these deaths have all been associated with toxic overdosage by accidental ingestion.

From this point of view, this is certainly quite significant when you consider that at this point, well over 50% of the population is consuming some type of supplement or another. Therefore one of the things we find ourselves in is if these things were harmful, we would certainly see some evidence of harm. This is clearly not happening, versus the potential upside with the ability to educate people on the potential benefits of some of these supplements.

Over the years that I've been dealing with this issue of the regulations and so on, it is becoming more and more apparent as time goes on that one of the biggest threats to Canadian health and quality of life appears to be the very regulatory body that is in charge of it.

As the president of this research-based testing facility, I can tell you we received one of the largest grants ever given by the National Research Council. We're basically looking at a variety of diseases. It relates back to Alzheimer's disease. We're looking at Down's syndrome kids, and virtually 100% of them get Alzheimer's disease by the age of 40 or 50. We're looking at markers.

We know vitamin E is very important. Ginkgo biloba, which is an antioxidant, and vitamin E particularly, protect lipids from oxidizing, from turning rancid in the brain. What we're doing is simply measuring the amount of oxidized brain membranes in Down's syndrome kids versus controls. Our current project has shown tremendously enhanced levels of this lipid damage, which is found in these Down's syndrome kids, leading us to the second phase, which is to determine if intervention with vitamin E can reduce these markers of damage, leading to dramatic potential benefits in terms of Alzheimer's disease.

We've also been contracted, based on this preliminary study, through Johns Hopkins' National Cancer Institute, in terms of seeing potential end points of diseases much sooner than waiting for a 20-year or 30-year double-blind trial, to see if we can prevent Alzheimer's disease with nutrients.

• 0950

What we have is a situation where Canadian taxpayers have funded this research. We have to have a massive amount of Canadian private investor money to actually involve in this company. It's a Canadian company. All our scientists are Canadian. Under our current regulatory environment, our findings cannot be promoted to Canadians. All of our work, everything we're doing, will only be available under this regulatory environment to other countries, because we can actually tell people what is happening without fear of censure or being caught under a drugs-based scenario with somebody, even though we're working with 100% Canadians in terms of all the investment, all the money, all the individuals. All the scientists doing this are Canadian.

It's very frustrating for me that, as I said, under this environment, whatever our findings are, which are creating excitement around the world, they are not available to Canadians under this restrictive regulatory environment.

The actions I would suggest are listed in my brief. It certainly involves issues with respect to classifying nutrients as foods or nutraceuticals, allowing claims based on evidence. It's kind of an odd desire to actually be able to say things based on the evidence you find.

Self-regulation of the industry. Again, in the U.S. and Japan...no government wants to initiate more and more costs to create more and more burdens that are really out of touch with what's happening in the industry. Allow this industry to self-regulate and have controls in a cooperative fashion.

Basically nutraceuticals are the fastest-growing segment of health care. In fact, this area is predicted to become the fastest-growing area at the beginning of the next century.

You will improve the health and quality of life of Canadians in this fastest-growing segment. What I've seen in all my endeavours and in all my travels, looking at the different institutions in the U.S., is that we have in Canada some of the best scientists with some of the best skills to be able to make dramatic in-roads in this area, truly creating a real player in the world in terms of understanding and dealing with some of these issues.

However, under this scenario and under this regulatory framework we are going to be regulated to sitting in the stands, watching the world play the game. I really implore you to try to do something about it.

Thank you.

The Chair: We don't often get applause here.

Each of the members has five minutes, which includes their questions and your answers. So if you could keep your answers short, you won't use up the member's time.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): You've heard a little bit of a partisan shot taken at me today. To prevent this from happening in committee again, I want to propose to you the two public inquiry methods that this committee has looked at. One is travel to five centres in Canada at a cost of $70,000 plus the member of Parliament's travel points, which would also be paid for by the taxpayer. The second proposal is to video-teleconference at ten sites in Canada at a cost of $40,000. I'm going to ask each of you as taxpayers which one you would choose in terms of a public consultation on this subject, please.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: Whatever gets the regulations changed. I don't really....

Mr. Grant Hill: I'm asking you about one of two: $40,000 to tele-videoconference in ten sites in Canada—

Mr. Kent MacLeod: Whatever is cheaper.

Mr. Stephen Case: I think some organizations have done a lot of the ground work. If a few members were to come at least to Vancouver and videotape a public forum there, I think that would be fairly inexpensive compared to the $2,500 for my ticket to come here and leave tomorrow.

• 0955

Mr. Ronald Dugas: Forty thousand.

Mr. Grant Hill: No, please don't bring this up in public again; this partisan nonsense doesn't serve us very well. It is extremely partisan.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It's not partisan. There's nothing partisan about it.

Mr. Grant Hill: I will ask every witness who comes here what they would prefer, if this is brought up again. I'm disappointed by my colleagues doing this.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): It's not a very productive use of our time.

Mr. Grant Hill: Absolutely.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Why don't we just go on with the question?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Are you doing it in every meeting, then?

Mr. Grant Hill: If you bring up this partisan nonsense again, I'll bring it up with every single witness.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The public wants to feel they can attend a town hall meeting and not have only stakeholders, especially interest groups, get to speak to committee—

Mr. Grant Hill: May I carry on with my question?

Mr. Dugas, your suggestions in a sense encapsulated a lot of what we have heard here in the committee. I was interested particularly in your saying that regulations should be reviewed and approved by Parliament. That is not done except in one instance. In the last term the health committee was given the permission to look at the regulations on the tobacco laws that were coming up. Do you think it would be of value for regulations in the very broadest sense, not just in this area?

Mr. Ronald Dugas: I have been involved as executive secretary of the National Health and Welfare Union for 16 years. My experience tells me that many times politicians circumvent the act by drafting regulations. If you look at the Food and Drugs Act, as an example, and at the regulations, you will see that all kinds of regulations can actually be promulgated and circumvent the act itself.

Here again I'll give you an example. The one I quoted this morning, paragraph 30(j), allows the bureaucrat to suggest to the health minister that there can be a definition for natural health products that will not be hamstrung by the word “drug” in the act itself. I honestly believe that when these types of regulations are formulated, this is not right. Let us not forget, we all know about regulations.

We know how this thing came about. I think it was Dr. Bennett who asked what got us in that pickle. It was exactly this. This is why I say we have to find a way.

This is what we're suggesting to the standing health committee: that someone be accountable for all these regulations that politicians are not being made aware of, regulations that are drafted from day to day, week to week. By ensuring that all regulations come to this forum here at least once every four years, it would give you an opportunity to really understand what the Food and Drugs Act is all about. It's quite a complicated book, as you well know.

Mr. Grant Hill: The regulations follow the legislation and are reviewed only by cabinet. As well, I understand they're done in a very cursory way. It's difficult, because the regulations can be huge. The bureaucrats come along and say these are the important things. In fact, as you have suggested, a clause can be very innocent but have somewhat sinister implications.

I thank you for that suggestion. I think it's a very positive suggestion. I'll leave it there.

The Chair: Ms. Bennett, please.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Dugas, one of the problems the committee has, on which I think you need our guarantee, is that, as Dann Michols said to the committee, the status quo is not okay. That's why we're here, and that's why we are listening. I hope you will see it as a public inquiry. I hope we will be able to do something about making sure the regular people we talk to when we are knocking on the doors in elections get an opportunity to give their individual stories. We will continue to endeavour to make it happen.

I think you were saying that “food” and “drug” is not okay. You're saying there need to be four categories: food, functional foods, natural products, and pharmaceuticals. You have food and then health products, and then three things under health products. A lot of people feel there could be food and drug, with natural therapeutic products as a third category. Is that...?

• 1000

Mr. Ronald Dugas: No, what we're advocating in My Health, My Rights is that there be two definitions in the act: food and health products. Then all health products would be further subdivided into three categories. This would compromise the pharmaceutical products, the natural health products, and the functional food products. Actually, in the act itself the two main categories would be food and health products.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Okay.

Mr. Case, you seem to think just food and drug would be okay, as long as all the health products ended up under food. My question is, if they were just under food, how would you regulate belladonna and some of the homeopathic remedies I have seen patients, especially children, poisoned with because they contained strychnine?

Mr. Stephen Case: Under homeopathics, what type of dilution was it that poisoned them? Something with, say, a 30C doesn't even have a molecule in it; it's based on quantum physics and energy.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I'm just telling you that the kid went to Sick Kids and had strychnine in him.

Mr. Stephen Case: If there's actually strychnine in it, it's got to be below 30C. That shouldn't be allowed. It's poison and you're not allowed to sell poison, period.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: If it's under food, who determines what's safe or not safe in terms of all these so-called natural products? I think we're hearing a couple of different messages.

One is that if it's safe, you should just leave it alone, let it self-regulate, and all that. Who determines what's safe?

Mr. Ronald Dugas: Dr. Bennett, I don't think I made my point clear from the line of questioning that you're carrying on. We're not talking about food. The type of product you're talking about will be classed as a health product.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Not in Mr. Case's.... That's my problem. I want to know what Mr. Case thinks of your system.

Mr. Ronald Dugas: I'm sorry, okay.

Mr. Stephen Case: Of regulating it further, like Germany has? Right now in Germany, if you want to buy vitamin C from a health food store—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: No, I don't want that.

Mr. Stephen Case: You wanted to find out what happens when that system goes further.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I want to know why you have a problem with having a third category or, as Mr. Dugas has said, something called a natural health product.

Maybe Mr. MacLeod could help me with that, as well.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: First about the possibility of an adulterated product, let's face it: whatever strychnine is—a drug, food, whatever—it's adulterated. It shouldn't be present. The regulations are already in place in foods, drugs, or whatever not to have strychnine in it. If you look at even the Skin-Cap issue...this was approved and sold in Canada, and it had a steroid added to it. We sold it over the counter. All the regulations in the world won't change an unethical manufacturer or whatever from having adulterated drugs.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Who checks it? What is the government's role in this?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: I think the role in this situation, and it gets even simpler—and this is why I brought up this document that compares other countries. All the government regulation in the world isn't going to change these things. We know it in pharmaceuticals, we know it in whatever. Self-regulation is certainly the only way to go in making sure the industry is responsible for preventing unethical or unscrupulous materials and following their own guidelines.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: In your number one action, where you say to classify nutrients as foods, do you see it as a third category or as part of food?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: I see it as part of food but with specific restrictions. Again I look to the U.S. example. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, these agents are classified as foods but with very specific restrictions with respect to labelling, self-regulation—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: So if I buy a bottle of belladonna in the health food store, that should be a food.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: The substances in belladonna are already regulated under the Food and Drugs Act as a drug.

• 1005

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Yes, but we're going to start from scratch. We're going to try a new system. What would you do?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: Clearly our herbs are substances that are drugs with therapeutic applications. If you're talking about belladonna right now, it's already regulated under the Food and Drugs Act as a drug. I'm a pharmacist. When you have something with a very specific pharmacological action, it is a drug in that application.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: So we're going to go back to the drawing board in terms of people determining what is a drug. That's what we keep coming back to. We're going to have bureaucrats sitting there deciding what's a drug and what's a nutraceutical, and we need some help writing those rules.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: Again, my advice would be to look to other countries for their regulatory framework and improve it.

The Chair: Ms. Bennett, you're time is up.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Let me carry on where Carolyn left off. I think the panel today is a microcosm of the kinds of presentations we've been getting for the last several months, and I think we're still grappling with the choices. This panel has presented the range of choices, starting with Mr. Dugas and the recommendation for, as I understand it, a third category, which is something that appears to have been recommended by the advisory panel struck by the Department of Health.

Stephen Case, you're recommending something that many of the consumers who came before us have suggested, that if we have in place a proper capacity within the Health Protection Branch to do random testing, to check for the authenticity of herbs to ensure the proper labelling, we probably could manage without getting into another whole regulatory direction, another bureaucracy.

I think Kent MacLeod is saying the same thing.

Can we deal with the concerns Carolyn has raised about claims that natural health products have a therapeutic benefit in a scenario in which we don't move toward a third category but ease up on the regulation before the proper investigative powers are entrenched within the Health Protection Branch?

Mr. Stephen Case: Perhaps I can answer first.

I think if we open up the laboratories—and I understand the main reason we're here is safety. That is what was told to me by the Health Protection Branch. There have been no deaths because of natural products, they admitted.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. MacLeod said less than ten.

Mr. Stephen Case: He was talking about the United States. I didn't check the United States figures, but he said less than ten.

Third, I think the regulations will further it to the point at which we can no longer afford to buy the products we're already paying for out of our pocket. We can't buy boron in Canada, and we can't buy zinc picolinate in Canada. I can't buy my son's vitamins with chromium picolinate in Canada. I've got to get it from the United States.

In Germany, it is so regulated that if you want to get vitamin C you can get only a dosage of 200 milligrams, and that will cost you $100.

So when we're looking at natural products, people are dying.... If the issue is safety, we need to be looking at what people are dying from. I didn't see anybody dying from belladonna, unless it was actually as a drug, but I don't believe people are recommending belladonna in dosages that have a large amount of molecules. If so, I haven't seen the deaths. Do you have any information as far as deaths are concerned?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I think we have to look at wellness and the “do no harm”. I don't think we should wait until people are dead.

Mr. Stephen Case: No, but I'm saying that if the issue is safety we're focusing on the wrong thing.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: I think two things are happening in the U.S. with respect to the claims.

• 1010

The first area of claim is with respect to structure and function. There are classical claims that are allowed. Even in Canada it is very hard to allow a classical claim. A classical claim is that calcium helps build strong bones and teeth. A structure and function claim that is allowed is something like saying vitamin C is important in a healthy immune system, or vitamin C may have a role in teeth development. What you're dealing with is the ability to talk about nutrients based on what they are proven to be essential for.

Basically we're saying right now that is not allowed to be done in Canada. We have evidence that says it's generally accepted that this is what nutrients are for, and this is the first level, the structure and function claim.

The next level is under the FDA Reform Act. It involves the National Cancer Institute, the Centres for Disease Control, and some of the major quasi-governmental institutions. You spend billions of dollars in these institutions and they find stuff about foods that is important. Companies can actually use these claims based on their evidence. When a large body finds something, you actually can say this food may be important in this process. It seems so logical. We're really suggesting that claims aren't....

The whole process of saying vitamin E cures cancer is a whole different realm. This is just not true. What we're saying is that vitamin E may be important in the immune system. It is important in a variety of issues and you should be allowed to talk about claims based on what they do.

As another example, a manufacturer should be able to suggest that folic acid may be important for heart health and it may be important in preventing neural tube defects. This is generally accepted scientific information, yet under our current regulatory environment we cannot say these things. This is inane and harmful because it should be allowed to be promoted by companies beyond just the random, hopeful nature of the public or professionals who are able to say yes, if you're thinking of getting pregnant you should take a multivitamin with folic acid.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacLeod.

Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Ronald Dugas: Can I make just a couple of points on this particular subject of claims?

The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Ronald Dugas: I think one of the areas we have to look at also is that we believe claims should open up, very definitely. If Canada is going to compete with our trading partners, something has to be done.

As an example, if safety worries the Canadian government so much, there is an area where we can look at the United States, where they have a disclaimer. In essence, this disclaimer would appear on the bottles here in Canada and it would say that Health Canada has not made any diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevention of disease. In essence, this hasn't been checked whatsoever. I think this is an area the committee should be looking at. Open it up because I think there is a need for it if we're going to compete.

By the same right, educate Canadians and then it's up to them. With this disclaimer, if they want to go ahead and take that particular natural health product, it's their business. It's their body.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dugas.

Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Good morning to all of you.

On that first page, with the accidental poisonings, drugs—médicaments en français—and biologicals, there are about 581 deaths. I think a large number of those are probably attributable to Aspirin, Tylenol, etc. Am I right?

Mr. Stephen Case: They are actually subcategorized all the way through.

Mr. Volpe: My question would still be the same. Would you recommend that those be pulled off the shelves?

Mr. Stephen Case: I would say that we need to look at what the highest risk ones are, probably antipyretics, antirheumatics, and maybe nifedipine. That seems to be one that's caused people to quit their jobs at the HPB, yes. Those products are so high risk that they need to be looked at. What's killing Canadians, I think, is important. And then once that's done, we need to look at how we can prevent our human resources from falling apart.

• 1015

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Thank you. Over the course of the last couple of months, a variety of people have come forward to make some recommendations to this committee and to offer some observations. Being on this side of the table and having heard the claims of one group versus another, I guess that in my own mind, skeptical as it's becoming, I see that there seems to be a philosophical difference of opinion between those who practise conventional medicines and those who don't. So I'm happy to have a pharmacist here before us today. Maybe I could ask a question and try to bridge both.

About two weeks ago, I guess, we heard a doctor who has some renown—a reputation that's been attributed to him—talk about how feeling good is not necessarily the same thing as being better. I hope I'm not misinterpreting what he said. There are others who have come before us and who haven't said in as many words that the reason you feel better is that there is some sort of chemical reaction in your body that triggers the brain to send off messages telling you that you feel better.

When you examine some products, like these natural products or even the pharmaceuticals, do you look for some of the active ingredients that actually trigger the body to be “better”, if I can in very pedestrian language interpret what the others are saying?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: You're saying what these people are saying is that maybe there is a placebo effect to these natural products—

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I don't know. The more information I get the more skeptical I become.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: The actual quick answer is yes. For any drug or supplement there is a percentage of people, particularly for pain relief, which is a great example...if you give a sugar pill to ten people, 30% of them will have pain relief. That's clearly an issue with any product.

What you do, of course, with natural products...this is the purpose of studies and research and using objective markers, such as giving multivitamins or vitamin E to an individual and actually measuring improvements in the T-cells. You can actually see an improved T-cell response with multivitamins. If we're measuring with our work with the bio-markers, you can see a lowering of liquid for oxidation in the body. So the answer is that there is also a placebo effect in terms of a “feel good”, and with any drug or whatever... but I'm not sure what the question is.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: With respect to natural products, then, I take it from your response that we could establish markers and test these against these markers and see whether these natural products actually produce the effect that they claim to.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: Again, that's not necessary. If you're suggesting that a vitamin or a nutrient has already been established as essential for the structure and function of the body, it's already been found, it's already discovered, it's already known...but if you're wishing to make an additional health claim that something is going to cure something then it has to be established. And, again, even in the U.S. this is not allowed. A structure and function claim—saying the nutrient is important for a certain function of the body—is allowed and even then you still have to put the disclaimer in, as Ron Dugas said, that “this statement has not been evaluated”, a statement like “vitamin E is important for a healthy heart”.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: So in your mind the functional claim is completely different from the health claim and therefore wouldn't require the same rigour currently being applied by the Health Protection Branch.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: Absolutely. And that's done all the time. If you're saying that vitamin E will prevent heart attacks, that's a different claim. It's different from saying that vitamin E is important for a healthy heart.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Should I take from that comment that as far as you're concerned it really is a question of semantics, of the kind of creative language people are using for their labelling?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: Absolutely. A lot of this whole discussion is semantics in terms of starting up the framework so you can actually discuss with people and so manufacturers can communicate to consumers real live evidentiary information based on where we find ourselves, compared with a situation where anything you say that is...I mean, folic acid for neural tube defects is not allowed to be discussed. This is insane. So it is semantics up to that point.

• 1020

In terms of the ability, as you find evidence...for example, in the U.S. They finally said, you know, this sounds to me as though we deal with one manufacturer claiming his car can go 120 miles an hour when actually we're just looking to say, well, can your car go 120 miles an hour? Do you have any evidence for that?

This is a consumer issue. It's not a health issue. You should be able to support the claims you're making. You should have that type of watchdog, a consumer watchdog, saying, no, you can't say this, because you don't have any evidence to support that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Volpe, go on. I have no indication that anybody else has a question. Or do you have another question, Joe?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Don't let me—

Mr. Kent MacLeod: I'm just trying to tell you that.... It's a placebo effect, all the natural health industry—I think that's what someone may have suggested, that everybody feels this. Is that right?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I don't want to attribute to somebody something they haven't said.

Mr. Kent MacLeod: Okay.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I hope you will appreciate that everything you contribute as a witness is added to the understanding that some of us develop. Other members may operate differently, but it's not a question of ticking off one mark for you and another mark for someone else. It's to create a general understanding.

My view so far is simply that there are those who feel that the natural health products, not the therapies themselves, are in many respects not subject to the same rigours that some of the pharmaceutical products are, and perhaps what ought to happen is that those who are making some health claims have to follow by the same rules. Just because somebody feels good as a result of consuming a particular product doesn't necessarily mean that person is better.

Mr. Ronald Dugas: But why should we—and I'm talking about the government and politicians—if the consumer feels well from taking a particular natural health product? I feel the state has to get involved when it has to do with safety or quality, but when it comes to the effects, and it's natural, with no harm done—and I'm prepared to pay out of my own pocket, as I said initially—why should someone, be it government or anybody else, come to me and say, as an example, I cannot have that particular natural health product?

Have a look at cigarettes. Have a look at what it says: Cigarettes cause cancer. Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease. We're selling them all over the place. You're not stopping that guy from going to the store, getting a package of cigarettes and killing himself, but you're going to stop me from taking a natural health product that I feel is helping me.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Let me deal with one hypocrisy at a time.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dugas. We'll come back.

We have about five or six minutes, and we now have three or four more people who have indicated they want to say something.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Do you want me to finish that question, though?

The Chair: No, because you're double your time already. We'll come back to you, Joe, if there's time.

Mr. Hill, Ms. Bennett, and then we'll go to Joe and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. But we have to do all of that in five minutes.

Mr. Grant Hill: In terms of the idea Kent has expressed, that the industry be self-regulating, I don't think you're saying that the government has no place in this industry in terms of quality control, in terms of making certain a product is in fact what it states. Could you amplify the self-regulating component of your suggestion?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: In fact, the application of self-regulation is to say that anyone who provides this must have on site, or whatever, to the government's acceptance, regulations that support that in the product there are methods of manufacture that meet guidelines, etc., so that you don't consent in, at this point—to be frank—an adversarial or drug-based system in terms of looking at these products from a drug point of view versus setting up the framework so that the industry must demonstrate self-regulation or you imply standards.

• 1025

I clearly feel that the government has a role in actually setting up the framework, to their satisfaction and comfort, to make it clear that they are complying with what you feel is adequate labelling, methods for making claims, or that process, or what they can't do, and the quality of manufacture—absolutely.

Mr. Grant Hill: Do you agree with Stephen's comment that the government should be doing spot checking for assay, that they might well look at a product and see if it does contain what is suggested?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: In the U.S., as part of self-regulation, each manufacturer has to supply to the association a list of products, and at regular intervals the association will request certain products be sent in for assay.

In terms of the government doing spot checks of product, in the drug industry that does not happen in that sense.

Mr. Grant Hill: All right, so if I understand, then, you would have spot checks, but done by an association rather than by—

Mr. Kent MacLeod: In fact, under the self-regulatory framework in the U.S., there is.... Based on my experience with the drug regulations in Canada, actually by self-regulating they are over-regulating so that they can prove that they're really able to comply with these issues. They're doing these spot checks; they're sending off their products for independent testing, which they're paying for, as opposed to...as soon as you get the government, then all kinds of stuff happens.

Again, the way it is right now, there is no pharmaceutical in Canada that's randomly spot-checked. That's so onerous to suggest spot-checking on an industry where there's no spot checks happening. There's no Tylenol, no Aspirin, no nothing that's actually randomly tested from the government; the industry has to provide that to an inspector that says you have your data.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacLeod.

Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thank you. I'd like to follow Dr. Hill's questioning.

Already in this industry there has been echinacea laced with pseudoephedrine; there has been Sleeping Buddha laced with diazepam or whatever. I still want to know what is the government's role to make sure that if somebody buys something, what's in it is what it says is in it. I was very concerned that some of the stuff people are importing from the States doesn't seem to have any dose on it. Shouldn't the government have a role, saying if you think you're buying B6, it really is 50 milligrams of B6, or 200 milligrams.

Who says the dose on the bottle? Is there any interest in, say, the Australian model, which says the traditional use of this product has been such and such, with a disclaimer, but the consumer does know when they buy it that it is the pure thing at the dose they think they bought?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: From my perspective, the practical matter is that even if you create tremendous regulations, you're still not going to stop the person importing their special Chinese product or bringing in whatever, or unscrupulous manufacturers who are unable to produce a product. But in a self-regulatory environment where anybody who is going to be selling products to the consumer guarantees that they comply with these rules, versus the situation of inspection, which cannot enforce this anyhow with the—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: So we should wait until the athlete gets caught at the Olympics, thinking they've just taken echinacea, and they find pseudoephedrine in the urine sample?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: First of all, as a pharmacist, the number of drug recalls I see from pharmacies...because in a self-regulatory environment there's a drug recall mechanism. The number of recalls I see as a pharmacist that the consumer doesn't, where we've determined that oh, oh, this product doesn't have as much as it said it does; oh, oh, we put something into this eye drop that shouldn't be there; oh, oh, we're having granulations over here that shouldn't be there; oh, oh.... I probably get a drug recall notice every second week from the drug industry, but because it's self-regulating, no consumer knows about it, no MP knows about it.

• 1030

My own MP said “Remember that hairy ginseng baby?” I said “Actually, it's interesting that we have this drug recall about it that was so serious”—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Mr. MacLeod, the committee has heard that there are so many different kinds of ginseng—some are much better for certain things and some for others—that it takes some bioassaying to sort out which is which. Who should be doing that? Who should say, when you're getting this kind of ginseng or that kind of ginseng, that it actually is that kind of ginseng, that the people—who are actually very knowledgeable consumers—are actually getting the kind of ginseng they think they're buying?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: I still say that in a self-regulatory agency the person making this assay will actually have some knowledge with respect to the claim.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: And would an association be doing that or would the government be doing it?

Mr. Kent MacLeod: The association would. The government cannot possibly...to set up the framework saying “you have to”.... Again, your role as the government, I feel, would be to say, okay, as an industry, you must satisfy me that this question is answered.

Mr. Ronald Dugas: With respect to this whole issue, before our time ends there is just one point I'd like to make. I would very strongly recommend that the standing committee read the review of scientific literature on the prevalence, consequences and health costs of non-compliance and inappropriate prescription medication in Canada. This was prepared for the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association by medical doctors.

In the summary, as an example, they say that 50% of antibiotics should not be given to elderly people. They go on to say that 20% of benzodiazepines are actually given to elderly patients for no reason at all, at a cost of $2.56 billion to Canada every year.

And here we are talking about natural health products with no harmful effects!

The report ends by saying that it culminates in hospitalization and many deaths in Canada. This is a report prepared not by the alternative health care practitioners but by the medical community.

And we're talking about efficacy. We're talking about safety. What is the government doing with regard to antibiotics? Night after night, I get all kinds—

Voices: All right!

Mr. Ronald Dugas: I'm a consumer activist. I have been for 25 years. And the consumers keep coming to me and saying, as an example, “Look at melatonin. Off the market I can get it in the States.” They ask me what I, as a consumer activist, am doing about the antibiotics.

What's the government doing with regard to letting medical doctors continue to give this particular drug? This is what's wrong with the system. This is where all the cost comes in.

A voice: But it's not regulated—

A voice: But the association—

The Chair: We have another question we want to get in here.

Mr. Ronald Dugas: I know—

A voice: Random testing—

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, just a short question, and then we'll go on to the next—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. Following up on what Mr. Dugas has been saying, I think he's saying things that are not consistent with your recommendation in terms of requiring a third regulatory approach. Would it work, in your opinion, to carry out the following scenario, drawing on some of the stuff from Stephen Case's paper?

You would include herbal and homeopathic remedies as foods under sections 4 and 5 of the Food and Drugs Act; you would amend the Food and Drugs Act to redefine the term “drug” to exclude natural health products; you would have a regulatory mechanism in place to ensure proper labelling and some way to have botanical authenticity; and you would have that ability within government to do the spot checks and random checking as necessary. Are you not really just saying that anyway as opposed to setting up a whole separate regulatory category?

Mr. Ronald Dugas: Actually, when I started to get involved in this, what I had in mind is exactly what you're saying. I saw many drawbacks as I went along in doing this type of work, in working on the advisory panel and so on, and I found that there very definitely have to be safeguards and some type of regulatory system in place in order to ensure that we at least get the safety aspect in there. But where we strongly disagree is that we feel that the efficacy for low-risk products should not be in the domain of the state. It's up to the consumers.

Voices: Hear, hear.

• 1035

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dugas. I think you'll appreciate the fact that we've heard many people here in the last few weeks, and sometimes we hear the same thing. What we're looking for very strongly are suggestions, and that's why you hear people keeping at you on a certain angle. We're trying to get at what you would do about it. It's fine to say that you don't like this and you don't like that and you don't like the other thing, but we need ideas on what to do about it, how to set up whatever, if not a regulator, and if it's going to be self-regulation...we need some ideas, and that's why people keep asking you for yours.

Thank you very much, all of you. We'll adjourn for five minutes and the other group can get ready.

• 1035

• 1050

The Chair: I'll call the meeting to order now.

As I mentioned to the other group that was here, we've heard from a lot of groups. The minister has asked us to listen to people from across Canada, to listen to all the groups involved, and to see what needs to be done, whether it's more regulation, less regulation, leave it like it is, or whatever it is. That's what we want to know.

We need ideas from the groups that appear in front of us of what would be the best way to handle a situation which obviously the public is very concerned about. We want your ideas of where we can go. We know what exists now and what's been in the past. We want some ideas about where we can go with this and what you would best like to see.

From the Consumer Health Organization of Canada we have Phil Anderson and Marcel Wolfe; from The Herb Works we have Richard DeSylva; and from Freedom of Choice in Health Care we have Marilyn Nelson.

Ms. Marilyn Nelson (Founder, Freedom of Choice in Health Care): My guest will be Josip Gabre and he'll be making a brief statement.

The Chair: So he'll be speaking for your group?

Ms. Marilyn Nelson: I'm speaking for the group, but I've just asked him to come in and say a few words on the issue.

The Chair: So between the two of you you'll be about five minutes?

Ms. Marilyn Nelson: Actually we'll be about five each.

The Chair: Okay.

From Health Naturally magazine we have David Rowland.

We would appreciate it if all of you could keep your comments as short as possible just because we have members here who want to ask you questions. I'm sure whatever you want to cover will come out in the questioning also. We'd like as many ideas as possible.

We'll just go in the order we have here, beginning with Phil Anderson and Marcel Wolfe from the Consumer Health Organization. I don't know who's going to start. Please try to keep your comments to not much over five minutes for the group.

Mr. Phil Anderson (Treasurer, Consumer Health Organization of Canada): Honourable members of Parliament and ladies and gentlemen, I am a director of the Consumer Health Organization of Canada. I'm also an organic farmer and I am in my 71st year.

I started being concerned about my health at about age 40, when I noticed a lack of energy. I was easily agitated and I was getting every cold and flu that was going around. After a talk with a health food store owner I started taking mineral and vitamin food supplements and doing a little more exercise and taking care of what I ate, and my health slowly started to improve.

As I have been studying how the body works and how our food is grown and the need for and the absorbability of mineral and vitamin supplements, I've been putting my findings into practice. My health has continued to improve and now I have more energy than I did when I was 40.

Being interested in organic growing and having been an organic farmer for the last ten years, I've learned that while organic growing cuts out the toxic herbs and fungicides and is better for the land, because of the trace mineral depletion of nearly all farmland in North America, the nutritional quality of organic food may not be a heck of a lot better than the non-organic, other than the lack of poisons.

If you doubt the validity of my statement that food today is deficient of most minerals, agriculturalists have known as early as 1936 that this was true, as witnessed by this report, which was submitted to the U.S. Senate in 1936 and published by them. It tells you exactly the same things we're saying today. I have copies of this if any member would like one.

The Chair: You could send a copy to the clerk. We would all get it.

Mr. Phil Anderson: This depletion of soils in minerals is a result of the discovery in the 1800s that the use of just three water-soluble minerals—namely nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium—made plants grow fast, large, and healthy looking. Unfortunately they weren't healthy, so nature's garbage collectors, the insects and the fungi, started eating them up. So they needed to get chemical poisons to poison them so there was some lasting quality to the food, while they got the unhealthy produce to the population. And that's why we need food supplements and mineral supplements.

• 1055

The same thing exists today. We're still doing the same thing, except we're spending more money on chemicals and more money on artificial fertilizers and killing the lands, and letting it flow into the streams and plug everything up and cause the degeneration of the country and the world.

But at least when you're taking, and allowed to take, the foods and supplements that you feel you need, they nourish and balance and cleanse the body so it will have a strong immune system and prevent any disease from getting established.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Consumer Health Organization of Canada, a not-for-profit educational organization, produces the largest yearly alternate health show in Canada, called Total Health. Incidentally, no Minister of Health or representative from either the federal government or the provincial government has ever attended one of our shows, in spite of repeated invitations. This makes us feel that the federal and provincial health ministers are not concerned about alternate health.

They may not be concerned, but the people are concerned, and the interest in alternate health and taking food supplements is increasing. A recent report, I believe it was in the Globe and Mail, showed that 42% of the people have inquired about and are taking food supplements, herbs, and other non-medical solutions for their health problems and to keep themselves healthy.

We just finished our first three-day show, and over 9,000 people attended. Thousands of calls will come in this year, as they did last year, from people inquiring about the use of supplements and other alternate health procedures. We're there just to give them information that we have available.

These people have also told us they want freedom of choice and they want less regulation, to encourage competition, which will produce better and cheaper food supplements. People are better educated now than when I was young, and they can determine what is good value and what works for them. We don't need coddling. Allow competition to flourish as it does in food production, and help us to educate the people to take responsibility for their own health.

Yes, if you want to reduce the staggering, oppressive cost of health care, which really should be called disease care, then help us to educate the people on how to stay healthy and even reverse disease, including cancer and AIDS, with proper nourishment, the balancing and cleansing of the body using the foods we have available, and an abundance of natural food supplements. My experience is, give the body the nutrients it requires and the body will stay well.

Thank you for inviting the Consumer Health Organization to present another view.

The Chair: Mr. Wolfe.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe (Consumer Health Organization of Canada): My name is Marcel Wolfe. I am 43 years old. Don't let my good looks and my youth trick you; it's just a side effect of my good health. And according to this government, it's all illegal.

This is a very proud and exciting moment in time, and it will prove to be a turning point for health freedom for Canadians.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen of the panel. I am a witness for the aggressive, offensive health freedom for Canadians. In politics, timing and public perception are everything. Even though the general public hasn't had the time to keep track of all the government changes and their repercussions, they are much more aware and self-educated than what the government is obviously aware of.

Action does speak louder than words, and it is the government's track record that has set the stage. Canadians are beyond suspicion and mistrust of the government. They have taken it upon themselves to investigate and educate themselves about their constitutional rights to holistic health choices.

• 1100

The public perception is this: the government is not acting in their best interest. Today, even with a little exposure to the truth, the general public, your neighbour and mine clearly do not have the faith or trust in the government or government bodies. When asked if they think the government actually cares about their health and their family's health, the answer is always a clear and firm “no”.

We all realize that it is not about listening to the Canadian voters' interest or we wouldn't be here today. We wouldn't have to be here. It is clearly and simply about more than just money or greed or control. This is simply a disease symptom and the cause is clearly a world-wide movement that doesn't benefit any Canadians. We all have health freedom and other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and my question is to you: have any of you read the Constitution back to front?

Canadians are also aware that it doesn't matter what party is in power; you are obviously dancing to the same drummer. Canadians have not asked for nor do they need regulations. Do we need more regulations? No. If you want to do anything constructive as a government, then educate but do not misinform or regulate. What Canadians are demanding and need is a Health Protection Branch and a government that generally works for Canadians and for Canadians only.

To start, an improvement of regulation 307 without the loopholes would be nice, and it is the only thing that we're going to accept. I repeat that this is a constitutionally guaranteed right and it is not up for negotiation. Reworked words, empty statements and irresponsible acts and ignorance will no longer be tolerated.

Let it be known that my supplements are nature made and God approved, and no government or global movement will ever come between me and my supplements or my health style.

In conclusion, it is a known fact that people will only make a major lifestyle change due to two circumstances: either in response to a crisis situation or to leadership. Thus far, you have not obviously provided leadership, but I do thank all of you. I am grateful to all of you for creating a need, a megacrisis situation. Let the healing begin.

As a member of the fastest growing majority, stop wasting away our health, our time. You keep throwing in our faces the money issue on a daily basis. It's now in your face. Get out of our gardens, get out of our kitchens, get out of our bathrooms and get out of our pockets, and finally, get out of our faces and be prepared for the biggest backlash in Canadian political history if you don't act correctly.

I wish you all the best of health for the best of times. Don't fall victim to your own ignorance and disillusionment.

I have here two audiotapes that were recorded this weekend of a discussion panel by international experts in a situation. You can have them, but I intend to get them back.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Marcel, if you can give those to the clerk afterwards, we'll make sure we listen to them. Thank you.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: There's one other thing. Are we getting a recording of this whole thing? I want a copy of the English and I want a copy of the French and there's no reason I can't have it.

The Chair: Nobody says there is, Marcel.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: I don't want to check the Internet. I want you to provide me with a copy. Thank you.

The Chair: Just a minute, Mr. Wolfe, I'll ask.

It's certainly logical and normal to do that. All you have to do is ask and you will receive.

Our next witness is Richard DeSylva, the owner of The Herb Works.

• 1105

Mr. Richard DeSylva (Owner-Operator, The Herb Works): Thank you, Madam Chair and fellow members of the panel.

I appreciate your inviting me here to Ottawa, because this whole issue concerns me greatly. I've been a practising herbalist for 22 years and a manufacturer for probably the past 13 or 14 years. I'm now at the point where, when it comes to manufacturing, my business has fallen from a level of employees of about five or six staff down to about two. Even at that, I'm probably going to lay those off because of the turmoil that's going on in the industry. So this whole issue, as I say, concerns me greatly.

A look at this whole issue reminds me of the concerns that were going on back in 1983, when I was a correspondent with the provincial health professions legislation review. As part of that review they gave us a package of information that listed criteria for regulation. Right down at the very bottom it said that we must operate according to an accepted body of knowledge from a recognized educational institution.

I would suggest to you that this same focus is part of, and in fact is a main issue right here today, this body of knowledge that determines whether or not a substance we take is a food or a drug. This whole area is a very grey area, to say the least.

The time constraints today do not permit any of us, myself especially, to get into the reasons why a lot of us look upon herbs as being very specialized foods for the cells of the body. We cannot get into the cultural, psychosocial, historical, religious, philosophical, ecological, etc., reasons, but suffice it to say there is a body of knowledge behind the statement that herbs are very specialized foods.

Because of this body of knowledge and the lack of time to get into it, I would suggest that the government has no place sitting in judgment on those who choose to use these substances for their own particular health and well-being. If there is to be any concern whatsoever, it should be in a broad spectrum, perhaps in the area of efficacy, and certainly safety.

In this whole area I think there are three red herrings, if you will. Let me address them individually.

The first red herring is the issue of whether or not these substances are a food or a drug. What we're finding out today in the research in the area of nutraceuticals, or functional foods, whether it be material coming from Japan or Germany or perhaps here in Canada or the United States, is that the more we look upon foods and the more we analyse them, the more we find that there are substances in them that have “therapeutic” benefits. Whether it be lycopenes in tomatoes, the antioxidants in vegetables, or the indole-3-carbinol in broccoli, which has anti-cancer activity, the more we look into foods the more we find therapeutic benefits.

This whole issue is coming out now that foods do have therapeutic benefits. This issue, then, in some essence, is a non-issue when it comes to whether or not it's a food or a drug. Foods do have therapeutic benefits.

Red herring two is the issue of safety. There is a lot of concern on the part of the government over the safety of these substances. They allege that a lot of herbs have potentially dangerous substances. I think this is bad science.

I refer this committee to an article that appeared in Science Magazine in April 1987, an article written by three doctors—Bruce Ames, Lois S. Gold and Renae Magaw—entitled “Ranking Possible Carcinogens”. In this same article they pointed out that there are various substances in foods that, judged by themselves, isolated and separated by themselves, have potential for carcinogenic activity, whether it be the hydrazines in mushrooms, the psoralens in celery, the estragol in basil, the allo-isothiocyanate in brown mustard, or the nitropyrenes, for example, in barbecued foods.

All these foods, they say, have substances that have the potential for carcinogenicity, but we're able to handle them. We're able to tolerate them. We're able to metabolize them.

If that's the case, what is the concern, then, over these substances in herbs? I would suggest to you that they are nowhere nearly as toxic as science would have us believe.

In this same article they have a gradient system called, “Herpes Index: Human Exposure to Rodent Potency”, which lists one of the herbs that has been banned by Health Protection Branch Canada as being carcinogenic—that is, comfrey leaves. Comfrey leaves, for example, are of the same order of potential for toxicity as a peanut butter sandwich. Now, this is science.

• 1110

I would suggest to you that the other herbs they are concerned about can equally be looked upon in the same light. So if there's concern over toxicity, it must be judged in proper science.

If these are potentially toxic, then the concern is over who should have access to them, and I would suggest to you that the public, if they are given these herbs in traditional dosage forms, will not suffer any ill effects.

I've been a herbalist, as I said, for 22 years. Perhaps to address the concern of—is it Dr. Bennett?—I've spoken to herbalists worldwide when I lectured in Russia, Australia, the States, and Canada. I know of no herbalist who uses belladonna in the herbal form, where there may well be potential for toxicity. In the homeopathic form, which is extremely diluted, as another member of the previous panel pointed out, that will not cause toxicity.

Everything in life, Madam Doctor, falls within this gradient called the Arndt-Schultz principle of pharmacology: a large amount will kill, a moderate amount will paralyze, a small amount will stimulate. Everything falls within that gradient and needs to be judged within that context.

Red herring number three: we are told by Health Protection Branch Canada that because they appear in pharmaceutical dosage form, i.e., a capsule or a tablet, they are automatically a drug. This is fallacious. As I say, I've been a herbalist for 22 years, and I started off giving people who came to see me teas and liquid concentrates. A lot of the time they'd say, “Oh, I cannot stand the taste of that”. The fact that they are in a capsule or a tablet is simply a delivery system, nothing more, nothing less.

Especially when one considers the fast-paced, high-powered world that we live in today, people do not have the time, even if they did like the taste of herbs, to sit there, make a cup of tea, strain it off, add a bit of honey or whatever, and drink it. They want something they can pop into their mouth and wash down as they go out the door.

So I would suggest to you that the concerns over these substances need to be judged within these three points I've made here today.

As for solutions, Madam Chair, which you asked for earlier, I would suggest, please, leave this industry alone. Let us self-regulate. Let us be able to put out our products. I agree with Ron Dugas, who was here previously: if there needs to be any warning at all, let it be put on the label that these products have not been evaluated by whatever, be it Health Protection Branch or, who knows, another agency to replace them.

This leads me to my third point: Health Protection Branch needs to be eliminated or radically changed from its present format. They have done nothing to protect the public from substances that are worthy of concern, i.e., a lot of the pharmaceutical drugs. That point has been made before, so I won't pursue that further. But please allow this industry to develop—not unchallenged, not totally unregulated, but regulated according to the food regulations. As my colleague Dr. Rowland will certainly point out, there are more than sufficient regulations there to cover this industry.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Marilyn Nelson, are you going to speak first or is Josip going to speak first?

Ms. Marilyn Nelson: That's okay, Josip. You go first.

Mr. Josip Gabre (Freedom of Choice in Health Care): Ladies and gentlemen, according to medical science, our body produces approximately 200 million new cells every minute, among which are some cancerous ones and some weak ones, which are not good for anything. Again, according to medical science, our immune system destroys all cancer cells and all weak ones upon creation and leaves alive only good, healthy ones.

The conclusion is that we produce cancer cells every minute and our immune system controls them. When our immune system fails, cancer cells get through and start to develop. This means our healthy cells and cancer cells have identical metabolisms and can be recognized and controlled only by our immune system. Therefore an immune system in good condition is the only thing that can selectively kill cancer and spare the healthy ones.

If our cells are replicas of human beings, with human intelligence, in need of proteins, minerals, vitamins, and enzymes, all in organic form, then what we humans cannot do, our cells cannot. So synthetics that we cannot assimilate or eliminate, our cells cannot either.

• 1115

If anybody thinks differently, I ask that person, when was the last time he or she had plastic cups, plastic bottles or plastic bags for lunch or supper?

Besides, a great deal of synthetics, especially those synthetics used to beat cancer, are toxic. Chemotherapy, for example, involves a mustard gas that was used on the battlefield to kill people during World War I. How can we kill selectively that way: kill cancer and spare the healthy one? If the metabolism of the two would be different, yes. While we still cannot find a drug that will selectively kill one and spare another one, the use of synthetics in any way is detrimental to humans.

Yes, in labs we can produce any formula existing in nature, but that is not the same thing. God provided humans with all kinds of herbs for all kinds of diseases, including cancer.

It is obvious that cats and dogs, although they are not vegetarian, have more sense than humans. When they get sick, they go to the bush, to the garden, find a proper herb, eat it, and get cured. God gave the same instinct to man. But for some reason, man has become either too smart or too stupid; I don't know which. But he became too greedy. That is the fact, and there is our problem.

I was dying from cancer, and at the last moment I found a cure, namely taheebo. I used it, and cured myself despite damage done to me by the medical profession.

After that I studied cancer in detail and wrote a book, How I Beat Cancer. I am consulting people who are dying from cancer, and many lives are saved. I don't keep records, as I do not do that professionally, and it is free of charge.

If the Health Protection Branch cares about our health, all synthetic drugs have to be banned, especially chemotherapy. Herbs have to be free for use, and especially by those who are healing.

Why is it forbidden to say that some herb is curing some disease? If that is true, it is true, and we have to use that expression freely.

Ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, nobody ever cured us. Our body is the only self-healer. From outside we get information on how to stimulate our body, we get stimulants, and then we stimulate our mind to work together with the body. That is how a cure happens every time. If the Health Protection Branch wants to protect us from any disease, it first has to lift the ban from all herbs, and ban the use of any chemicals. What is being practised so far is actually destroying our health.

Ladies and gentlemen, if it ever happens—and it is a possibility as, according to statistics, we are reaching a situation where every second person will die of cancer—and you happen to get cancer, would you let yourself be killed slowly and painfully? If you do intend to take that approach, congratulations. I don't want to state the condition of your mind.

If you want to protect us, do so. Do so by applying God's law and common sense. If drug companies have the right to make so much money, we have the right to be healthy. We elected you to the office, and we deserve to ask you to serve us. In the end, without hesitation, I say cancer is curable. Cancer is an easily curable disease if the proper approach is taken.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Ms. Nelson.

Ms. Marilyn Nelson: Good morning. I represent Freedom of Choice in Health Care, and we, in turn, represent nearly 200,000 consumers—no vested interest groups, just consumers.

• 1120

Over this past year we have conducted a “foods are not drugs” campaign. Thousands of letters have poured in to MPs across the country. We have nearly 200,000 petitions sitting here today in support. We couldn't get them in to show you, but you can take a look. That's a lot of people being represented.

That's nearly 200,000 people who are saying no to more regulations, no to a proposed third category. But they are saying yes, yes to a court action to stop the injustice once and for all. They are also saying yes to giving back to the public the products that belong to them in the first place.

We are currently planning a national benefit concert to raise awareness of the uselessness of more regulation. It is no secret that consumers are growing very restless with all this talk of a third category and more regulation. What they want is education, not regulation.

This is not about safety. This is all about who gets to own herbs and make a killing on them. Let's not play games with that.

That brings me to the issue of the third category. I have posted a sign to which I would direct your attention for a few moments. The third category assumes that Canadians are really stupid. Canadians know that it is not necessary at all. We have more regulations than we could ever use now.

Section 4 of Canada's Food and Drugs Act states that no person shall sell any food that has “any poisonous or harmful substance”. What is that saying?

Section 7 reads that “No person shall manufacture...for sale any food under unsanitary conditions”. That sounds pretty clear to me.

Section 5 states that “No person shall label...sell or advertise any food in any manner that is false, misleading or deceptive”.

For Heaven's sake, we have more regulations than we need, tripping over each other, and we have the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. Then we have the deceptive marketing practice provisions of the Competition Act. What in the world do we need more regulations for? It is totally unnecessary, and you're going to have to be prepared to prove to the public why in the world we're even having these sessions now.

Furthermore, do you think the public doesn't know that this is based on false information? I'm talking about the need for a third category.

We've talked about belladonna. As soon as I read the report from Health Canada.... I mean, we're all using the same ma huang, belladonna, and so forth. I've called up master herbalist after master herbalist. We don't even use those in this country.

This is just a nonsense approach. I guess that if you want to have regulation, you have to tell the public something and hope they're foolish enough to buy it.

Let's take a look, however, at the number of hidden agendas it really serves. I don't think I'm going to have the time to get into that today, but the brief that was presented—I don't know whether any of you have read it or not—states all those hidden agendas. If we have time to discuss it later, we will be happy to.

We'll also be going into the fact that it's unconstitutional, it's unfair. If you can't prove safety is an issue, then you have no right regulating with a third category.

And we ask, where are all the dead bodies? It's been mentioned here this morning. You need to be dealing with other things, where there are hundreds of thousands of dead bodies, but nobody seems to be talking about that. We're picking on herbs that belong in the public domain.

The last point is probably the most important of all: Canadians simply don't want it. Yes, right now there's a certain amount of confusion out there, because of false information that's put out that somehow we need this regulation, but we don't.

So with that in mind, I ask you.... Your mandate basically is to provide consumers freedom of choice and access to natural products. You have stated that you're looking for solutions. I submit to you that the solution is really very simple.

If a product has proven to be dangerous, you put it in a category of drugs. If there are no dead bodies from these products, and in most cases—99%—there are none, then leave it in the public sector where it belongs. We all know that regulation costs money, it wastes taxpayers' dollars, and there's no need for it.

• 1125

So I just ask you, please be prepared to prove to Canadians that these herbs are killing a lot of people. I've heard so much mentioned of this from the other side of the picture, but where is the proof? Let's talk about hidden agendas, and let's talk about how this is going to dramatically increase the price of safe natural herbs, and it's going to cause less accessibility.

There are hundreds of thousands of seniors and poor people who are relying upon these products. In my home I have a little package of St. John's wort, at $3.60. Watch that go up to $150.

There are many products that have gone from the public sector at under $10 a bottle, and they're now selling under the name of drugs for $120 to $200 for the same thing. That is a disaster.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chair: Mr. David Rowland from the Health Naturally magazine.

Mr. David W. Rowland (Co-Publisher, Health Naturally): Thank you. I've left some copies of the magazine with Mr. Préfontaine, if you wish to review them. I draw your attention to one article:

Vitamin Police Terrorize Suppliers. Health Protection Branch involves the RCMP in raiding the homes, residences of people who have been so-called trafficking in harmless dietary supplements.

That may be of interest to you.

Primarily I'm hear to talk about solutions and to make things incredibly clear. I've heard a lot of confusion, and I feel you are all genuinely interested in resolving the problem.

In order to resolve the problem, you first have to identify its cause. Everything else is palliative, or dealing with symptoms. There are vested interests, yes, but what gives a vested interest power is an outdated definition of drug in the Food and Drugs Act.

The Food and Drugs Act circa 1952 grandfathered a definition that came to us from 1927. It says:

“drug” includes any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in

(a) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder, abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof, in man or animal,

(b) restoring, correcting or modifying organic functions in man or animal,

etc. What this means, as Ron Dugas capably pointed out this morning, is that it's not what a substance is that determines whether it's a drug or not. It's not its safety that determines whether it's a drug. It's the use to which you put it, or the health claims you make for it.

What do you think a magistrate in court is going to think of this definition when it's challenged? We are in the process of challenging it with legal action right away. We served papers on Allan Rock on June 27.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Mr. David Rowland: He got back to our lawyers the very same day and said he was postponing the third phase of cost recovery for this industry. We were asking for an injunction. In effect, he gave us that injunction, but there are still nine points yet to be determined. We can be back in court for a hearing on two weeks' notice.

Our concern is that we must give the power back to the people to make their own decisions. We want to take away the arbitrary power.

This definition of drug needs to be changed and/or restricted so that foods and drugs become mutually exclusive. If a substance is safe for human consumption, the Government of Canada has no business restricting it in any way.

A number of you have pointed out that sections 4 and 5 already give Health Canada all the power it needs to regulate natural health products for safety and truth in labelling, and so on. I don't need to dwell on those.

Now, here is a copy of the Constitution Act. This is the ultimate law of Canada that gives to Parliament all its powers, and Parliament has no powers other than those given to it by this act. Nowhere in this act does it mention that Parliament has the right of jurisdiction over health. The only mention of health is that it is given exclusively to the provinces. So this is another thing that needs to be cleaned up.

Whenever Health Canada decides, or attempts to decide, whether a substance is or is not effective for a particular condition, they're practising medicine. Whether a substance works or doesn't work is not the jurisdiction of the federal government. To try to make that decision is to practise medicine without a licence. That's a provincial jurisdiction.

Parliament is given the power to regulate trade and commerce. In all others fields trade and commerce is restricted to safety, as in infant toys, automobiles truth in advertising, and so on. That's also what is going to work for this industry. If you confine everything you do to safety, and preventing and catching up with people on fraud, that's all the industry requires. If you do more than that, then you are falling into the trap of practising medicine without a licence.

• 1130

As Ron Dugas pointed out this morning, efficacy is really not the domain of the federal government. If a substance is safe, its efficacy ought to be irrelevant for regulatory purposes.

Now, what Mr. Gabre didn't mention was that this taheebo tea was restricted from the market. He received a notice from Health Canada a few weeks ago telling him to cease and desist from selling it. It's been classed as a new drug.

But it was a June 1988 court decision, R. v. Quest Vitamin Supplies Ltd. A new drug clause in the food and drug regulations was found to be in violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But they're still enforcing this new drug provision over an entirely safe herbal tea that has no side effects whatsoever.

Mr. Gabre has treated many people, helping them at no charge. He has documented testimonials. He has research studies he can quote. Health Canada is preventing him from telling the truth.

I've heard a lot of talk about the potential harm from dietary supplements. I haven't heard anybody speak about the harm caused when Canadians are being killed by suppression of the truth.

Whenever you restrict a claim for a natural remedy, you're automatically sending business to the prescription drugs, which are lethal. So one could make an argument that to unduly restrict safe alternatives to prescription drugs is to commit a number of Canadians to death.

People need to have these substances available to them. There are mechanisms to ensure their safety under the Food and Drugs Act.

There is an incredibly simple solution. Bill C-307 would take this definition of drug and place limits on it so that it no longer is dependent on claims, advocacy, or what a substance is used for. It goes entirely to safety. This is what's going to protect the public.

If a substance is both a food and a drug, which it certainly can be by this definition, then according to Bill C-307 it can only be regulated as a food, unless there's a preponderance of scientific evidence to show that it's harmful at the dosages that are indicated.

I know it looks like a neat solution to have a third category. Well, these substances are somehow different from regular food. In terms of their safety, they're not. That's all you need to decide on. Those are the only areas you have jurisdiction to decide on by the constitution: their safety, not their efficacy.

So there's no difference in terms of safety from normal foods. More people die from anaphylactic shock to peanuts than they do from any of these remedies.

So we must keep these substances in the public domain. To turn them over to a new bureaucracy in charge of a third category is still keeping them out of the public domain. I've read the submissions and have heard and seen what these people are saying.

We got down on Health Canada because of how they're killing the natural health products industry. It's the death of one thousand cuts. They keep taking products away and so on. They insist on plant licensing, product licensing, GMPs—and all this sustained by fees.

What are those of you who are advocates of the third category advocating? You are advocating exactly the same thing: plant licensing, product licensing, prior approval of claims.

There's no justification for censuring claims, for stipulating that manufacturers or suppliers can only make claims that are pre-approved by any bureaucracy. If it's fraudulent, go after them. But that's censorship. It's just not a part of the freedom of health choice for consumers.

So if Bill C-307 or something that accomplishes the same intended result is not passed, then we are prepared to do what it takes. You have the opportunity here to resolve the problem and to pass the foremost health freedom legislation in the world. If you don't solve the problem, it isn't going to go away, we're not going to go away, and legal challenges are not going to go away.

Thank you.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Thanks. Mr. Elley.

• 1135

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd just like to make a personal statement. I'm not sure whether it's reflective of other members of the committee, but I think it possibly is. I see myself as an ordinary Canadian who was elected by ordinary Canadians to engage in the pursuit of truth. That's what I really feel is at the basis of this; we're after the pursuit of truth here. What is true?

I guess I'm asking those of you who have come to make presentations—and I'm tremendously glad you're here—not to view us as enemies in this. We are not your enemies. We're ordinary Canadians who are trying to act on behalf of ordinary Canadians to get a solution to this. What we see, of course, is that we're given the tremendous opportunity to engage in this learning process more than anybody else in this country at the present time. That puts a heavy responsibility on us and I accept that responsibility. What I'm looking for here is the truth. Let's get to truth.

We have had many representatives from various aspects of the natural health food industry—people at the end of production, those who are selling, and consumer groups. It's a wide range. We do have some who have come and said they want a third category. We have those people telling us a third category would be okay. I think most of you today are saying you don't want a third category, that it's not necessary.

We have to ask what is the truth of this matter on the basis of the evidence that is being presented to us. So when I ask this question, don't look at it as a question from the enemy; let's just find out what the truth is on it.

Last week when I was home in my riding, which is Nanaimo—Cowichan on Vancouver Island, I picked up the Victoria Times Colonist. On the front page was a lady who has used natural health products all her life. She had taken Sleeping Buddha last year, and unfortunately that Sleeping Buddha, which was imported from outside the country, had Valium in it. When she took it over a sustained period of time she ran into real problems.

You told us that you think the only role of government should be in the area of safety. I think that's what you're telling us. How can you ask government to engage in the safety issue, which deals with fraudulent claims or a fraudulent product, without getting involved in testing and regulation? How do you separate those? I'd appreciate anybody on the panel giving me an answer, because we're looking for the truth here.

Mr. David Rowland: The truth is that sections 4 and 5 of the Food and Drugs Act already give Health Canada all the power it needs to control that situation completely. Section 4 says you must not sell a food that's adulterated or poisonous. Section 5 says you must not sell something that's mislabelled or misrepresented. The regulations are already in place, and if Health Canada wants to randomly sample things, fine, so be it.

The public does need protection for its safety, but we don't need a new set of regulations. They're already there. The crime here is that Health Canada is doing what it shouldn't be doing and isn't doing what it ought to be doing.

Mr. Reed Elley: I appreciate what you're saying, but I think Mr. DeSylva said that he thinks the Health Protection Branch should be eliminated. If you eliminate it, you take out the testing aspect, so who's going to do the testing on a product like that so that Canadians will know it's safe?

Mr. Richard DeSylva: The key words here are “in its present form”. We refer to the Health Protection Branch in its present form.

Mr. Reed Elley: Please elaborate.

Mr. Richard DeSylva: I'm certainly open to an overall body still being in place, such as the regulations and the bureaucracy under the Food and Drugs Act, but please change Health Protection Branch.

Mr. Reed Elley: Give us suggestions. How would you do it?

• 1140

Mr. Richard DeSylva: Okay. I would change their mandate, as David Rowland suggested. I would turn the issue of controlling this industry over to an industry panel for self-regulation, because what we've seen so far from the Health Protection Branch has been a lot of corruption and misapplication of the rules, and it's got to the point where small producers like me and others are being put out of business because of the overzealous application of these rules and regulations. And at the same time, they're not being applied to the pharmaceutical industry. Please—that has to be changed.

Mr. Reed Elley: Can you document that for us? You're making allegations of corruption. Can you document that for us and give it to us?

Mr. Richard DeSylva: I'm simply referring in that regard to the statements by Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards, an ex senior HPB inspector. I don't know if she's appeared before this panel.

Mr. Reed Elley: Yes. Well, she hasn't appeared, but we know—

The Chair: I'll come back to you.

Yes, Mr. Gabre.

Mr. Josip Gabre: When we are talking about regulating, I cannot understand how chemotherapy can be used—ever. It is proven every time that it is killing people. For example, Kenneth Jones, in his book Pau D'Arco: Immune Power from the Rain Forest, on page 24, says that over 67,000 different chemicals, 25% of the drugs, 48% of the food, 50% of cosmetics, and in other ones 76% to 82%....those chemicals are not tested for toxicity.

Where are we? For example, if somebody tells me that taheebo can hurt me.... I was drinking gallons. I should be dead now. Instead, since I cured myself of cancer 14 years ago, I haven't had one single cold and I am now drinking only one cup a day. Come on, where are we?

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: Why should he be persecuted by the government of the day? This man is just one example. He's typical of what's going to happen, and it's going to be a lot more frequent. If you keep persecuting this type of individual...we could not pay for the publicity. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Rowland.

Mr. David Rowland: I have two points.

According to the Competition Act, to prove conspiracy you don't have to prove that actual conversations took place between the parties involved. All you need to prove is that one party is the direct beneficiary of the actions of the other, and this is very clear.

I know that you all know about tryptophan. It used to sell for $10 to $14 for 100 capsules in the health food stores and is now available by prescription only, for $120 for the same amount. Tryptophan is a safe alternative Valium, which at one time was the world's leading pharmaceutical drug by sales. L-Carnatine, which is another amino acid that was unjustifiably taken off the market, is a safe alternative to cardiac drugs and used to sell in health food stores for the same $10 to $14 range for a bottle of 100 capsules. It is now available only by prescription for $190 per bottle.

It's easy to show that there's something afoot here. Those natural products that are challenging the sales of the most successful pharmaceuticals are the ones that Health Canada is taking off the market. We don't have to prove conversations to prove conspiracy. That's one point.

The other point I would like to make about your remark, sir, is that if you think this is a matter of putting a bunch of points on a graph and drawing a line between the middle one and that's the way you're going to solve it, it's not going to work. I want you to listen to the truth of the Constitution Act, the truth of this flawed definition in the act, and decide accordingly.

The truth is not necessarily always a question of how many people agree or disagree. There are many vested interests that people have in the third category for keeping these products out of the public domain.

Many manufacturers have already heavily invested in drug identification numbers. It costs them tens of thousands—and sometimes hundreds of thousands—of dollars a year to do this. They feel they have a protected market and if they can retain their drug identification numbers or some other type of product licensing, it'll keep the smaller guys away, the smaller businesses like Rick DeSylva's. And many companies like his have already folded because they can't compete on this basis. It's a way of keeping it out of the public domain.

• 1145

The Chair: Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: First, I'd like to say that we really are hoping to make this system better. That's why we're all here. We can't say that enough. You represent hugely committed people who are very knowledgeable.

Our concern in the first place is that they do no harm. We actually need to make sure that if this becomes the regular way of doing things in terms of a much better acceptance of complementary therapies and so on, it can still open it up to the charlatans and the people, unlike yourselves, who are then about to set up a shop for cancer patients selling tincture of periwinkle, which actually is a very poisonous thing.

Everything that grows in the ground is not safe. I want to make sure that when we go to write this down we actually have something that protects the public. We've all seen—and certainly in my practice I've seen it—people who get it wrong in terms of what's the traditional use of certain things. There are people who are giving vitamin C to lower blood pressure. There are people who are putting things that just aren't in traditional use in their claims.

From buying my orange at the fruit stand, to buying vitamin C, to somebody selling me something that says “ascorbic acid, good for lowering blood pressure”, where do we decide that the government has a role? It's the same thing...from buying a salmon steak, to the fish oil, to the DHA.

A lot of the public, not the people whom you represent, think that when it comes to stuffing capsules, putting them in a bottle and putting a claim on the label, somehow they've stepped outside the bounds of it being a food.

The Chair: Mr. Wolfe, do you want to answer first?

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: Is it a fluke that we have managed to get this far? Charlatans have occurred throughout history. So how is it that we don't have dead bodies? How is it that we don't have what you're saying we need—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: No, you're asking me questions. I want an answer.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: You made a statement. I'm referring to it.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: No, I asked a question about what you think we should do.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: In your question, supposedly, you're saying that we need regulations because we're in fear of the charlatans.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The tincture of periwinkle for the cancer patient, what do we do about that?

Ms. Marilyn Nelson: With regard to the tincture of periwinkle, perhaps the government can play a role in that. Where is the education out there? Just give out some education and familiarize the public with it, but basically don't try to regulate it.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: So somebody who sets up a shop and is selling tincture of periwinkle...we know it is very poisonous, actually, because it's really an anti-cancer drug. Should the government just educate people not to go and buy that?

Ms. Marilyn Nelson: No. It's my understanding that you have the regulations already built in to go after false and misleading advertising on goods. It's already in the regulations, so do the job. That's the only job as I see it.

Perhaps David would want to comment differently.

Mr. David Rowland: As far as mislabelled products are concerned—vitamin C for lowering blood pressure and so on—if a false claim is made, you have every right to restrict it, to prosecute the offenders under the food section of the present Food and Drugs Act. Section 5 gives Health Canada, or whatever the regulatory agency is, all the authority to restrict anything that's not labelled properly, that's false or misleading or deceptive.

This is the same kind of truth in advertising law as you have in every other field. We have the regulations already in place. If they're not being enforced, they need to be. These things, properly enforced, are all that consumers need to protect them.

• 1150

My other comment is that we've been sloughing over this self-regulation thing. This is an industry that thrives on helping people to get better, to improve their health. It's not in the self-interest of suppliers to adulterate their products or to slip poisons in. Yes, accidents can happen, but if they kill off their customers they have no business. If they even get the reputation of having a tainted product, they're out of business. Nobody is going to buy their stuff any more.

The industry has a rational self-interest in providing products that are healthy. That's what they are about; it's a health business. That rational self-interest, combined with the regulations we already have against harmful substances and against misrepresentation, is really all we need. I think Bill C-307 will ensure it.

The Chair: Ms. Bennett has time and there are two more people who want to answer that. Do you want them to answer?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Sure.

Mr. Josip Gabre: When we are talking about cancer, we have to take into consideration the rejuvenation of our immune system and nothing else. Because the metabolisms of the cancer cell and the healthy cell are identical, we cannot selectively kill one and spare the other. That is not possible. If we were able to do that, we could put two persons in a room, one criminal and one innocent, close it hermetically and let in poison gas, believing that the criminal is going to die and the innocent is going to survive. It's a crazy idea. I'm sorry that I have to use this language. One will survive only with a gas mask. That is cancer.

Dr. Lorene Day, in her audio and video tape, said there is a cure for cancer in a thousand different ways, but there is always the same common denominator and that is the immune system. She said that if we could cure cancer or any other disease that way, all medical universities and hospitals would go bankrupt.

Talking about knowledge and things like that, Stuart M. Berger wrote the book, What Your Doctor Didn't Learn in Medical School. It is scary. That book issued only one edition and was banned. I am no doctor, but I know a lot about cancer, more than many doctors, because many times I have seen cancer wrongly diagnosed. What they are using for diagnosing cancer is wrong.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: First of all, I'd like to tell Mr. Anderson that I only saw the Total Health conference on my plane to Halifax on Sunday. I would have very much enjoyed having an invitation to the conference. I think we need to do more to share information, particularly with the health committee.

Mr. Wolfe, you said there was a study that showed that the public has no confidence in the government in terms of health care. I'd like to know what study that was, because certainly the studies I've seen show that they do have confidence in the government in health care.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: I'm sorry, but you weren't listening. I didn't say anything about any study. If you need to refer to the tape, then do so.

The Chair: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: She said that I referred to a study. I don't know what you heard, but I didn't say that.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Well, I would say that a group of people speaking at a town hall meeting isn't actually a basis for you to say what Canadians think. The only way I know how to determine what Canadians think is by doing a scientific poll. I have a little bit of trouble with your coming to committee and saying all Canadians want this or that.

You also said “the only thing we are going to accept”. I just want to make sure that when we in committee are hearing things, it is indeed either backed up with scientific data in terms of real polling or it is what you heard at a meeting this weekend.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: I am a witness. I am a Canadian consumer of health care products. I talk to many people every day about health.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Me, too.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: Then you shouldn't be asking this question.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: We are hearing people every day in committee and you represent a certain segment.

• 1155

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: I didn't come here with any graphs or facts. I'm coming here with feeling, as a Canadian, taking the products—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: We respect that.

Mr. Marcel Wolfe: If you respect that, then you will act accordingly. The other people here have the facts and details. If you want facts and details, we can provide them.

The Chair: Mr. DeSylva, and then we'll go to Mr. Hill.

Mr. Richard DeSylva: Madam Chair, on a point of technicality, Dr. Bennett mentioned that periwinkle is poisonous because of the vincristine and vinblastine. I think that illustrates a common misconception—and I simply say that's all it is—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: No, I don't think I said that—

Mr. Richard DeSylva: If I may continue....

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Okay. Go on.

Mr. Richard DeSylva: —that in order to be effective a substance has to be poisonous. What they do in animal test studies is find the LD 50, or lethal dose 50, at which point 50% of the animal populations tested will die. The common response to that finding, then, is to ratchet back the dosage and arrive at a “therapeutic level”.

Perhaps just to elaborate further, Madagascar periwinkle is the source of vincristine and vinblastine. Canadian periwinkle, vinca minor, does not have those two same alkaloids.

There's an even further point here. Again, in Science Magazine—I can't recall the exact month and year—there was an article entitled “The Chirality of Nature”—that is to say, the handedness; you know, laevo-rotary versus dextro-rotary. The article went on to say that the most common form found in nature is the laevo-rotary format. The dextro-rotary form is more aligned with the synthetic version, which is what the pharmaceutical companies will manufacture.

That point is most adequately illustrated in the issue of thalidomide. The natural source, or the one form, did in fact in the laboratory relieve morning sickness, but when it was manufactured it was the wrong format. The same thing applies to the learned doctor's concern about periwinkle.

If those alkaloids are isolated and refined and synthesized, yes, there is a potential for poison. If they're used in nature, they're in the right format that is most easily taken up by the cells of the body without that potential for poison.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you for your attendance.

I always try to find, when suggestions are made, another spot in the world where these suggestions have been tried. If I hear you correctly, you're talking about no need for another regulatory body, no need for new bureaucracy, using the regulations we have, and going at safety as being the criterion.

Is there another jurisdiction that has gone this route that we could look to and say it's been a success, and there aren't problems at all?

Mr. David Rowland: The closest example we have is the United States. It's a very grey area now, but their history has been that dietary supplements and natural health products have always been regulated as foods. In the United States every single natural health product that has been taken off the market by Health Canada is freely available. They have a population ten to thirteen times the size of ours, an incredibly long history of use and no detrimental side effects documented from these safe substances.

So they have the proving ground for these things. They have more teeth in their regulations so that their FDA can't take products off the market until they can prove them harmful. However, they've created this third category, a subcategory of food, that they've put their dietary supplements into. It has the potential, however, for discrimination, because there are movements afoot in the United States to have herbs classified as OTC drugs. There are people who are up in arms to prevent this from happening, but whenever you put something into a special category, it means special privileges and it means potential discrimination.

So the United States is the closest example we have. In every other country in the world that we know of there's a movement afoot to take these substances out of the public domain without any justification on the grounds of safety. It's all about business and power.

Mr. Grant Hill: I'm convinced that Health Protection Branch people are making their decisions believing there is really a need to make the decision. I don't buy the conspiracy thought at all. These are individuals who I think are trying their best.

Some of the reasons they're doing these things is that they fear there will be liability for Health Protection Branch or for the government. The idea of a disclaimer, saying that this subject hasn't been tested or hasn't been looked at, sounds to me in some cases like a cop-out.

• 1200

Could you guide me in that area? It sounds very nice to just be able to say, well, it hasn't been studied; use at your peril. What do you think of the disclaimer concept in a broad sense?

Mr. David Rowland: If the disclaimer is about efficacy, the disclaimer would presume the federal government has the power to decide on efficacy, and under the Constitution it doesn't. I would think that what would be more appropriate than a disclaimer would be contraindications that certainly Health Canada has every right to police products for safety. If they know a product is beneficial or at least neutral for most of the population, but it's a potential risk for pregnant women or whatever, then that's a disclaimer they could insist that manufacturers put on the label of that product.

As far as efficacy is concerned, it's up to the consumer to educate himself or herself by all available means. You cannot say in a bottle of vitamin C right now, for example, that this product prevents scurvy, even though it's true.

If you lift the restriction presently in place that suppliers cannot legally tell the truth about what their products do, the censorship that's there, then consumers are going to be inundated with a wealth of helpful, constructive, educational information from the people who are supplying the products. They'll have much more information on which to make reasonable decisions.

So yes, Health Canada has a role in protecting the safety of consumers, but I don't believe they have any legal or moral basis to judge efficacy of a safe product.

Mr. Grant Hill: If no one else has a comment on the disclaimer concept, that was all I had.

The Chair: We'll have one short question and then we're going to stop.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: In the American catalogues that some of the witnesses brought to us I was quite surprised to see that some of the bottles of, say, vitamin B6 didn't have any dose on them at all. It just said vitamin B6 on them.

Obviously, people need to know whether they're getting 25 milligrams or 100 milligrams in a specific tablet, just because there has been—and I may be corrected on this—some neural toxicity in very high doses of vitamin B6. If you were looking at the American model, are you happy with the way the regulations are or the legislation is now that Canadians would know in a bottle of vitamin B6 what the dose was?

Mr. David Rowland: It's very important that what's in the bottle be on the label, and the amount. I don't believe a product even in the United States that has no quantity on it is in sync with U.S. regulations. That's probably in contradiction of their own regulations. Definitely in section 5 of our Food and Drugs Act, we have to regulate foods to make sure that what's in them is on the label. Yes, consumers do need that information. Is it 30 milligrams or 300 milligrams? They need to know.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.