HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 18, 1998

• 1600

[English]

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

Welcome to the two of you out there in Calgary. We are impressed to see you there. Considering the weather you've been having, did you have any problems getting in?

Mr. John H. Biggs (Optimum Health Choices): None whatsoever. I was actually supposed to be at the Anaheim trade show and just got snowed in. I happened to phone home and was told about the presentation. Since I was in Calgary anyway, I prepared it.

The Chair: Well, for the benefit of the members here, we have two witnesses from Calgary today. One is Del Anderson, from Added Dimensions.

Which one of you is Del?

Mr. Del L. Anderson (President, Added Dimensions): The good-looking one.

The Chair: Oh, the good-looking one. Okay.

And from Optimum Health Choices, we have John Biggs.

We usually have five-minute presentations. If you want to give us a presentation first, it would then be put to the floor so that the members could ask you questions. Those members each get five minutes, which has to include their questions to you and your answers to those questions. We ask the members to keep their questions short, so I'll ask you people to keep your answers as short as possible. We are flexible, though, so if we realize we need more time, we'll let it go longer.

I think we'll start with Del Anderson. Do you have something you'd like to say before we start questioning, a presentation for us?

Mr. Del Anderson: Yes, I do, Madam Chair.

The Chair: All right, go ahead.

Mr. Del Anderson: I would like to thank you for this opportunity. To our French friends,

[Translation]

please forgive me; I do not speak French.

[English]

You'll have to bear with my English, which is not that great either.

The Chair: We have very good translation, so it's no problem in English or French.

Mr. Del Anderson: Despite what Mr. Parent might say, what I'd like to start with is a show-and-tell. What I have are a gasoline engine, a valve from a gasoline engine, and a spark plug from a gasoline engine. All three of these components were designed by sophisticated engineers; however, it's impossible to describe the engine based on these three components. There could be anywhere from two to twelve cylinders. They could be in an in-line, an opposed or a V-6. Even a person who specializes in engines, valves, pistons or spark plugs cannot tell you much about that engine just from these three components. To even attempt to address the uses to which that engine might be put would be sheer folly.

This is Panax ginseng. Science has so far identified 81 components in this ginseng. There are 34 ginsenocides, at least 6 sugars, 3 flavinoids, plus polysaccharides, polypeptides, carbohydrates, carbolic acid, adenosine, vitamins, minerals and many other components. I suggest that to attempt to characterize this herb based on one component is patently ridiculous.

• 1605

Moreover, to take the position that by examining each chemical constituent of that herb you are able to ascertain anything other than the fact that a particular chemical was present in the herb is equally ludicrous. An herb is a sum of its parts, and possibly even more. As you have heard, there is a synergy found in an herb both between and amongst its components. Additionally, when an herb is ingested, our bodies do not simply find any one particular component and discard the rest.

There is complex and ongoing research that is constantly finding that the utilization of herbs by our bodies is very complicated and not fully understood yet. I know the TPP has been before you and has told you it has the in-house expertise, in the form of chemists, pharmacists and toxicologists, to correctly and properly evaluate herbs and their usage. I'm here to say that is not necessarily correct. It can tell you what a component is, but TPP does not have the in-house expertise for herbs and botanicals.

Valerian is one such well-known, well-studied herb. Over the past ten years, science has declared five different active constituents. It just doesn't make sense. Today they say this is the active constituent of that herb, but a couple of years from now they say they've change their minds. We really don't know as much about these things as we sometimes might think.

I'd like to show you something we're all familiar with. It's celery. It's safe unless you happen to have an allergy and put peanut butter on it. There are 438 components or compounds in this celery, including formaldehyde, mercury, nicotine and sulphur. Would any of you support the banning of this celery because it contains these chemicals in its make-up? I suggest not. But that is what the TPP does to herbs. If I dried this, put it in a capsule, and wanted to sell it to you as fibre that is possibly good for you, it would be classified as a new drug. It would immediately be placed into what we in the industry call the black hole, never to be seen again.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have made some recommendations in my presentation. Before I get into them, I would like to tell you that when I heard about this panel being formed and about what you were going to study—essentially what we have been working on in the advisory panel—my first feeling was, oh, oh, here we go, it's going to be politicized and it's all down the tubes. I've been following what you folks have been doing on the Internet, and I've been reading the blue sheets. To each and everyone of you, I take my hat off and I salute you. You have been doing an awful lot of work. You have gotten up to speed very rapidly on an issue that is extremely complex. To all of you, I give a nod of appreciation. I do the same to your staff. They are supporting you and are getting you there, because I know you can't do it yourselves.

Of my recommendations, the first two are very crucial. I'm recommending that the health standing committee carefully craft and word a sort of conceptual piece that will reflect its findings, thoughts and recommendations on the regulation of natural health products in Canada. As important as this is, or perhaps even more so, I would suggest that you consider very strongly supporting your umbrella, if you will, with several very clear, very precise philosophical statements. If this is not the case, my workings with bureaucrats indicate that what you have initially intended and what comes out the other side in the form of regulations can be very, very different. Again, I cannot stress too much that I suggest very strongly that when you do your umbrella recommendation, you put in the philosophical concepts supporting it.

• 1610

Another issue I'd like you to take a long look at is the structure of a natural health products regulating body. In my opinion, the first choice would likely be an agency separate and apart from either the foods directorate or the therapeutic products directorate. And I know that's not the first time you've heard that. The only reason that a new bureau under the TPP has come forward is based upon the perceptions of practicality, timing and costs under the existing scenario.

I don't know if it's within your mandate per se but I'd like to draw your attention to cost recovery. The way it's structured right now within the TPP, 75% of Mr. Michols' operating revenue is derived from cost recovery. When you have something like that it's almost like giving a blank cheque to them. I submit that cost recovery should not go forward to a level higher than 50%, such that any time a body operating under cost recovery wants to increase their revenue base they have to go back to treasury and make the point to treasury, which is our parliamentarians. Without you folks standing up for us, we're lost.

Mr. Michols told you that his appropriation was cut 50%. What he did not tell you is that 75% of their funding today comes from cost recovery. This means that if it was in fact cut 50% and he's getting 75% from cost recovery, since cost cutting came in he has increased his cash in-flows by 25%. I ask you to look at it, please, because I really feel this can be problematic if we don't do something about it.

Another thing I'd like to bring forward is that when you do your report, please try to ensure that we do not encounter another scheme that might include something as nefarious as the current new drug status. This black hole is truly a horrible abomination.

The next issue, and you've heard about it before, is I say that if we craft our new regulations appropriately there will be no requirement to have the exclusion of importation for personal use. I have yet to encounter anybody who can give me a logical, rational reason why we have one set of regulations for Canadian business and another set or no regulation for extra-Canadian businesses.

Now you as a committee have an opportunity that is probably unique, and in this I'm referring to the fact that we in Canada, within the next short while, can step to the forefront in the entire world on the melding of the allopathic or traditional and the complementary medicines. In Canada—and I've travelled quite a bit all around the world and worked around the world—we have one of the world's, if not the world's, finest sick care system. But, ladies and gentlemen, we do not have a health care system.

I'm looking forward to your putting us in a position where we can stand up and say we have one of the world's best sick care systems and parallel to that we have one of the world's best health care systems. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

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

Mr. Biggs, from the Optimum Health Choices, would you like to begin now.

Mr. John Biggs: Thank you. Hello, I'm John Biggs. I have a B.Sc. degree in foods and nutrition from the U of A and have been counselling people regarding diet and supplements for more than 12 years. I own two retail vitamin shops whose focus is giving accurate information and I'm a passionate consumer of natural health products.

I've just returned from Anaheim, where I attended a natural products expo. As a practitioner, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to see product after product that could be used to help Canadians but are unavailable here because the people making the rules are too ignorant of natural products to know how huge the benefit-risk ratio is—that is, how enormous the potential for benefit is and how comparatively minuscule the risk is for all but a select few of these products. These few would be quickly identified and dealt with if the people regulating them were experts in natural health rather than bureaucracy.

• 1615

As a retailer and practitioner, I have seen countless products supply wonderful results for people, only to be pulled from the shelves for reformulation to meet Canadian safety standards. Invariably, when these products return, they are not anywhere nearly as effective as the original. This is health suppression, not protection.

Yes, they may be more safe in some misguided way, but then again, so is a child kept in its bedroom for its entire life. In both cases, much more is lost than gained.

I have often wondered why virtually all of the health products banned in Canada are safe enough to be used by every Canadian citizen in three-month quantities for as long as desired but not safe enough to be sold here. Is the real issue safety or sales?

Moreover, the vast majority of these products have been used by millions of Americans and Canadians through import for 20 years or more. How many millions of people have to use a product without incident and for how long before its safety is obvious?

I am sure that you've heard repeatedly about the blatant bias against natural health products demonstrated by the HPB. Given that many HPB employees have a pharmaceutical background and think that the natural health field is composed only of incompetent people, I don't find this bias particularly surprising regardless of how inaccurate it is. But it becomes a major problem when you consider that the HPB is not only an enforcement agency, but it's also allowed to make policy. It doesn't take too much insight to see how vested interests could exert a tremendous influence on such policy making.

These two aspect of health protection, i.e. enforcement and policy making, need to be separated. I believe that the issue of HPB bias against natural health products needs to be addressed, because whenever health products are restricted without proper cause, the big losers are Canadian consumers. Hence, there's one rationale for an independent natural products agency.

As an aside, I would like to make sure that you are made aware of a very recent legal judgment brought against the HPB in the civil rights case of Mr. David Bader versus the Health Protection Branch. This case concluded with an 80-page judgment in which the judge, in Mr. Bader's words, slammed the HPB and made reference to political interference at the highest levels of government.

I want to emphasize that this is second-hand information and I do not attest to its accuracy. I mention it because I think it may have great relevance to these proceedings.

Also, if you have not watched the fifth estate episode dealing with the HPB and the drug nifedipine, it may behove you to do so.

I'm sure it has been demonstrated to you, the committee members, that many of the natural products in question have the potential to be valuable health aids and that many of the companies that produce these products in both Canada and the U.S. employ extremely high-quality standards.

I can assure you that this is the case. I have used several excellent facilities myself, but a major problem occurs at the point of sale. For the customer who is unfamiliar with the products and companies, how do you tell which are trustworthy in terms of purity and potency and which are not? I get asked this question constantly by my customers.

One option might be to to establish a federal natural products review board that would consist of appropriate experienced experts from various areas of natural health and manufacturing. This group could then visit manufacturing sites where herbs and supplements are bottled. They could scrutinize not only the standards the company employs, but the information given on its labels. The board could then either grant or deny the company the right to display on its labels a visible seal of approval, which customers could then use to guide their buying decisions.

This would effectively transfer some of the responsibility to the consumer, which is something they have very loudly demanded. Those unsure of the products would simply need to look for the seal, which would be similar to the Canadian Standards Association, or CSA, system of buying an approved safety helmet.

• 1620

Several credible companies would volunteer for that review immediately, as it would give them a sales advantage. Other companies would soon follow, in order to compete. A periodic review of the initial approval could also be implemented.

Regarding labelling, this is the major vehicle that regulators have to ensure safe but effective product usage. It seems painfully logical that a natural product should have on its label its indications, its contraindications, and relevant dosage and usage instructions to get best results, not just “Take one capsule daily” for every product.

Unfortunately, that would mean that the drug may precipitate a physiological change, which would classify it as a drug, which brings us full circle and under current regulations. “Under current regulations” often means that the product, regardless of how safe or beneficial it may be, would be unavailable to the Canadian public. Here it is extremely pertinent to realize that just because a substance is metabolically active does not mean that it is dangerous.

As medical cutbacks and shortages become more common, and as conventional drugs increasingly fail against viruses and bacteria, I believe it is not only democratically but also morally imperative that Canadians have available to them as many options as possible to maintain wellness and help treat diseases. Natural products can serve this function effectively.

The field of natural health has flourished and will continue to flourish at an increasing pace, not because of any support it has received from the establishment but because of the results people have gotten from its products.

The availability I speak of refers not only to actual physical access, but also economic access. Every effort should be made in this committee process to stop the price of natural products from going higher than it already is.

That is exactly what the CMA-proposed regulatory framework for natural health products would do. This framework tries to apply a pharmaceutical model to natural health products, which cannot be properly applied. It also proposes extensive regulation of natural products, when the safety record for natural products does not reflect that stringent regulations are warranted, especially compared to pharmaceuticals.

In proposal 6, it also proposes market exclusivity for new natural health products, which reflects an important point. We must view pharmaceutical interests accurately. They have achieved credibility through modern medicine, but they have also clearly demonstrated that they are a business whose primary motive is financial profit and who are competing for money spent on health care. Please keep this in mind in your deliberations.

Lastly, I want to point out that accurate information on natural health products abounds on virtually every health food store shelf. What is needed is standardization of this information. Assembling a natural products compendium could be another function of a natural product's review board, and it could be made mandatory at any point of sale of natural products. It has been my experience that doctors and pharmacists are often some of the people who need this information the most.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Biggs. I don't know whether changing your name to what I suggested would be good for business or not.

We'll start with our questioning, with Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): I want to ask Del and John right off the bat, then: in regard to the third category we've sometimes talked about, if you've been following some of the prior witnesses, are you for a third category? Del, I think I heard you infer already, and John...or would you prefer some other kind of a plan?

Mr. John Biggs: Looking at both, I don't truly believe the safety record for natural products warrants a third category, but given all of the factors involved, I think a third category is the only practical solution available.

On one hand, you have the fact that many of these herbs, even though they're active, are not dangerous. So they can't fairly be classified as drugs, or at least not along with pharmaceutical drugs. On the other hand you don't get up and eat a steaming bowl full of vitamin C in the morning either, so they can't fairly be classified as foods, because you don't use them to fill yourself up or for their flavour. A third category is the only reasonable solution.

• 1625

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Del, do you want in there?

Mr. Del Anderson: We've looked at this extensively, and my first choice personally, and the choice of a large number of the panel members, is a separate agency.

Practicality-wise, that may not be workable, which means our fall-back position would be a separate bureau under the TPP. But my personal trust level there says I would much rather have an agency.

Mr. John Biggs: And again, the agency has to be composed of people familiar and experienced with natural products so they see them in the context they should be seen in.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not understanding this subtle distinction—or maybe it's not so subtle, Del—between an agency and.... What would be the difference if you had a third category?

Mr. Del Anderson: A third category, it appears, would be another directorate, and our industry can't afford that bureaucracy. Whereas an agency that is one step removed, similar to the CFIA, if it were funded 50% from treasury, 50% from cost recovery, would be very workable, with the proviso that it is run in an efficient, effective manner.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Would it be under the auspices of the Health Protection Branch, though?

Mr. Del Anderson: I would suggest that's very likely, although if it were structured appropriately, it could be under Industry, the Health Protection Branch, or Ag Canada.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, that's fine for now.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Anderson, I hear that you are an importer of natural products. Please forgive my ignorance, but I would like to know what actually happens when you deal with companies outside of Canada to find new products. What regulations do you have to comply with when a new product comes on the scene, such as melatonin, which comes from the United States? What did you have to do in order to import the product in Canada and to comply with Health Canada regulations? Do you just bring it in and submit it to them, and then get told whether it is or is not acceptable for use in Canada?

What are your procedures for dealing with foreign companies to import a new product into Canada? What are the greatest obstacles you encounter?

[English]

Mr. Del Anderson: To answer your first question, this is very difficult, because it keeps moving. When I go to import a product, I have instances when I order a product and it is “legal”, but when it arrives at the border, suddenly the rules have changed and the product is no longer legal.

I suggest that if we craft a proper set of natural health product regulations that apply to products sold in and sold into Canada, and if they are rational, logical, realistic regulations—and those are three pretty high hurdles—then we're not going to have a problem, because anybody who wants to sell a product into Canada will be able to fall in with them.

The other thing is the labelling in Canada. There are very different regulations from American labelling, for instance, aside from the fact that we have to have it in two languages.

• 1630

To go to your second question, again, I think we don't need to be able to differentiate whether a product is a Canadian or British or American or Japanese. If we are careful enough and have crafted our regulations in an appropriate manner, that becomes a moot point.

A facility that is producing a product must meet standards. With respect to herbals and botanicals, you've all heard from Dennis Awang a couple of times, and Dr. Awang will tell you that one of the biggest issues is identifying and tracking this plant from the time it's grown and then through the harvesting and the processing, until it is ready to go into a product or be packaged by itself. But these can be accommodated.

The Chair: Thank you.

Would you like to answer, Mr. Biggs?

Mr. John Biggs: Yes, I would like to make a comment. Again, for that the major concern is obviously the point at which it goes into the bottle and what kind of regulations have been followed. For example, if you're importing things from China, do they contain caterpillar larvae or whatever?

North Americans have an extremely broad range of products available to them in Canada and the U.S. And again, when I was down at the trade show, it was obvious that everybody was very interested in getting into Canada; it was just that they didn't want to go through the regulations or spend the money jumping through hoops to get the product turned around.

Again, I would go back to my suggestion of a natural products review board. In response to any request in North America, they would simply visit manufacturing facilities and provide a seal of approval.

If you go to a manufacturing facility and are shown first-hand the methods that are used to detect bacteria and impurities in the products and then to test the potency of the product, such as I've seen at some facilities, particularly at one in the U.S., then the board could feel confident in putting this seal of approval on it and then transferring the responsibility to the consumer, making it extremely apparent at all points of sale that for those unfamiliar with the products, it may definitely be wise to look for this seal of approval.

Lastly, I just want to say that it is important at some point in this process to consider giving some of the responsibility to the consumer. I think that's an important issue to address. They've demanded the right to choose and I think it's important to respect that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Picard, can we come back to you in the next round?

Ms. Pauline Picard: Okay.

The Chair: Dr. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Seeing that you've both agreed on the advisability of a third category, I think I'd like to just ask you a little about how you see that working. Some of the people from, say, traditional Chinese medicine, ayurvedic medicine or homeopathy feel that their areas are very circumscribed and feel that most people from other disciplines don't have a lot of expertise. They are advocating an umbrella with subcategories under it, with the people who know a lot about the areas actually in charge of the regulations of those various areas.

Would you feel that the national health products group would be happy with being...if we lined them all up, that would be the fourth of those kinds of sub-groups? Or do you see the advisory panel working well with people with all sorts of expertise on the umbrella body itself?

Mr. Del Anderson: Dr. Bennett, we've wrestled with this for the last nine months and are still wrestling with it to some extent. You've heard from both Dr. Wus, both Mary and Joseph, and you've heard from Michael and from Will. I think we're working well together. We are saying to have an umbrella regulatory body but, underneath that, have the flexibility and the ability to reach out and pull in the expertise when and where it's needed, whether it be ayurvedic, TCM, western, native American, or whatever.

• 1635

I know the TPP has already told you they have this expert advisory committee, which is their scientists. Both Will and Mary are on that committee. There has been a fair amount of disenchantment with that committee, in that there may well be a lot of scientific expertise, but it's not necessarily what we would feel to be appropriate experience and expertise.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Yes. Do you also see that Health Canada would have to hire some people with some expertise for in-house expertise and that then the advisory panel would advise?

Mr. Del Anderson: I think it's inevitable. Whether it's going to be a bureau under Dann or a separate agency, we are strongly recommending they have in-house expertise and experience.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Two quick questions. Of two other issues we keep struggling with, one is labelling and whether you feel the Australian model, which you say has been traditionally used for such and such, would be advisable. The second is the issue of importation. Do you think basically everything is safe and should be available here in the stores in Canada, or can you see that certain things would be available for importation for personal use but not available in Canadian stores?

Mr. Del Anderson: To your first question, I have a great deal of difficulty with the Australian model, especially in view of what has transpired over there in the last month or six weeks. We can use that as a jumping-off point, but we have to take a close look at the implications of exactly what they are doing, because I think in many respects it's retrograde to what the advisory panel will be coming forward with.

As for importation for personal use, I have a great deal of difficulty when somebody says we are going to allow importation for personal use because it's somebody's freedoms and rights. As a business person, if I cannot import and sell that same product to that same person for the same usage, what about my rights? How can I support rights and freedoms for some people and not for others?

Given that, there are some products that we would call, in the advisory panel's categories, higher-risk, and that I would suggest would be imported only by a practitioner. Dr. Bennett, please don't spin out on me on this one. The practitioner I'm talking about would be an experienced herbalist, an ayurvedic, a TCM, or somebody like that, other than necessarily just a chiropractor, a dentist, a doctor, or a veterinarian.

Mr. John Biggs: Can I add something to the question on how the panel would be composed, or the third category? I think on the board you would have a necessity for both—experts in each area. It is fairly easy to find people like Dr. Will LaValley, who have enough expertise in many different areas to provide a relevant judgment but who, on the other hand, may be specialized in one area. It's also important at times that you have an outside perspective. Whereas you would have an expert from each different area on the board, they would, I would say, need to come to a consensus; and I don't think that would necessarily be unreasonable to expect.

I didn't quite understand your labelling question. About importation, if a product comes in from, say, China, I would say it has to be made very clear to the customer that he is buying a product that has not been reviewed.

• 1640

You're shaking your head, Del.

Mr. Del Anderson: That's what we have right now.

Let's go back two iterations ago to the health minister. I got a letter because I had questioned this about five years ago. The health minister wrote me back and said that people who are importing products for personal use do so at their own risk. Now, being a bit of a dummy, I didn't understand that and wrote back and said “Please explain what this means? What does `at your own risk' mean? Does that mean you pay your own hospital bills or medical bills? What does it mean?” Five years later I still don't have an answer.

Mr. John Biggs: I was suggesting the products be available for sale in Canada, but that it be made clear to the consumer they have not been subject to review or standardization.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I promise you I don't think I've spun out yet on the medical model stuff. I promise to behave today.

There seems to be, from some of the groups, a need to protect certain products that should only be available with the direct consultation of a practitioner. Do you feel it would be acceptable to have almost the equivalent of over-the-counter products, and then products reserved for use only with the consultation of the appropriate practitioner?

Mr. Del Anderson: Yes, I do. I believe our interim report indicated we were looking at three categories. What you're describing would fall into the higher risk, which is at the present time probably 7% or 8% maximum of the natural health products. The rest are far lower risk.

I support that position because I'm not an herbalist and there are many herbs I would be unhappy and unwilling to give to a person because I don't have the knowledge to dispense along with that herb.

That being said, let's go back and take a look at aspirin, if we're talking about risk. Aspirin is probably described as fairly low risk on the pharmaceutical module. It's available any place and every place across Canada. Yet the majority of natural health products—maybe 90% or 95%—fall significantly lower in the risk module than aspirin.

The Chair: All right. Thank you very much.

We'll ask Lynn Myers now and then Madame Picard again.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I had a question for both of you. You talked about the Australian example. Are you aware of any country or countries where we might be looking as a committee in terms of getting expertise and advice? I'd ask for a response to that now.

Mr. Del Anderson: At the moment, I would suggest the best thing we can do is take a page out of the HPB's book and do some cherry-picking. England has what it calls a GSL or a general sales list, a more restricted list, and then a practitioners-only list. Germany, with the EC, has done an awful lot of work on the monographs, and it has some good points as well.

With Australia, when I say I don't like the model, please don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are portions of it I do like, but it has just recently started a labelling initiative that is extremely restrictive.

To back up here, I think from the outset I'd like to stress that in my opinion this is not about safety. This whole question, everything we have here, is not really about safety; it's about dollars and cents and control.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Biggs.

Mr. John Biggs: Even though it may not be acceptable from all aspects, I think there are a lot of things we can learn from the United States model. The bottom line—and this what I've never been able to figure out, and this is what Del alluded to—is this. Despite the fact that all of these products are now freely available in the United States and have been available for quite some time, the bottom line is where are the people who have died or have been injured by these products? Barring a select few examples such as ephedra we haven't seem them, and the media loves to jump all over anything that comes up in that regard.

• 1645

I think in the end you have to take an approach where the result is the bottom line, and if after years of usage products have not displayed any toxicity, or at least when used with a shred of common sense have not displayed any toxicity, how can you make a fair rationalization for restricting them? Regarding the products, you may be speaking of some like hormones that may fall into a high risk, and I think those definitely should be restricted to people who know what they're doing and have the means available to them to, for example, if you're talking about DHEA, test for those levels in a person's bloodstream before they suggest that a person take it.

In a third category you would have to, or it may be advisable to, look at some sort of licensing procedure for a natural products practitioner.

Mr. Lynn Myers: To pursue the labelling requirements issue, I wonder if you could both comment on what we as a committee need to look at in terms of having labelling in place that protects Canadians. Or is your answer that we do nothing?

Mr. John Biggs: Certainly not. Go ahead, Del.

Mr. Del Anderson: The advisory panel has worked on this quite extensively and you will be getting our final report and our final presentation, I believe, in about two weeks.

We do believe very strongly in labelling, but that goes hand in glove with the regulations. As it stands right now, if you came in and wanted to buy some goldenseal from me and you were a lady, I would have to ask if you are pregnant or are expecting to get pregnant, because if you are you shouldn't take this. To me it's criminal that the law says we can't put on the label: “not recommended for pregnant or lactating women”. If this were the United States and somebody got injured by it, they'd be suing the government for mega-millions of dollars. I just don't understand how our government can sit back and say you can't make a claim on a label, ergo you can't make a statement of what might be a contraindication or a caution.

So I think the whole issue of labelling is extremely important.

Mr. John Biggs: I would like to say that I'm going to make an assumption, as I did in the presentation I read, that it has been demonstrated to the panel members that at least some or a large number of natural products are certainly credible and do have value in treating people or helping them with their health. That being said, doesn't it make perfect sense...? I could never figure out why, say, on an herb, for example, as it is in the United States, it's not listed what the herb does, what it's used for, its indications, the people who should not use it, its contraindications, and reasonable dosage information—in other words, relevant dosage information so that people get good results.

As I said in my presentation, I believe that labelling is the major vehicle you have to ensure safe usage of a product. It frustrates me to no end that it's not able to be used. Some of the U.S. labels have exactly that. They have extensive information.

The Chair: Can we—-

Mr. Lynn Myers: I have a quick question for Mr. Anderson. In response to a previous question you talked about higher-risk products, and I wondered how you defined that, who decided that or who you think should decide that. And then, as a sort of caveat, we've heard testimony recently that in fact all products should undergo a laboratory testing, and I'm sure you don't agree to that, but I wondered what your response would be to it.

• 1650

Mr. Del Anderson: To address the first issue, one of the tenets of the advisory panel's report is that there be in-house expertise, with the appropriate knowledge and experience. People like Mary Wu, Will LaValley, Mike Vertolli, Chanchal Cabrera, and many others across Canada as well, are able to determine what would and would not fall into the higher-risk category. I put my faith in those kind of people to determine that, so I don't have a problem with that.

As for laboratory testing, right now everything is geared on the pharmaceutical model.

My business is not very big. I have just under 1,000 square feet. When they came in for my establishment licensing inspection, it took two and a half hours. One of the requirements was—and mine is an owner-run business—I had to have a written procedure for clean-ups. Yes, I did it, but to me it doesn't make any sense that I have to write a procedure on how I vacuum my floors and dust.

The other thing is, it says I need two doors on the bathroom. I went a little bit ballistic with that. I got on my computer and paired up a sign that said “Tudor”, and I taped that on the bathroom door and I said, “There you are; I have Tudors on my bathroom!”

I think you're going a little overboard when you start bringing in a pharmaceutical model. You don't do it for spices. We have GMPs for spices out there right now. My suggestion would be, look at the GMPs for spices, put in what is necessary to cover in encapsulation and tabulation, and basically we're going to be all right.

Mr. John Biggs: Can I ask to what extent? When she says laboratory testing, I take it she means that all products be tested for purity and effectiveness, meaning the level of their active ingredients.

Again, you run into the issue with herbs, for example, where the end result is not necessarily derived from a single ingredient or a single active ingredient; it's derived from, in some cases, many hundreds of ingredients all working together. How can you test that?

I would go back to giving the consumer some responsibility, and distinguishing between herbs that are in their raw state and herbs that have been standardized and put through more extensive laboratory testing. In many of the bigger establishments, they do major testing for both bacterial contamination and active ingredient levels.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will have the last comments from the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Thank you very much. I thought you wanted to give Madame Picard a second opportunity.

The Chair: She doesn't have a question.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Okay.

I was taken by your observations on the question of labelling and a third category.

First of all, on the question of labelling, others have come before this committee and have pointed out that perhaps the only thing we ought to do is simply make a quick identification and determination as to whether a product is a food or not. Do either one or both of you have any objection to treating any and all of these herbal products as food, pure and simple?

Mr. Del Anderson: I have a major objection: First, Codex is looming over our shoulders on that; and the second thing is that they are not foods, sir.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: We have an observer in the crowd here. You won't be able to see him on your monitor, but I can assure you that the observer is here from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is in the process of considering precisely what we mean by food. The fact that you are the very first witness, in my recollection, who has very definitively said that these products are not food must surely complicate his life. I'm telling you he's smiling right now.

Mr. Del Anderson: I'm sorry about that complication, but if you look to the advisory panel, one of the issues that has come up, one of our tests, would be dosage form.

• 1655

This is celery. We all know it's celery. It looks like celery. It's a food. If this is crushed up and put into a tablet, I suggest to you that even though it might be celery in a tablet, it is not a food. It becomes a natural health product.

Again, I'm not as smart as a lot of people, so I have to make these things in my mind. To me, a drug is very simple. I know what a drug is when you tell me. I know what a natural health product is. I know what a food is. To sit down and write it out and describe it so it's in a piece of paper that the bureaucrats can handle it, that's another story.

Thank you.

Mr. John Biggs: Obviously you are involved with definitions of food at that point, and this is exactly what you are saying. But take Del's example of goldenseal. Nobody uses goldenseal because it tastes so wonderful; it's extremely bitter. Nobody uses goldenseal to fill their stomach. On the other hand, its relative toxicity is so much lower than basically all pharmaceuticals that I don't see how you can fairly put it into either group.

As I mentioned before, I don't think the safety record of natural products indicates that they definitely need a lot more regulation. So in a perfect world, I would say nobody's really having a problem with these, so we'll go as we go. But in the real world, a third category is the only reasonable alternative.

Again, you have to get into the definition of “food”. I was talking about distinguishing between herbal products that are standardized and those that are in the raw herbal state. Possibly you can continue to classify those as food, but as soon as it goes into capsules, I doubt that people buy capsules of cayenne and then open the capsules and sprinkle them on their chilli or whatever.

I would like to see them all left alone, but that won't happen, and the only reasonable alternative is a third category where they are not classified as foods.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: We've had people come before us, some of them with a great deal of vigour and paper, suggesting that perhaps we not be bothered with that. When you ingest something, unless you're doing it to alter the chemical balance of your body—that's my definition of a drug—then it's a food. I'll give you an example.

Mr. John Biggs: I'm sorry; could you repeat that? When you ingest something...?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: If you ingest something, for whatever reason, unless it's there to alter chemical balances or imbalances in your body, then it's a food.

Mr. Del Anderson: Mr. Volpe, from what I have read, you folks have heard a pretty broad cross-spectrum, from one side that says everything is a doggone food to the other side that says everything is a drug.

I suggest to you that there is a middle ground, that foods are what your grandmother would tell you to sit down and eat. She tells you what it is. You know what it is. There's no argument about what a food is.

I'm suggesting that for most Canadians, there's no argument about what a drug is. If they come in and they want to buy vitamin E and you say vitamin E is a drug, they look at you like you're crazy, because they know vitamin E is not a drug. It's a supplement or it's a natural health product, but it's not a drug.

The problem, as I see it, is how to describe it so the bureaucrats can wrestle with it.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I think we're in agreement there.

I'm sorry, did you want to say something?

Mr. John Biggs: Yes, I just wanted to say that, again, I would get back to the fact that when you think of food, you generally talk about something you're eating because it tastes good or because of its taste, period, or because it fills you up or it's used for energy purposes, at which point you get into the whole issue of ginseng, etc. Where do you draw the line?

• 1700

When you're taking something to achieve a definite metabolic response, I would not hesitate to say it isn't really being used as a food. On the other hand, when its toxicity, when the risk involved, is virtually nil for all practicalities' sake, it can't be fairly classified as a drug either.

That leaves you with the third category as your alternative.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We don't have any more questions here. We're very glad that you came in, particularly because of how bad your weather is out there. You've contributed quite a bit. If we have any need for any more comments from you, we'll have the clerk get a hold of you. We have your documents, but if you have anything else you want to send to us, please send it to the clerk so we can hear from you.

Thank you very much for coming in, both of you.

Mr. Del Anderson: Thank you.

Mr. John Biggs: Thank you.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.