Talk:Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

Deleting the Contraversy section
To the person that undid my deletions, either CITE your evidence, or put up your 'astroturfing' controversy on your own website. Wikipedia has an NPOV policy.

The decision to completely delete the contraversy section may be viewed as vandelism. It is a fact that Bill C-51 is contraversial. You only need to look at the external link "Stop Bill C-51" as an example. In addition, I suggest you put Bill C-51 into www.google.com and see what you get. I did and got over 182,000 hits and on the first two pages there were twelve links to sites critical of Bill C-51. Disagreeing with a portion of the contraversy section is not a justification for deleting the entire section. In addition, arguing that more citations are needed for a portion of the section isn't a justification for deleting that portion. Wikipedia allows you to add a ((citation noted)) to the end of statements that you feels needs citations.

You will note that after I undid your deletion, I added citations to support what was being said. The fact that you wanted evidence regarding astroturfing was not obvious because you deleted the entire section. If you want citations for any part of any Wikipedia page, follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines starting with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. DivaNtrainin (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I realised later the changes you had made, and I apolgize as I should not have deleted it a second time. The section itself was a disaster, and acted as propaganda for one side. I was pissed that wikipedia was used this way (for the record, I don't care one way or another about the bill itself. I use none of the products affected, and think most naturopaths are flakes.) I do not deny that there is a controversy, that it has a place on the wikipedia entry, but reading it, the entire section was inappropriate and lacked citation, and looked like a hatchet job from a proponent. I thought it would be best just to start over. I have since made another edit that clears up most of the NPOV. 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.255.181 (talk)

Bill C-51, C-52, and C-6
Bill C-51 was defeated by public protest and political will. bill C-52 was re-written to be nearly identical to C-51 but was dropped from Parliamentary process when the Government of Canada avoided dis-solution from a vote of non-confidence and went into (recess) [I am not sure of the correct term] December 2008. Bill C-6 was introduced in 2009 and quietly passed into law that year with the the additon that none of the law applied to "Natural Health Products" (NHP". Coming into effect happened December 31, 2009.

The intent is that any item not listed as a NHP they then are restricted under the severe penalties of "consumer safetly laws". The amount per dose is also in the scope of NHP so that a higher dose is outside of "safe" limit's. This does include any vitamin that is above the Upper Limit (UL) where the upper limit for vitamin C is 38mg. Niacin in noted in Harrison's: Principals of Internal Medicine, 14th ED as "drug of choice for treating cholesterol with a high dose of 2,500 mg three times per day (7,500mg/day), "as safe and having been used in medicine for thirty years", but the Codex will allow up to 18 mg per tablet. The fine an jail sentence are fear inducing to any business but the problem lies in that once you are charged you are not allowed to continue to operate the business so effectively "out of business" for the "voluntary" consumer safety laws.

The other fact is that previously all item of vitamin, minerals and herbs were allowed unless banned. Now the rule is that if it is not on the list it is not safe. The list of items must contain their approval and if you read through the list some very safe items like alpha lipoic acid and glutathione are not on the list. The letter that I received from the Government is that these need to be prescribed because they are too important to our health yet the doctor is not willing to prescribe them.

The marketing is only to favor big Pharma and this is really obvious to an open mind, in my opinion.

Kindly accept my comments as an opening for discussion and not criticism nor conflict. We need to ensure that "consumer safety" is only this and not a "loss of freedom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.6.7 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Bill C-51
It appears that other editors have completely changed the tone and content of the article. This article seems to be referencing Bill C-52/Bill C-6/and Bill C-38. These bills all refer to the changes that are being made to how consumer products are regulated. These bill specifically excludes the regulations  of any natural health product, drug or food. This bill does not make any amendments to the Food and Drug Act, which is the Act which governs the regulations of drugs, natural health products, and food. These bills make amendments to the Hazardous Products Act. As such, it makes no sense to include any reference to Bill C-51, drugs or natural health product because that is not in the scope of the bills being discussed. Bill C-51 amended the Food and Drug Act and is not related to Bill C-38. DivaNtrainin (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Although this bill has been updated, there is still opposition to the recent Bill C-6 and likely to Bill C-36 as well. The article overall still needs to be updated further and any relavent information about recent opposition to the Act should be added or re-added. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added an NPOV tag to this article. The article became unbalanced when the history of public opposition to the recent bills made to reinforce this act (C-51, C-36) was removed, and now it mentions only the opinions supporting the bill. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I went onto Google to find any opposing views to the upcoming amendments to the Hazardous Products Act (i.e. Bill C-36), and I couldn't find anything credible. Most of the criticism that I can find mentions natural health products, but the Hazardous Products Act has nothing to do with natural health products and specifically exclude natural health products from the scope of the act. The fact that AstroHurricane references (C-51, C-36) suggests that there is some confusion over what this bill covers. If anyone can find any quality criticism over Bill C-36, please add it to the article or I will remove the NPOV note. DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)