HEAL Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
PART V: CONCLUSION
The health of Canadians is of crucial importance to all of us. We had two key objectives through this study: providing Canadians with informed access to NHPs while at the same time ensuring that there is minimal risk to their safety. Although we feel that the government has a responsibility to protect public health and safety, this should not be applied in a way that unreasonably denies consumers access to products that they perceive to be necessary for their well-being. Thus, a balance must be struck between safety and access. We believe that our approach recognizes these facts and goes a long way toward achieving the balance.
The Committee found its designated mandate to be very complex on a philosophical as well as on a regulatory level. By adopting a framework of guiding principles, we have navigated through both spheres and have achieved an outcome that aims to provide future direction on this very significant subject. It is important to note that, while this report sets out the general guidelines for the regulation of NHPs, many of the details of the new framework will have to be established by Health Canada and the Expert Advisory Committee that will assist them in this process.
Although the model set out in previous pages might be used for other types of low risk products, the Committee stresses that this particular regulatory framework was chosen keeping in mind the uniqueness of NHPs and their general low risks to health and safety. We are not however promoting one type of product over another (for example, pharmaceutical versus NHPs). There are legitimate uses for both and both need to be appropriately controlled.
The Committee's framework does acknowledge and give credence to the consumer demand for non-allopathic therapies. These therapies may be beneficial, but more importantly, witnesses stated that they enhance psychological well being by increasing the level of control individuals have in the management of their health. The choice of which product to take should be left to individuals, and where appropriate, in consultation with their practitioners. The Committee notes that the framework must allow for more products to be marketed to provide people with that choice.
The Committee believes that better access to NHPs with proper information regarding their use could be a solid foundation for a strategy for improved health among Canadians. Because the use of NHPs is often accompanied by modifications in other parts of the consumer's life, NHPs could contribute to a reduction in morbidity and to cost-savings for the health care system. This is one of the areas where we believe that more research could be supported through the social as well as the physical sciences.
We did review how these products were regulated in other countries and have learned a great deal with respect to how other countries handle the multiple issues around NHPs. We have tried to impart this knowledge and to suggest when its application might be relevant to Canadians. However, we believe that the decision with respect to a framework ultimately comes down to what is relevant for each individual country. It would not be appropriate to adopt another country's framework as a whole.
On behalf of all the Canadians and others who participated in this study, we urge Health Canada to take immediate action to remedy apparent inconsistencies that unduly limit access to safe natural health products. We encourage actions that will satisfy the guiding principles developed and utilised by this Committee in reaching its conclusions.