Anti-Vitamin or Pro-Corporation?

There is an interesting article in the latest eSkeptic about how a "natural health products" company staged an anti-bill website that would affect their bottom line (regard Canada's Bill C-51).

I recalled a notice I saw recently on a similar topic here in New Zealand, and immediately wondered on the parallels... I managed to find one site on the "Anti-Vitamin Bill" (named HealthFreedomNZ), but the few related news stories I found related back to April 2007 (maybe I spotted a really old notice). Is this really a concern?

The bill relates to New Zealand signing up allow the Australian Therapeutic Goods Agency regulatory control. The main complaint seems to be that this is an Australian agency, not a New Zealand one.

However, skeptical (or cynic) that I am, I do wonder if that is just a smoke screen to protest this bill which might actually force "natural health drug" companies to either prove their products actually do what they say (what an idea!) or just put them out of business for false claims.

But I'm not going to start complaining that an Australian company is doing this. Let's face facts. Even as patriotic as I am, New Zealand just ain't that big, and if it is more effective to have an Australasian agency oversee the drugs in the area, so be it. Someone should. And if they are so against them, how about an NZ branch of said company instead? We've got enough other off-shore owned businesses that we can't complain now. And then we'd really see if this is all the protesting is about... (which is isn't).

[END]