"Traditional Use" and Regulatory Change in the Arena of Natural Health Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last three years, the federal government has been pressured to loosen advertising restrictions on Natural Health Products (NHPs). Such pressure has originated both externally (consumer petitions and the industry lobby) and internally (private member's bills). Government responded to this pressure by proposing new NHP regulations that would see these products exempted from the claim effected by s. 3 of the Food and Drugs Act (FDA). The health claim prohibition has functioned, in the past, to prevent NHP manufacturers from advertising their goods as treatments, cures or preventatives for a list of approximately 40 serious diseases / conditions set out in the FDA. With respect to diseases not covered by the health claim prohibition, NHP manufacturers have been allowed to advertise their goods as cures, treatments or preventatives provided that they could prove the safety and efficacy of the product with scientific data. The use has functioned as a regulatory loophole of sorts, allowing NHP manufacturers to advertise their goods as treatments, cures or preventatives for ailments excepted from the health claim prohibition, provided that they could demonstrate that the NHP has been traditionally as a treatment, cure or preventative for the ailment in question. The exception has been harshly criticized by groups such as the Centre for Science in the Public Interest because it has allowed NHP manufacturers to make health claims respecting NHPs even when the effectiveness of the product has been disproved scientifically. Moreover, Health Canada has proposed a regulatory amendment that will completely exempt NHPs from the health claim prohibition, thus expanding the scope of application attendant to the traditional use exception. This presentation discussed the legal nuances of the traditional use exception from a critical perspective, and advanced arguments opposing prospective regulatory changes that would provide NHP manufacturers greater leeway in advertising. These arguments were threefold. First, allowing health claims based only on traditional use is an invitation for charlatanry. Consumers rely on health claims when purchasing NHPs, and leaving them unregulated will result in economic exploitation. David Schardt has highlighted many ridiculous health claims in his article, Herbal Roulette: Does it work? Is it safe? Don't ask the government. (1) For example, Schardt notes that Echinacea has been shown in a number of scientific studies to be ineffective in the prevention of colds. Nonetheless, he asserts, Health Canada's Natural Health Products Directorate allows manufacturers to label Echinacea as being traditionally used to fight off colds, flus and infections. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".