Life in Canada

What’s the Result of our Monsanto Legacy?

Between 75% to 80% of the processed food [47] you consume every day has GMOs inside, and residues of Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide outside. But it’s not just processed food—fresh fruit and vegetables are next: genetically engineered sweet corn [48] is already being sold at your local grocer, with apples and a host of other “natural” produce currently in field trials.

How is it that Monsanto is allowed to manipulate our food after such a dark product history? How is it they are allowed to cause such detrimental impact to our environment and our health?
According to the Organic Consumers Association[49], “There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the U.S. spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases.

Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, U.S. factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer—backed by farm subsidies[50]—while organic farmers receive no such subsidies.
Monsanto’s history reflects a consistent pattern of toxic chemicals, lawsuits, and manipulated science. Is this the kind of company we want controlling our world’s food supply?

P.S. Monsanto’s not alone. Other companies in the “Big Six” include Pioneer Hi-Bred International[51] (a subsidiary of DuPont), Syngenta AG[52], Dow Agrosciences[53] (a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, BASF[54] (which is primarily a chemical company that is rapidly expanding their biotechnology division, and Bayer Cropscience[55] (a subsidiary of Bayer).

Original article on GMO Awareness

Consumers beware: Misleading labels may hide trans fats People may be consuming more trans fat than they think as a result of misleading labels
Researchers examined 4,340 top-selling packaged foods and found that 9 percent contained partially hydrogenated oils, the main source of trans fat. But of those foods, 84 percent claimed on their packaging to have "0 grams" of trans fat.The amount of trans fat in these products varied from small traces to almost 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, the researchers said. [5 Foods that Could Change Under a Trans Fat Ban]
Under the rules of the Food and Drug Administration, foods that contain less than 0.5 g of trans fat per serving must be labeled with "0 g" of trans fat.
"This labeling is cause for concern because consumers, seeing the 0 g trans fat on the nutrition facts label, are probably unaware that they are consuming trans fat," the researchers wrote in their study, published in the in the journal Preventing Chronic Disease.
Trans fat is a specific type of fat that is formed when hydrogen is added to liquid oils to turn them into solid fats. The FDA has tentatively determined that partially hydrogenated oils are not "generally recognized as safe" for consumption. If the FDA makes a final determination, trans fat would become an illegal food additive.
People who consume trans fat may be at higher risk for heart disease, stroke and diabetes, studies have suggested.
The food products examined in the study ranged from cookies to salad dressing and canned soup.

 "Our analysis demonstrates that industrial trans fat is still common in U.S. packaged foods, particularly in some food categories," the researchers said. For example, half of the foods in the potato chips category, and 35 percent of cookies contained trans fat, according to the report.

What are we doing Canada?

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government is finalizing new restrictions on hundreds of medicines containing hydrocodone, the highly addictive painkiller that has grown into the most widely prescribed drug in the U.S. Is this also true of Canada

The new rules mean that drugs like Vicodin, Lortab and their generic equivalents will be subject to the same prescribing rules as painkillers like codeine and oxycodone. Patients will be limited to one 90-day supply of medication and will have to see a health care professional to get a refill. In many states, only doctors will be able to prescribe the medications, not nurses or physician assistants.

"Today's action recognizes that these products are some of the most addictive and potentially dangerous prescription medications available," said DEA chief Michele Leonhart, in a statement.

The move, announced in a federal notice, comes more than a decade after the Drug Enforcement Administration first recommended reclassifying hydrocodone due to its risks for abuse and addiction. For years, physician groups and the Food and Drug Administration opposed the move, saying it would burden health care providers and patients while driving up costs.

But last year the FDA changed its position, citing the national epidemic of overdoses and deaths tied to prescription painkillers known as opioids.

Deaths linked to the drugs more than tripled between 1999 and 2010, during which sales of opioids increased four-fold.

Anti-addiction groups praised the restrictions, but criticized the FDA for taking nearly a decade to embrace the changes.

"Had FDA responded in a timely and appropriate manner to DEA's urgent request, thousands of overdose deaths and tens of thousands of cases of opioid addiction might have been prevented," said Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, an advocacy group which has been critical of the government's approach to curbing abuse.

The new restrictions will go into effect in 45 days, according to a federal listing scheduled for publication Friday.

For decades, hydrocodone has been easier to prescribe than other opioids, in part because it was only sold in combination pills and formulas with other non-addictive ingredients like aspirin and acetaminophen.

The Controlled Substances Act, passed in 1970, put hydrocodone combination pills in the Schedule III class, which is subject to fewer controls than Schedule II drugs like morphine and methadone. Under Schedule III classification, a prescription for Vicodin could be refilled five times before the patient had to see a physician again.

That ease of access made it many health care professionals' top choice for treating chronic pain, including everything from back pain to arthritis to toothaches.

In 2012, U.S. doctors wrote more than 125 million prescriptions for hydrocodone-containing medications, making it the most prescribed drug in the country, according to figures from IMS Health.

News of the rescheduling was applauded by lawmakers from states that have been plagued by opioid abuse, including those who have been pushing regulators to make the change.

"Although there is much more that must be done to curb prescription drug abuse, I am confident that rescheduling hydrocodone will undoubtedly begin saving hundreds of thousands of lives immediately," said Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, in a statement.

When it comes to reining in medical costs, delivering more health care and bringing it right to the patient's home can, for a select group of patients, save money.

These particular patients are elders struggling with multiple chronic medical conditions, such as congestive heart failure, stroke, diabetes or dementia. They make up just 5 percent of the people on Medicare, but they account for about half of all Medicare spending.

In a conducted by MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C., 722 such patients were provided with home-based health care delivered by a team: a physician, a nurse practitioner, licensed practical nurses and social workers. The visits were frequent, and there was someone on call for urgent situations 24/7.

"We prevent crises," says Dr. K. Eric De Jonge, the chief of geriatrics at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and the lead author of the study. He says that having a doctor who has access to the patient's electronic medical records on call at all times cuts down on "having to call 911 and going to the emergency room, which often ends up in a hospital admission."

In fact, the study found that patients who received this home-based care had 20 percent fewer ER visits, 9 percent fewer hospitalizations and 27 percent fewer stays in a nursing home than similar Medicare patients in the control group. The death rate among these very vulnerable patients was high, but was about the same for both the study group and the control group.

The bottom line: In a two-year period, Medicare saved $8,477 for each patient getting home-based care.
MedStar Washington Hospital Center is one of 18 facilities nationwide participating in a Medicare demonstration project to gauge the impact of home health care on very frail patients. De Jonge says for such a system to work on a larger scale, Medicare would have to change the way it pays health care providers.

"You have to start paying people for their results," says De Jonge, "as opposed to the volume of how many things you do to the patient. Then this program could really take off."

A scientific study released Wednesday suggests the makers of the blood thinner Pradaxa may have held back information that may have prevented serious bleeding complications among some of the million or so Americans using it. (From an  article By Suneel Kamath, MD)

Meanwhile, the maker of Pradaxa, German pharmaceutical giant Boehringer Ingelheim, vehemently denied that it held back important safety data.

Boehringer Ingelheim introduced Pradaxa in 2010 as a replacement for the older drug Coumadin, which had been in use for decades. A major selling point was that Pradaxa offered the benefits of stroke prevention without the hassle of frequent blood monitoring needed with Coumadin.

As with any blood thinner, the concern with Pradaxa was the increased risk of bleeding in patients taking it. Major bleeding with Pradaxa at its currently recommended dose occurs in 3.11 percent of patients taking it each year, according to the major trial that led to FDA approval of the drug. The total incidence of bleeding events with use of the drug, including minor and major bleeding, is 16.42 percent per year.

Research on Pradaxa suggests that it carries a lower risk of bleeding into the brain than Coumadin does, along with a lower risk of life-threatening bleeds and minor bleeding. A large Medicare study published in May confirmed prior knowledge that Pradaxa carries a higher risk of major stomach and intestinal bleeding events.

Researchers at the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) wanted to find out whether monitoring the levels of Pradaxa in the blood of patients using it would help doctors avoid bleeding complications. To do this, they looked at Boehringer Ingelheim’s own data exploring the impact of blood level monitoring in conjunction with Pradaxa use.

These researchers said the data show that up to 40 percent of all deaths and serious bleeding events related to Pradaxa could have been avoided by simple blood testing. Checking blood levels periodically, they said, might have allowed doctors to lower the dose of Pradaxa or temporarily stop it in patients with dangerously high levels. This in turn might have prevented some bleeding complications. The paper was published Wednesday in BMJ.

Additionally, the researchers say that Boehringer Ingelheim had this information before Pradaxa was approved in 2010, but that they left it out of the safety information presented to the FDA during the drug’s approval process. Specifically, they said they found internal reports showing that the company’s scientists raised safety concerns about serious bleeding, but that these concerns may have gone unheeded by their superiors

In a statement released Wednesday, Boehringer Ingelheim said that the simulations that served as the basis for these concerns were preliminary and not reliable, and that it would have been inappropriate to report the simulations. They said they did provide the raw data to the FDA.

When asked by ABC News, the FDA declined to comment on the BMJ report. It also did not say how often pharmaceutical companies choose not to report the results of simulations like these to regulators.

This May, Boehringer Ingelheim reached a settlement worth $650 million with about 4,000 people related to alleged bleeding problems with Pradaxa. In a statement released in connection with the settlement, Boehringer Ingelheim’s counsel said the company stands behind that drug and believes the claims lacked merit, but decided to settle to avoid protracted litigation.

The study authors, Drs. Thomas Moore, Donald Mattison and Michael Cohen, have extensive backgrounds in drug safety, representing the senior leadership of ISMP. Moore and Mattison have testified against pharmaceutical companies in prior litigations and Mattison also works for a risk management firm.

Moore, the lead scientist behind the ISMP study, said the problem is that blood levels of Pradaxa can vary significantly from patient to patient. Even if both take the same dose, one person’s blood level could be more than 400 times higher than another’s.

Moore said he turned his attention to Pradaxa in early 2011, the first few months after it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In those three months, there were 505 cases of significant bleeding linked to Pradaxa, according to ISMP data, compared to 176 cases of bleeding related to Coumadin during the same period. “The biggest surprise to me was that the FDA, which is overall an excellent safety regulator, chose to almost entirely ignore opportunities to reduce the bleeding risk of this treatment.”

According to the report, the information allegedly withheld by Boehringer Ingelheim at the time may have affected the drug’s chances of approval. As evidence, the report offers a 2011 draft of the company’s study on the drug. In it, the investigators note, “Monitoring of plasma concentrations or antithrombotic activity… would be required to identify these patients,” referring to those who would potentially have dangerously high blood levels of the drug even under normal dosing situations.

According to the new report, this information was omitted from the formal presentation to the FDA. The authors of the new report say emails sent between Boehringer Ingelheim employees show that the company knew that advertising the need for blood monitoring with Pradaxa would drastically reduce the number of people who used the drug instead of Coumadin.

In a statement released in response, Boehringer Ingelheim called the BMJ article biased and misleading. The company said the drug is safe , and that the report could lead to patients going off of their medications and potentially putting their lives at risk. The company further noted that the “FDA reaffirmed Pradaxa’s positive benefit-risk profile” following a study of 134,000 Medicare patients with atrial fibrillation.

“Boehringer Ingelheim made a robust effort to find ways to utilize plasma levels to further improve the risk/benefit profile of Pradaxa and it is irrational to suggest otherwise,” said Dr. Sabine Luik, Boehringer Ingelheim’s senior vice president of Medicine Regulatory Affairs, in the release. “The truth is the totality of scientific evidence does not support dosing decisions for Pradaxa based on blood levels.”

The FDA stands by its communication from May of this year stating that Pradaxa has a favorable benefit-to-risk profile and there are no plans to change the labeling of the drug to require or recommend blood monitoring.

Dr. Sonal Singh, a Johns Hopkins cardiologist who was not involved with the BMJ report, said that though it raises important questions, it is too early for a final verdict on Pradaxa or the actions of Boehringer Ingelheim.

“We still don’t understand who bleeds,” he said. “Is it older people, are they younger people…the specificity questions have not been answered.”

Doctor’s Take:

Regardless of what this new report tells us, Pradaxa is a useful – and often life-saving – drug for those who take it. Importantly, this report should not cause people to stop taking their needed medications. What the report does offer is an opportunity for patients to discuss their treatment and their concerns with their doctors. As with most conditions, there are options for treatment. Only through a one-on-one discussion with a medical professional can you determine the best treatment choice for you.

Ongoing -

GM Food Safety Study Reignites Call to Overhaul Canada’s RegulationsNew article

June 24, 2014. Ottawa. The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) is calling on Health Canada to place a moratorium on approving new genetically modified (GM) foods, to re-evaluate the safety of GM foods already on the market, and to initiate a complete overhaul of the regulatory system.

Author's View Point
The awakening people are also beginning to see they have been misled by corporate tricksters and federal government criminals poisoned by too much power, control and greed, which has resulted in the creation of the monstrous, out-of-control corporate beast.

The call comes in response to the republication of a long-term study of a GM corn that exposes a lack of scientific rigour in Canada’s regulatory system seemingly regulated by MONSANTO the GMO giant

Please read and digest: the following reference and detail pages
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-complete-history-of-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964

“Many Canadians may be surprised to find out that Health Canada doesn’t require any long-term safety tests on GM foods and that this study is the first of its kind,” said CBAN’s Lucy Sharratt.

“The results of this study are a real concern, especially in Canada where we’ve been eating this GM corn since 2001.”

The long-term safety test on GM corn was conducted by a team of scientists in France, led by Caen University molecular biologist Giles-Éric Séralini. It was first published in September 2012 in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, which then retracted the paper in November 2013. The paper is published today in Environmental Sciences Europe. The research team has now also released their raw data.

“We clearly need more independent and critical review of safety claims made by industry. There is too little independent science examining questions of GM food safety,” said Sharratt.

From article:
"As further revelations have broken open regarding this evil giant’s true intentions, Monsanto crafted the ridiculous HR 933 Continuing Resolution, aka Monsanto Protection Act, which Obama robo-signed into law as well.This law states that no matter how harmful Monsanto’s GMO crops are and no matter how much devastation they wreak upon the country, U.S. federal courts cannot stop them from continuing to plant them anywhere they choose. Yes, Obama signed a provision that makes Monsanto above any laws and makes them more powerful than the government itself. We have to wonder who’s really in charge of the country because it’s certainly not him!"

There comes a tipping point though when a corporation becomes too evil and the world pushes back…hard! Many countries continue to convict Monsanto of crimes against humanity and have banned them altogether, telling them to “get out and stay out!”

The GM corn, called NK603, is “Roundup Ready” which means it is genetically modified to be tolerant to Monsanto’s herbicide formulation called Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world.

Monsanto published a 90-day feeding trial of the GM corn in 2004, three years after Health Canada’s 2001 approval. The French team conducted their feeding trial over the full two-year lifespan of rats. The rats were fed three different diets: the GM corn alone, the GM corn grown with Roundup (with Roundup residues), and Roundup alone.

The study reported adverse effects including organ damage, tumor growth, and increased mortality in rats fed both GM corn with and without Roundup, and in rats fed low levels of Roundup.

“Canadians need to know about this study before they buy their sweet corn this summer,” said Thibault Rehn of the Quebec coalition Vigilance OGM, “Without long-term studies like this one, we don’t know enough about the safety of GM corn. Its important to remember that there is no labeling for consumers of GM foods.”

CBAN tests of sweet corn samples in October of last year found GM sweet corn in grocery stores, road-side stands and farmers markets across Canada.

How can Canadians make informed choices for their children?

The System is the Sham
and no one should be surprised that Canadian governments, politicians, government employees, corporations and big business executives act dishonestly, unethically, secretively, non-representatively or wastefully --- the system allows them to do so through weak rules, weak enforcement, and weak penalties.

This is not at all to say that all, most or even many politicians, government employees or corporate executives are dishonest, unethical, secretive, non-representative or wasteful -- but if any of these people act in these ways they will often not be caught, let alone penalized, because of loopholes in laws and rules and weak enforcement systems.


No matter what issue concerns you, strong good government laws will help ensure that the government addresses your concerns.  History has shown that we won't likely have a good country until we have good governments, we won't have a clean environment until we have clean governments, and we won't have a fair and just society until we have fair and just governments.

Incredibly, the laws and enforcement of parking a car illegally are stronger than most government accountability and corporate responsibility laws and enforcement systems in Canada, and in some cases the penalties for parking illegally are higher than for government officials or corporate executives who act dishonestly, unethically, unrepresentable, secretively or wastefully!

For the past more than 140 years, since Canada became a nation (and section 91 of the Constitution of Canada empowered politicians to "make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada"), politicians and government officials have not been passing strong good government laws, but instead have been playing a game by sometimes strengthening laws, but then weakening enforcement, or strengthening enforcement at the same time as creating loopholes in laws, and in almost every case penalties have remained too weak to discourage violations.

While governments and corporations do bad things for many reasons, often it is because they are operating in bad ways.  Especially when governments operate in bad ways, they usually do not require corporations to act in good ways (because they make secret deals behind closed doors with corporate lobbyists).

And unfortunately, the public always pays one way or another when governments or corporations act in bad ways.


See set out on this page Action Alerts about Democracy Watch's campaigns to increase government accountability and corporate responsibility in Canada -- to ensure governments, politicians and their staff and appointees, and government employees, and corporations and corporate executives, all pay a price for acting irresponsibly.

Politicians, government officials, and big business executives are resisting changes to the system that would increase their accountability for wrongdoing.  Canadian politicians have control over their own rules, and Canada's biggest corporations spend $25 billion annually on their lobbying and promotion efforts, so Canadians have to push hard if there is any hope to counter the corporate lobby and win key corporate responsibility changes.  They just don't get it, so we have to give it to them until they do!


We know the ongoing lack of response by governments and big businesses to Canadians' concerns is discouraging, but if we give up pushing then bad politicians and governments and irresponsible big businesses will do even more to hurt people, communities, the environment and the Canadian economy.


You can help clean up the system to prevent future scandals by simply writing letters to politicians making it clear that you are part of the large majority of Canadians who are concerned and want changes to clean up and democratize Canadian governments.  Never assume that no one else is writing a letter, because if everyone assumes that then no one will write a letter.  Politicians actually get very scared when only a small percentage of voters write them, because they are very concerned about losing the next election.

But they still get their pensions even if convicted of crimes?

Remember: By food industry definition, all MSG is "naturally occurring." "Natural" doesn't mean "safe."  "Natural" only means that the ingredient started out in nature, like arsenic and hydrochloric acid.

Canada ranks last among 11 OECD countries in a new survey in terms of how quickly people can get in to see their regular family physicians, showing "where a person lives does matter," says the Health Council of Canada. In Nova Scotia we do not have a health "Bill of Rights" we are really poorly served.

The finding was published in the council's final bulletin, based on data from the 2013 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of the General Public.

The council, an independent national agency, has been reporting on health-care renewal since its creation in 2003.

The report, titled "Where You Live Matters: Canadian views on health care quality," focuses on differences across the provinces, comparisons among the 11 OECD countries that took part in the survey between March and June 2013, and changes in Canada’s performance over the past decade.

Hypochondriacs, not wait times ruining Canadian health care, say many CBCNews.ca readers

"What we find is that Canada is really not keeping pace with a lot of these other countries," Mark Dobrow, the group's director of analysis and reporting, said in an interview.

"The highest performing province might be looking pretty good in Canada, but be the worst performing if you compared it to all the other countries in the survey."

More than a third of Canadians in a new report said their regular doctor did not seem informed about care they had received in the emergency department, a finding that has not improved since 2004. (Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press)

For example, 50 per cent of respondents in Ontario said that on the whole, the health-care system works pretty well, compared with 23 per cent in Quebec.

The report notes that improvement in reducing wait times has been modest and is often lacking, and concerns Canadians. Only 31 to 46 per cent of Canadians, depending on the province, could get an appointment the same day or the next day, not including emergency department visits.

Since patients who don't have a primary care provider go to the emergency department, the two waits are related, Dobrow said.

Brantford, Ont., resident Richard Kinsella said he had trouble finding a family doctor when he moved to the city east of Hamilton 15 months ago. Kinsella said people in Brantford commonly turn to the emergency department.

"The emergency, I've been twice, and I was there waiting over six hours."
Dr. Nandini Sathi

Family physician Dr. Nandini Sathi's practice is now able to see more patients within 48 hours of when they call. (CBC)

People in the U.S. have quicker access to their family doctors, with 48 per cent of those polled saying they could get a same-day or next-day appointment, ranking second last among the 11 countries.

Germany was listed as first in how quickly residents saw their doctors, at 76 per cent, followed by New Zealand at 72 per cent.
Many Canadians don't have a regular doctor

Dobrow said the report raises important questions about the wide variations among provinces in areas such as access to after-hours care, emergency department wait times, affordability of care, co-ordination among care providers, and uptake of screening programs.

"Do we have the rights goals for our system? Are we looking at better health, better care, better value for all Canadians?" he said.

In September, the council suggested that provinces pay attention to issues such as leadership, having the right types of policies, and legislation and capacity building. For example, overall resources in primary care could be increased by expanding scopes of practice of some health professionals and improving their interdisciplinary training.

At Toronto's Wellpoint Clinic, the physicians changed to an "open access" system, meaning patients no longer make appointments weeks in advance. Exceptions include people who need to prebook wheelchair transit services or a physical checkup.

"As physicians, we were worried that we would become inundated with patients on a daily basis," said family physician Dr. Nandini Sathi. "In fact, what's happened it's opened up a little bit more time throughout the day for patients who need to be seen."

Previously, a non-urgent patient may have had to wait up to 10 days or sometimes longer if a doctor was on vacation. "Now it really is 48 hours," Sathi said. More urgent care slots are also available.

The other findings in the report include:

Between three per cent and 15 per cent of Canadians, depending on the province, do not have a regular doctor or clinic.
Accessing medical care after hours without resorting to emergency care is difficult for 62 per cent of Canadians, ranging from 56 per cent in B.C. to 76 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador. In contrast, the U.K. cut its problem in half over the same time period.
61 per cent of Canadians rate their health as very good or excellent.
36 per cent of Canadians take two or more prescription drugs, among the highest use of prescription drugs of the 11 countries surveyed.
21 per cent of Canadians skipped dental care in the past year due to cost.
37 per cent of Canadians said their regular doctor did not seem informed about care they had received in the emergency department, a finding that has not improved since 2004.
20 per cent of Canadians hospitalized overnight left without written instructions about what they should do and what symptoms to watch for at home.
Between 23 per cent and 49 per cent of Canadians age 50 or older have never had a test to screen for bowel or colon cancer.

"We still use hospital emergency departments for too much of our primary care. And we show largely disappointing performance compared to other high-income countries, some of which have made impressive progress," the report’s authors concluded.

Commenting on the findings, Health Minister Rona Ambrose's office said, "Our government is delivering the tools the provinces and territories need to deliver health care in their jurisdictions," and reduce health wait times.

The other countries included in the survey are: Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States.

CETA will result in higher drug costs for Canadians
A new CCPA report, by Dr. Joel Lexchin and Marc-André Gagnon, examines the impact of the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) on pharmaceuticals. The authors find that the tentative EU-Canada trade deal will further tilt the balance towards the protection of brand-name drug manufacturers and their profits and away from Canadian consumers—resulting in significantly higher drug costs for Canadians. The study also examines the latest revelations about the tentative trade agreement, and asserts that the CETA will seriously impact the ability of Canadians to afford quality health care.

Key Findings
On a per capita basis, Canadian drug costs are already the second highest in the world, after the United States. Canada also has one of the fastest rising drug costs per capita among OECD countries. This unwelcome situation is partly due to Canada’s industry friendly intellectual property policies, which include a generous pricing system and broad protection of brand-name pharmaceuticals.

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the European Union and Canada will further tilt the balance towards the protection of brand-name drug manufacturers and their profits and away from Canadian consumers. Specifically, the agreement will:

Commit Canada to creating a new system of patent term restoration that will delay the entry of generic medicines by up to two years.

Lock in Canada’s current terms of data protection, making it difficult or impossible for future governments to reverse them.

Implement a new right of appeal under the patent linkage system that will create further delays for the entry of generics.

CETA will not affect the intellectual property rights regime in the European Union
—
The changes will only affect Canada.

Canada - health care system?

The number of doctors – there are nearly 70,000 – and their salaries are both at all-time highs. More Canadians have a family doctor than in years past, proof that progress has been made. But access to them is among the worst in the world. How can that be?

Only half (its worse in the Maritime region) of Canadians are able to see their doctors the same day they become sick. Queues for specialists are especially worrisome, with 41 per cent of patients waiting two months or more, according to The Commonwealth Fund’s study of 11 countries.

Canadians shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking poor access is the inevitable consequence of a publicly-funded health care system. Patients in the Netherlands and Germany have rapid access to specialists, much like Americans where private care prevails. Our system is simply not efficient.

New research shows that the average family physician in Canada billed the public purse $239,000, while the average specialist billed $341,000. Alberta leads the way with the most generous compensation in Canada, according to 2010 figures.

The Ontario government has already signaled it wants doctors to accept a two-year pay freeze when their contract comes up in March, something that is likely to have strong public support.

The next question is about the service patients are receiving for the almost $19-billion a year they spend on physicians.

The privilege of being doctors who have a monopoly on providing medical care carries with it an ethical, social responsibility. That should include making patients the centre of care; there are many ways to achieve that.

More physicians should have advance access scheduling, where slots are kept open for sick patients. Demand for doctor services could be reduced by eliminating unnecessary follow-up visits or handling minor issues by e-mail or telephone. Physicians could blitz backlogs by working extra hours or hiring help.

Triage systems – especially for surgery – could save patients and surgeons unnecessary visits and whittle down backlogs. Patients wait months to see a surgeon only to learn they are not eligible for an operation. Having other health professionals triage patients early on would get them the right care at the quickest time, an initiative in which governments could assist.

Canadians have paid top dollar to buy change in the health-care system. They have bought more doctors, but they haven’t yet got a more efficient system.

Canadian apathy will always end up with this result?

Cancer and heart disease, the two leading causes of death in Canada, were responsible for just over one-half (51%) of the 238,617 deaths in 2008. I wonder why it takes so long to get these figures when they are automatically recorded by assigned authorities. Perhaps if they were issued earlier then public concern and even outrage might happen..? Yes in Canada.

For the first time, cancer was the leading cause of death in every province and territory. In 2007, it was the leading cause everywhere except Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories.

Heart disease was the second leading cause of death in every province and territory in 2008, except Nunavut where suicide ranked second.

Cancer accounted for 30% of all deaths in 2008, followed by heart disease (21%) and stroke (6%).

Ranked in order, the other seven leading causes of death were chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents (unintentional injuries), diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease and suicide.

These 10 leading causes accounted for 77% of all deaths in 2008, compared with 80% in 2000.

By age group, there were differences in the leading causes of death. Congenital abnormalities was the leading cause of death for infants under one year of age, accidents (unintentional injuries) for people aged 1 to 34, cancer for those aged 35 to 84 and heart disease for those aged 85 and over.

For young adults aged 15 to 24, the top three causes of death in order were accidents, suicide and homicide. Perhaps this is why the figures are 3 years behind.?

To control for the impact of population aging on death rates, comparisons over time are made using the "age-standardized mortality rate." This removes the impact of differences in the age structure of populations among areas and over time.

Between 2000 and 2008, age-standardized mortality rates were on a downward trend in general for all 10 leading causes of death. However, in 2008, age-standardized mortality rates for Alzheimer's disease increased 8% from 2007, as did the standardized rate for suicide, up 2%.

In 2008, 3,705 people committed suicide, up almost 3% from 2007. Of these, 2,777 were men, three times the total for women (928). Suicide was the second leading cause of death for men aged 15 to 44 and for women aged 15 to 24 and the third leading cause of death for women aged 25 to 44.

In 2008, 6,573 people died of Alzheimer's disease, up 11% from 2007. A total of 4,606 women died of Alzheimer's disease, more than twice the total for men (1,967).

Four years after Health Canada said it would impose strict limits on trans fats in food products if companies didn't reduce the fat content on their own, the department has failed to move on the promise, hinting challenges facing the industry could stymie their plans.

Tony Clement declared in 2007 while serving as health minister that food companies had two years to either meet specific targets for reducing trans fats in their products or face regulations in the absence of significant progress.

The government's trans fat monitoring program ended in December 2009 showing the majority of products in key categories - such as prepackaged baked goods - had failed to meet the targets.

After declaring last year that regulations were still on the table because further reductions were needed to fully meet the program's public-health objectives and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, Health Canada is now edging away from its threats of action.

When asked by Postmedia News if the government has opted against regulations, Health Canada said the department is working with industry to "clarify potential technical challenges that still remain in order to meet the reduction targets."

In a statement, Health Canada also said staff "will continue to analyze" the results of the final data set from December 2009 to understand why certain companies can't meet the targets, but the department is "very encouraged that in every food category analyzed, we have been successful examples of trans fats being reduced."

In Calgary, a ban on trans fat in restaurants was brought in as a bylaw under the Calgary Health Region in early 2008 and was enforced by health inspectors for a year.

It was dropped when the health regions were amalgamated into Alberta Health Services. A planned second phase would have limited trans fats in all foods sold in Calgary, including items in grocery stores.

At the time, many local eateries switched to trans fat free products and many continue to use them due to consumer demand for healthier choices.

"We like the product we're using right now," said Myrna Derowin, manager of Chicken on the Way in Kensington.

"You can still purchase the trans fat stuff, and it is a little cheaper, but we like what we're using and if someone asks, we can say it's trans fat free."

Alberta Health Services has banned trans fat from all food areas in its own facilities including hospitals and long-term-care facilities, but there are no plans to bring in an external policy said a spokesman.

Alberta Health and Wellness is also not considering any policies or legislation to limit trans fat in the province.

Kim Wagner Jones, a registered dietitian at the University of Calgary, said stronger government regulations either locally or federally would be a welcome help in reducing trans fat consumption.

'Time will tell' as it always does in Canada ..will it happen or not?

The cost of prescription medicines used by millions of people every day is about to plummet.

The next 14 months will bring generic versions of seven of the world's 20 bestselling drugs, including the top two: cholesterol fighter Lipitor and blood thinner Plavix.

The magnitude of this wave of expiring drugs patents is unprecedented. Between now and 2016, blockbusters with about $255 billion in global annual sales are set to go off patent, notes EvaluatePharma Ltd., a London research firm. Generic competition will decimate sales of the brand-name drugs and slash the cost to patients and companies that provide health benefits.

Top drugs getting generic competition by September 2012 are taken by millions every day: Lipitor alone is taken by about 4.3 million Americans and Plavix by 1.4 million. Generic versions of big-selling drugs for blood pressure, asthma, diabetes, depression, high triglycerides, HIV and bipolar disorder also are coming by then.

The flood of generics will continue for the next decade or so, as about 120 brand-name prescription drugs lose market exclusivity, according to prescription benefit manager Medco Health Solutions Inc.

"My estimation is at least 15 per cent of the population is currently using one of the drugs whose patents will expire in 2011 or 2012," says Joel Owerbach, chief pharmacy officer for Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield , which serves most of upstate New York.

Those patients, along with businesses and taxpayers who help pay for prescription drugs through corporate and government prescription plans, collectively will save a small fortune. That's because generic drugs typically cost 20 per cent to 80 per cent less than the brand names.

Doctors hope the lower prices will significantly reduce the number of people jeopardizing their health because they can't afford medicines they need.

Dr. Nieca Goldberg, director of The Women's Heart Program at NYU Langone Medical Center in Manhattan, worries about patients who are skipping checkups and halving pills to pare costs.

"You can pretty much tell by the numbers when I check the patient's blood pressure or cholesterol levels," that they've not taken their medications as often as prescribed, she says.

Even people with private insurance or Medicare aren't filling all their prescriptions, studies show, particularly for cancer drugs with copays of hundreds of dollars or more.

The new generics will slice copayments of those with insurance. For the uninsured, who have been paying full price, the savings will be much bigger.

Daly Powers, 25, an uninsured student who works two part-time jobs at low wages, says he often can't afford the $220 a month for his depression and attention deficit disorder pills. He couldn't buy either drug in June and says he's struggling with his Spanish class and his emotions. He looks forward to his antidepressant, Lexapro, going generic early next year.

"It'd make all the difference in the world," says Powers, of Bryan, Texas.

Generic medicines are chemically equivalent to the original brand-name drugs and work just as well for nearly all patients.

When a drug loses patent protection, often only one generic version is on sale for the first six months, so the price falls a little bit initially. Then, several other generic makers typically jump in, driving prices down dramatically.

Last year, the average generic prescription cost $72, versus $198 for the average brand-name drug, according to consulting firm Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions. Those figures average all prescriptions, from short-term to 90-day ones.

Average copayments last year were $6 for generics, compared with $24 for brand-name drugs given preferred status by an insurer and $35 for nonpreferred brands, according to IMS Health.

Among the drugs that recently went off patent, Protonix, for severe heartburn, now costs just $16 a month for the generic, versus about $170 for the brand name. And of the top sellers that soon will have competition, Lipitor retails for about $150 a month, Plavix costs almost $200 a month and blood pressure drug Diovan costs about $125 a month. For those with drug coverage, their out-of-pocket costs for each of those drugs could drop below $10 a month.

Jo Kelly, a retired social worker in Conklin, Mich., and her husband Ray, a retired railroad mechanic, each take Lipitor and two other brand-name medicines, plus some generic drugs. Both are 67, and they land in the Medicare prescription "doughnut hole," which means they must pay their drugs' full cost, by late summer or early fall each year. That pushes their monthly cost for Lipitor to about $95 each, and their combined monthly prescription cost to nearly $1,100.

Generic Lipitor should hit pharmacies Nov. 30 and cost them around $10 each a month.

"It would be a tremendous help for us financially," she says. "It would allow us to start going out to eat again."

For people with no prescription coverage, the coming savings on some drugs could be much bigger. Many discount retailers and grocery chains sell the most popular generics for $5 a month or less to draw in shoppers.

The impact of the coming wave of generics will be widespread — and swift.

Insurers use systems that make sure patients are switched to a generic the first day it's available. Many health plans require newly diagnosed patients to start out on generic medicines. And unless the doctor writes "brand only" on a prescription, if there's a generic available, that's almost always what the pharmacist dispenses.

"A blockbuster drug that goes off patent will lose 90 per cent of its revenue within 24 months. I've seen it happen in 12 months," says Ben Weintraub, a research director at Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions.

The looming revenue drop is changing the economics of the industry.

In the 1990s, big pharmaceutical companies were wildly successful at creating pills that millions of people take every day for common conditions, from heart disease and diabetes to osteoporosis and chronic pain. Double-digit quarterly profit increases became the norm.

But the patents on those blockbusters, which were filed years before the drugs went on sale, last for 20 years at most, and many expire soon.

In recent years, many drug companies have struggled to develop new blockbuster drugs. Pharmaceutical companies can save billions when they stop promoting drugs that have new generic rivals, and U.S. drug and biotech companies are still spending more than $65 billion a year on R&D.

The 20 new drug approvals in the U.S. this year, and other important ones expected in the next few years, eventually will help fill the revenue hole.

For now, brand-name drugmakers are scrambling to adjust for the billions in revenue that will soon be lost. Many raise prices 20 per cent or more over the last couple years before generics hit to maximize revenue. Some contract with generic drugmakers for "authorized generics," which give the brand-name company a portion of the generic sales.

Brand-name companies also are trimming research budgets, partnering with other companies to share drug development costs and shifting more manufacturing and patient testing to low-cost countries.

Pharmaceutical companies have cut about 10 per cent of U.S. jobs in four years, from a peak of about 297,000 to about 268,000, according to Labor Department data. Nearly two-thirds of the cuts came in the last 1 1/2 years, partly because of big mergers that were driven by the need to shore up pipelines and boost profit in the short term by slashing overlap.

Drug companies also are trying to stabilize future sales by putting more sales reps in emerging markets such as China and India, and diversifying into businesses that get little or no generic competition. Those include vaccines, diagnostic tests, veterinary medicines and consumer health products.

As the proportion of prescriptions filled with generic drugs jumped to 78 per cent in 2010, from 57 per cent in 2004, annual increases in prescription drug spending slowed, to just 4 per cent in 2010. According to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, generics saved the U.S. health care system more than $824 billion from 2000 through 2009, and now save about $1 billion every three days.

The savings are only going to get greater as our overweight population ages. People who take their medicines regularly often avoid costly complications and hospitalizations, says AARP's policy chief, John Rother, bringing the system even bigger savings than the cheaper drugs.

In addition, many patients taking a particular brand-name drug will defect when a slightly older rival in the same class goes generic.

Global sales of Lipitor peaked at $12.9 billion in 2006, the year Zocor, an older drug in the statin class that reduces bad cholesterol, went generic. Lipitor sales then declined slowly but steadily to about $10.7 billion last year. That still makes Lipitor the biggest drug to go generic.

For patients, it's a godsend. Well maybe not for Canadians. I am sure the powers that be and always transparent, will find a way of even increasing the prices

In the meantime, once Lipitor and Plavix get generic competition his copayment will plunge from the current $1 per day for each.

"I will pay $16 for 90 days" for both, says Torok, who hopes to travel more. "It's a big deal for me on my income."

Fractured hips, pneumonia and significantly reduced mobility are among the most deadly health risks faced by seniors.

But for many, these threats are not an inevitable part of aging. They are caused by falls, an entirely preventable problem that leads to a vast array of serious injuries and the onset of debilitating illnesses that rob seniors of their independence, mobility, and in many cases, their lives.

* Seniors deserve better fall prevention
* Canada may need more geriatricians

“It’s just a huge health burden,” said Vicky Scott, clinical associate professor at the University of British Columbia and senior adviser on fall and injury prevention for the B. C. government. “[Falls are] that trigger event that seems to really spiral [the health of seniors] downward.”

In Canada, the issue of seniors falling isn’t unrecognized. Leading Canadian researchers have helped bring attention to the problem, and now many parts of the country have fall prevention programs for homes, hospitals, residential-care facilities and other centres.

But experts say the implementation, enforcement and scope of these programs are often lacking and there is not enough pressure on health-care facilities or home-care programs to prioritize fall-prevention strategies.

At the same time, such programs don’t account for the fact that thousands of seniors living independently aren’t aware of the risks they face and never have a discussion about it with their physician.

These glaring gaps lead to countless injuries, unnecessary deaths and a major strain on the health-care system – and a growing number of experts in the field say things need to change.

“It’s common, it’s preventable and the prevention for this will protect from other diseases as well,” said Karim Kahn, leader of fracture prevention at the Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, a Vancouver-based research institute focused on arthritis and hip-related fractures.

Studies show that one in three people 65 and older, and perhaps more, will fall at least once a year.

Not all falls lead to serious injury. But falls cause more than 90 per cent of all hip fractures in seniors. One in five seniors who fractures a hip will die within a year of the break.

Falls are also a significant cause of head injuries, femur fractures, wrist and hand injuries and back and knee problems, as well as a shattered sense of self-confidence that leads many seniors to restrict activities and become fearful of venturing away from home.

Almost half of all falls occur in the place seniors feel most secure: in and around their home. Tripping while going up or down stairs, stumbling while walking across a room or slipping on ice are some of the most common falls suffered by seniors.

In 2008-2009, nearly 75,000 Canadians 65 and older were hospitalized after falling, according to a forthcoming report from the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Falls kill thousands of seniors a year and cause one-half of deaths due to injury among the elderly, a rate higher than deaths due to pneumonia or diabetes.

A large number of seniors don’t die immediately after a fall. But for many, the problems are just beginning. Lengthy hospital stays, months of difficult recovery and relocation from home to a retirement facility are common. So are serious complications that arise when a person is bedridden and weakened for significant amounts of time after a fall, particularly pneumonia, which is often fatal.

“The story is that you go from having a functional, happy person … [to someone] in a nursing home,” Dr. Khan said.

The health-care costs associated with falls are estimated at $2.8-billion. Others estimate that when lost productivity is factored in, the total cost balloons to more than $6-billion.

Many women don’t know warning signs of stroke and therefore
Canadian women are one-third more likely to die of stroke than men, in large part because they are woefully uninformed about the warning signs of stroke and slow to get treatment.

That is the conclusion of a new study from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

A survey commissioned by the foundation shows that one in three women cannot identify even two of the warning signs of stroke – sudden numbness, difficulty speaking, blurry vision, severe headache and dizziness and they are no better at identifying the underlying causes, according to the poll: One in four women cannot identify even one major stroke risk factor, which include high blood pressure, smoking, diabetes and physical inactivity.

“Canadian women need to be better stroke detectors,” said Frank Silver, a neurologist and medical director of the Toronto West Stroke Network.

He said the knowledge is particularly important because about 80 per cent of strokes are preventable. Additionally, Dr. Silver said, a lot of the devastating consequences of stroke – paralysis, loss of speech, blindness, memory loss – can be prevented with prompt treatment.

“A patient can go from being perfectly devastated to fine right before your eyes if they get prompt treatment,” Dr. Silver said. “We call it the Lazarus effect.”

That was the case for Ann Dooley, a professor of medieval and Celtic studies at the University of Toronto.

In the early morning hours of April 21, she was speaking to her husband when the words leaving her mouth became nothing but gibberish. He immediately called 9-1-1.

When the paramedics arrived, they asked Prof. Dooley to smile – but only half her mouth moved.

“They knew immediately it was a stroke,” she said. “But there was no pain. I was totally serene.”

At Toronto Western Hospital, Prof. Dooley was treated with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), known colloquially as clot-busters. The drug, which dissolves clots that block blood flow to the brain, can totally reverse stroke symptoms if administered promptly.

Within a few hours, Prof. Dooley was speaking normally again and felt fine.

But, post-recovery, she was determined to educate others about the risks and warning signs of stroke. “I’m an educated woman but I had absolutely no idea. Stroke never entered my consciousness because I was healthy,” Prof. Dooley said.

The principal risk factor for stroke is hypertension, a condition that increases with age.

“Getting high blood pressure under control makes a tremendous difference; it can really lower your risk of stroke,” Dr. Silver said.

High blood pressure is treated principally with lifestyle modification – reducing salt intake, losing weight and increasing physical activity – and with medications like diuretics.

People with atrial fibrilation – irregular and sometimes rapid heartbeat – are also at much higher risk of stroke, but it can be prevented with anti-coagulants.

In 2007, the most recent year for which detailed statistics are available, a total of 8,262 women and 5,719 men died of stroke.

In total, 69,503 Canadians died of heart disease, including ischemic heart disease, heart attack and stroke, divided almost evenly between men and women.

High levels of 'cancer chemical' found on till receipts, warn health campaigners

Till receipts and paper money contain high levels of bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical linked to cancer and early puberty, a study has found.

The chemical mimics the female hormone oestrogen and independently-funded scientists have long suggested it poses a risk to health - especially to young children.In the latest research, a team from two U.S campaigning groups tested till receipts made from thermal paper that they had collected from 22 popular retailers and cafes in America.

The chemical BPA is used to make ink visible on thermal till receipts. They found that half of them were coated with large quantities of BPA. The chemical is used to make ink visible on thermal till receipts. Holding the receipts for just 10 seconds caused up to 2.5 micrograms of BPA to transfer from the paper onto a person's fingers.

Meanwhile rubbing the receipts increased the amount of BPA transferred from the receipts onto fingers around 15-fold.

'Since BPA in thermal paper is present in a powdery film, we suspected it could easily travel from those receipts to other objects,' the researchers said. The researchers from the Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer Chemicals, Safer Families group, found the chemical on 21 of 22 bills tested, although in much lower levels than on the till receipts.

More than 130 studies over the past decade have linked even low levels of BPA to serious health problems, including breast cancer, obesity and early onset of puberty.

The European Union last month followed Canada's lead and banned the use of BPA in baby bottles after tests showed the petroleum product can affect neural development and behavior in lab rats exposed to the chemical in the womb or very early in life.

Last month, the World Health Organization said BPA does not accumulate in the body, but admitted that 'recent experimental and epidemiological studies found associations between low BPA exposure levels and some adverse health outcomes.'

In January the US Food and Drug Administration announced it has 'some concern' about BPA's possible effect on the brains of babies and young children after years of insisting it was safe.

BPA is still widely used in plastic water jugs, soft drink cans, mobile phone cases and computers. Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families called on US lawmakers to toughen up the law that regulates chemicals in the United States in the light of the study's findings.

'BPA on receipts, dollar bills and in many other products is a direct result of the absurdly lax controls on chemicals in the United States,' he said.

EDMONTON - A new study shows that heavy metals including lead and mercury which are being released from oilsands facilities into the air and water of northern Alberta are already above levels considered hazardous to fish.

The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, takes aim at the province's environmental monitoring and dismisses government claims that the contaminants come from natural sources.

"Contrary to claims made by industry and government in the popular press, the oilsands industry substantially increases the loadings of toxic (priority pollutants) into the Athabasca River and its tributaries via air and water pathways," concludes the report.

But while the Alberta government accepts that some contamination may be coming from industry, it says there still isn't enough information to know if that's the main source.

"It's very difficult in many cases to attribute water-quality trends to one particular factor," said Kim Westcott of Alberta Environment. "It's quite a complicated thing to tease apart."

In 2008, David Schindler's team set up monitoring stations on the Athabasca and several of its tributaries. Some stations were upstream of both the oilsands and its facilities. Others were in the middle of the bitumen deposits but upstream of industry, and the rest were downstream of both.

The team found that heavy metals did not increase until the streams flowed past oilsands facilities, especially when they flowed past new construction.

"As soon as there was over 25 per cent watershed disturbance we had big increases in all of the contaminants that we measured — just stripping of the soil and trees in preparation for mining or building," said Schindler.

The contaminants were also being emitted from ongoing operations, the research found.

Schindler found metal levels increased in spring, as would be expected if a winter's worth of deposition on snow and ice were being flushed downstream during the melting season.

The metals involved include not only lead and mercury — both neurotoxins — but also cadmium, copper, nickel, silver and seven other metals considered priority pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Levels of the metals remain below human health thresholds. But concentrations at some test sites at some times of the year are already greater than those set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to protect marine ecosystems — sometimes much greater.

Cadmium levels ranged between 30 and 200 times over the guideline. Silver levels were 13 times higher than recommended at one site, and copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc were five times the suggested limit.

Those toxins are being passed along to animals eaten as food, said Schindler.

"Any animal that browses in the area is going to be taking in higher levels of the same contaminants," he said.

Caroline Bampfylde of Alberta Environment said early results from government data taken at 11 sites in the area in 2009 aren't conclusive.

"There isn't really a consistent pattern, across metals or across locations," she said. "There isn't a consistent signal."

As well, she said 33 years of monitoring at the Athabasca Delta, far downstream of the oilsands industry, has shown no increase in contamination.

The Alberta government has long maintained that contaminants increase near oilsands mines because that's where deposits are most concentrated. It contends the higher metal levels are the result of the Athabasca eroding natural outcrops of bitumen.

Schindler pours scorn on that theory and is harshly critical of the government's Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program.

"There should be very little trust in propaganda put out by the Alberta government," he said. "It's almost as if they've taken the textbook in how to develop a long-term monitoring program and violated every rule," Schindler said.

Westcott defends the government efforts.

"The RAMP is a comprehensive program," she said. "It's not a perfect program, but I think it will be very interesting once we have Dr. Schindler's data to compare that to the RAMP."

The program is much improved since the less-than-flattering results of a 2004 peer review, she said.

Westcott added that the Alberta Research Council is in the middle of a study using isotope analysis to finally pin down how much of the heavy metals in the Athabasca come from industry. A similar study using another form of chemical signature is being conducted on hydrocarbon emissions.

Schindler said it's time the federal government stepped in.

"(Environment Canada) delegated it to the province, which they shouldn't have been doing, and the province in turn delegated all the monitoring to industry itself."

Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, who helped write the party's report on the water and the oilsands after a two-year study, agreed that Ottawa has abandoned the issue.

"The federal government has devolved its constitutional responsibilities for protecting fish-bearing freshwater in the oilsands region to the Alberta government, which in turn has given self-regulatory powers to the industry," he wrote in an email.

Provincial programs, he said, "have proven unable to properly monitor the water-pollution effects of oilsands development or establish proper rules."

Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice said federal scientists are working with Alberta on environmental monitoring, including assisting in the chemical signature study.

"We will continue to work with the Alberta government to monitor the development and growth of the oilsands in an environmentally responsible manner."

New Democrat MLA Rachel Notley said Schindler's study further damages Alberta's environmental credibility at a time when it's under international attack. She said it's time the province changed its approach to monitoring and enforcing rules rather than mounting public relations campaigns.

"That's the only true, honest way to fix our reputation. And up until now, the government has been playing a smoke-and-mirrors game while effectively acting as part of the oil industry's public relations team."

Schindler's study is the latest to take aim at environmental monitoring in the oilsands region.

He released a paper last December based on the same research that showed hydrocarbon pollution is nearly five times greater and twice as widespread as industry figures say.

Other studies suggest that greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands are being underestimated by nearly a quarter. One paper blamed increased soil acidification on the industry.

Where is the River
Athabasca River originates at the toe of the Athabasca Glacier, between Mount Columbia, Snow Dome and the Sir Winston Churchill Range, in Jasper National Park, at an altitude of approximately 1,600 meters (5,249 ft).

The river flows along icefields, through gorges, offers wildlife habitat on its shores and adjacent marshes. National and provincial parks were established to protect this habitats and landscapes, such as Jasper National Park, Sundance Provincial Park, Carson-Pegasus Provincial Park, Obed Lake Provincial Park, William A. Switzer Provincial Park. The river also crosses the southeast limits of Wood Buffalo National Park. Its course is marked by rapids, impeding navigation south of Fort McMurray.[5]

The Athabasca River travels 1,231 km (765 mi) before draining into the Peace-Athabasca Delta near Lake Athabasca, south of Fort Chipewyan and Wood Buffalo National Park. From there, its waters flow north as Slave River into the Great Slave Lake, which discharges through the Mackenzie River system into the Arctic Ocean. The cumulative drainage area is 95,300 km2 (36,796 sq mi).[2]

Many communities are located on the banks of this river. Among the larger ones are Jasper, Hinton, Whitecourt, Athabasca and Fort McMurray.