Current Issues

Urgent Alberta Canada United States Global
Eldercare
yes
yes


Cataract Surgery
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
Be Heard
yes 
yes 
 
 
Genetically Modified Foods
yes
yes
yes
yes
Laser Eye Surgery (LASIK)
yes
yes
yes
yes
Public Health Care
yes
yes
    
Canadian Warnings        
U. S. Warnings        
Search for breaking news




Updated October 31, 2003

Please remember, our existence depends on you.  You can support the Alberta Consumers' Association by becoming a member, making a donation, or subscribing to our newsletter. (Membership/Donor Form)

Search current news headlines and weblogs

DAYPOP

Be Heard

The Alberta Consumers' Association, governments and regulatory bodies provide opportunities for consumers to share their views on a variety of topics.  The Be Heard page provides a current selection and contact information.

Eldercare - On the Auction Block

Since the 1990s, dramatic changes to Alberta's long term care sector have unfolded with little media notice. Confusing jargon, mixed messages, lack of data, and widespread differences among the province's 17 regional health authorities have disguised much of the restructuring. Yet the changes have not gone unnoticed by families. Today, more and more adult children and elderly spouses are finding themselves trapped in the bewildering grip of Alberta's heavily privatized LTC environment. What they find is rarely what they expect - or need.

In 2002 the Alberta Chapter of the Consumers' Association of Canada decided to investigate these changes. Our research found that both residential and in-home care for the elderly have become costly and inaccessible arenas for many people. Quality is often grim, staffing levels are marginal. The promise of innovative models of care has been largely eclipsed by limited access and decreasing coverage of the costs associated with care. Many families now face an untenable choice: either give up a salary to care for a loved one at home, or spend savings and assets to purchase private services. Indeed, so much of the burden and cost of care has been offloaded to families that the Long Term Care Association of Alberta is quietly advising people to purchase private LTC insurance to protect their income and assets.

If this sounds like American-style health care, it is. And just as the administrative costs of the U.S. system are much more expensive than Canada's, Alberta is now spending more money managing an increasingly fragmented LTC sector, leaving less money for actual care. Between 1997/1998 and 1999/2000, the actual money spent on administration by regional health authorities increased by 15.2 percent - more than for any other identified category except research and education.

The full report and press releases are available here.
(ALERT)

Laser Eye Surgery (LASIK)

Laser surgery (LASIK) has become a popular choice to correct vision problems. It is widely promoted as a "cure" and a safe, convenient alternative to glasses.  However, LASIK is not always a cure and is not always safe.  For many individuals it is a poor choice.  Before agreeing to LASIK surgery please visit the U. S. Food and Drug Administration site. FDA: LASIK Eye Surgeryhttp://www.fda.gov/cdrh/lasik/  The site identifies the risks involved, offers advice on choosing a doctor, and provides a pre-surgery check list.  You can't give informed consent without a visit.

CAC Alberta is monitoring the outcomes of LASIK surgery.  If you have had problems with this surgery please email us at cacab.ecn.ab.ca  You will be contacted for a confidential interview.  (ALERT)

Public Health Care

For the story of some of the forces behind the Alberta Health Care Protection Act, the recommendations of the Premier's Advisory Council on Health Care, and current debate on implications of increasing reliance on private business and out-of-pocket charges (and ultimately private health insurance) to fund health care, the following  sources of information about Public Health Care are indispensable.  You can form your own opinion about the merits of public health care and the risks created by Alberta's Health Care Protection Act and regulations.  The Alberta Consumers' Association made recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the health care system and increase the accountability of the province, regional health authorities, private health service providers, and doctors.  In addition, we made suggestions to subject private health service providers to the competition law and vendors of enhanced and non insured services to the Alberta Fair Trading act.   (ALERT)

Canary in the Mine Shaft

"The Consumer Experience with Cataract Surgery and Private Clinics in Alberta; Canada's Canary in the Mine Shaft"  This report released by the Alberta Consumers' Association describes how the Alberta model of cataract delivery emerged, and how it has evolved into a well entrenched two-tiered model of publicly insured care. It also describes the changing character of "private" health care in Alberta and how taxpayer dollars are increasingly used to subsidize commercial activities and new investor-driven health care corporations - to the detriment of the public and the public plan. Contrary to commonly held beliefs and claims made by suppliers, the evidence in the report reveals that the growth of private cataract surgery clinics in Alberta has: "Remarkably, instead of being the solution to rising costs, longer waits and less than ideal patient care, increased reliance on private business and the introduction of new sources of private payment for suppliers has been the cause of many of these problems", said Wendy Armstrong, the author of the report.

The Press Release and the Executive Summary are posted on this site and Copies of the report "The Consumer Experience with Cataract Surgery and Private Clinics in Alberta; Canada's Canary in the Mine Shaft" by Wendy Armstrong are available from:

The Consumers' Association of Canada (Alberta)
Box 11171, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 3K4
Telephone: (780) 426-3270
Fax: (780) 425-9578
Fax:  (780) 425-9578
E-mail: cacab@ecn.ab.ca
Web-site: www.ecn.ab.ca/consumer

Price: $15 for individuals and $25 dollars for organization/business (postage paid)
Pages may be reproduced (but not sold) for public interest purposes by non-profit organizations and individual citizens as long as credit is given to the source.

New!!!
The Consumers' Association of Canada (Alberta) report by Wendy Armstrong "The Consumer Experience with Cataract Surgery and Private Clinics in Alberta - Canada's Canary in the Mine Shaft"  can now be purchased for  $15 dollars @

Genetically Modified Foods

The Consumers' Association of Canada is on the committee that is developing the rules for labelling genetically modified foods.  CAC has asked that all products of genetic modification that pass through the Canadian Novel Food Regs (designed to regulate biotechnology) fall within the definition of "GM" for the purposes of labelling.   We have won this argument on several occasions but the sectors that want a narrower definition keep re-opening the issue.   Now it has been determined that, for the purposes of making a positive claim (i.e. - saying that food does contain or is derived from GM material), the narrow definition will be used.   The battle for the definition that will be used to make a "GM free" claim will now begin.   Environmental groups and some consumer groups have boycotted this committee but we are there with Option Consommateurs and the Consumer Council of Canada.   We are trying to work as a consumer team with OCA and some other like minded groups.  For more information about genetically modified foods, the Northern Lights Special Edition: Genetically Modified Foods is recommended.  It is current and offers a balanced view of the issue. (http://special.northernlight.com/gmfoods/#over) (ALERT)

Mandatory Labelling

Wendy Armstrong a long time member has drafted this response to people who have expressed concerns about the Ms Hillard's statement that CAC National opposes manditory labelling of genetically modified foods.  It sets out the Alberta Consumers' Association's position and involvment in the issue.

The Alberta Chapter,  which since about 1997 has been an independent affiliate of the national organization with separate memberships - took a stand in support of mandatory labeling of all genetically engineered products (not just foods) in the mid 1990s. This was based on our concern about the need for post-market surveillance of foods, crops and drugs  (and their impact on humans and the environment) as well as the need to allow consumers' to make informed choices in the marketplace.

The Alberta Chapter has maintained this position ever since. Our position is documented publicly in a "manifesto" developed by a Quebec Consumer Association (FNAQ) with input from the Alberta Chapter circulated in the mid 1990s.   Like the B.C. Chapter, with whom we worked closely on this issue with in the past, we have worked to influence the position of the National Association through the years.  While unsuccessful, the good news is that we were able to have an impact through the years in a variety of forums as an independent voice concerned about a number of issues related the genetically engineered foods which we feel are prematurely being rushed to market before the technology is well controlled - and diverting important public and private resources away from other research in the agricultural/food area or other endeavors.

Although we declined to do an interview for this Marketplace segment (given our lack of current involvement)- the nature of which was not fully disclosed by the producer, Ines Callebrese,  at the time she interviewed me -  I did provide her with our position on labeling, the reasons for our position, information on other equally important biotech issues (such as ownership and control), a list of a number of credible contacts in the field, and a copy of a 1995 report we did on Protecting the Consumer Interest in Genetically Engineered Foods. She also indicated she had a copy of the manifesto statement indicating CAC Alberta's  support of mandatory labeling. I'm not sure why she did not identify this fact on the story other than time -

You may find it interesting to note also, that although in 1994, we had to lay off all our staff due to a loss funding from the provincial government and the national magazine, we turned down an offer from Monsanto (before anyone in the public even knew their name) for substantial dollars for an educational campaign on Biotech because they would not give us final editorial control.(and a few other reasons - such as credibility).

If you are a long time member, you may also remember some newsletter articles on genetically engineered foods around 1994 and a number of media interviews we did attempting to raise some visibility around the issues.  Unfortunately, limited resources have limited our work and visibility in this area in recent years.  However, because of our position & past research in the area, we still provide a list of sources of reliable and insightful information on biotechnology issues.  Unfortunately, both the provincial government and the Cities of Calgary and Edmonton are strong promoters of the biotechnology industry. Even the recent Mazankowski report on the Future of Health Care suggested that increased taxpayers dollars be directed to research in the area of neutraceuticals and functional foods and more rapid commercialization of products.  We do not concur.

RE: funding for Alberta Chapter.  The majority of funding to keep the Alberta Consumers' Association office and telephone staffed 3 days per week and the newsletter and some other activities going comes primarily from
individual donors. We also allow organizations (companies, unions, media outlets, regulatory agencies or companies, etc) to support our work through a higher priced corporate "subscription" to our newsletter. ($125 dollars).  Occasionally we also obtain small non-restrictive grants for projects under our control or equipment for our office from government departments or non-commercial organizations. Mostly we just scrape by one day at a time.  The Chapter had another blow in 1997/98 when the Federal government decided to audit us and take away our charitable status because they considered our interventions on behalf of householders in utility hearings as "advocacy" work - not a charitable activity. This not only limited our ability to provide tax receipts to donors, but our ability to apply for funding from various philanthropic foundations who only will provide funds to organizations with a charitable status.

Our interventions in the utility area by a team of specialists are funded through a mechanism called "intervenor"  funding where the Utility Board awards a specific amount based on the influence of our team on the final decision. All this money goes directly to support our Regulatory Analyst and legal counsel's work in these hearings , and our legal
counsel (God bless him) who you often will hear in the news, Jim Wachowhich, receives no funding for all his work in the media on utility issues.

While the Alberta Chapter does not support the National position articulated by Ms. Hillard, who operates as Chair of the National Food Committee as well as V.P. on issues, on labeling, we do acknowledge that the complete loss of government funding both provincially and federally in 1993 (which did not used to be directed to specific activities) and the bankruptcy of the magazine did leave the organization in a difficult position. The foundation referred to in the article is an arm's length foundation (which can also technically provide grants to other consumer groups), and the individuals who seek out the donations are not active members of the association or active in the "issues" work. The Bigger problem is actually the position espoused by the National organization in our view - and its frequently supportive statements regarding the rapid proliferation of these products.

We hope you continue to support the Alberta Chapter.  We aren't able to do a lot - but we believe that what we have done has made some small difference. And please keep up your own efforts on behalf of consumers.  (ALERT)


 (ALERT)

Canadian Warnings

Health

Health Canada provides warnings about food, drugs, and consumer products. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/news-arc.htm#warn

Products, Recalls, and Fraud

Consumer Connection: Office of Consumer Affairs-Industry Canada recalls and fraud alert page.  http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ca00553e.html

CBC Market Place (http://www.tv.cbc.ca/market/recalls/)is a consumer affairs show.  This page contains current and ongoing warnings about products and fraud. (ALERT)

United States Warnings

Health

FoodSafety.gov is a gateway website that provides links to selected government food safety-related information.  This web site is part of the National Food Safety Information Network. It is maintained by FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.  http://www.foodsafety.gov/~fsg/fsgnews.html

Fraud

The Better Business Bureau serves the US and Canada from this site.  The internet has given them a new source of revenue, charging for companies to join their Reliability Seal Program Privacy Seal Program.  However, if a company hasn't paid you may find a warning here.  Just kidding, I'm sure they are unbiased.    http://www.bbb.org/

Internet Fraud Watch (http://www.fraud.org/internet/inttip/itpset.htm) is a project of the National Consumers League.

The Federal Trade Commission (http://www.ftc.gov/), Bureau of Consumer Protection's mandate is to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices. (ALERT)

Home AlertsInformationAdvocacy Education Career and Life Management 20  Social Studies 10Social Studies 13  Social Studies 16
This site is maintained by Larry Phillips