Big Pharma Must Think We Are Idiots

A former British politician called Lynda Chalker who interferes with intellectual property (IP) issues in East Africa, says she is sure that East African IP legislation will not confuse generic and counterfeit drugs on the one hand and fake drugs on the other. But Kenya's Constitutional Court has already ruled that its own Anti-Counterfeit Act, only two years old, does confuse the three phenomena. And the court admits that this could result in people presently receiving affordable antiretroviral (ARV) therapy for HIV being denied the drugs the future. Chalker describes Kenya's decision as a 'drawback' to anti-counterfeiting efforts.

But Chalker herself simply makes the same confusion. She says that 'an anti-counterfeit law is essential in Uganda and east Africa as a whole; one only has to look at the number of deaths arising from counterfeit pharmaceutical products, electronic goods and auto spare parts'. If a drug or produce is causing death or injury, that is a health and safety problem. Branded goods can cause death and injury. Putting a brand name on a product illegally doesn't make it harmful, nor does doing so legally make it safe. The harm comes when the goods are substandard or when drugs are fake, not real drugs at all.

The distinction seems basic enough, but Chalker and the people who put together the original Kenyan bill appear unable to comprehend it. Worse still, Uganda and several other countries seem keen to follow Kenya's lead, despite the Kenyan's change of mind. Chalker and others who follow this tendency to conflate counterfeits, generics and fakes then go on to deny that their stance could jeopardize availability of affordable generic drugs, such as ARVs. But their denial sounds hollow when they go to so much trouble to confuse generics with counterfeits and fakes.

Someone who has been taken in by this deception pontificates about 'fake' drugs (and doctors) in Uganda in another article. Eleven Ugandan 'legislators' are querying the quality of drugs from India, which is the source of most of Uganda's affordable generic drugs. They note that the price of the same drugs from the UK is higher and wonder why. Perhaps that's a question for Chalker. But usually a huge difference in the price of drugs indicates that the expensive ones are branded versions and the cheap ones are generic versions.

Of course, there may also be counterfeit drugs and fake drugs in circulation. When drugs are priced so that no one in developing countries can afford them, in the hope that aid money will be used to purchase them, it's not surprising that some people will try to cash in on the market for cheap drugs. If the pharmaceutical industry is concerned about the fact that it is quite easy to make a good profit from counterfeit and fake drugs, they need to sort out their own pricing policies, perhaps by taking a look at what the 'market' can tolerate. Otherwise they might be accused of depending on subsidies and of rigging the market, which would be quite intolerable.

Chalker expresses her concern at the 'extra burden counterfeiting places on health services in developing countries'. If she is worried about health services being burdened, it is branded goods she should target. If she thinks that health services will be unable to afford the growing need for ARVs, she needs to champion the cause of those producing affordable generic versions of the grossly overpriced branded drugs that her friends in the pharmaceutical industry produce.

Chalker says that IP laws should be 'well-drafted', which, presumably, all laws should. But well-drafted for whom? Intellectual property is for the benefit of industries like big pharma, not for the benefit of poor people who are sick and dying. IP laws are not, as Chalker seems to think, to protect people from harm, and I don't think anyone who knows about IP would claim something so stupid. That's why human rights activists had to fight for international law to protect people from IP laws and allow poor countries access to affordable generics. I don't believe Chalker is stupid, though. She just thinks that everyone else is.

Do Those Who Pay Lobbyists Get What They Pay For?

The International Policy Network (IPN) is almost beyond belief. The head of the organisation, Julian Morris, has an article on India's recent decision to place a moratorium on the growing of genetically modified (GM) brinjal (aubergine, egg-plant). Morris puts this decision down to their use of the 'precautionary principle', which Morris doesn't approve of. He refers to India's high rates of poverty and malnutrition, implying that their decision to reject GM brinjal (for the moment) will contribute to these problems.

For several reasons well known to Indian farmers, GM crops do not reduce poverty, far from it. For a start, GM seeds and other inputs are much more expensive than conventional ones. Secondly, the usage of these inputs goes up, steadily, the longer the crops are grown in the same place, so profits go down. Thirdly, yields go down, reducing profits even further. Fourthly, none of the other promised advantages of GM crops have materialised. GM has been an expensive waste of money, of land and of people's lives.

As for malnutrition, the previous points make it clear that GM crops are not going to have much positive impact on this. We have been promised crops with higher nutritional value but, in addition to getting less food from GM varieties, there is no nutritional benefit. According to Wikipedia, the precautionary principle "states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action".

What could Morris have against such a principle in relation to GM? There is more than a suspected risk of harm, of several kinds, to the public and the environment; there is little or no scientific consensus but nor has there been much scientific research; the burden of proof should lie with the proponents of GM, but they have consistently failed to do any research that could allay fears. Morris says his disagreement is that you can't prove a negative. But proponents are not being asked to prove a negative, they are being asked to carry out adequate research to show that GM crops are safe to humans, animals and the environment, economically viable, politically viable, ethical and many other things. The risks of not doing this research are too great.

The Indian minister in question, Jairam Ramesh, did not simply grab whatever expedient he found handy and place a moratorium on GM brinjal. He held a lengthy and comprehensive consultation. This is something an industry paid lobbyist who runs an institution that pretends to be an educational think tank, such as Morris, would have little understanding of. People who voted for Ramesh were asked their opinion and they said 'no', overwhelmingly. If Morris had his way, Ramesh would have paid large consultancy fees to Morris and his ilk and done what they advised, regardless of what Indian farmers and consumers wanted.

Morris goes on to fault the use of the precautionary principle by the EU to ban animal growth hormones. He sees this decision as flawed (really, read the article!). But his grasp of basic logic is as poor as his knowledge about GM organisms. He argues that water and oxygen would be banned under the EU's interpretation of the precautionary principle 'if they were classified as pesticides'. That's like saying that pedestrians would have to obey speed limits if they were classified as vehicles.

Like many interested parties who have their snouts in the GM gravy train, Morris sees any opposition to GM or any other dangerous technology as anti-science, anti-technology, rather than sensible criticism and protest against health and safety issues being decided purely on the basis of profits for multinationals. He seems to have little time for anything remotely like a scientific argument. He's not too astute politically, either. The "small but politically savvy band of opponents" in India that he refers to are none other than the Indian electorate, people who will be most directly affected by decisions about further exposures to GM risks.

The IPN website claims to have 'ideas for a free society' and to be 'bringing down barriers to enterprise and trade'. It would be more accurate to say 'this is as free as it gets, put up with it'. If I thought Morris was trying to clarify moot points, to analyse certain alternative interpretations of data, to shed light on difficult issues, I would at least defend his right to do that, even if I didn't agree with him. But there is no sense, science, logic, even political clout, behind what Morris writes. He seems to be writing utter nonsence because that's what he gets paid to do. But if the quality of his arguments are anything to go by, he doesn't get paid very much.

The Odds Are Not Stacked Enough in Our Favour, Say Big Pharma

The 'Counterfeit Act' signed by the Kenyan government last year is being challenged as unconstitutional, violating the right to health. This act was not really necessary because it was already an offense to make and distribute fake goods and there are already officials whose job it is to enforce existing laws.

In fact, the act seems to have been cobbled together and rushed through parliament at the behest of big industry, especially big pharma. The last thing they would want is competition, except where the odds are well stacked in their favour. So they whinged to the government (a process called lobbying in some countries) about how things were so unfair and the government kindly came up with a piece of legislation that fails to distinguish between fake goods and generic goods.

As a result, generic versions of drugs destined for Kenya have been held up in various countries on the grounds that they may not be legally distributed in Kenya. This is great for big pharma, they never wanted generic versions of drugs to be produced unless they themselves produced them, at inflated prices. But they were forced to reduce their prices when producers won the right to produce generics and big pharma have been fighting them ever since.

GlaxoSmithKline has come up with the expedient of reducing a few well known products, such as some of their antibiotics, to try to undercut generic versions. However, they don't seem to understand the concept of undercutting: their prices need to be lower. They have reduced their prices, sure, but they are still far more expensive than generic versions. What they are offering are hardly loss leaders, rather some kind of token gesture, to which journalists give the expected publicity and praise. And it's still not even certain if the reductions will be passed on to consumers.

The result of Kenya's self-serving piece of legislation is that there is widespread confusion about pharmaceutical products. People really have no way of knowing what is fake and what is not. The fact that something has a well known manufacturer's name on it does not guarantee that it is not fake. But if it is genuine, you are still robbed of the extra cost that going for the branded product involves.

People are just not able to afford many of the branded products. Slight reductions here and there, or even substantial reductions, miss this point. What is never so clear is what people have to sacrifice if they do go for the expensive branded product. But that's of little interest to organisations like GlaxoSmithKline or to the journalists who flock to report on whatever titillating rubbish is being reported on by all other journalists.

I'm glad to hear this despicable act is being challenged and hope those opposing it succeed. Because other countries, such as Uganda, are considering similar acts, no doubt in response to lobbyists for big pharma and other industry interests.