West uses Africa in war against generic drugs

The developed world and multinational companies are determined to create bottlenecks in India’s exports of generic drugs — if not directly, then by using poor African countries as pawns.

A draft policy on anti-counterfeiting, anti-piracy, and intellectual property rights (IPR) violations is close to being adopted and made a model law in African nations such as Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. This draft policy is similar to the recently-passed anti-counterfeit bills in Kenya and Uganda, which confuse legitimate low-cost versions of branded drugs (or generics) with counterfeit ones.

The draft policy, a copy of which is with DNA Money, is funded by the Investment Climate Facility for Africa, a body supported by developed nations like the UK, Germany and multinationals such as Unilever, Shell Foundation, Microsoft, etc. It aims at preparing a roadmap for a robust legal framework for protection and enforcement of IPRs in the region. However, the policy ends up terming generics that enjoy patents anywhere in the world ‘counterfeits’. According to IPR experts, the developed world is playing on the quality concerns that Africans have. A reference in the policy clearly says MNCs won’t transfer technology to regions that don’t give IPR protection and that such safeguards are needed to ensure foreign direct investment in Africa.

A legal expert working with an international patient group said African nations have had concerns about the issue of quality and safety of goods, particularly drugs. “Substandard drugs have posed serious challenges for the Africans. Now the developed world is using this vulnerability and turning it into a campaign against legitimate generics by branding them counterfeits, which has to do more with IPR and patent violations than quality,” he said. The expert added that quality and safety can turn out to be issues with drugs produced by anyone — innovators or generic firms. The biggest example is HIV drug nelfinavir (Viracept), innovated by Swiss giant Roche, which in 2007 was found to be contaminated with carcinogenic methanesulfonic acid ethyl ester and was withdrawn in several countries. “Quality can be a problem with any company. But here, the policy has everything to satisfy IPRs with hardly any concerns for the real issues of quality and safety,” said a senior official at a south-based drugmaker.

The policy can not only affect India’s drug exports to Africa, but also exacerbate the problem of unaffordable medicines in the poor region.

A project manager working with Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), an international humanitarian aid group, said, “African countries are largely dependent on generic medicines, which cost 40-80% less than innovator brands. Africa imports a majority of its drugs, mainly from India.”

She said if the policy is adopted by Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, etc, their poor populations will be impacted. MSF works in over 70 countries and sources over 80% of its requirement for AIDS drugs, and 25% of its malaria and tuberculosis drugs and antibiotics from India.

Venkat Jasti, chairman, Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council, said, Africa’s share in Indian pharma exports is $1.12 billion, or 15%.