Tag Archives: now

Maintaining Supply Chain Security in pharmaceuticals: The need is now more than ever before.

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s globalized economy maintaining Supply Chain Security (SCS), especially in the pharmaceutical sector across the world, is more critical than ever before. We have many instances of SCS being seriously breached, not only in the emerging pharmaceutical markets but also in the developed markets of the world.

Global examples of serious SCS violations:

Following are some at random examples of serious SCS violations globally in the recent times:

  • In 2007, over 300 people died in Panama in Central America after consuming a cough medication containing diethylene glycol, which was labeled as glycerin. The adulterant diethylene glycol was sourced from China and was relabeled as glycerin by a middleman in Spain, as reported by the media.
  • In March 2008, the US FDA prompted by around 81 drug related deaths in the USA, announced a large scale recall of Heparin injection, a well-known blood thinner from Baxter Healthcare suspecting contamination of a raw material sourced from China. Standard technology used by Baxter could not detect the contaminant, which the regulator considered as a deliberate adulteration. The contaminant was eventually identified as an over sulfated derivative of chondroitin sulfate, which costs a fraction of original heparin derivative. The ‘Heparin tragedy’ raised, possibly for the first time, the need of working out an algorithm to put in place a robust system for ‘supply chain security’. This need has now become critical as many pharmaceutical players, including those in India, are increasingly outsourcing the API, other ingredients and almost entire logistics from third parties.
  • ‘Business Standard’ dated August 24, 2011 reported that Ranbaxy Laboratories and the US health regulator are negotiating a settlement to lift a ban on the sale of the drugs produced at 2 of the company’s plants in India, which could involve payments and fines exceeding $1 billion. This ban, as the report says, dates back to 2008, when the US regulator banned 30 generic drugs produced by the company at its Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) and Paonta Sahib and Batamandi unit in Himachal Pradesh, citing gross violations of approved manufacturing norms.
  • ‘Business Ethics’ – the Magazine of Corporate Responsibility reported, “GSK facility in Puerto Rico suffered from long standing problems of product mix-ups, which caused tablets of one drug type and strength to be commingled with tablets of another drug type and/or strength in the same bottle…the subsidiary’s manufacturing operations failed to ensure that Kytril, an anti-nausea medication, and Bactroban, a topical anti-infection ointment, were free of contamination from micro organisms.” As a result, the US Justice Department reportedly announced, “GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (GSK) and the subsidiary agreed to pay US$750 million to settle charges that between 2001 and 2005 they distributed adulterated drugs made at GSK’s now-closed manufacturing facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico”.
  • As reported by Reuter, on April 30, 2010 recalled over 43 children’s medicines involving 136 million units and 12 countries in response to complaints from regulators and customers.  This recall included liquid versions of Tylenol, Tylenol Plus, Mortin, Zyrtec and Benadryl, as they “may not fully meet the required manufacturing specifications.”

Despite presence of one of the most stringent drug regulators, the issue bothers even the US:

In the wake of all these, ‘The New York Times’ dated August 15, 2011 reported, despite the fact that US now imports more than 80% of APIs and 40% of finished drugs mainly from India, China and elsewhere, the agency conducts far fewer foreign inspections as compared to domestic inspections. The US FDA Commissioner Margaret Ann Hamburg was quoted saying, “Supply chains for many generic drugs often contain dozens of middlemen and are highly susceptible to being infiltrated by falsified drugs.”

At another conference Ms. Hamburg said, “I think people have no idea in this country and around the world about the vulnerability of things that we count on every day and that we have a system that has big gaps in our protective mechanisms.”

FDA inspects only a fraction of foreign drug plants in the global outsourcing wave:

The investigative arm of US Congress, the Government Accountability Office reported, while US FDA inspected 40% of domestic manufacturing facilities in 2009, it inspected just 11% of the foreign manufacturing facilities, as the later outnumbered the domestic sites since 2008.

INSPECTIONS BY FDA

ESTIMATED PLANTS IN FDA INVENTORY 2009

2007

2008

2009

 TOTAL
India

64

64

59

187

502
China

19

36

52

107

920
Germany

26

34

36

96

228
Italy

28

28

30

86

168
Canada

20

19

35

74

310
U.K.

16

17

32

65

191
France

24

14

26

64

188
Japan

22

17

20

59

207
Switzerland

17

15

18

50

100
Ireland

14

11

19

44

63
All others

83

69

97

249

888
Total

333

324

424

1,081

3,765

NOTE: Most frequently inspected foreign countries. SOURCE: Government Accountability Office.

US FDA’s Counterfeit Drug Initiative:

The initiative includes the following measures:

  • Secure the product and packaging
  • Secure the movement of drugs through the supply chain
  • Secure business transactions
  • Ensure appropriate regulatory oversight and enforcement
  • Increase penalties
  • Heighten vigilance and awareness
  • International cooperation.

If such instances are available from the developed markets of the world, especially from the US, one can well imagine what is happening in the emerging markets of the world. In the developed markets, at least these are detected and rectifying measures are taken. Unfortunately, in the emerging markets scores of such criminal instances go undetected taking innocent lives of the patients.

Fast growing global outsourcing initiatives have increased the risks by manifold:

Thus even the US FDA acknowledged that fast growth of globalization in drug manufacturing has outstripped the agency’s resource pool for effectively inspecting all overseas outsourcing facilities.

As a result of the outsourcing wave in the US, the number of US FDA approved local drug manufacturing sites in the country is gradually coming down since 2008, with a commensurate increase in the number of foreign sites.

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008a*

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

Domestic

Foreign

2625

1150

2700

1500

2900

2000

3000

2500

2480

3800

NOTE: US FDA-registered drug-manufacturing sites with at least one product listed in FDA database. *a Preliminary estimates. SOURCE: US FDA

Stakeholders need to be extremely vigilant:

Pharmaceutical players and the drug regulators from across the world should put proper ‘fool proof’ systems in place to eliminate the growing menace of criminal adulteration of APIs, drug intermediates, excipients entering in the supply chain together with preventing any breach in their logistics support systems.

Regulators fail to keep pace with the fast growth of global generic industry:

Many feel a shift in prescription towards generic drugs, especially in the largest pharmaceutical market of the world – the US, is making the regulatory task of the FDA to inspect all drug ingredient suppliers indeed quite challenging.

Currently, 70% of all prescriptions in the US are contributed by the generic drugs, which indeed play an important role to contain the health care cost. However, as an innovative drug goes off patent a single manufacture’s product gets transferred to multiple manufacturers located across the world, making the task of the drug regulator to ensure high quality and safety standard of the same drug extremely challenging.

Conclusion:

SCS, therefore, deserves to be of prime importance for the pharmaceutical companies across the globe. Recent high profile SCS related cases, as mentioned above, have exposed the vulnerability in addressing this global menace effectively. All pharmaceutical players should realize that an integrated approach is of paramount importance to eliminate this crime syndicate, which is taking lives of millions of patients the world over.

It is worth repeating, securing pharmaceutical supply chain on a continuous basis is of critical importance for all the pharmaceutical players across the globe. However, the process will no doubt be expensive for any company, especially when counterfeiters find ways to bypass any such system very quickly.

Like other industries, in the pharmaceutical sector, as well, cost effective procurement is critical, which makes many pharmaceutical players, especially, in the generic industry not to go for such expensive process just to maintain the SCS.

Thus a strong corporate governance mechanism in all pharmaceutical companies must ensure, come what may, putting in place a robust SCS system is not compromised in any way… ever… for patients’ sake.

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

The top 10 environment polluters of the world should now transform themselves into the top 10 saviours of the world from the disaster of Climate Change

Posted on by
Reply

Global awareness dawned early:

After World War the second, various types of atmospheric pollution started drawing increasing public attention in the western world, both in the USA and Europe.

In Europe, the incidence of London’s ‘Great Smog’ in 1952 initiated the process of bringing in ‘The Clean Air Act’ in 1956. This Act is believed to be one of the first legislations on environment in the world. Similarly in the USA in 1969 ‘The National Environment Policy Act’ was passed by the US Congress.

As we know, globally environmental pollution takes place mainly through carbon emission related to various developmental activities like construction, manufacturing, mining, motor vehicles, aircrafts; combustion equipment etc. All such emissions are gradually assuming alarming proportions.

Though CO2 is absolutely essential for photosynthesis of plant life, its raised level through the above developmental activities, very often adversely impacts the protective ozone layer of the earth triggering the process of climate change.

Sustained increase in atmospheric CO2 has also been shown to critically affect the sea water by increasing its acidity level, which in turn could endanger the marine ecosystem.

The key question:

Therefore, the moot question now is how to balance various developmental activities related to social and economic progress of nations with the preservation of global natural ecosystems.

Top 10 environment polluters of the world:

As per recent reports the top 10 environment polluters of the world are as follows:

1. China: Emits maximum CO2 of 6,018 million tonne. However, in terms of per capita emission, with 4.5 tonne China ranks 44 in the world, Australia being at the top of the list with 20.58 tonne followed by USA, Canada and Saudi Arabia. China has now pledged to cut its carbon intensity goal by 40-45 per cent by 2020.

It is important to note that against the suggestion of Denmark, the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) have refused to set a target of reduction of the global carbon emission by half, by 2050. BASIC countries emphasized that the developed nations should first work out an implementable model for emission cut before setting up any target.

2. United States: Emits 5,903 million tonnes of CO2 with a plan to cut the emission by 17 per cent from 2005 level by 2020. Per capita emission of CO2 of the USA, which ranks no.2 in the world, is 19.78 tonne.

3. Russia: Emits 1,704 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to cut emission by 25 percent, by 2020, if others also do the same.

4. India: Emits 1,293 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 1.16 tonne and agreed to cut emission by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005 level by 2020.

5. Japan: Emits 1,247 million tonne of carbon. It is important to note that last year in Japan CO2 emission came down by 6.2 per cent and the country agreed to reduce its CO2 emission by 2020 from its 1990 level by 25 per cent, if similar steps are taken by other developed nations of the world.

6. Germany: Emits 858 million tonne of carbon dioxide.

7. Canada: Emits 614 million tonne of carbon dioxide with per capita emission of 18.81 tonne. The country agreed to reduce its emissions by 2020 from 2006 level by 20 per cent.

8. U.K: Emits 586 million tonnes of carbon dioxide with a declining emission level. As compared to 1990 level, EU has agreed to a 20 percent cut in emission by 2020.

9. South Korea: Emits 514 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and agreed to reduce its emissions 4 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

10. Iran: Emits 471 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The country is worst hit by environmental pollution with marine ecology of the Caspian Sea is in great danger.

Conclusion:

Besides recent Copenhagen Accord more practical and effective steps must be taken by the global community, especially by these top 10 environmental polluters, to ensure quick and more substantial reduction in CO2 emission to arrest the climate change. This is obviously not expected to happen, as said earlier, at the cost of development and economic progress of any nation. The issue of climate change can primarily be addressed with initiation of various energy efficient measures to produce clean energy with increased sense of urgency.

Greater use of existing technologies like solar and wind power, electric and hybrid cars together with integrated robust projects to preserve natural ecosystems could save the humanity from the disastrous consequences of global climate change.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Will the ‘Bayer–Cipla case’ now put the ‘Bolar Provision’ under judicial scrutiny?

Posted on by
Reply
To enable the domestic pharmaceutical industry gaining a critical mass and cater to the pressing healthcare needs of the nation, in 1970 product patent act was abolished by the government of India. This immensely helped the domestic companies to launch the generic version of innovative medicines at a very low price, making those drugs quite affordable to a large section of the population.
Cost and process efficiencies helped the Indian pharma companies to reach out:

Quickly acquired cost and process efficiencies of the domestic generic pharma companies soon made India a power to reckon within the global generic pharmaceutical industry. Besides fueling the domestic demand of the essential medicines in general and these drugs in particular, the domestic pharma players soon commenced exports of these cheaper but high quality medicines to non-regulated and the least developed countries of the world to cater to their affordable healthcare needs.

India played a key role in combating HIV-AIDS in Africa:

In that process, India also played a critical role to ensure that HIV-AIDS drugs are available to the poor and down trodden in Africa in general and sub-Saharan Africa in particular, at an affordable price.

A paradigm shift:

On January 1, 2005, India stepped in to a new paradigm with re-enactment of the product patent act in the country, which is widely believed to be TRIPS compliant. This consequently ushered in a transition within the Indian pharmaceutical industry from the mindset of an ‘imitator’ to the prestigious status of an ‘innovator’, which ultimately drives the wheel of progress of a nation.

The voice of concern:

At the same time and for the same paradigm shift many expressed their grave concerns about the role that the domestic generic pharmaceutical industry will play in the new paradigm to continue to make cheaper but quality modern medicines available not only to a large section of the Indian society, but also to the needy patients of non-regulated and least developed countries of the world.

TRIPS safeguard provisions:

Although minimum standards of patent protection that patent holders should get have been articulated in TRIPS, it also very clearly specifies three very important public health safeguard provisions simultaneously, which will allow any participating country to utilize these during such types of needs.

These three TRIPS public health safeguard provisions are as follows:

A. Compulsory Licensing:

- There is nothing in TRIPS, which can limit the authority of the government, in any way, to grant compulsory licensing of a patented product for public health safeguard.

B. Parallel importing:

- TRIPS clearly indicates that under WTO dispute settlement body parallel imports cannot be challenged, if there is no discrimination on the patent holders’ nationality.

AND

C. Bolar Provisions

The Bolar Provision:

To enable the generic players launching new molecules at a much cheaper price, the Patent Act 2005 provides for exceptions to the patentee’s exclusive rights under Article 30 of TRIPS, as ‘Bolar Provisions’ in its section 107A(a):

“any act of making, constructing, using, selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product.”

This section provides an exemption from patent infringement to the generic manufacturers from producing and importing patented drugs for research and development, related to submission of information for regulatory approvals of generic versions of patented products before the original patents expire. The legislative intent of this section is to ensure that the generic versions of patented products are ready with necessary regulatory approval for market launch, immediately after the innovator products go off patent, rather than going through a long rigorous process of getting the regulatory approval only after expiration of the patent term.

Is the Section 107A now under judicial scrutiny?

This section may be unfairly used by some generic manufacturers, soon after the launch of products patented in India, for unfair commercial reasons. The final judgement on Bayer–Cipla case on Nexavar may throw some light on this important provision. It is quite possible that because of this reason Delhi High court has ordered Cipla to seek the High Court’s permission before market launch of the generic version of Bayer’s patented product.

Conclusion:

Although there is nothing wrong in using a patented molecule for getting regulatory approval with a genuine intent to launch the generic version after the original product goes off patent, it now appears that in absence of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) both against disclosure and unfair commercial use, this section may most likely to be abused more by some generic players with mala fide commercial interest.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Is the world now moving towards ‘Global Patent’ system?

Posted on by
Reply
A brief background:
In June 19, 1970 an International patent law treaty was signed in Washington, initially with 18 contracting states. This treaty is called ‘The Patent Co-operation Treaty’ (PCT), which came into force on January 24, 1978 and was subsequently amended in 1979 and further modified in 1984 and 2001.In August, 1998 India joined the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) by acceding to the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property. As on March 7, 2009, 141 states including all major industrialized countries, are signatories to the PCT.

PCT system, as we know, facilitates filing of patent applications under one roof with simpler procedure for search and examination of applications. This allows innovators of a PCT member country to obtain the effect of patent filings in any or all of the PCT countries.

The procedure currently followed by PCT is as follows:

“A single filing of an international application is made with a ‘Receiving Office’ (RO) in one language. It then results in a ‘search’ performed by an ‘International Searching Authority’ (ISA), accompanied by a written opinion regarding ‘patentability’ of the invention, which is the subject of application. This is optionally followed by a preliminary examination performed by an ‘International Preliminary Examination Authority’ (IPEA). Finally, the examination (if provided by national law) and grant procedures are handled by the relevant national and regional authorities.”

Currently the PCT does not lead to the grant of an ‘International Patent’.

WIPO recognizes Indian Patent Office as an ISA and IPEA:

Recently under PCT, ‘The World Intellectual Property Organization’ (WIPO) has recognized the Indian Patent Office (IPO) as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).

Besides India, other countries which have this recognition are Austria, Australia, Canada, China, EU, Spain, Finland, Japan, Korea, Russia, Sweden and the USA.

This recognition will help India the following ways:

1. Through PCT route India will now receive international patent applications from WIPO for search and preliminary examinations. This will enable IPO to generate revenue in form of fees paid to ISA and IPEA.

2. This recognition would help the innovators of the country to avail patentability search, obtain IPER and written opinions much faster and at a cheaper rate.

Is the world now moving towards ‘Global Patent’ system?

Recently a document has been published by WIPO for the meeting of PCT working group scheduled at Geneva from May 4 to May 8, 2009. The outcome of the meeting is not known to me, as yet. This document includes a proposal from the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO) for having a relook at the existing international patent system. This relook and discussion could translate into development of an entirely new Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which perhaps would be termed as PCT II.

The key feature of the proposed PCT II is that all patent applications, which will successfully pass through scrutiny of both international/national processing system would automatically receive patent grants in all the member countries.

While discussing this process within the PCT working group, it is anticipated that following two key issues will crop up for an intense debate:

1. Harmonization
2. Sovereignty

However, many feel that an appropriate protocol system could be put in place to take care of both these concerns, where after release of an affirmative international patentability report, each member country will be given certain period of time to refuse the grant patent in that particular country, clearly specifying the reasons for the same.

In true sense it may not mean grant of a global patent, but definitely could be considered as a bold step towards that direction. PCT II, if sees the light of the day, is expected to create a much easier type of patent granting procedure.

To make it effective, existing PCT structure will need to undergo some significant changes. The new structure is expected to ensure a very high quality output. The member countries, who will work in tandem, should find the new procedures and systems much more user-friendly and at the same time efficient in ensuring comprehensive search between multiple offices that incorporate prior art submissions by the applicants and third parties.

However, if PCT II gets accepted in principle by all the member countries, a detail mechanism to effectively operate such a complex system to be worked out with great precision, ensuring full satisfaction to all concerned.

In India, this new development will certainly be examined with a ‘tooth comb’ and rightly so. It is expected that all pros and cons will be carefully examined by the country, getting fully involved in this international debate, before arriving at a final decision. On the face of it ‘PCT II’ appears to be a novel concept, which deserves due consideration by all the stakeholders and in no case to be summarily brushed aside following the shrill voices of some skeptics.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

R&D and Protection of IPR related to Pharma sector, are now the responsibilities of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) – a quick look at the initiatives taken by the department.

Posted on by
Reply
On July 2, 2008, the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India notified creation of a new department to be known as the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers with an objective to have a sharper focus on the Pharmaceuticals Industry of India. In that notification besides other important areas, Research and Development (R&D) and protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) related to the Pharmaceutical sector, were brought under the newly created department.In this discussion let us try to have a look at the progress in both the R&D and IPRareas, separately.After creation of the new department, the Minister of Chemicals and Fertilisers Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, announced a proposed allocation of Rs. 10,000 crores (around US$ 2 billion), together with necessary regulatory reforms, towards annual Pharmaceutical R&D funding by the DoP.

The Government expects that such initiatives will help bringing in transformation of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry from brilliant and highly successful ‘imitators’ to world class ‘innovators’ of path breaking medicines. Discovery of such medicines in India is also expected to help the Government significantly, to improve access to affordable innovative modern medicines to the common man of the country. All these are no doubt, very laudable initiatives by the DoP, with a very capable, effective and a ‘can do’ leader at its helm.

The DoP plans to bring in significant changes in the clinical trial facilities available within the country. Currently even very basic clinical trials on ‘dogs’ cannot be undertaken because of protests from the activists related to ‘prevention of cruelty on animals’. Such reform measures, I am sure, will be sincerely welcomed by many.

It is interesting to note that the DoP is also planning to extend Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) to innovators. It has been reported that the invaluable data generated by the innovators towards development of the New Molecular Entity (NME) will, in near future, be protected from ‘piracy’ during 20 year patent life of the product. However, the DoP cautions that attempt to ‘evergreen patent’ through data protection, beyond the patent life of a product will not be permitted.

The argument of the innovators on this issue is that Product Patent and Clinical Data are two different types of intellectual properties and should not be considered as one and the same. While patent protection is extended for discovery of the molecule, data protection is for the immense and expensive clinical data that the innovators share with the Government for regulatory approval of the patented molecule, within the country. The argument that such valuable data generated by the innovators is an intellectual property (IP), lies in the premise that if the innovator would not have been required to part with the data with the regulatory authorities, such data would have been regarded as a ‘trade secret’, which is an IP. Therefore, the innovators argue that for sharing this IP with the Government, specific period of data protection to be extended to them, which should be unrelated to the life of the patent.

Thus far, we see that DoP has taken some very important and admirable initiatives to encourage R&D within the country. However, while looking at another important area of its responsibility i.e. protection of IPR within the Pharmaceutical sector, nothing has been announced by the department, as yet.

Encouraging R&D without effective protection of IPR, points towards an incomplete agenda to effectively address pharmaceutical product innovation related issues by the department. I sincerely hope that the DoP will soon announce its policy initiatives towards IPR protection to further encourage the innovators, both within and outside the country.

The DoP has taken some significant steps to address various important issues of the pharmaceutical industry under its terms of reference, within a very short period. I look forward to knowing from the DoP the detail initiatives in each of its nine functions and responsibilities, as announced in the notification of the cabinet secretariat on July 2, 2008.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

The heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.