US reject generic drugs even for emergencies

David Bollier and James Love have an important story about trade negotiations over generic drugs at the World Trade Organisation a couple of days ago.

Love says:

"Although not reported in the US mainstream media, and barely noted in the European, Australian or Canadian press, the decision will contain a provision that is intended to prevent the United States, the members of the European Community, and a few other countries from getting access to generic medicines, even in cases involving national emergencies, such as an avian flu pandemic.

Our trade officials will tell the WTO our countries will “opt-out” of a WTO agreement, as potential importers of generic medicines, no matter what the circumstances are. The push for the “opt-out” was engineered by the CEOs of large pharmaceutical companies, such as Pfzier CEO Hank, McKinnell, and GSK’s Jean-Pierre Garnier.

In the United States, the “opt-out” was backed by President Bush’s
advisor, Karl Rove, and top US trade official Bob Portman. Portman
refused to meet with public health groups to defend the decision.

News reporters for the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters and other major news outlets have not reported on the opt-out issue, claiming “it’s too complex for readers to understand.”"

The pharmaceutical companies are acting to protect their interests via the WTO, as you expect them to do. They exist to make money not for public health reasons. Intellectual property is a complex subject, so the press say it is too hard for ordinary people to understand. That is a defensable position. Say "intellectual property" to most people and their eyes will glaze over.

However, the fact that business is in the business of making money and that IP is complicated, is not an excuse for saying that what is going on is right or even acceptable. When commerce operates to exploit complex regulations in such a way as to undermine the public interest, the media, public officials and ordinary citizens who do grasp the complexities have a duty to shine a light on the activity, explain it in such a way that it is comprehensible (especially if it's reprehensible) and bring that activity to a grinding halt.

Bollier puts it like this:

"Is it really so hard to understand the implications of these developments at the WTO? People will die because medicines are artificially expensive. Big Pharma wants to protect its patents and revenues at all costs, the public health and poor countries be damned. Compliant governments and a lapdog press are happy to let Big Pharma have its way.

That wasn’t so complicated now, was it?

The WTO decision represents a decisive repudiation of the WTO’s 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, which called for policies to make it easier to export generic medicines under compulsory licenses."