E-drug: Lamy told: stand up to drug companies
---------------------------------------------
From the European Voice.
Volume 7 Number 10
8 March 2001
Glenys tells Lamy: stand up to drug companies
By Simon Taylor
TRADE Commissioner Pascal Lamy is under pressure to urge
multinational drugs companies to stop fighting efforts to cut the
price of life-saving medicines for some of the world's poorest people.
UK Socialist MEP Glenys Kinnock wants Lamy to back German development
minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, who this week called for 39
pharmaceutical firms to abandon their legal challenge to a South
African law designed to lower the price of patent-protected HIV and
AIDS medicines.
The firms include the five leading companies in the field:
GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Boehringer
Ingelheim.
"Lamy and everyone else have to ask themselves what the World Trade
Organisation is there for - to represent its members or the profits
of pharmaceutical companies," said Kinnock, speaking from outside the
court in Pretoria where the case was being heard.
Kinnock, a leading member of the European Parliament's development
committee, said she would be lobbying other member states to support
the German minister. "There's nothing which would make Lamy's life
easier than if other member states agreed," she said.
The MEP warned Lamy that he would find it difficult to win support
from major developing countries for a new round of WTO talks unless
he listened to their concerns over access to life-saving medicines.
"The EU and US will have to understand that the three big developing
countries - South Africa, Brazil and India - will be holding the new
round hostage over their right to buy generic drugs," she said.
This week, a South African judge adjourned the case brought against
the government by some world's biggest drugs companies until 18 April
to give the firms time to prepare arguments for their legal challenge
under WTO rules.
The drugs firms argue that the South African law breaks commitments
made by Pretoria under WTO rules designed to protect intellectual
property, known as Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, or TRIPS for short.
A local AIDS action group and two northern European campaign groups,
Oxfam and M�d�cins sans Fronti�res, led protests against the
companies in South Africa.
But Lamy has so far resisted appeals from campaign groups to condemn
the court action. Speaking at a trade and poverty conference in
Brussels this week, Lamy said it was not Commission policy to comment
directly on legal cases but stated that he believed that the existing
TRIPS agreement balances the interests of industry with the medical
needs of developing countries. "
We would not have medicines if it was not for intellectual property
rights unless you only want to rely on public funding," he said. "We
need IP but there is an exception to TRIPS on the grounds of national
emergencies." Lamy added that the Commission has been able to
influence industry to consider differential pricing, which was "one
of the solutions to the problems" faced by developing countries.
Oxfam policy director Justin Forsyth claimed this week that more than
400,000 South Africans had died of AIDS and related diseases since
the drugs companies launched their legal case.
A spokesman for the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries
and Associations (EFPIA) denied that the pharmaceutical industry was
blocking efforts to provide lower cost drugs to sick people in
developing countries. "The court case is not geared to hinder access
to essential medicines," said EPFIA public-relations manager
Christophe de Callatay. "It's a matter of principle. It's about
protecting IP from arbitrary seizure. It's about giving the health
minister the right to override patent rights." He pointed out that
the industry was making its own efforts to lower the cost of drugs in
developing countries, saying that companies had offered to bring down
the price of some medicines to the level of generic drugs. she would
be lobbying other member states to support the German minister.
"There's nothing which would make Lamy's life easier than if other
member states agreed," she said.
The MEP warned Lamy that he would find it difficult to win support
from developing countries for a new round of WTO talks unless he
listened to their concerns. "The EU and US will have to understand
that the three big developing countries - South Africa, Brazil and
India - will be holding the new round hostage over their right to buy
generic drugs," she said.
This week, a South African judge adjourned the case against the
government until 18 April to give the drugs firms time to prepare
arguments.
The drug companies argue that the South African law breaks
commitments designed to protect their patents, known as Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS for short.
Campaign groups have protested strongly against the firms in South
Africa, but Lamy has resisted appeals to condemn the court action.
Speaking at a trade and poverty conference in Brussels this week, he
said it was not Commission policy to comment on legal cases but
stated that he believed that the existing TRIPS agreement balances
the interests of industry with the medical needs of developing
countries.
"We would not have medicines if it was not for intellectual property
rights unless you only want to rely on public funding...and there is
an exception to TRIPS on the grounds of national emergencies." Lamy
said the Commission has encouraged industry to consider differential
pricing, which was "one of the solutions to the problems" faced by
developing countries.
A spokesman for the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries
and Associations (EFPIA) denied that the industry was blocking
efforts to provide lower cost drugs to developing countries. "The
court case is not geared to hinder access to essential medicines,"
said its public relations manager Christophe de Callatay. "It's about
protecting IP from arbitrary seizure."
Meanwhile, US drugs giant Merck - one of the firms involved in the
court action - said yesterday it would sell two anti-AIDS medicines
at no profit in developing countries. The move is also being seen as
a means to protect its market from manufacturers of cheaper generic
treatments.
Reprinted under the fair use doctrine
of international copyright law: