the nyt has never been known to be friendly to india; their
correspondents in the recent past have included the most irritating
barbara crossette.
this conversion to india's cause at this late hour smells a little
fishy. has someone figured out the angle here?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
NYT slams UPA govt, its patents ordinance
The editorial virtually accuses govt of playing into
the hands of the multinational pharma lobby
NAVIKA KUMAR
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 19 While Indian parliamentarians
are busy in the coming Assembly elections in three
states, and domestic politics takes up national
platforms, it was left to The New York Times to take
up India's cause at the global forum. In an editorial,
''India's choice'', on January 18, the American daily
made a scathing attack on the Patents Ordinance
promulgated just a few days ago by the government. The
editorial virtually accuses the Indian government of
playing into the hands of the multinational
pharmaceutical lobby, with a last ray of hope of
getting this ''fixed'' when the Bill comes up for
discussion in Parliament during Budget session.
''Heavily influenced by multinational and Indian
drug-makers eager to sell patented medicines to
India's huge middle-class, the decree is so tilted
toward the pharmaceutical industry that it does not
even take advantage of rights countries enjoy under
the WTO to protect public health,'' says the
editorial. India signed the WTO agreement on
intellectual property in 1994 and was required to
institute patents on products by January 1, 2005.
While the previous NDA government introduced the
Patents Bill in Parliament, it never came up for
debate. It fell into the domain of the present UPA
government to meet the product patent deadline of
January '05. The NYT's fears are not only for Indians
who could now face the spectre of more expensive
drugs, but for ''patients in 200 countries'' for whom
generic knockoffs of AIDS drugs made by Indian
manufacturers ''have brought the price of
antiretroviral therapy down to $140 a year from
$12,000.'' Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, however, sees
the criticism as a ploy against the government. ''I'm
confident of what I've done and the law we have framed
so I don't care what anybody else says,'' he says. But
Opposition slam the way the Ordinance has been
handled. ''I strongly believe that the issue of
patents never ought to have been decided through an
Ordinance,'' says BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who, as the
NDA's commerce minister, presented the Patents Bill
originally. ''This government dragged its feet on the
issue between May to December and post-Parliament,
presented a fait accompli in the form of the
Ordinance,'' he says. The NYT states that India has
become the world's supplier of cheap AIDS drugs
because it has the necessary raw materials and ''a
thriving and sophisticated copycat drug industry made
possible by laws that grant patents to the process of
making medicines, rather than to the drugs
themselves.'' The editorial says the new Ordinance
''will effectively end the copycat industry for newer
drugs.'' The NYT specifically criticises the Patents
Ordinance which makes obtaining a compulsory license
''slow and difficult'' for Indian companies, which,
''with each application would face a fight from
multinational drug firms and the governments that do
their bidding.'' Kamal Nath says ''the Rules are being
put in place and any loopholes will be addressed
through that.'' The NYT also criticises two provisions
that, it says, ''industry lobbyists managed to
insert'' which go beyond the WTO rules. These refer to
the Ordinance's effect limiting ''efforts to challenge
patents before they take effect'' and its ''vague''
rules for ''evergreening''— companies extending their
patents by switching from a capsule to tablet, for
example, or finding a new use for the product.
Pfizer's S Ramakrishna, senior director, corporate
affairs, says: ''The NYT editorial stokes unfounded
fears. The fact is that most AIDS drugs and
retrovirals that the article talks of are pre-1995
drugs which do not fall under the patent regime.''
INDIA'S CHOICE
The New York Times
Jan 19, 2005
For an AIDS patient in a poor country lucky enough to
get antiretroviral treatment, chances are that the
pills that stave off death come from India. Generic
knockoffs of AIDS drugs made by Indian manufacturers -
now treating patients in 200 countries - have brought
the price of antiretroviral therapy down to $140 a
year from $12,000.
That luck may soon run out. India has become the
world's supplier of cheap AIDS drugs because it has
the necessary raw materials and a thriving and
sophisticated copycat drug industry made possible by
laws that grant patents to the process of making
medicines, rather than to the drugs themselves. But
when India signed the World Trade Organization's
agreement on intellectual property in 1994, it was
required to institute patents on products by Jan. 1,
2005. These rules have little to do with free trade
and more to do with the lobbying power of the American
and European pharmaceutical industries.
India's government has issued rules that will
effectively end the copycat industry for newer drugs.
For the world's poor, this will be a double hit -
cutting off the supply of affordable medicines and
removing the generic competition that drives down the
cost of brand-name drugs.
But there is still a chance to fix the flaws in these
rules, because they are contained in a decree that
must be approved by Parliament. Heavily influenced by
multinational and Indian drug makers eager to sell
patented medicines to India's huge middle class, the
decree is so tilted toward the pharmaceutical industry
that it does not even take advantage of rights
countries enjoy under the W.T.O. to protect public
health.
In November 2001, members of the World Trade
Organization agreed that countries can issue
compulsory licenses to permit generic production of
patented drugs without the patent holder's agreement
in order to protect public health, at home or abroad.
But under the Indian decree, getting a compulsory
license would be slow and difficult; each application
would face a fight from multinational drug firms and
the governments that do their bidding. India should
adopt laws that expedite compulsory licenses,
including allowing challenges to proceed after
production begins instead of holding it up. In
addition, India must close an important loophole
affecting the sick overseas: under the current rules,
Malawi, for example, could not import from India an
inexpensive version of a medicine that is not under
patent in Malawi. This needs to be changed.
Industry lobbyists managed to insert two noxious
provisions in the decree that go well beyond the
W.T.O. rules. The decree would limit efforts to
challenge patents before they take effect. Also, it is
uncomfortably vague about whether companies could
engage in "evergreening" - extending their patents by
switching from a capsule to tablet, for example, or
finding a new use for the product. This practice, a
problem in America and elsewhere, extends monopolies
and discourages innovation.
While some drugs - those that existed before 1995 -
will always be off patent in India, some widely used
drugs are at risk. So are new generations of much more
expensive AIDS drugs that will soon be needed
worldwide as resistance builds to current medicines.
If the decree is not changed before Parliament
approves it, it will be very difficult for India to
supply them. India's parliamentarians must keep in
mind that this arcane dispute is actually a crucial
battleground for the health of hundreds of millions of
people in India and worldwide.
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
No comments:
Post a Comment