• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

WHO: No Evidence Of Misleading On Counterfeit Medicines

20/05/2010 by Kaitlin Mara for Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

There is no evidence that the World Health Organization has been misled or misled its members on the issue of fake or dangerous drugs, representatives of the UN organisation told journalists today. Nor is the WHO yet ready to drop use of the term ‘counterfeit’ to describe such medicines despite generic producing nations complaints about possible confusion over the term.

They also addressed concerns over the behaviour of the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT) which some WHO members this week are urging be replaced with a more accountable approach (IPW, WHO, 20 May 2010).

Specific work is needed on counterfeit medicines, said Hans Hogerzeil, the director of the WHO programme on Medicines Policy and Standards. With substandard medicines, drug regulatory authorities know who to go to when a quality problem is discovered, said Hogerzeil. But with counterfeit, false or fake medicines the identity of the producer is not known, and they easily cross national borders, so normal regulatory approaches cannot be used, he explained.

“Every honest industry is interested in stopping this,” said Hogerzeil, as is every government because counterfeiting harms both patients and the legitimacy of the health system. IMPACT grew out of a request by drug regulatory agencies that WHO work on this area, said Hogerzeil, though he did not specify which countries’ agencies.

African countries are very supportive of the programme as they “have a real problem” with low regulatory capacity and porous frontiers, he said.

If IMPACT is abolished “that leaves us vulnerable” said Nigeria in a committee meeting this morning, adding strong measures were needed to counteract counterfeits.

But Kenya yesterday gave an intervention saying IMPACT had provided guidance for negotiation of harmful counterfeit legislation with their trade ministry rather than their health industry (IPW, WHO, 20 May 2010), and had been targeting other countries with similarly harmful model legislation.

“We were very surprised to hear that, we were not aware of it at all,” Hogerzeil told the press conference in response to an Intellectual Property Watch question.

“Perhaps people are mixing up different organisations in which acronyms resemble each other,” said said Lembit Rägo, coordinator of quality assurance and safety: medicines in the Medicines Policy department at the WHO.

“There is IMPACT, there is ACTA [the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement], there are other organisations,” he added, saying “we haven’t had any evidence” of this happening.

Had Kenya used text from the WHO they “never would have had a problem,” added Hogerzeil. The text prepared by IMPACT “is actually extremely clear and would have prevented this problem.”

Other protests with regards to use of the term ‘counterfeit’ were attributed to a “communication problem” at WHO due to the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which defines counterfeit as a trademark issue. Many governments have therefore objected to the use of the term, saying it could cause confusion between the protection of intellectual property – limted to trademarks – and the protection of public health.

“Now countries are saying this is a hidden agenda,” said Hogerzeil, though the WHO has been using the word ‘counterfeit’ since 1988.

On giving up the term counterfeit, “we’re not ready to do that yet,” said Hogerzeil. The director general has said she is willing to find an alternative term but “will not do it in an emotional moment in the assembly.”

Good Data Hard to Find

It is “difficult to measure properly statistically the extent of the problem” said Hogerzeil, adding that each country counts counterfeits differently and generally only measures suspicious packages rather than taking a representative sampling. This means there is no way to determine if figures previously quoted from WHO are accurate.

Pharmaceutical industry representatives yesterday told journalists that data is difficult to ascertain but that the number of reported incidents of counterfeit medicines is on the rise.

One of the critical issues that has come up with regards to counterfeit is delays in generic drug shipments in transit through Dutch ports (IPW, Public Health, 12 May 2010). WHO “deplores that this has happened,” said Hogerzeil, calling it “improper, unfortunate use of counterfeit terminology or counterfeit legislation to work in a patent infringement issue” but said that the issue belonged at the World Trade Organization, where a trade dispute case has been opened.

Discussions on counterfeit drugs have been moved to this afternoon as governments continue to work toward consensus in informal meetings.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

Creative Commons License"WHO: No Evidence Of Misleading On Counterfeit Medicines" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: IP Policies, Language, News, Themes, Venues, English, Health & IP, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets, WHO, WTO/TRIPS

Comments

  1. Miles Teg says

    20/05/2010 at 6:15 pm

    Lets pick this apart shall we?

    1. “Every honest industry is interested in stopping this,” said Hogerzeil. Brazil and India are not honest? Nice one, pity it was not China then there could have been dragon baiting… both these countries have said that Quality, Safety and Efficacy is a problem not mainly IPR, a view even MSF takes with its position substandard medicines…

    2. It is unclear in what capacity regulators attended these meetings… perhaps WHO could clarify this… it is funny that the same countries that attended these meetings actually now oppose it. If WHO is not concerned about this then it says a great deal about the manager’s capability of being international civil servants…

    3. African countries do have problems, it is health systems and a host of issues. How exactly is a list of patent information and hologram decoders going to help them… even good medicines stored in unsavory conditions pose a risk… but that is NOT WHO IMPACT’s concern is it… makes one wonder why…

    4. Not aware of what IMPACT is doing, denial when you are host, secretariat and pimping for IMPACT solutions… haha… How about taking a stand and saying that these laws will hamper access to medicines as HAI-Africa and other local NGOs have shown (besides the trans-shipment cases that have exploded with an EU Council who ostensibly is committed to access to medicines – err correct that Access to Branded medicines)…

    5. The hidden agenda on counterfeits – well WHO as IMPACTs pimp can do two things to clarify: a) the 1988 study it did identified high prices as an incentive for counterfeits, but IMPACT has dropped it (coincidental or profit maximisation?) and they can revive this aspect, b) It can even use the word VIOXX – that legal, regulatory approved ‘ccounterfeit’ that made lots of money and killed many users along with counterfeit journals, duped data – all those people affiliated it with this scandal are still members of high standing in the health community… in fact try to get one of the Alliances on Patient safety to include even a vague reference to this is difficult… so HIDDEN AGENDA it is UNTIL YOU CAN SAY VIOXX…

    6. Nice that the WHO defers to the WTO. One would have expected a turf war… stranger things have happened than the WHO asserting it is THE international agency for health and that health is a right…

    Such poor representation of the issue in the media… i mean allowing shoddy statistics to be used (yes now there is nuance previously there was dissemination) and fear to be caused. Now big companies are establishing direct relationships with certain pharmacies to distribute authentic medicines… hey this is vertical integration and market concentration in the sector… TESCO, Wallmart, here we come…

    Eternally Vioxxed…

    Reply
  2. Sonia Shah says

    27/05/2010 at 4:58 pm

    I’m a journalist looking into undue corporate influence at the WHO. Very interested to hear more about corporate influence on IMPACT and its effect on WHO policies. If anyone has tips they would like to share, please contact me at sonia@soniashah.com

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » New Resolution Gives Governments Control Of WHO Work On False Medicines says:
    21/05/2010 at 4:51 pm

    […] Drugs TradeThe issue here is about legal concepts and languag… »Miles Teg on WHO: No Evidence Of Misleading On Counterfeit MedicinesLets pick this apart shall we?1. “Every honest ind… »Older »Inside ViewsContribute […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.