• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

WHO Resolution Intended to Address Global Counterfeit Drug Market

February 24, 2012 by Nora Sleeth (IPilogue Editor)

On January 21, the WHO 130th WHO Executive Board (EB) adopted a resolution for agenda item 6.13 “substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit medical products” [SFFC]. The resolution is intended to address the growing prevalence of and the health risks associated with “deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled” pharmaceuticals.

The problem of SFFCs has been recognized by WHO as having a broad international impact. All varieties of medication are at risk of being counterfeited and this concern applies to both brand name and generic drugs. The results of fake packaging and improper ingredients include unsuccessful treatment as well as accidental consumption of toxic substances.

While it is difficult to paint an accurate statistical picture of the SFFC problem due to the constant evolution of illegal techniques and distribution methods, the WHO notes that the problem is most prevalent in developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and that less than 1% of the market value is from industrialized countries.  This dichotomy is evidenced by a number of the contributory factors cited by WHO. First of all, the high costs of medication often drive consumers to seek cheaper illegal sources. Similarly, in many developing nations, supplies at regular health facilities are often limited and illegal suppliers may be the only alternative option. Further, many jurisdictions lack legislation to combat SFFCs and are unable to address the increasing issues arising from the growth of international trade.

The WHO resolution aims to promote the “fundamental role of WHO in ensuring the availability of quality, safe and efficacious medical products.” Thus, the goal of the resolution is effectively to target the contributory factors and recognize how these factors shape the situation in developing countries. The resolution advocates for a “global strategy” involving public health, innovation and intellectual property. Part of this strategy is intended to address the lack of sufficient financing which is presently hindering WHO’s progress in combating SFFCs.

The resolution also outlines a mechanism through which all member states may take part in combating SFFCs. This mechanism reflects the contribution of international trade to the increasing prevalence of counterfeit medicine by stressing the importance of international collaboration regarding sharing of information and best practices. The intended result is to strengthen both regional and national supply chains, particularly in developing nations. In order to achieve this, existing WHO structures will be incorporated, as well as regional and subsidiary groups. The overarching perspective is to be that of a public health initiative, however, as opposed to being one of trade or intellectual property.

The resolution will be submitted for approval to the 65th World Health Assembly scheduled to meet in Geneva next May.

 

Nora Sleeth is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. 

Posted in IP, Pharmaceutical Drugs

One Response to “WHO Resolution Intended to Address Global Counterfeit Drug Market”

  1. Pharma & Biotech Global Week in Review 29 Feb 2012 from IP Think Tank, on February 29, 2012 at 9:56 am Said:

    [...] WHO resolution intended to address global counterfeit drug market (IP Osgoode) [...]

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« TPP: The Shape of the New International IP Regime | Advocate-General’s Gumption Could Keep the ‘Fun’ in Computer Functions »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • Who Inherits Your Likes?
  • Game of Thones – Piracy is Coming
  • AEREO, Cable, What’s The Difference?
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (158)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (15)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (54)
  • events (88)
  • Fashion Industry (22)
  • Feature Post (206)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1242)
    • Copyright (617)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (79)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (157)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (15)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (104)
      • Originality (33)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (37)
    • Patents (381)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (75)
    • Trademarks (243)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (176)
    • Canada (80)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (74)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (85)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (64)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (34)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (4)
  • WIPO (16)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736