Brussels, 12/04/2001 (Agence Europe) - Whilst European public opinion still does not understand the attitude of 42 businesses which have taken legal action in South Africa, whilst the European Parliament has vigorously taken a position in favour of the poorest having access to medicines and whilst the European Commission, through Commissioner Lamy, have confirmed the right of developing countries to use waivers to the TRIPs agreement to produce locally medicines in particular to combat AIDS, the European pharmaceutical industry remains desperately inactive. The issue was well and truly at the heart of the latest meeting of the Board of the European Association for the Pharmaceutical Industry (EFPIA), but the meeting failed to come up with any results whatsoever.
Entangled in a public debate which they are not used to, exasperated by the unilateral initiatives of their colleagues who on the one hand sign an agreement with the Secretary General of the United Nations for a price reduction and which makes medicines available to the poorest countries (five laboratories - Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Hoffman-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline - signed an agreement with Mr Annan on 5 April) or who on the other hand allow the rumour to circulate that they may well withdraw from the South African trial, the laboratory representatives left the meeting convinced that something would need to be done but without managing to agree on a communication strategy. And yet, when he was made the new president of the EFPIA, Jean-François Dehecq had given the impression that he wanted to renew the communication policy (he had notably underlined the importance people who work in the sector attach to saving human lives) and openly address the real economic and scientific challenges which industry must take up. But the fact is that he has not yet succeeded in dusting off an institution which, as others representations of European industry, has a poor image which impacts on the whole sector.
However, the arguments are there. There are plenty of them, even if everyone can agree on the need to find solutions allowing the poorest to have access to medicines and care just as the rich populations of developed countries do. In the case of South Africa, you are within your rights to question the good faith of a government whose shortcomings in public health are legion. More generally, it is surprising to expect the pharmaceutical industry to solve health problems in developing countries on its own and at its own cost, when the farming industry has never been asked to feed the most impoverished people for free. Some estimates say that the annual cost for treating people infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is at least 8.75 billion euros (a figure calculated on the basis of prices aligned on the least expensive generic medicinal products). By way of comparison, the European Development Fund, to which the fifteen member states of the EU contribute, is only 13.5 billion euros over a five to seven year period (depending on how quickly the money is used up) for aid to development provided for the whole of the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific area. Various solutions have been put forward, from an international solidarity fund (a system which is already operating for vaccines) to a mechanism of differentiated prices, but there is no guarantee that the medicines then made available to the poorest countries are not finally re-exported to Western countries, with a real risk of a reduction in the industry's investment capacity for research. These arguments have been widely developed by an industry representative, who wishes to remain anonymous, and is quick to add that "the pharmaceutical industry cannot afford to question other sectors or state that the political decision-makers are mistaken".