Tag Archives: Counterfeit

Growing menace of counterfeit drugs in India: why is the domestic pharmaceutical industry still so apprehensive with the new Amendments of the ACT?

Posted on by
Reply
The growing menace of Counterfeit drugs has remained a serious threat to the healthcare space of India.
Do we have any credible data to assess the magnitude of this menace in India?

No we do not have, as yet. At this stage, the magnitude of the problem is anybody’s guess. Earlier a study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) and conducted by SEARPharm reported that only 0.3% drugs were spurious and 3% of drugs were counterfeits.

Government of India has initiated the largest study in the world to quantify the problem:

To scientifically assess the magnitude of the problem in terms of real size of counterfeit drugs market in India , the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) India’s, for the first time ever, has initiated one of the largest studies in the world, as reported by the Times of India May 14, 2008.

The study has already identified 61 popular drug brands from nine therapeutic categories for testing 24000 samples. These include drugs prescribed for tuberculosis, malaria, allergic disorders, diabetes cardiovascular conditions, vitamins etc. This study is expected to cost 50 million rupees or about U.S$1.0 million and is expected to be published, soon.

Making provisions for stricter penalties through amendment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:

To bring into effect stricter penalties for those involved in counterfeit drugs, the process of amendment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was proposed by the Ministry of Health in October, 2007. These amendments are expected to make the drug-related offences, cognisable and non-bailable.

The latest amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 became a law in 2008. The punishment for selling or distributing spurious drugs, which are likely to cause death and grievous hurt to the patients, is now imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and fine not less than Rs 10 lakh or three times the value of drugs confiscated, whichever is more.

The Minister of Health of India announced in November 2008, that with this amendment the Government of India will “go all out to do away with spurious drugs.”

India working closely with WHO Anti-counterfeiting Taskforce:

India being a part of ‘International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce’ (IMPACT), established under WHO in 2006, decided to work together to combat the growing menace of counterfeit medicines.

The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) was reported to have several discussions with the convenor of the IMPACT to effectively address the issue of such serious threats to the patients at large. Many people believe that China and India are the main source of counterfeit drugs in the world.

Apprehensions of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry with new Amendments in the Law:

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry although welcomed the stricter punitive provisions in the law, expressed its apprehensions due to lack of clear demarcation between the definitions of spurious drugs and those which can lose their original potency because of improper transportation and storage.

If the law-enforcing authorities pick up such medicines from retail outlets, those can easily get categorised as spurious medicines under Section 17A and 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Consequently the concerned manufacturers could be put behind bars with, presumably, no fault at their end.

While stringent punishment is essential for those involved in such heinous crime, the Government should take enough measures to ensure that genuine drug manufacturers are not harassed by the law enforcing authorities, as the courts will have no judicial discretion to award less than minimum punishment, as prescribed under this Act.

Need for clear guidelines for implementation of the amended ACT:

To allay the major apprehension of the industry regarding possible misuse of some provisions of the Act, the Ministry of Health is expected to work out and quickly announce clear guidelines for implementation of the act by the law enforcement agencies in different parts of India.

Will this amendment help to win the fight against counterfeit drugs?

Only time will be able to give that answer. However, by amending the Act, the Government of India has demonstrated its resolve to address the threat of counterfeit drugs with iron hand. Through enunciation of above guidelines, all concerned are expected to be taken on board to effectively curb, if not totally eliminate this growing menace, for the sake of humanity.

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

The heated debate on WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs is now on a ‘pause’ – A time to evaluate the reasons for supporting and opposing it.

Posted on by
Reply
The World Health Organisation (WHO), in December 2008, proposed the following new definition, as prepared by the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce (IMPACT):“A medical product is counterfeit when there is a false representation in relation to its identity and/or source. This applies to the product, its container or other packaging or labeling information. Counterfeiting can apply to both branded and generic products. Counterfeits may include products with correct ingredients/components, with wrong ingredients/components, without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake packaging.”This definition, indeed, created a furor in India. The Ministry of Health of the Government of India initiated discussions, on this issue, with the stakeholders and by mid-January, 2009 a consensus was arrived at between the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the generic industry on much debated definition of counterfeit drugs. It was reported that the Government had decided to place this definition before the World Health Organisation (WHO) in its next meeting on the subject. The consensus definition, after the above meeting, was reported as follows:

“A medical product (medicine, vaccine, diagnostics and medical implants/devices) is counterfeit when it is deliberately and fraudulently mislabelled with respect to its identity and/or source. Counterfeit can apply to components with wrong ingredients/components without active ingredients, with incorrect amounts of active ingredients, or with fake package”

In end-January 2009, although it was reported that under pressure from the developing countries like, India, WHO has dropped this new definition, it is very likely that the initiative is now just on a ‘pause’ mode.

Let us now try to explore the ‘Eye’ of this stormy debate and its relevance to India. The ‘eye’ of the storm lies mainly within the following 3 key concerns of the opponents of the definition:

1. False representation of identity and source applies not only to labeling but also to the ‘product,
its container or other packaging’
2. The new definition could include Intellectual Property Right (IPR) issues and as a cosequence of
which, Indian generics could run into the risk of being branded as counterfeit
3. Removal of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ from the original definition and replacing them
with ‘false representation’ will shift the burden of proof

In India, the share of voice of those opposing this definition was undoubtedly much more than those who were supporting it. However, the rationale for supporting the definition, in Indian context, appears to be much stronger than opposing it.

While arguing on this point, I am of the view that most of the apprehensions expressed above have been abundantly clarified in the definitions of Misbranded drugs (section 17), and Spurious drugs (Section 17 B) of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Let us now have a quick look at the Section 17 and Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to find out whether the WHO IMPACT definition is way off the definitions for Misbranded and Spurious drugs as indicated in the above Act.

“Section 17. Misbranded drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be misbranded –

(a) If it is so coloured, coated, powdered or polished that damage is concealed or if it is made to appear of better or greater therapeutic value than it really is; or

(b) If it is not labelled in the prescribed manner ; or

(c) If its label or container or anything accompanying the drug bears any statement, design or device which makes any false claim for the drug or which is false or misleading in any particular.”

Does Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 answer the ‘concern 1’ above?

“Section 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious

(a) If it is manufactured under a name which belongs to another drug; or

(b) If it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug; or

(c) If the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist; or

(d) If it has been substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance; or

(e) If it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product.”

Does Section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics, 1940 Act answer the ‘concern 2′ above?

The ‘concern 3’ above deals with shifting the ‘burden of proof’ with replacement of the words ‘fraudulent and deliberate’ by ‘false representation’. Many legal experts opine that this change will only mean that “criminal intent (fraudulent and deliberate) shall be considered during the legal procedures for the purpose of sanctions.”

What could then possibly be the reasons for opposing the revised WHO IMPACT definition of Counterfeit Drugs in India, especially when we have similar definition in place in our own Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940? Does it make sense for the Government to reinvent the wheel? Who knows?

By Tapan Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.