Forced Trade Agreements
As I recall, Miss Hungry had announced that the theme of her blog for April would be "free" trade agreements. This is an article which notes the growing recognition of the impacts on public health that result from the changes to national intellectual property laws often required by such agreements.
First paragraph:
"More than 1,200 farmers, slum dwellers and HIV/Aids patients from 30 civic groups staged a six-kilometre walkathon yesterday from a temple in Jomthien to the Royal Cliff Beach Hotel to drive home their demand that intellectual property rights (IPR) be removed from free trade talks with the United States."
Helpful context:
[Click blue-ellipsis for more!]
1. All countries that are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been required to adapt their laws to conform with the provisions of the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property rightS (TRIPS) agreement.
Most developing countries view the level of intellectual property protection set out by TRIPS as a "ceiling", or new maximum level of protection for which they will be held accountable.
This is a very valid perspective since 1) switching from no-protection (as some countries did not have laws) to honoring patents for 20 years (which TRIPS sets as the international standard) already represents a significant change that will have a big impact on public health and technological development, and 2) WTO won't take punitive action on countries for not including terms beyond those specified by TRIPS.
The US, however, in negotiating "free" trade agreements, has consistently treated the TRIPS-standards as a minimum "floor" on top of which developing countries should be expected to build even stronger protective provisions.
Naturally, as illustrated above, this has led to a lot of contention, especially because some of the terms sought by the US are contrary to the spirit of the Doha Declaration, which represents the official interpretation of ways that countries may adapt TRIPS to make sure that intellectual property laws won't hamper their ability to effectively address important public health needs.
Since TRIPS itself already represents a major concession to the priorities of developed countries, adding "TRIPS-Plus" requirements would shift the balance even further from the level of protection most aligned with the priorities of developing countries.
2. The push for stronger data exclusivity provisions by the US (not only in this instance, but also in the Central American Free Trade Agreement that is currently being negotiated, as well as other previous agreements) is an important issue because it would extend the time-delay required before generic drug makers can rely on data that was previously submitted to marketing-approval authorities by the brand-name companies that developed the original patented-version of a drug, rather than having to fund a whole new set of trials on their own (which the generic companies would have trouble affording).
This delay (usually five years) would effectively extend a patent-holder's market monopology years past the expiration of the patent, and thereby set back the production of generic drugs for years as well.
Translation: BIG consequences for populations desperate for cheap and plentiful treatments for AIDS and other diseases.
...
Any questions, class?
First paragraph:
"More than 1,200 farmers, slum dwellers and HIV/Aids patients from 30 civic groups staged a six-kilometre walkathon yesterday from a temple in Jomthien to the Royal Cliff Beach Hotel to drive home their demand that intellectual property rights (IPR) be removed from free trade talks with the United States."
Helpful context:
[Click blue-ellipsis for more!]
1. All countries that are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have been required to adapt their laws to conform with the provisions of the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property rightS (TRIPS) agreement.
Most developing countries view the level of intellectual property protection set out by TRIPS as a "ceiling", or new maximum level of protection for which they will be held accountable.
This is a very valid perspective since 1) switching from no-protection (as some countries did not have laws) to honoring patents for 20 years (which TRIPS sets as the international standard) already represents a significant change that will have a big impact on public health and technological development, and 2) WTO won't take punitive action on countries for not including terms beyond those specified by TRIPS.
The US, however, in negotiating "free" trade agreements, has consistently treated the TRIPS-standards as a minimum "floor" on top of which developing countries should be expected to build even stronger protective provisions.
Naturally, as illustrated above, this has led to a lot of contention, especially because some of the terms sought by the US are contrary to the spirit of the Doha Declaration, which represents the official interpretation of ways that countries may adapt TRIPS to make sure that intellectual property laws won't hamper their ability to effectively address important public health needs.
Since TRIPS itself already represents a major concession to the priorities of developed countries, adding "TRIPS-Plus" requirements would shift the balance even further from the level of protection most aligned with the priorities of developing countries.
2. The push for stronger data exclusivity provisions by the US (not only in this instance, but also in the Central American Free Trade Agreement that is currently being negotiated, as well as other previous agreements) is an important issue because it would extend the time-delay required before generic drug makers can rely on data that was previously submitted to marketing-approval authorities by the brand-name companies that developed the original patented-version of a drug, rather than having to fund a whole new set of trials on their own (which the generic companies would have trouble affording).
This delay (usually five years) would effectively extend a patent-holder's market monopology years past the expiration of the patent, and thereby set back the production of generic drugs for years as well.
Translation: BIG consequences for populations desperate for cheap and plentiful treatments for AIDS and other diseases.
...
Any questions, class?
posted by L'el at 1:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home