abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapelocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewprofilerefreshnewssearchsecurityPathtagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Esta página não está disponível em Português e está sendo exibida em English

História

Allegations of pharmaceutical group's planned opposition to So. Africa reforms to increase access to medicines

In January 2014, the Innovative Pharmaceutical Association of South Africa (IPASA) was accused of planning and funding an advocacy campaign on behalf of its member companies. The campaign allegedly sought to oppose South Africa’s efforts to introduce intellectual property law reforms that would allow for patents belonging to IPASA’s member companies to be limited, and for cheaper generic versions to be produced.

In a leaked email, Merck and other members of IPASA discussed the strategy.

Media items on the IPASA campaign:

 

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited IPASA and its member companies to respond:

Members companies' responses & non-responses:

  • Abbott [We have invited Abbott to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • Abbvie [We have invited Abbvie to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • Alcon (part of Novartis) Novartis responded [PDF] on behalf of itself and Alcon
  • Allergan did not respond
  • Amgen [We have invited Amgen to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • AstraZeneca response [PDF]
  • Baxter response [PDF]
  • Bayer response [PDF]
  • Boehringer-Ingelheim response [PDF]
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb referred us to IPASA
  • Covidien [We have invited Covidien to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • Eli Lilly [We have invited Eli Lilly to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • Ferring [We have invited Ferring to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • Galderma response [PDF]
  • GE Health reffered us to IPASA
  • Johnson & Johnson response [PDF]
  • Merck (MSD) response [PDF]
  • Novartis response [PDF]
  • Novo Nordisk response [PDF] indicates it resigned from IPASA following campaign proposal:
  • Norgine [We have invited Norgine to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • Pfizer referred us to IPASA
  • Roche response [PDF] indicates it resigned from IPASA following campaign proposal
  • Sanofi-Aventis [We have invited Sanofi-Aventis to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • Servier [We have invited Servier to respond and will indicate here whether it responds]
  • Takeda referred us to IPASA

 

Novo Nordisk and Roche resigned from IPASA:

Respostas da empresa

Abbott Laboratories

Sem resposta

AbbVie

Sem resposta

Allergan Ver resposta
Amgen

Sem resposta

AstraZeneca Ver resposta
Baxter International Ver resposta
Bayer Ver resposta
Boehringer Ingelheim Ver resposta
Bristol-Myers Squibb Ver resposta
Covidien Ver resposta
Eli Lilly Ver resposta
Ferring Pharmaceuticals

Sem resposta

Galderma Ver resposta
GE Health (part of General Electric) Ver resposta
Johnson & Johnson Ver resposta
Merck Ver resposta
Norgine Pharmaceuticals Ver resposta
Novartis Ver resposta
Novo Nordisk (part of Novo Group) Ver resposta
Pfizer Ver resposta
Sanofi

Sem resposta

Servier

Sem resposta

Takeda Pharmaceutical Ver resposta

Story Timeline