MINISTRY OF HEALTH
With reference to the report by the White House Trade Office (USTR), made
public today 1st May in Brazil, we must point out the following:
First of all, it is necessary to point out clearly that if any country of
the Americas deserves to be called protectionist, it is certainly the
United States of America, which resorts to all manner of non-tariff
barriers in order to obstruct Latin American exports from entering its
market.
As far as Brazil is concerned, we recall the absurd discrimination that
our steel and orange juice exports are suffering. It is worth also
recalling the protectionist subsidies that the American Government awards
to its agricultural sector and its inefficient steel industry.
Brazil does not, and indeed would not know how to, resort to non-tariff
barriers. And the most significant proof of this is the fact that we have
been shouldering huge trade deficits with the United States since the
middle of the last decade.
In fact, in pharmaceutical drugs industry matters, the White House Trade
Office (USTR) is defending neither free trade nor competition. All it is
doing is to defend the self-interest of an industry, which has a
disproportionate influence on the Bush administration.
It is important not to confuse the interests of large firms, that the USTR
is defending in this particular case, with the doctrine of free trade.
It is of course well known that the USTR specialises in the defence of the
interests of the American economy and not in global free trade.
Our Patents Law adheres scrupulously to the guidelines of the World Trade
Organisation of which the United States is a signatory. This law sets
forth two options for compulsory licensing. The first applies when the
production of a particular drug is not carried out in Brazil after a
period of three years has elapsed. The other is when the prices of certain
patented drugs are considered abusive.
The first measure has not been employed to date. It should at this point
be noted that the United States has a similar measure in its own
legislation but, as usual, the United States does not wish other countries
to adopt legal measures that the United States has already adopted in
defence of its own interests.
The second measure has not been used either, but the simple fact that we
might be prepared to do so has led to a number of foreign laboratories to
lower their prices, as is the case of Merk -Sharp, which reduced the price
of two AIDS drugs for Brazil by two and a half times. This has resulted in
a saving for Brazil of $US 40 million per annum.
What is also bothering the USTR is Brazil's policy of producing generic
drugs. This is a policy which also exists in the United States. But it is
obvious that the United States is less than happy when other countries do
the same.
The USTR is not happy either with Brazil's policy of price-maintenance of
pharmaceutical drugs, although again similar policies are followed in the
United States, where forty states are at this very moment discussing ways
of restricting price abuse. In Brazil, we are effectively doing nothing
that the United States is not doing itself.
The production of drugs to control AIDS helps us to save as much as $US200
million per year on purchases from abroad, without trampling upon any
patent law.
Finally, it is completely out of order for the Government of the United
States to make judgements on the Brazilian AIDS programme, which is
considered to be one of the best - if not the very best - in the whole
world, by the United Nations, the World Bank and the American press, as
demonstrated recently by commentary in The New York Times.
This programme is what it is thanks to the determination of the government
of Fernado Henrique Cardoso to bring down the costs of these drugs. And
we intend to continue to go ahead with this. There is no way that the
Brazilian Government will retreat on this issue. The United States is not
at all accustomed to Latin American countries also defending their own
interests.
JOSE SERRA
Brazilian Minister of Health
MASS MEDIA UNIT
Journalism Division