The real story behind drug importations
Calgary Herald
The real story behind drug importations
An April 20 Herald editorial entitled, Use of unapproved drugs violates sound process, appeared to sound the alarm that farmers were importing $100-million worth of unapproved drugs for their animals with the implication they were growth-promoting antibiotics and possibly endangering the food supply. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For those of us involved with the real story, we could only wince at such twisting of the facts. It boggles the mind to think that livestock producers would endanger the food supply — there is no benefit in harming your customers, never mind the liability consequences.
The editorial refers to an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal as the source of its information on unapproved drug importations. The implication being that anything written in such a lofty publication must be correct. Alas, those writing in such media are just as human as the rest of us and capable of injecting their own spin and misconceptions into a story.
Upon research one discovers a different story. The $100-million worth of drugs is not what it seems. The Canadian Animal Health Institute, a pharmaceutical industry lobby group with a vested financial interest in stopping the imports, admitted that the actual figure is unknown. The amount quoted from a study is called an opportunity lost value, in other words, it was picked out of the air. The actual figure could be $50 million or even $10 million, no one knows, but $100 million does look more scary.
One assumes from the editorial that the so-called unapproved importations are all antibiotics. That’s not the case, the importations includes millions of dollars worth of anti-parasite compounds to control internal worms. Those products tend not to get headlines in editorials.
It also turns out the study included the importation of active pharmaceutical ingredients by companies called compounders that then produced antimicrobials mainly for use by pets. It seems farmers would have a limited role in such importations.
So what is the real story of these unapproved drug importations? The issue has its genesis with a federal agency charged with approving the importation of animal health products into Canada. This agency requires that all products must go through a costly process that can take years. The irony is that the same products have already been approved for use in the U.S. and Europe.
The Canadian approval process is essentially redundant when Health Canada allows the importation of food products into Canada that were produced with animal health products that it has not approved.
A special importation provision allows producers to import products directly. Now these importations are not necessary because most of the imports are already available in Canada.
So what is the fuss all about? The issue boils down to similar products and generic versions being available in the U.S. and Europe at half the price. When all the spin and fearmongering is cleared away, that’s the real story.
As expected, pharmaceutical companies that sell higher-priced versions of similar products and ingredients are not pleased with this competition and seek to stop livestock producers and anyone else, for that matter, from importing less-expensive products. Their clever lobbying efforts found fertile ground in the minds of writers who saw a fearmongering angle to spin an interesting story.
There is a concern that some products and ingredients are being imported from China and may pose a danger due to quality. If that is a concern, it should be dealt with. However, the U.S. and Western Europe are not Third World countries and health products approved in those countries should be allowed to be imported freely.
What is entirely unfair and misleading is to allege that livestock producers are wilfully exploiting a loophole that could endanger food safety. To further allege that this matter is being protected by a federal committee dominated by the livestock industry is also completely false. Of the 13 members of the committee, only three are from the industry.
The reality is that this issue has very little to do with health and everything to do with economics and bureaucratic obstruction.