Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 33
2
Core Elements of Regulatory Systems
Having safe food and medical products is a cornerstone of public health
around the world. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protects
U.S. consumers from tainted products, and increasingly it works with
its counterpart agencies abroad to the same ends. Before identifying the
common gaps in developing country food and medical product regulatory
systems, and before making a strategy to bridge these gaps, the committee
identified the core elements of a functional regulatory system. The commit-
tee concluded that the most basic elements of a regulatory system are the
same around the world. Therefore, the core elements of regulatory systems
are the same in developed and developing countries. This chapter describes
these elements as well as the minimal pieces necessary for an effective food
and medical product regulatory system.
There is more than one right way to organize a regulatory system. In
its analysis, the committee considered a number of different policy and
administrative tools governments can use to ensure the safe manufacture,
labeling, distribution, and marketing of food and medical products. While
the mechanisms employed can vary between countries, effective regulatory
programs have a number of common characteristics.
This chapter lays out the characteristics and practical elements of a
good regulatory system. It also describes the minimal elements necessary
to ensure food and medical product safety. It provides an overview of the
organization of food and medical product regulatory systems in develop-
ing countries, paying special attention to the importance of harmonized
standards in these countries. The importance of international cooperation
among regulators is introduced; the committee will concentrate on this
33
OCR for page 34
34 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
theme throughout the report. This chapter ends with a discussion of two
important points of international cooperation: the use of risk and hazard
analysis in food safety and the regulation of active pharmaceutical ingre-
dients (APIs).
COMMON ATTRIBUTES OF EFFECTIVE
REGULATORY PROGRAMS
The first step in understanding the core elements of food and medi-
cal product regulatory systems is identifying the underlying attributes of
successful systems. The committee identified five main characteristics of
good systems: they should be responsive, outcome-oriented, predictable,
risk-proportionate, and independent. These attributes are consistent with
those outlined in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on
the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), especially
in their emphasis on the protection of human, plant, and animal health
without the application of regulations that would “arbitrarily or unjustifi-
ably discriminate between countries where identical or similar conditions
prevail” (WTO, 1998). Similarly, the WTO relies on a scientific evidence
base for decision making. Its preference is to use international standards
whenever possible, but does allow countries to set their own standards so
long as their standards comply with the basic tenets of the WTO rules.
The major attributes the committee identified are common to all highly
functioning regulatory systems. These attributes are not the system’s main
duties, which will be discussed later, but are scientific and philosophical
underpinnings of a robust system.
Responsive
The responsiveness of a regulatory system involves two related func-
tions. The first is the ability to respond rapidly to a crisis. The regulatory
system should be able to contain and correct any product safety lapse that
has occurred, minimizing the health effects. Responsiveness also includes
the ability of the system to promptly modify its policies. Responsive regu-
lation keeps pace with the emergence of new hazards, changes in technol-
ogy, expanding evidence base, and evolving consumer expectations. This
attribute also includes the ability of the system to stay up-to-date and
knowledgeable about new science. Responsiveness refers to the ability of
the regulatory agency to continually expand its knowledge base, to be a
learning organization that has internal scientific depth and effective collabo-
ration with academics, and to draw on the technical and business expertise
of regulated industry.
OCR for page 35
35
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
Outcome Orientation
A robust regulatory system focuses on product safety outcomes, not on
the details of how to arrive at the outcomes. That is not to say that a strong
system is not concerned with process. On the contrary, strong regulatory
systems often stipulate manufacturing standards and inspection processes.
Rather, the outcome-oriented system issues regulations that do not get in
the way of innovation. Furthermore, in an outcome-oriented system, indus-
try has a clear avenue to petition the regulatory authority to use alternative
processes, and this process is not unduly onerous. An outcome-oriented reg-
ulatory agency has the scientific expertise to be abreast of changes in food
and medical product technology and the modern equipment to analyze it.
Predictable
The regulatory agency has a clear framework guaranteeing that the
regulators’ decisions are neither arbitrary nor capricious. Predictable regu-
latory systems make their procedures readily available to the public. The
rules are applied consistently, enforced fairly, and are based on the best sci-
entific evidence available at the time of the decision. Predictability assumes
a level playing field and describes a function in the regulatory system that
is vigilant against bias. A fair and predictable system does not work for or
against large industry or small industry; regulations are applied the same
way to imported and domestic products.
Proportional
A proportional or risk-based system allocates controls based on threat
to public health: product lapses with serious health consequences are moni-
tored stringently, while those with few or insignificant risks receive less
attention. Products with similar risks are regulated in similar ways. Propor-
tionality depends first and foremost on the ability of the regulatory agency
to assess risk. It also assumes that the agency will consider a cost-benefit
analysis when measuring the impact of potential risk management options.
A proportional regulatory system actively sets priorities ensuring that the
agencies’ programs give the most attention to the most pressing public
health threats.
Independent
Regulatory policies are the combination of scientific decisions and soci-
etal expectations. This is especially true of the system’s legislative oversight.
However, once its legal authority is set, the agency functions best when it
OCR for page 36
36 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
is independent of the political process. The predictability of a regulatory
system also relies on independence: regulated industry cannot predict how
and when regulations will be enforced if the enforcer changes every time
the political regime does. Consumer trust depends on independence. The
public needs to know that the agency is devoted to its best interests and is
not unduly influenced by politics or money.
Approaches to Regulation
Good food and medical product regulation strikes a balance between
protecting public health and not unfairly restricting market access. To this
end, governments need to ensure that companies comply with regulations,
but governments do not function alone. Industry, academia, and consumers
give important feedback to the regulatory system, which includes the legal
and health systems. The best regulatory model is one that engages all
stakeholders. Box 2-1 describes approaches to food and medical product
regulation that emphasize the role of consumers and regulated industry.
CORE ELEMENTS OF A STRONG REGULATORY SYSTEM
Responsiveness, outcome orientation, predictability, proportionality,
and independence are the underpinnings of strong food and medical prod-
uct regulatory systems. A regulatory system grounded in these values will
be able to execute its core responsibilities. The main duties of a medical
product regulatory system are: the registering of medicines; the publishing
of clear requirements for licensure; the provision of unbiased informa-
tion; market entry notification; safety and effectiveness surveillance; quality
control testing; the inspecting of manufacturers for compliance with good
manufacturing practices; inspection of distributors; and the evaluation of
performance through authorized trials (WHO, 1999, 2001, 2003a). In coun-
tries that manufacture vaccines, the regulatory authority is also responsible
for the systematic lot release of the vaccine (WHO, 1999). The main duties
of a food regulatory system are: providing unbiased education and advice
to all stakeholders; inspecting food production and processing plants; evalu-
ating hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) plans; physical,
chemical, and microbiological analysis of food and food additives; and
epidemiological surveillance (FAO/WHO, 2003). Essentially, the regulatory
system is an important piece of the public health system. By providing manu-
facturers and producers with unbiased information, guaranteeing the use of
best practices, and inspecting producers and manufacturers, the regulatory
authority protects the safety of food and medical products.
The committee also identified the core elements of a food and medi-
cal product regulatory authority system, as described in Box 2-2. Whether
OCR for page 37
37
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
BOX 2-1
Approaches to Regulation
Informational Approaches
One technique for ensuring strong product safety regulation is edu-
cation. An informational approach directly educates the consumer on
product safety and assumes that consumers will use this information
to make the best decisions for themselves. This approach assumes that
having more information, particularly about the concealed characteristics
of products, will cause people to change their behavior and buy safe
products (IOM, 2006). Governments, industry, academia, or other orga-
nizations can provide this information, although the British government’s
Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills explains that consumer
education is best done by non-governmental organizations, leaving the
government free to enforce regulations (BIS, 2011a). Labeling, warnings,
and safety rating systems are important tools in informational regulation
(BIS, 2011a; Sunstein, 2011).
Market Approaches
Market approaches to regulation use monetary rewards and punish-
ments to modify behavior. Market regulation gives government control
of the final regulatory action while putting industry in charge of the
route there. Proponents of the market approach maintain that market
controls also empower consumers to make their own cost-benefit esti-
mates and choose products based on these decisions. Taxes on products
with negative externalities, such as soft drinks, are a market approach to
regulation. Bonded warranties are another market tool sometimes used
in food and drug regulation to ensure product safety (BIS, 2011b; Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2003).
Regulated Standards
Government regulatory authorities choose and enforce product stan-
dards based on scientific evidence. They use either performance standards
or design standards. Performance standards set the final product require-
ments, but do not mandate the techniques industry must use to meet
these standards. Design standards dictate the means as well as the end
product of the product requirements. Proponents of performance stan-
dards explain that they encourage innovation, while advocates of design
standards emphasize the process as much as the product (IOM, 2006;
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2003).
OCR for page 38
38 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
BOX 2-2
Core Elements of a Food and Medical Product
Regulatory System
Government is the foundation for a strong regulatory system. As the
national standard-setting body, governments:
• u
se science and risk as a basis for developing policy;
• p
articipate in international cooperation and harmonization of standards;
• m
ake ethical decisions; and
• r
ecognize, collect, and transmit evidence when breaches of law occur.
A food and medical product regulatory system integrates:
• roduct safety through good manufacturing, clinical, laboratory, and
p
agricultural practices;
• taff development and training for employees;
s
• onitoring and evaluation of product quality using laboratories;
m
• nspection and surveillance of products throughout the supply chain;
i
• isk assessment, analysis, and management; and
r
• mergency response.
e
Protecting the public’s health is crucial in a food and medical product
regulatory system. The system needs to quickly communicate informa-
tion to the public in emergencies to ensure the public’s safety.
SOURCES: Ratanawijitrasin and Wondemagegnehu, 2002; WHO, 2003a;
WHO Regional Committee for Africa, 2006.
some or all of the core elements noted in Box 2-2 are part of a country’s
regulatory system depends heavily on wealth and infrastructure. It is diffi-
cult for companies to manage their supply chains without reliable transpor-
tation systems, for example. Political will to enforce product safety laws can
also be variable. A more detailed analysis of the issues developing country
regulators face in implementing safety controls follows in Chapter 3.
MINIMAL ELEMENTS OF A REGULATORY SYSTEM
The ideal regulatory system described above depends on funding, infra-
structure, workforce, and political commitment. One or more of these is
usually missing in low- and middle-income countries (Brown et al., 2006).
With this in mind, the committee also identified the minimal elements of
a regulatory system that protects public health and ensures product safety.
OCR for page 39
39
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
The minimal elements of regulation should be the top priority for develop-
ing countries trying to build product safety systems.
A Rule-Making System
The minimal requirements outlined in Box 2-3 focus on the process
regulators use to make regulations and on the data they use to enforce
them. An open rule-making system ensures that people governed by a new
regulation have a chance to publically comment on it (U.S. Department of
State, 2011). Through an open rule-making process, consumers and indus-
try are informed of proposed food and medical product regulations before
they take effect. An open system for rule making involves stakeholders in
a regulatory dialogue and lays the groundwork for risk communication.
For example, a rule-making process is critical to establishing effective
food safety laws. In many developing countries there are food safety rules
in place, but there is a lack of processes to ensure their implementation and
effectiveness. In Canada, the European Union (EU), and the United States,
rule processes have been established to assess risks, analyze cost-benefit
and cost-effectiveness, and assess the environmental impact of food safety
regulations (European Commission, 2011; Federal Crop Insurance Reform
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-354;
B OX 2-3
M inimal Elements of a Regulatory System
At a minimum, a food and medical product regulatory system should
include:
• n established process for rule making;
a
• protocol to coordinate work within and across the agencies respon-
a
sible for regulation, especially during a crisis;
• system for stakeholder public comment on regulations and the
a
review process;
• way to identify when a regulatory action is necessary; and
a
• means to enforce its regulations.
a
To this end, regulators need to have surveillance data and understand
their data sources. They should also have a strong enough understanding
of their system’s weaknesses that they can identify data gaps and know
what assumptions to make about unknowable data and when to rely on
the private sector for additional information. Crisis early warning systems
are invaluable tools to make the most of limited surveillance data.
OCR for page 40
40 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
Health Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2007; National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91-190). Many developing countries
including China, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Thailand are in the
process of reorganizing their food safety systems (Fairclough, 2009; FAO,
2004; Ramos and Oblepias, 2002; Smart, 2011; WHO, 2009). Box 2-4
discusses the changes India has made to its food safety rules to develop a
farm-to-table approach.
Openness in rule making is not part of the political tradition in some
countries, particularly those with one-party governments or an authoritar-
ian history (Dalpino, 2000). This is a challenge to the regulation of food
and medical products. By definition, food and medical product safety laws
govern regulated industry; it is imperative that the regulated understand
B OX 2-4
Rule Making in India
In 2006, the Indian government established the Food Safety and
Standards Act. The act “aims to establish a single reference point for all
matters relating to food safety and standards” (Palthur et al., 2009). This
act formed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
FSSAI’s mandate is to consolidate previous food laws, make science-
based food standards, and regulate and monitor the manufacturing,
processing, storage, distribution, sale, and import of foods to ensure safe
food for human consumption (FSSAI, 2011; Palthur et al., 2009).
Although India has made strides to improve its food safety rules,
implementing the rules is difficult. Small-scale producers, who do not
know how to make the changes required by law, cannot comply with
the act (Palthur et al., 2009). Some producers are unclear about the
terms of the act; others simply cannot implement HACCP and good
manufacturing processes. In a 2010 survey of the Indian food processing
sector, 28.51 percent of respondents identified bottlenecks in the imple-
mentation of food safety laws as a concern (FICCI, 2010). Many of the
quality-control laboratories lack proper equipment and reliable power,
complicating the task of surveillance. There are also not nearly enough
of them (Palthur et al., 2009).
In January 2011, the FSSAI published a final draft of the Food Safety
and Standards rules. In the draft, it specifies how to implement the rules
established by the 2006 Food Safety and Standards Act. The new rules
replace the country’s outdated food adulteration rules from 1955 (Singh,
2011). Other changes include the establishment of state-level licensing
authorities, the addition of batch numbers to processed foods for easy
product recalls, laboratory expansion, and the requirement for producers
to have a surveillance plan (Smart, 2011). India is clearly making progress
toward a farm-to-table approach.
OCR for page 41
41
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
the rules governing them. Without a public comment period it is doubtful
manufacturers are even aware of the regulations affecting them. Regulators
are also held back if they cannot receive feedback on their practices from
a range of stakeholders. In the United States, for example, there is an open
comment period where all stakeholders can submit comments on proposed
rules, including those of the FDA (Regulations.gov, 2012).
Involving All Stakeholders
Part of the problem in developing countries is that the food and, to a
lesser extent, the medical products industry are made up of many small pro-
ducers. In China, 80 percent of food producers have fewer than 10 employees
(Roth et al., 2008); India has more than 20,000 drug manufacturers (KPMG
International, 2006). Involving so many stakeholders in public forums is
challenging, especially when the communication system is not strong and the
tradition of two-way comment on law making is not entrenched. Chapter 3
will discuss these gaps in more detail.
Legal Basis to Enforce Regulations
The end goal of an orderly rule-making process that involves industry,
government, consumers, and academics, is to have a set of enforceable regu-
lations. The committee believes that, at a minimum, the regulatory agency
needs to have the legal authority to enforce its rules. To this end, the regu-
lations must be enforceable by the national regulatory authority. Box 2-5
describes the goals of food and medical product legislation. As Chapter 3
describes, many developing countries have problems with enforcing or even
developing coherent product safety laws.
FOOD AND MEDICAL PRODUCT REGULATION
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
There is a continuum of regulatory capacity in the world. On one
end, there are the so-called stringent regulatory agencies of the United
States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, with
high standards and consistent enforcement. These agencies may struggle to
monitor all of their regulated products, especially their imports, but they
are nonetheless considered gold standards for product safety. At the other
end, there are the regulatory agencies of the least developed countries, many
in sub-Saharan Africa and in South and Southeast Asia that may not have a
single food control laboratory or a system for medicines registration, one of
the most basic functions of a drug regulatory authority. In the middle there
are many emerging manufacturing nations including India, China, Brazil,
OCR for page 42
42 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
BOX 2-5
Food and Medical Product Legislation
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) give good guidance on what
a food and medical product legal framework should include. The follow-
ing summary of the role of food and medical product safety legislation
comes from the WHO’s Effective Medicines Regulation: Ensuring Safety,
Efficacy and Quality, and the FAO and WHO’s Assuring Food Quality and
Safety: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food Control Systems.
• S
tate the purpose of regulation;
• D
efine the categories of products and activities to be regulated;
• E
nsure legal provision for the creation of a regulatory authority;
• C
oordinate responsibilities when the regulatory authority includes
more than one agency;
• C
reate mechanisms for ensuring transparency and accountability of
regulation;
• D
efine the roles, responsibilities, rights, and functions of all parties
involved in the manufacture and trade of food and medical products,
and also in the use of medicines;
• S
et the qualifications and standards required for all those who handle
medicines and biologics;
• D
efine the norms, standards, and specifications to be applied in as-
sessing product quality, safety, and (in the case of medicines and
biologics) efficacy;
• I
nclude clear provisions that the primary responsibility for product
safety and quality lies with the producers and processors;
• S
tate the terms and conditions for suspending, revoking, or canceling
activity and product licenses;
• D
efine prohibitions, offenses, penalties, and legal sanctions;
• C
reate mechanisms for government oversight to assess implementa-
tion of regulations;
• R
ecognize the country’s international obligations in relation to trade;
and
• I
nclude provisions for the rights of consumers to have access to accu
rate information.
SOURCES: FAO/WHO, 2003; WHO, 2003b.
South Africa, Mexico, and Thailand, representatives of which the commit-
tee heard from during this study. These countries are leaders in regional
harmonization efforts, but they have problems with training and regulatory
infrastructure. Across low- and middle-income countries there are some
common gaps in the ability to enforce standards, monitor producers for use
OCR for page 43
43
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
of best practices, run surveillance systems, issue product recalls, or respond
to emergencies. Chapter 3 will describe these gaps.
Medical Products Regulatory Oversight
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) Regulatory Policy Committee stressed the importance of regula-
tory oversight bodies in government to ensure fair and quality regulation
(OECD, 2009).
Drug and Vaccine Regulation and WHO Prequalification
Oversight bodies are a core element of proper food and medical products
regulation, yet according to the WHO, less than 20 percent of its 191 mem-
ber states have well-developed drug regulatory agencies (Ratanawijitrasin
and Wondemagegnehu, 2002). In the African region, the WHO found that
only 10 percent of medicines regulatory authorities have a full system in
place (WHO Regional Committee for Africa, 2006). Box 2-6 describes how
South Africa restructured its drug regulatory authority.
In some countries, the WHO Prequalification Programme is an impor-
tant piece of the drug and vaccine regulatory oversight. This program was
established in 2001 to ensure that the medicines supplied by United Nations
(UN) agencies were safe and efficacious (WHO, 2010). The prequalification
process has five steps. First, the WHO or another UN agency invites drug
or vaccine companies to submit a product for prequalification. Products
considered are either on the WHO essential medicines list, applying for
inclusion on the WHO essential medicines list, or recommended for use
in a WHO treatment guideline (WHO, 2010). The manufacturer submits
a dossier on the product’s safety and efficacy, and a team of experts from
regulatory agencies around the world reviews the dossier. Next, inspectors
verify that the factory, laboratories, and research mentioned in the dossier
all meet international best practices. If the manufacturer passes all inspec-
tions, the WHO grants prequalification (WHO, 2010).
Originally, WHO prequalification was granted only to HIV, tuberculo-
sis, and malaria drugs (WHO, 2010). Now UN agencies procure more than
240 medicines, vaccines, and contraceptives through the prequalification
program (WHO, 2010, 2011e). As part of the program, the WHO provides
training for national regulators and for manufacturers from private com-
panies, and improves quality control laboratories in developing countries
(WHO, 2010). In places where the regulatory authority lacks technical
depth, this program is a welcome guarantee of medicines quality.
In countries that manufacture vaccines, WHO prequalification depends
on the country having a competent national regulatory authority (Brhlikova
OCR for page 68
TABLE 2-3 Continued
68
Organization Project Objective Activities Where
• Establish guidelines for national health technology Worldwide
WHO Global initiative on To establish a framework for the
programs
Department of health technologies development of national health
Essential Health technology programs; and to • Develop methodologies to help member states
Technologies support World Health Assembly conduct assessments
resolution 60.29, which urges
• Identify national, international, and global standards
member states to have guide-
for countries to identify their gaps and future needs
lines for good manufacturing
• Create tools to implement gaps in policies
and regulatory practices, to
• Publishes WHO documents on designing and imple-
establish surveillance systems,
menting e ective medical device regulatory systems
and to participate in interna-
tional harmonization (other
major objectives not related to
safety or regulatory capacity
building).
• Partnerships Worldwide
World Bank Incorporated into To assist countries in improv-
– Partner in the African Medicines Regulatory
a wide range of ing the health, nutrition, and
Harmonization Initiative
projects, primarily population outcomes of poor
in its Health, Nutrition people via strengthening the • Research
and Population health care systems and secur-
• Overall HNP strategy includes improving health
(HNP) sector ing sustainable health financing.
governance, health systems strengthening, supply
To protect the most vulner-
chain management, access to medicines
able from the impoverishing
• Country-level investment
e ects of illness, malnutrition,
and high fertility by developing
health policies that enhance the
knowledge, skills, and values
leading to equitable economic
and human development.
OCR for page 69
Organization Project Objective Activities Where
Harmonization and capacity building e orts in: The Americas
PAHO Pan American To maintain a constructive dia-
Network for logue among drug regulatory • Bioequivalence
Drug Regulatory authorities and other stakehold-
• Biotechnological products
harmonization ers, adopt guidelines on spe-
• Counterfeit medicines
cific aspects of regulation, and
• Good clinical, laboratory, and manufacturing practices
promote technical cooperation
among countries. • Medicine manufacturing plants
• Medicines classification and registration
• Pharmacopeia
• Pharmacovigilance
• Vaccines
• Research on harmonization policies and best practices Asia Pacific
APEC APEC Harmonization Increase regulatory harmoniza-
Center tion among member states with • Education and training, including fellowship programs
the goals of supporting access
• Establish strong information exchange networks
to best practices, information
• Maintain online publications
exchange, and clinical trials that
• Develop and disseminate harmonization models
meet international standards
and to improve the quality, • Support international cooperation
safety, and e cacy of medi-
cal products to enhance health
outcomes and facilitate interna-
tional trade.
• GMP training Southeast
ASEAN ACCSQ Pharmaceuti- The harmonization of pharma-
Asia
cal Product Working ceutical regulations to facilitate • Implementation of common technical requirements
Group the goals of the ASEAN Free
• Mutual recognition agreements for GMP inspections
Trade Area, particularly
• Shared postmarket surveillance information
eliminating technical barriers
• Vaccine regulation capacity building
to trade, without compromis-
ing the quality or safety of
medicines.
69
continued
OCR for page 70
TABLE 2-3 Continued
70
Organization Project Objective Activities Where
• Create a collaborative network of regional Sub-Saharan
African Medicines To improve health by increas-
NEPAD, WHO,
regulatory authorities Africa
Regulatory ing access to safe and e ective
World Bank,
medicines of good qual-
Gates Foun- Harmonization • Harmonize technical requirements of medical products
ity through strengthening the
dation, DFID, Initiative and build confidence so that standards are respected
technical and administrative
Clinton Health by participating authorities
capacity of national medicines
Access Initiative
• Establish a framework for joint evaluations of
regulatory authorities.
applications and inspections of manufacturing sites
• Strengthen the capacity for regulatory oversight
• Develop information management systems and
promote the exchange of regulatory information
• Harmonizing regional regulations Southern
SADC Pharmaceuti- To strengthen the capacity of
South African
Africa
cal Programme member states and to mitigate
Development • Strengthening regulations and enforcement
the threat of diseases that are
Community infrastructure
major public health concerns
(SADC; with
• Educating and retaining competent pharmaceutical
by increasing access to quality
support from
sta ; strengthening regional training centers
medicines.
the African
• Promoting joint procurement of quality essential
Development
medicines
Bank)
• Maximizing research and production capacity of
quality, generic essential medicines
• Assessing gaps in national regulatory authorities
and laboratories
Worldwide
• Strengthen information and evidence so the
FDA O ce of International Defines regulatory capacity, the
FDA can make informed decisions about how to use
Programs, Techni- ability of national regulatory
its resources
cal Cooperation and authorities to perform regularly
Capacity Building their core functions to ensure • Transfer its expertise and identify training
the availability of high-quality e orts globally that do not require the use of
and safe food and medical FDA resources
products, as part of the FDA
• Encourage global information networks to strengthen
mission to ensure safe products
detection, surveillance, and assessment systems
in the United States.
• Support surveillance and tracking e orts for global
supply chains
• Support pharmacovigilance capacity
OCR for page 71
Organization Project Objective Activities Where
• Improving governance in the pharmaceutical sector Worldwide
To build capacity within poor
USAID and Strengthening
countries to e ectively manage
Management Pharmaceutical • Strengthening pharmaceutical and laboratory manage-
pharmaceutical systems, success-
Sciences for Systems ment systems
fully implement USAID priority
Health
• Containing the mergence and spread of antimicrobial
services, and protect public health
resistance
by improving access to and use
• Expanding access to medicines
of quality-assured medicines.
Worldwide
USP Promoting Quality A 5-year, USAID-funded project • Strengthen national quality control programs:
of Medicines to address poor-quality medi- – Build the capacity of national quality control
cines in developing countries laboratories
and to assure the quality, safety, – Support medicines registration, inspections,
and e cacy of medicines for laboratory testing, and postmarket surveillance
USAID priority diseases. • Increase supply of quality-assured medicines by
o ering technical assistance to manufacturers on
WHO prequalification
• Combat substandard and counterfeit medicines by devel-
oping testing mechanisms, conducting quality research
on essential medicines, and providing technical support
for detecting and monitoring substandard medicines
• Provide technical leadership and global advocacy on
the dangers of substandard medicines
Worldwide
Brighton A non-profit, scientifically • Set vaccine safety research standards and provide
Collaboration independent partnership common terminology
with the goal of conducting • Build research capacity
and promoting high-quality
• Joined with the WHO and Gates Foundation to build
vaccine safety research.
vaccine safety monitoring
• Developed network of local vaccine experts to serve
as a global vaccine safety resource
• Developed pilot infrastructure (with the European
Center for Disease Prevention and Control) to link
electronic records and an online classification tool
• Established a virtual online research institute to
facilitate communication
• Plans to develop a vaccine training program
71
OCR for page 72
72 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
REFERENCES
Abraham, J. 2002. The pharmaceutical industry as a political player. Lancet 360(9344):1498-1502.
AMRH (African Medicines Registration Harmonisation). 2010. Issue 3. African Medicines
Registration Harmonisation Newsletter (April). http://www.amrh.org/download/eng_
amrh_newsletter_03.pdf.
Anand, K., K. Saini, S. Binod, and Y. Chopra. 2010. To recognize the use of international
standards for making harmonized regulation of medical devices in Asia-Pacific. Journal
of Young Pharmacists 2(3):321-325.
APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation). 2012. Agricultural technical cooperation. http://
www.apec.org/Home/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical-
Cooperation/Working-Groups/Agricultural-Technical-Cooperation.aspx (accessed Feb-
ruary 1, 2012).
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). 2005. ASEAN policy guideline on standards
and conformance. Manila, Philippines: ASEAN.
BIS (Business Innovation and Skills). 2011a. Choose the alternative. http://www.bis.gov.uk/
policies/bre/better-regulation-framework/alternatives-to-regulation/choose-the-alternative
(accessed October 5, 2011).
———. 2011b. Market/economic instruments. http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/bre/better-
regulation-framework/alternatives-to-regulation/choose-the-alternative/market- economic-
instruments (accessed December 7, 2011).
Brhlikova, P., I. Harper, and A. Pollock. 2007. Good manufacturing practice in the pharma-
ceutical industry. Working Paper 3. Prepared for Workshop on “Tracing Pharmaceuticals
in South Asia,” University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 2-3.
Brown, A. C., J. Stern, B. Tenenbaum, and D. Gencer. 2006. Handbook for evaluating infra-
structure regulatory systems. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruc-
tion and Development/The World Bank.
CAC (Codex Alimentarius Commission). 1999. Codex alimentarius food hygiene basic texts-
Second edition. Rome: WHO and FAO.
———. 2003. Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology.
Rome: WHO and FAO.
———. 2007. Principles and guidelines for the conduct of microbiological risk management
(MRM). Rome: WHO and FAO.
———. 2011. Guidelines for the control of campylobacter and salmonella in chicken meat.
Rome: WHO and FAO.
CDSCO (Central Drugs Standard Control Organization). 2011. List of state drugs controllers.
http://cdsco.nic.in/html/state%20drugs1.htm (accessed November 11, 2011).
Chigullapalli, R., and A. Tandulwadikar. 2011. Asian medical device markets—Emerging
regulations. Asian Hospital and Healthcare Management. http://www.asianhhm.com/
Knowledge_bank/articles/asian-medical-device-markets.htm (accessed November 11,
2011).
Crisp, N. 2011a. Changes to South African medicines regulation body. Strengthening South
Africa’s Response to HIV and Health. http://www.sarrahsouthafrica.org/LinkClick.aspx
?fileticket=tfjZOGSkMMU%3D&tabid=2067 (accessed November 18, 2011).
———. 2011b. SAHPRA: Progress regarding establishing the entity and impact/relevance for
medical device industry. Paper presented at 2nd Annual South African Medical Devices
Industry Association (SAMED) Conference, Midrand, South Africa, May 31.
Dalpino, C. E. 2000. Deferring democracy: Promoting openness in authoritarian regimes.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
DHS (Department of Homeland Security). 2011. Homeland security centers of excellence.
http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0498.shtm (accessed November 9, 2011).
OCR for page 73
73
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
Domesle, A., and M. O’Keefe. 2011. United States national residue program: 2011 scheduled
sampling plans. Washington, DC: USDA/FSIS/OPHS.
Dyckman, L. J. 1999. U.S. needs a single agency to administer a unified, risk-based inspection
system: Statement of Lawrence J. Dyckman. Washington, DC: Government Account-
ability Office.
EMA (European Medicines Agency). 2011. Final report on the international API inspection
pilot programme. London: EMA, Australian Government, and FDA.
EU (European Union). 2003. EU view of precautionary principle in food safety. http://www.
eurunion.org/news/speeches/2003/031023tvdh.htm (accessed February 14, 2012).
Europa. 2011. Summaries of EU legislation: The precautionary principle. http://europa.eu/
legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/l32042_en.htm (accessed February 14,
2012).
European Commission. 2011. General food law—Principles. http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/
foodlaw/principles/index_en.htm (accessed November 21, 2011).
———. 2012. Rules on GMOs in the EU—ban on GMOs cultivation. http://ec.europa.eu/
food/food/biotechnology/gmo_ban_cultivation_en.htm (accessed February 14, 2012).
Faergemand, J. 2008. The ISO 22000 series: Global standards for safe food supply chains.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Fairclough, G. 2009. Beijing tightens food-safety laws: New measures call for tougher pen-
alties and more oversight. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123591044294303161.html
(accessed November 21, 2011).
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2004. Foodborne diseases:
Situation of diarrheal diseases in Thailand. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/006/
ad703e/ad703e00.pdf (accessed November 18, 2011).
FAO and WHO (World Health Organization). 2003. Assuring food safety and quality: Guide-
lines for strengthening national food control systems. Rome, Italy: FAO and WHO.
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 2011. Pathway to global product safety and
quality. Washington, DC: FDA.
FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry). 2010. Bottlenecks in
Indian food processing industry. New Delhi, India: FICCI.
FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India). 2011. About FSSAI. http://www.fssai.
gov.in/AboutFSSAI/introduction.aspx (accessed November 17, 2011).
GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2005. Food safety: Experiences of seven countries
in consolidating their food safety systems. Washington, DC: GAO.
GMO Compass. 2009. USA: Cultivation of GM plants. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/
agri_biotechnology/gmo_planting/506.usa_cultivation_gm_plants_2009.html (accessed
February 14, 2012).
Gropp, M. 2011. Core elements of medical device regulatory systems in developing countries.
Paper presented at Strengthening Core Elements of Regulatory Systems in Developing
Countries: Meeting One, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, March 2-3.
Guenther, J. C., and K. J. McCormick. 2011. U.S. government efforts to build global food
defense capacity. Paper presented at Strategies for Achieving Food Security in Central
Asia, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) principles and application guidelines.
1998. Journal of Food Protection 61(6):762-775.
Health Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2007. The food regulatory system in
Canada. Ottowa, Ontario: Health Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Huss, H. H., L. Ababouch, and L. Gram. 2004. Assessment of seafood safety and quality.
Rome, Italy: FAO.
OCR for page 74
74 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
ICDRA (International Conference of Drug Regulatory Authorities). 2010. 14 ICDRA recom-
mendations. Paper presented at the Fourteenth International Conference of Drug Regula-
tory Authorities, Singapore, November 30-December 3.
ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration
of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use). 2010. The value and benefits of ICH to drug regula-
tory authorities: Advancing harmonization for better health. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH.
———. 2011. ICH harmonisation for better health: Official website. http://www.ich.org/
(accessed October 4, 2011).
ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods). 2002. Micro-
organisms in foods 7: Microbiological testing in food safety management. New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2011. International standards and technical regula-
tions program in the Western Balkans: Introduction and overview of the food safety
toolkit. Belgrade, Serbia: IFC.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2006. Valuing health for regulatory cost-effective analysis. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Juneja, V. K., and J. N. Sofos. 2010. Pathogens and toxins in foods: Challenges and interven-
tions. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press.
KPMG International. 2006. The Indian pharmaceutical industry: Collaboration for growth.
The Netherlands: KPMG International.
Kraemer, D. W. (Deputy Director for Operations, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutri-
tion) and FDA. 2011. Challenges faced by food safety regulatory systems in developing
countries. Paper presented at Strengthening Core Elements of Regulatory Systems in
Developing Countries: Meeting One, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC.
Lelieveld, H., and L. Keener. 2007. Global harmonization of food regulations and legislation—
the Global Harmonization Initiative. Trends in Food Science & Technology 18:S15-S19.
Ministry of Health of South Africa. 2008. Executive summary: Report of the ministerial task
team on the restructuring of the Medicines Regulatory Affairs and Medicines Control
Council and recommendations for the new regulatory authority for health products of
South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Ministry of Health of South Africa.
Molzon, J. A., A. Giaquinto, L. Lindstrom, T. Tominaga, M. Ward, P. Doerr, L. Hunt, and L.
Rago. 2011. The value and benefits of the international conference on harmonisation to
drug regulatory authorities: Advancing harmonization for better public health. Clinical
Pharmacology and Therapeutics 89(4):503-512.
NACMCF (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods). 1997.
Hazard analysis and critical control point principles and application guidelines. http://
www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/HazardAnalysisCriticalControlPointsHACCP/ucm114868.
htm (accessed December 13, 2011).
Ndomondo-Sigonda, M., and A. Ambali. 2011. The African medicines regulatory harmo-
nization initiative: Rationale and benefits. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
89(2):176-178.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2009. Indicators of
regulatory management systems: 2009 report. Paris, France: OECD.
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2003. Regulatory impact analysis: A primer.
Washington, DC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health). 2010. The new tool for the evaluation of per-
formance of veterinary services (PVS tool) using OIE international standards of quality
and evaluation. http://web.oie.int/eng/OIE/organisation/en_vet_eval_tool.htm (accessed
October 5, 2011).
One Health Initiative. 2011. One Health Initiative will unite human and veterinary medicine.
http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/index.php (accessed November 9, 2011).
OCR for page 75
75
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
Otsuki, T., and J. S. Wilson. 2001. Global trade and food safety: Winners and losers in a
fragmented system. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Pacific Bridge Medical. 2011. Asian medical regulatory agencies. http://www.pacificbridge-
medical.com/asian-medical-regulatory-agencies.php (accessed November 9, 2011).
PAHO (Pan-American Health Organization). 2010a. Medical devices regulation. http://new.
paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3418&Itemid=1272 (ac-
cessed November 11, 2011).
———. 2010b. Quality and regulation. http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=2384&Itemid=1179 (accessed October 5, 2011).
Palthur, M. P., S. S. Sajala, and S. K. Chitta. 2009. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:
A paradigm shift in Indian regulatory scenario. Pharmainfo 7(5).
Punjab refuses to accept drug regulatory authority. 2011. The Peninsula, October 9.
Ramesh, S. V., and WG3 Chair. ACCSQ working group on standards and technical regula-
tions (WG3)—Standards harmonization and technical regulations. http://www.asean.
org/14889.htm (accessed November 21, 2011).
Ramos, A. C., and C. A. Oblepias. 2002. Country report proposed by the Philippines.
Marrakech, Morroco: FAO and WHO.
Ratanawijitrasin, S., and E. Wondemagegnehu. 2002. Effective drug regulation: A multi-
country study. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
Regulations.gov. 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!home (accessed January 20, 2012).
Report of the ministerial task team. 2008. Executive summary: Report of the ministerial task
team on the restructuring of the Medicine Regulatory Affairs and Medicines Control
Council and recommendations for the new regulatory authority for health products of
South Africa. Ministry of Health of South Africa.
Rosnbom, K. A. 2010 (February 3). Developments in UNICEF vaccine procurement. Paper
presented at Global Immunization Meeting.
Roth, A. V., A. A. Tsay, M. E. Pullman, and J. V. Gray. 2008. Unraveling the food supply
chain: Strategic insights from China and the 2007 recalls. Journal of Supply Chain Man-
agement 44(1):22-39.
Satin, M. 2005. Quality enhancement in food processing through HACCP. Tokyo, Japan:
Asian Productivity Organization.
SEHN (The Science and Environmental Health Network). 1998. Wingspread conference
on the precautionary principle. http://www.sehn.org/wing.html (accessed February 14,
2012).
Seventeen federal ministries devolved to provinces. 2011. Pakistan Today, July 1.
SFDA (State Food and Drug Administration). 2011. Internal structure. http://eng.sfda.gov.cn/
WS03/CL0764/ (accessed November 15, 2011).
Shepherd, M. 2010. Beef up international cooperation on counterfeits. Nature Medicine
16(4):366-366.
Singh, R. 2011. FSSAI publishes food safety and standards rules 2011. New Delhi, India:
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service–Global Agricultural Information Network.
Smart, P. 2011. Features of new rules set by food safety and standards authority. http://www.
dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_features-of-new-rules-set-by-food-safety-and-standards-
authority_1595836 (accessed November 16, 2011).
Standards and Trade Development Facility. 2011. SPS-related capacity evaluation tools: An
overview of tools developed by international organizations. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Trade Organization.
Stewart, K., and L. Gostin. 2011. Food and Drug Administration regulation of food safety.
Journal of the American Medical Association 306(1):88-89.
OCR for page 76
76 ENSURING SAFE FOODS AND MEDICAL PRODUCTS
Stop TB. 2009. List of countries considered as stringent regulatory authorities. http://www.
stoptb.org/assets/documents/gdf/drugsupply/List_of_Countries_SRA.pdf (accessed Decem-
ber 12, 2011).
Sunstein, C. R. 2011. Memorandum for the heads of independent regulatory agencies: Execu-
tive order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies.” Washington, DC:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Tsoi, A. 2007. Pharmaceutical policies and regulations in China. http://www.deacons.com.hk/
eng/knowledge/knowledge_290.htm (accessed November 14, 2011).
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2005. World
Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST): The
precautionary principle. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf
(accessed 2012, February 14).
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund). 2011. Supplies and logistics: GAVI. http://www.
unicef.org/supply/index_gavi.html (accessed November 11, 2011).
Unnevehr, L. J., and H. H. Jensen. 1999. The economic implications of using HACCP as a
food safety regulatory standard. Food Policy 24(6):625-635.
U.S. Department of State. 2011. Rulemaking: What is the rulemaking process? http://www.
state.gov/m/a/dir/rulemaking/c42660.htm (accessed October 4, 2011).
Wallace, C. A., W. H. Sperber, and S. E. Mortimore. 2011. Food safety for the 21st century:
Managing HACCP and food safety throughout the global supply chain. Oxford, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1998. How to implement computer-assisted drug regis-
tration: A practical guide for drug regulatory authorities. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
———. 1999. Regulation of vaccines: Building on existing drug regulatory authorities. Geneva,
Switzerland: WHO Department of Vaccines and Other Biologics.
———. 2001. The impact of implementation of ICH guidelines in non-ICH countries: Report
of a WHO meeting. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
———. 2003a. Aide-memoire: Strengthening national regulatory authorities. Geneva,
Switzerland: WHO.
———. 2003b. Effective medicines regulation: Ensuring safety, efficacy and quality. WHO
Policy Perspectives on Medicines 007:1-6.
———. 2007. WHO data collection tool for the review of drug regulatory systems (to be used
jointly with the practical guidance for conducting a review). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
———. 2009. Food safety background. http://www.wpro.who.int/vietnam/sites/dhp/food_safety/
(accessed November 16, 2011).
———. 2010. Prequalification of medicines by WHO. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/
factsheets/fs278/en/index.html (accessed November 14, 2011).
———. 2011a. Guideline on submission of documentation for prequalification of multisource
(generic) finished pharmaceutical products (FPPs) approved by stringent regulatory
authorities (SRAs). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
———. 2011b. Immunization standards: Strengthening national regulatory authorities. http://
www.who.int/immunization_standards/national_regulatory_authorities%20/strengthening/
en/index.html/ (accessed November 11, 2011).
———. 2011c. International conference of drug regulatory authorities. http://www.who.int/
medicines/areas/quality_safety/regulation_legislation/icdra/en/index.html (accessed Octo-
ber 5, 2011).
———. 2011d. National regulatory authority of China meets international standards for
a vaccine regulation. http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_regulation/
nra_china_functional/en/index.html (accessed February 2, 2012).
———. 2011e. WHO list of prequalified medicinal products. http://apps.who.int/prequal/
query/ProductRegistry.aspx.
OCR for page 77
77
CORE ELEMENTS OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS
———. 2012. Impact: Frequently asked questions. http://www.who.int/impact/impact_q-a/en/
index.html (accessed February 1, 2012).
WHO Regional Office for Africa. 2005. First African medicines regulatory authorities con-
ference: Final report. Paper read at Conference of African Medicine Regulators. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, October 31-November 3.
———. 2006. Medicines regulatory authorities: Current status and the way forward—report
of the regional director. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: WHO Regional Committee for Africa.
Wilson, P. 2010. Giving developing countries the best shot: An overview of vaccine access and
R&D. Geneva, Switzerland: Oxfam.
WTO (World Trade Organization). 1998. Understanding the WTO agreement on sanitary
and phytosanitary measures. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htm
(accessed November 9, 2011).
OCR for page 78
