From Mr J. H. Verrall, MRPharmS
SIR,-Does your report (PJ, April 15, p571) entitled "ABPI seeks lifting of ban on direct-to-patient drug information" on the basis that patients should have the right to information, indicate that the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has at long last agreed that we should have complete transparency in matters pertaining to medicines and products of biotechnology and genetic engineering.
For years the industry has been reactive - fighting against repeal of Section 118 (the confidentiality clause) of the 1968 Medicines Act, whereby all information contained in a product licence application must remain confidential.
The only justification for secrecy in such matters is to cover information on manufacturing process, while matters relating to safety and general information on products (much of which has not been subject to peer review) should be made freely available.
Without an adequate Freedom of Information Act and repeal of Section 118 of the Medicines Act, the newly formed Food Standards Agency will be impotent. Members of the new task force (p598), whether from industry or government, should note that there will remain strong and increasing opposition to products of biotechnology and generic engineering until the population can be assured of the safe development of this new science. Any such development should be to the overall advantage of mankind, as well as being lucrative to the company and to the economic benefit of the country.
Adoption of the "precautionary principle" and the refusal of expert committees to equate the absence of evidence as evidence of absence would ensure that this new science was not being allowed to develop in an uncontrolled manner and that its great potential for good - particularly when used in a therapeutic capacity - is not lost for ever.
John Verrall
Battle, East Sussex