A Dead End of IMPACT

  • Satoru Kimura
  • Yasuhide Nakamura
Part of the Trust book series (TRUST, volume 5)


International conflicts of interests existed within the IMPACT established under the initiative of WHO. In addition, the emerging and developing world had an emotional dissatisfaction with the developed world. Important roles in the Secretariat of IMPACT were all allocated to developed countries. Emerging and developing countries were excluded from the management of IMPACT although they were also involved in counterfeit-related problems. The quality issue was an extremely emotional issue. The IMPACT led by WHO reached deadlock within only a few years of its establishment. This fact is essential for understanding the problems with poor quality medicines. How the IMPACT reached deadlock should enable us to identify factors that complicated the problems. As far as the authors know, no reports have so far discussed the problems associated with poor quality medicines from the viewpoint of the failure of IMPACT. In this chapter, the authors discuss the relationship between the deadlock of IMPACT and the globally rising events and tides that occurred in conjunction with WHO/IMPACT and pharmaceutical products, as discussed in the previous chapter.


Counterfeit IMPACT SSFFC Substandard 


  1. Caudron, J.M., N. Ford, M. Henkens, et al. 2008. Substandard medicines in resource-poor settings: a problem that can be no longer be ignored, Tropical Medicine and International Health 13 (8): 1062–1072. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02106.x. Accessed 1 Sept 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Edney, A. 2014. India’s Poor Quality Drugs End Up in Africa, Study Finds. Accessed 16 Feb 2015.
  3. IMPACT Secretariat. 2011. IMPACT International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce the Handbook 2006–2010. Accessed 10 Oct 2013.
  4. Kaitlin, M. 2010. Coverage of Anti-Counterfeit Policy Debate Varies Widely Across Global Media. Intellectual Property Watch. Accessed 11 July 2014.
  5. Simon, H.A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Trans. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Third World Network. 2009. Developing countries attack Dutch seizure of generic medicines. Accessed 3 Feb 2019.
  7. WHO. 1985. The rational use of drugs Report of the Conference of Experts Nairobi, 25–29 November 1985. Accessed 8 Oct 2014.
  8. WHO. 2004. 11th International Conference of Drug Regulatory Authorities (Madrid, 16–19 February 2004. Accessed 9 Nov 2014.
  9. WHO. 2006a. Combating Counterfeit Drugs: A Concept Paper for Effective International Cooperation. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
  10. WHO. 2006b. Declaration of Rome. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.
  11. WHO. 2009. EB124/2009/REC/2. Ninth Meeting. Accessed 18 Sept 2014.
  12. WHO. 2011. WHO’s relationship with the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce, A/SSFFC/WG/4. Accessed 5 Nov 2014.
  13. WHO. 2012. Meeting of substandard/ spurious/falsely-labeled/ falsified/counterfeit medical products. Accessed 23 Nov 2014.
  14. WHO. 2013a. Sixty-six World Health Assembly Provision agenda item 17.1: A66/22, 17 May 2013. Accessed 5 Nov 2014.
  15. WHO. 2013b. Prequalification program of medicines by WHO. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  16. WTO. 2001. Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satoru Kimura
    • 1
  • Yasuhide Nakamura
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Reference StandardsPharmaceutical and Device Regulatory Science Society of JapanOsakaJapan
  2. 2.School of Nursing and RehabilitationKonan Women’s UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations