Sarah Houlton
|
Pharma companies are used to having to work hard to keep regulators happy, so dealing with FDA inspections and keeping tabs
on side-effects of marketed medicines ensure that regulatory affairs departments remain busy. But now there's something else
they're going to have to worry about in Europe—new chemicals legislation.
The legislation—Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (Reach)—is at the second-reading stage in the European
Parliament, having undergone significant amendments since it was first introduced. It is designed to replace a sprawling array
of more than 40 different pieces of legislation; a final agreement by the European Parliament is expected in the fall of this
year.
Around 30,000 existing substances will have to be registered within an 11-year phase-in period. How much data is required
will depend on how much of each chemical is produced, and whether they are dangerous, such as carcinogens, mutagens, or bioaccumulative
chemicals.
Dangerous materials will have to undergo an authorization process. Although medicinal products will likely be exempt from
the legislation, chemicals are involved in the manufacturing of those products, so Reach will have an impact on pharma. The
industry, through its primary manufacturing operations, makes and uses chemicals that will fall under the scope of Reach,
and others are involved in the formulation stage. Many more are purchased from outside suppliers. The legislation in its original form would have proved extremely bureaucratic and burdensome for those making and using chemicals.
In the best tradition of the European Union machine, compromises altered the proposals to enable a broad political agreement
at the first reading in the European Parliament.
Even so, the industry is unhappy with the current wording of the authorization element, with trade body Cefic, the European
Chemical Industry Council, saying it reflects a "conceptual misunderstanding" of how such dangerous substances are handled
and used. And NGOs believe the EU is now missing a trick by watering down the legislation. EPHA Environment Network, for example,
claims that the system as it stands will leave thousands of chemicals without basic toxicity data.
Pharma companies also are concerned. "[We] support the stated goals of the proposed regulation to protect the environment
and human health," says Bertrand Castro, director of development chemistry at Sanofi-Aventis. "However, we oppose an approach
to regulation that is too mechanistic, inflexible, and devoid of proper cost-benefit analysis, where the burden of compliance
is disproportionate to the problem being addressed."
Trends toward outsourcing have left pharma companies heavily reliant on partners in the fine chemical industry to supply many
of the intermediates and active ingredients they need to make their drug products. Castro is concerned that if Reach imposes
onerous economic and administrative burdens on its suppliers, it may affect pharma companies' ability to procure such chemicals
from them.
"The withdrawal of chemicals by manufacturers in our supply chain could affect availability of our starting materials, reagents,
and solvents, and thus indirectly result in the loss of pharmaceutical products necessary to protect or enhance human health,"
Castro said.
Marketing authorizations specify manufacturing routes and suppliers of ingredients and intermediates. Once the authorization
has been granted, making changes is extremely expensive and time consuming.
There is also concern that non-active substances used in drug products will, unintentionally, be dragged into the scope of
the legislation. While active ingredients are definitely exempt, it is still unclear whether the essential inactive components
of a formulation, such as excipients or propellants, will be covered.
Another issue is the need for animal testing. At a time when pharma is actively looking for ways to minimize the number of
tests that are carried out on animals, Reach introduces a requirement for animal testing data on all chemicals made in quantities
of more than a ton a year—many of which have been safely used in large quantities for decades. Currently, only "new" chemicals—those
introduced after 1981—need testing. The amended version of the legislation takes this into account to some extent, by introducing
mandatory data sharing for test results.
Discussions continue about the final wording of the regulation, and the industry is hoping that the end result proves practical
and workable. "We hope that together we will be able to make the necessary changes," says Castro, "to reduce the burden of
the regulation with a view to avoiding unduly bureaucratic and burdensome requirements."
Sarah Houlton, PhD, is Pharmaceutical Executive's global correspondent. She can be reached at sarah@owlmedia.co.uk
PharmExec Blog
Follow Us
RSS
Bookstore
The New Health is the fast-morphing world of biopharma: emerging science, changing technology, rising costs, global regulations. The New Health needs an ally. More at www.quintiles.com/newhealth.
What's the best managed pharma? Professor Bill Trombetta of Saint Joseph's University attempts to answer the question in Pharm Exec's Industry Audit.
The most respected annual ranking of top 50 pharmaceutical companies by prescription drug sales... Who's in, who's back, and who's out?
Don't miss this Podcast series commemorating the 20th anniversary of HBA's Woman of the Year Award with interviews spanning two decades of change makers.
Super Reps book trilogy by Dr. Lou Sawaya MD, MBA