A/HRC/17/43 Trade Organization. Panellists were requested to share views on how the Council could take forward recommendations from the special procedures. Concern was also raised that many of the efforts discussed during the expert consultation could be nullified by the attempts of developed countries and the private sector to circumvent the flexibilities available in the TRIPS agreement. There was general agreement that the discussions and negotiations on TRIPS-plus standards should be monitored closely. In this respect, it was suggested that more information be circulated on the legitimacy for making use of TRIPS flexibilities. 37. In their response to some of the concerns raised by representatives of States, and non-governmental and other organizations, the panellists made further clarifications. Regarding the confusion between national essential medicines and the international essential medicines list developed by WHO, Dr. Hogerzeil stated that any national list was more important, as it referred to the specific needs of the country; he also cautioned, however, that, in circumstances where a large country with many health problems had only some 30 essential medicines on its list, this was clearly not enough and, in such cases, the WHO list should perhaps be taken as a reference. With regard to promoting generic policies, he noted several important measures that countries could take: to create an adequate legal framework; to publish price information and inform which generics were available; and to ensure that generics were of good quality. By creating financial incentives, especially for pharmacists, Governments could also raise the interest of and include the private sector in the promotion of generic policies. 38. With regard to patents, while agreeing that pharmaceutical companies should not extend patents beyond reason, Dr. Hogerzeil emphasized that pharmaceutical companies should go beyond, by also promoting and protecting human rights. Regarding the protection of nationally produced medicines in government procurement, Dr. Hogerzeil suggested that, if locally produced medicines were given favourable treatment by the Government while cheaper medicines could be found outside the country, the Ministry of Trade (not the Ministry of Health), as part of its industrial policy, should pay for the price difference with the lowest price good quality generic medicine that could be imported. 39. Dr. Hogerzeil also explained the selection process for essential medicines and the changes that WHO had made in this process since 2002. Before then, affordability and patent status were a selection criterion; today, it was effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness (within their group). There are many options for reducing prices, namely by reducing import taxes, decoupling them from prescriptions, substituting a specific medicine that is patented with something equally efficient, and negotiating prices. Moreover, States could negotiate for a lower price for a specific medicine with a pharmaceutical company on the basis of price differentiation, or opt for voluntary licensing, while ensuring that such price differentiation was not abused by re-exporting the same medicine. Furthermore, countries could support incentives for innovations by differential pricing and streamlining regulation. 40. On the question of innovation, the Special Rapporteur stated that, while research and development was important, there was a need to differentiate between a completely new drug, a “new molecule” and a drug that had only been slightly changed, namely a “new form”. The majority of pharmaceutical patents were actually new forms and not new molecules, yet both categories were being patented. Only 15 per cent of new drugs approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration from 1989 to 2000 were for GE.11-11842 11