A week ago the Stabroek Business ran a front-page story that dealt with the issue of the proliferation of counterfeit consumer goods and drugs on the local market. While one need hardly spell out the health risks associated with consuming or otherwise utilising counterfeit products, there is really no persuasive evidence that this is an issue that is high on the government’s agenda.
The best that can be said for the Food and Drugs Department, is that it may be doing its best with the scant resources at its disposal. More pertinent, perhaps, is the widespread view that the Department is now decidedly worse off in many respects than it was at its Kingston location. So that we continue to perpetuate the folly of putting the nation’s health at risk and compromising the viability of local businesses by continually neglecting to incrementally build our defences against counterfeit goods.
The other thing about fake products is that they are driven by a multi-million dollar industry, are manufactured at considerably less than the cost of the original items and are offered for sale to consumers at cheaper prices.
Here, of course, there is a temptation for both sellers and buyers in poor countries. There is the opportunity for traders to make what is commonly described as a “hustle” from counterfeit goods. On the other hand there is no shortage of consumers on the lookout for a bargain even though a sub-standard product that can be injurious to one’s health is hardly what one might call a bargain.
The first difficulty we in Guyana face in terms of combating counterfeit goods is that there is no strong tradition of public education on the issue. We are not used to scrupulously examining items and their labels and even when we do we often have no clue as to what to look for. With drugs it is even worse since there have been cases in which we have simply accepted the word of someone else, perhaps even the pharmacist, that what may well be a counterfeit drug is in fact a perfectly acceptable “substitute.”
But even if, as a nation, we were better educated on the subject of counterfeit goods, our institutions and systems responsible for keeping them out are still weak and on the basis of the available evidence, ineffective.
Leaving aside surveillance at the legitimate ports of entry where the presence of the Food and Drugs Department is virtually non-existent and where the Customs authorities have displayed no real desire to do all they can to help fight the importation of counterfeit drugs, one fears that there has been no real progress made in reducing the volume of sales of the fake imports. In effect, we continue to put the health of the nation at risk and negatively affect those businesses that are undersold by counterfeit goods. Perhaps more to the point, the issue of reducing the inflow of counterfeit goods does not appear to be a priority since we hear of no special operations designed to at least seek to determine who the importers of these goods might be. That might be as good a place as any at which to start.
In the final analysis, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to engage in one sterile public discourse after another when the authorities refuse to effectively strengthen the enforcement institutions through initiatives that would cost decidedly less than the price that we might yet pay for simply letting the issue ride, which, in large measure, is exactly what we are doing at this time.
