| ▲ | lukebitts 8 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I wonder what’s the difference between countries that drives that. It’s not like Brazil doesn’t have its own FDA, which is much more strict than the US one, from what I know. Maybe some kind of lobbying? Or are animal rights group that much stronger? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | skissane 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I was having a conversation about this with my father-a retired pharmaceutical industry executive-a few weeks back, about why certain generic prescription medication formulations were unavailable in Australia yet sold in New Zealand. He explained to me that the Australian pharmaceutical regulator (the TGA) and its New Zealand equivalent (Medsafe) had very different regulatory philosophies. Medsafe, if a major international regulator (such as the US FDA or the EU’s EMA) had already approved something, they’ll just approve it too (“if it is good enough for them it is good enough for us”); the TGA’s attitude was very different, just because the FDA or EMA had approved it didn’t mean they automatically would, they wanted to analyse the safety data for themselves and make up their own mind. For blockbuster patented drugs, the extra regulatory cost of Australia was worth it, but for the long tail of miscellaneous generic formulations, the extra cost of dealing with the TGA could make some of them financially nonviable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | MattGaiser 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I imagine it is about this: > But Brazil lacks the human skin, pig skin, and artificial alternatives that are widely available in the US. This is not an improvement on existing methods (it may end up being, but that is not the motivation) but rather a case of it being all they have to work with. Tilapia skin is probably better than no skin at all. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||