[Pharmwaste] RE: Seattle Times Editorial on Pharms

Wed Jan 21 14:06:40 EST 2009

I agree with Pete wholeheartedly. 

Sue Dayton

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League

North Carolina Healthy Communities Program

PO BOX 44

Saxapahaw, NC 27340

(336) 525-2003

sdayton at swcp.com

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
-  Martin Luther King Jr.

  _____  

From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us
[mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] On Behalf Of Pete Pasterz
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:36 PM
To: Melody LaBella; pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us; Zero Waste Forum
Subject: [Pharmwaste] RE: Seattle Times Editorial on Pharms

Do let pharmaceuticals leak from landfills

Patrick Moore is considered by many "activist groups", including Greenpeace,
to be an industry sell-out.  While I pass no judgment on this indictment,
notice the solution he proposes:  He scoffs at the idea of an industry take
back program because 1] It is not necessary because the amount of drugs is
small  [though this contradicts his thesis that improper disposition is
indeed a problem]    2]it will be costly [to industry?] and  3] be energy
inefficient contributing to greenhouse gasses [though he does not quantify
the extent of this problem.and in other contexts he has dismissed
anthropogenic global warming].  He rather proposes landfilling the drugs
[which according to EPA will leak into groundwater, perhaps converted in
form in a stew of other chemicals] or take to "local collection
programs"..where will such programs then take this material, how will it be
disposed, at what cost, and what efficiency of transport?

And, of course note the industry-apologist mantra:  "It's important to note
that, to date, no risk to human health from exposure to trace pharmaceutical
compounds found in drinking water has been demonstrated in the scientific
literature."  

No, of course they have not YET been traced.to human health problems, but
they HAVE BEEN to other organisms.  This statement has been used to defend
all sorts of practices such as smoking, asbestos mining, sludge deposition,
etc.    How much other environmental damage must occur before we have
irrefutable HUMAN damage?  Who is/will be funding the effort to trace them?

The fundamental issue is do we follow the "precautionary principle", or the
current "proven innocent" model.  Industry responsibility systems may force
the industry to reassess the numbers of redundant drugs, whether all
ailments require a drug treatment, and the appropriate dosage so that they
are metabolized instead of being wasted.such programs do not have to be set
up to be cost or energy-inefficient.

* Pete Pasterz, NCQRP

Cabarrus County Recycling and HHW

PO BOX 707 

Concord, NC  28026

www.cabarruscounty.us/waste

If you're not for ZERO Waste, how much Waste ARE you for?

From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us
[mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] On Behalf Of Melody
LaBella
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:15 PM
To: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: [Pharmwaste] Seattle Times Editorial on Pharms

Don't flush pharmaceuticals down the drain

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

By Patrick Moore

Special to The Times

AS a lifelong environmentalist with nearly four decades of activism under my
belt since I helped found Greenpeace in 1971, I've thought a great deal
about environmental health and human safety.

One issue that has received a lot of attention recently is the presence of
trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in the environment. Some activist groups
have raised concerns this represents a threat even though the medicines are
found at extremely low levels.

As with many other issues, in the case of pharmaceuticals in the
environment, it comes down to this: We must weigh the significant benefits
of a healthier population against potential environmental risks across the
landscape.

The lives of millions of people around the world have been vastly improved
thanks to the prescribed use of pharmaceuticals. And research is continuing
daily for new cures, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars annually in
the U.S. alone.

It is also inevitable that a small amount of ingested pharmaceuticals will
eventually show up at trace levels in wastewater, given the human body
seldom metabolizes the entire medicine, and given the improved analytical
testing technologies that have developed over time.

An even smaller portion - 10 percent - of detectable trace elements in
wastewater are the result of consumers flushing unused prescriptions down
the toilet.

The Pharmaceutical Assessment and Transport Evaluation (PhATE) model has
been developed by industry as a tool to estimate concentrations of
pharmaceutical residues in surface waters that result from consumer
pharmaceutical use. The PhATE tool is being used to track compounds in 11
representative watersheds across the U.S. to model concentrations into the
future.

This science-based approach is working to continually improve our
understanding of environmental risk from pharmaceuticals. It's important to
note that, to date, no risk to human health from exposure to trace
pharmaceutical compounds found in drinking water has been demonstrated in
the scientific literature.

But some activist organizations still push for costly and unnecessary
controls. In Washington, Oregon and Illinois, for example, interest groups
who believe that any trace amount of any compound in wastewater must be
stopped at all cost are proposing an elaborate take-back plan.

This is wrong for a number of reasons.

First, detecting minute trace pharmaceutical compounds in wastewater does
not mean you've identified a problem - or even the risk of a problem.
Obviously, we should not indiscriminately send toxic waste into the
environment, yet our detection methods have become so sophisticated that low
levels of nearly everything are going to be found nearly everywhere. A
take-back approach to eliminate such low levels will be enormously costly,
difficult to manage, and offer no added benefit to human health or safety.

Second, a take-back program will likely result in increased greenhouse-gas
emissions from the additional infrastructure and transportation needs the
program will require - all for a new program that, if past take-back
subscription rates are any indicator, will be used by only a small fraction
of the public.

Earlier this year, industry joined with the American Pharmacists Association
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in launching the SMARxT disposal
program. The goal of the program is to educate the public about not flushing
or pouring unused medicines down the drain, but instead to use the household
trash disposal or local collection programs as alternatives.

I believe a simple education program like SMARxT is far more likely to
result in reduced amounts of pharmaceuticals going into wastewater than the
costly approaches being proposed by some activists.

I subscribe to the old scientific maxim that the difference between a
medicine and a poison is in the dose. While in recent years we have
drastically increased - from parts per thousands to parts per million, and
currently parts per trillion - our ability to detect human-introduced
compounds in the environment, it is still important to place things in
perspective, recognizing that the poison is in the dose.

In most cases, the best approach an individual can take to reduce
consumer-discarded pharmaceuticals from wastewater is to ensure the
substance is never flushed, unused, down the drain.

An adviser to government and industry, Patrick Moore is a co-founder and
former leader of Greenpeace, and chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit
Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver, Canada.

Copyright C 2009 The Seattle Times Company

DISCLAIMER:
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20090121/79a020b1/attachment.htm