[Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County
Fred Miller
millerfl at tricity.wsu.edu
Thu Dec 13 12:43:26 EST 2012
Joel,
I fully support and work with many stakeholder communities to foster
cradle-to-grave stewardship.
Here's what I've learned over the course of my employment in the
environmental stewardship business
1. An unchallenged assumption is an unproven assumption. The intent
of my original post was and is to stimulate critical thought regarding the
methods and motives which drive effective hazard mitigation, and human
health and environmental protection with respect to pharmaceutical materials
manufacturing, distribution, and consumption. One thing I know about
unchallenged assumptions is they cost money and sometimes things more
precious than money. Where I see a specific weakness in the discussion to
date is assumption manufacturer funded take back is the best way to attack
the problem. My question to one and all is whether that theory has been
tested or whether it's just an assumption. If it's been tested I withdraw
my objections.
2. When personal feelings and emotions are allowed to direct the
conversation things usually go wrong. I freely admit, like everyone else, I
occasionally allow my prejudices to steer me off course.
In my years in the industry I've had occasion to work with systems which
funded waste management in various ways. Some choose to pass 100% of the
cost to the consumer in the form of a direct charge per-unit of waste
disposed. Some choose to "hide" the cost by operating a "free" collection
system where the end user has no knowledge of or control over the costs of
the program. Still others take a blended approach where end users pay at
the point of purchase for waste management, and roll other related costs for
environmental management/health protection into the "tax" levied at the
point of sale.
By far, the most effective systems I've ever encountered are those which use
the blended approach. They invest in education (product
selection/substitution, inventory control, waste minimization, pollution
prevention, safety, etc.), inform the consumer of the costs and explain why
those costs are what they are, and enlist the consumer as a member of the
team. They have incentives built in to encourage waste minimization while
still providing adequately for the needs of the consumer. What they don't
have are disincentives which encourage sloth and/or illicit dumping. They
comport with the concepts of the ISO 14000 environmental management
standards, best management practices, and sustainability.
Servus
Fred
From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us
[mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] On Behalf Of Joel
Kreisberg
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:16 PM
To: Fred Miller
Cc: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: Re: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County
I have to agree with Heidi. I'm not sure what is informing your "definitive"
tone. Indeed currently the "company" called consumers are paying for this
service. So they are invested at this point. While the are many more
stakeholders in healthcare then in electronics and paint, and indeed no one
prescribes paint or cell phones, the stakeholder making the largest profit
here is the manufacturer. As well, pharm sales continue to rise about 6% a
year, in part because of the for profit system. In a closed system such as
Kaiser, the corporation is actively working on reducing waste in terms of
prescribing patterns and adherence patterns. In the free market system, the
incentive to consume and dispose begins with the publicly traded
pharmaceutical manufacturer (look at those numbers Fred). Sure the profits
move down the line, but again, the biggest profit is up front and the
smallest is sales at retail. Yep, creating incentives for improving
compliance and reducing overprescribing is necessary, perhaps these would be
better invested in a for profit system if the biggest money makers had a
cradle-to-cradle design system. This ordinance is an attempt to create that
structure.
Its actually easier then you and manufacturers are making it out to be.
That's why when I check with three economists I get three different answers,
so your point isn't clear. And your point about human nature--thank you for
your sharing--It's helps us all in understanding what we are up against in
our collective attempt to create an equitable system of ecological health.
I think Heidi's point was that to date, most on this list serve were in
support of cradle-to-cradle solutions to ecological issues. Product
stewardship is the current best practice, not the only solution. At least
for me, I'm glad you are reminding me of the hubris of human nature that is
never far off.
We'll keep working on it.
Joel
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Fred Miller <millerfl at tricity.wsu.edu>
wrote:
Jennifer,
In my second paragraph I was speaking not to product stewardship but rather
law, politics, and human nature.
You provided "Companies faced with managing their own waste invest in ways
to reduce it" and I couldn't agree more. Where we differ is what
constitutes a "company" in this problem. I see the pool of prescribing
professionals, dispensing outlets, and consumers as the "company" and fates
of their wastes to be something THEY must invest in before anything else
matters. Where's their incentive to do better if they're not paying for
waste management in a tangible way? Hidden costs rarely influence behavior
of such a "company" because it soon gets shuffled into the background as an
unavoidable cost of doing business. When it's turned into a cost center
they must deal with, management (consumers, physicians, pharmacists)
suddenly start paying attention because it's something they can control
directly. Don't take my word for it. Ask any economist.
As I said, mileage may vary.
Servus
From: Volkman, Jennifer (MPCA) [mailto:jennifer.volkman at state.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:46 AM
To: Heidi; Fred Miller; pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: RE: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County
I think Fred's first paragraph is interesting and I'm curious to see how
this plays out.
I don't have the energy to point out everything wrong with the second
paragraph, but if you have no understanding of the concept of product
stewardship, then the argument is lost anyway. Alameda was brave to stand up
to big PhRMA. They did something that many other states and local units of
government have been trying to do for several years. There is national
legislation that I've heard is not likely to go anywhere, but it is there
because people are tired of industry dumping on government and the
taxpayers. We all know everybody pays for this, there is no away, be it
through taxes or user fees.
Please consider the real benefits of a great product stewardship program,
programs that are in place in other nations: the cradle to cradle system
between manufacturers, retail and customer is maintained with no government
"out". Companies faced with managing their own waste invest in ways to
reduce it, to make products and components that are less toxic and which can
be better recycled; they learn what doesn't work (over-prescription or
wasting of certain less tolerable drugs), in this case, they develop better
ways to deliver drugs/target a problem; they develop transport efficiencies.
Those interested in less government should be interested in helping
companies get their resources back to the point of manufacture for reuse.
I've been in solid waste for 25+ years and government can no longer manage
the waste burden. Private industry needs to step up and apply their fabulous
brains and resources to this problem.
Nice way to step up PhRMA. They will spend more on this lawsuit than they
would have spent on giving the program a try.
_____
From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us
[pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] on behalf of Heidi
[Heidi at calpsc.org]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:25 PM
To: Fred Miller; pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: RE: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County
Fred - wow. Calling Supervisor Miley and the county supervisors pandering
politicians is completely irresponsible and unprofessional. I'm sorry this
type of post is allowed on this listserv.
Heidi
From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us
[mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] On Behalf Of Fred Miller
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:24 PM
To: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: RE: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County
After reading the filing I believe the plaintiffs will prevail on
constitutional grounds. Some of their other claims are suspect but the
challenge is based upon constitutional law where they stand on fairly firm
and clear ground. To go back up the channel beyond the party who imports
into a jurisdiction is clearly a violation of the ICC, and even that step is
very likely to be slapped down. They can't even give
manufacturers/distributor the option of not doing business in the
jurisdiction without violation of the ICC. Political subdivisions may tax
activities which occur within their jurisdiction but they can't reach beyond
those geographical bounds. To implement such a program would require
federal action to keep from running afoul of the ICC.
I believe these programs should be a function of government. That allows a
tax to be imposed upon retail sales within each jurisdiction which is
clearly allowed. As this ordinance stands, Alameda County is trying to grab
a free ride off the rest of the nation. Their pandering politicians lack
the courage to tell people we all bear responsibility for what we consume.
Fred
From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us
[mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] On Behalf Of Scott Cassel
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:08 AM
To: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: [Pharmwaste] Pharma industry complaint against Alameda County
Thanks to one of our members for the attached 11-page complaint filed in
federal court by PhRMA, GPhA, and BIO against Alameda County's Safe Drug
Disposal Ordinance. The lawsuit provides a concise summary of the law. It is
also a broad rebuttal against the concept of producer responsibility,
arguing that drug-take back programs should be a government function.
____________________________
Scott Cassel
Chief Executive Officer/Founder
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
29 Stanhope Street
Boston, MA 02116
617-236-4822 (ph)
617-236-4766 (fax)
<mailto:scott at productstewardship.us> scott at productstewardship.us
<http://www.productstewardship.us/> www.productstewardship.us
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
Click to follow us on
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Product-Stewardship-Institute/224328115936?re
f=ts> Facebook and <http://twitter.com/productsteward> Twitter and
<http://productstewardshipinstitute.wordpress.com/> Blog
---
Note: As a courtesy to other listserv subscribers, please post messages to
the listserv in plain text format to avoid the garbling of messages received
by digest recipients.
---
TO SUBSCRIBE, go to:
http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharmwaste
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, DO NOT REPLY TO THE LISTSERV. Please send an e-mail to
pharmwaste-unsubscribe at lists.dep.state.fl.us -- the subject line and body of
the e-mail should be blank.
If you believe you may be subscribed with a different email address, please
visit the subscriber listing at
http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/mailman/roster/pharmwaste
FOR PROBLEMS: Contact List Administrator Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us
SEND MAIL to the list server at: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
--
Dr. Joel Kreisberg, DC, MA, CCH
drkreisberg.com
teleosis.org <http://www.teleosis.org>
foundation.metaintegral.org/centers/integral-health-medicine-center
drkreisberg at teleosis.org
510-558-7285 Ext 102 <tel:510-558-7285%20Ext%20102>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20121213/d96cc260/attachment.htm
More information about the Pharmwaste
mailing list