VOL. VIII NO. 4
BU SP YER ECI A ISS S’ GU L UE IDE
oct-dec 2012
Attention Readers !
Are you looking for Products, Equipment or Services for your business or healthcare facility? If so, please check out these leading companies advertised in this issue:
Consulting Firms Badrick Consulting – pg 4
Hazardous Waste Disposal & Infection Compliance Services Assured Waste Solutions – pg 20 Clean Harbors – pg 6
Infectious & Non-Infectious Waste Containers & Linen Carts Bomac Carts – pg 15 Daniels International – pg 2 Rehrig Healthcare Systems – pg 5 TQ Industries – pg 16
Infectious Waste Sterilizing Systems Bondtech Corporation – pg 4 The Mark-Costello Co – pg 14 Ozonator Industries – pg 19 STI Biosafe – pg 16
Liquid Disposal Systems Bemis Health Care – pg 15
Shredders Vecoplan LLC – pg 8 WEIMA America – pg 6
California County Holds Drug Manufacturers Responsible for Take-Back Program
A
By P.J. Heller
s local, state and federal authorities grapple with the issue of collecting and disposing of unused, unwanted or expired drugs, a northern California county has adopted a first-in-the-nation ordinance to hold pharmaceutical manufacturers responsible for the so-called “take-back” program. The precedent-setting measure “asks no less than what customers have already grown to expect from printer cartridges, paint or battery industry stewardship programs,” noted Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley. It was not known if the pharmaceutical industry would challenge the measure in court. A Washington, D.C.-based trade group representing the industry initially opposed the measure, saying it was unneeded, would drive up the cost of medicines and would set a “dangerous precedent for a community that is currently served by multiple safe medicine collection efforts. “The ordinance is confusing, duplicative and unnecessarily burdensome on both patients and the environment when clear, safe home disposal methods are already available,” the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) said in a prepared statement. While take-back programs are nothing new —
the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s latest national prescription drug take-back day in September, for example, collected 244 tons of drugs from more than 5,200 locations — ongoing local efforts often prove too costly for cash-strapped cities and counties. Alameda County, located in the East Bay region in the San Francisco Bay Area, has 28 dropoff locations that cost the county some $330,000 annually, according to officials. “The responsibility for the bill largely falls on local folks, local police, local public health agencies,” notes Margaret Shield of the local hazardous waste management program in King County, Wash. “We shouldn’t be asking police to dip into their restricted budget to pay for the take-back of products sold by a multibillion dollar industry. We shouldn’t be asking public health departments to do that either; they’ve got plenty of public health responsibilities to do. This is a critical issue both for public health and public safety. The best way to fund this would be to work this into the cost of the product. “We know how to set up these programs and get them working,” Shield adds. “What we don’t have is enough dedicated funding to have enough Continued on page 3