Published: March 22, 2010

National view: Maximize health, minimize risk

Published: March 22, 2010

How do you maximize human health while minimizing risk? It’s a question I’ve been working on within the context of the environment for almost 40 years, since I co-founded the environmental group Greenpeace.

By: Patrick Moore
Published March 22 2010

The answer lies in taking a hard look at data and in basing policy not on popular belief but on science.

In the case of the current version of Minnesota’s proposed Safe Drug Disposal Act, science is being ignored, and the result is a piece of policy that would achieve little beyond more bureaucracy.

It is 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.

Also true is that a smaller portion (10 percent) of detectable trace elements in wastewater are the result of consumers flushing unused prescriptions down the toilet.

Yet, to date, no risk to human health from exposure to trace pharmaceutical compounds found in drinking water has been demonstrated in scientific literature.

Unfortunately, some groups still are pushing for a costly drug take-back approach.

I disagree with this approach.

First, detecting minute trace pharmaceutical compounds in wastewater does not mean a problem has been identified — or even the risk of a problem. 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 would be enormously costly and difficult to manage and would offer no added benefit to human health or safety.

Second, a take-back program would probably result in increased greenhouse-gas emissions from the additional infrastructure and transportation needs such a program would require.

In connection with other take-back programs, British Columbia, my home province, is often cited as a model.

But the BC scheme, 10 years after its 1997 launch, was the subject of a household survey that found very low rates of participation. Only 21 percent of those who responded to the survey said they had used the system.

A better way is in educating the population to stop flushing used medications down the drain and to start using the household trash collection system for discarding unused pharmaceuticals. There, they will either be destroyed in incinerators or captured in landfills.

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 uses 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.

As for proper disposal, recently the 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 using 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.

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *