GreenBiz.com is questioning the suitability of new US laws that will require pharmaceutical manufacturers to make a financial contribution to disposal of their products.

“Officials in Alameda County, California are breaking new ground when it comes to the environmentally safe disposal of all those old drugs gathering dust in your medicine cabinet.

“The county has unanimously passed a policy — the first in the nation by a local government — requiring pharmaceutical companies to pay for the collection and disposal of unused and expired medications.

“There’s been growing concern over the improper disposal of prescription drugs. Along with worries about their illicit use, residues from these medications are finding their way into landfills and water tables. “Most drugs are not completely absorbed or metabolized by the body,” said environmental assessment expert Raanan Bloom on the FDA’s web site, “and enter the environment after passing through waste water treatment plants.”

“Alameda county currently has 28 sites where residents can drop off their old and unwanted prescription drugs — at an estimated local government cost of about $330,000 per year. County officials estimate their program would add about one cent for every $33 of meds sold.

This is interesting and in part exciting news that we will follow closely, but gives great cause for concern as it may set a precedent that does not fit comfortably into other legislations.

In the US, all medications are bought as a simple commodity, whether prescription medicines or not. The analogy to white goods seems therefore stronger and comparison to obligations under WEEE may be workable. But if such an approach is transported across the Atlantic, and we might guess who could be looking at this already, waiting to make mischief, then the most obvious question would be how will payments levied on pharmaceutical manufacturers be factored  specifically to support the disposal of their products?

Effectively, what would be nothing more than a new indirect tax on the NHS and those needing care is more likely to be directed to the Environment Agency, to support their ‘good work’ protecting us from ourselves. Bigger cars, deeper carpets perhaps, but no better processing of solid and liquid wastes or reimbursement of those who presently take the burden for disposal. This is the taxpayer, those who pay bills to the water companies, Council Tax, and taxation to support the NHS.

Should this particular US ‘experiment’ succeed and later be viewed for implementation in the UK, be aware of the need for hypothecation of funds, but do not expect that to happen.

Will it reduce our bills? No, though there is perhaps no reason why it should. Will it be cost neutral? No, and this is where our concerns should begin. Will it increase our costs? Well, yes, it probably will, and nobody will tell you why.