271M Lbs Of Pharmaceuticals In Our Water

AP Investigation: Drugmakers, Other Manufacturers Legally Releasing Chemicals Into Waterways

(AP)  FDA spokesman Christopher Kelly noted that his agency is not responsible for what comes out on the waste end of drug factories. At the EPA, acting assistant administrator for water Mike Shapiro - whose agency's Web site says pharmaceutical releases from manufacturing are "well defined and controlled" - did not mention factories as a source of pharmaceutical pollution when asked by the AP how drugs get into drinking water.

"Pharmaceuticals get into water in many ways," he said in a written statement. "It's commonly believed the majority come from human and animal excretion. A portion also comes from flushing unused drugs down the toilet or drain; a practice EPA generally discourages."

His position echoes that of a line of federal drug and water regulators as well as drugmakers, who concluded in the 1990s - before highly sensitive tests now used had been developed - that manufacturing is not a meaningful source of pharmaceuticals in the environment.

Pharmaceutical makers typically are excused from having to submit an environmental review for new products, and the FDA has never rejected a drug application based on potential environmental impact. Also at play are pressures not to delay potentially lifesaving drugs. What's more, because the EPA hasn't concluded at what level, if any, pharmaceuticals are bad for the environment or harmful to people, drugmakers almost never have to report the release of pharmaceuticals they produce.

"The government could get a national snapshot of the water if they chose to," said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, "and it seems logical that we would want to find out what's coming out of these plants."

Ajit Ghorpade, an environmental engineer who worked for several major pharmaceutical companies before his current job helping run a wastewater treatment plant, said drugmakers have no impetus to take measurements that the government doesn't require.

"Obviously nobody wants to spend the time or their dime to prove this," he said. "It's like asking me why I don't drive a hybrid car. Why should I? It's not required."

After contacting the nation's leading drugmakers and filing public records requests, the AP found two federal agencies that have tested.

Both the EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey have studies under way comparing sewage at treatment plants that receive wastewater from drugmaking factories against sewage at treatment plants that do not.

Preliminary USGS results, slated for publication later this year, show that treated wastewater from sewage plants serving drug factories had significantly more medicine residues. Data from the EPA study show a disproportionate concentration in wastewater of an antibiotic that a major Michigan factory was producing at the time the samples were taken.

Meanwhile, other researchers recorded concentrations of codeine in the southern reaches of the Delaware River that were at least 10 times higher than the rest of the river.

The scientists from the Delaware River Basin Commission won't have to look far when they try to track down potential sources later this year. One mile from the sampling site, just off shore of Pennsville, N.J., there's a pipe that spits out treated wastewater from a municipal plant. The plant accepts sewage from a pharmaceutical factory owned by Siegfried Ltd. The factory makes codeine.

"We have implemented programs to not only reduce the volume of waste materials generated but to minimize the amount of pharmaceutical ingredients in the water," said Siegfried spokeswoman Rita van Eck.

Another codeine plant, run by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Noramco Inc., is about seven miles away. A Noramco spokesman acknowledged that the Wilmington, Del., factory had voluntarily tested its wastewater and found codeine in trace concentrations thousands of times greater than what was found in the Delaware River. "The amounts of codeine we measured in the wastewater, prior to releasing it to the City of Wilmington, are not considered to be hazardous to the environment," said a company spokesman.

In another instance, equipment-cleaning water sent down the drain of an Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. factory in Denver consistently contains traces of warfarin, a blood thinner, according to results obtained under a public records act request. Officials at the company and the Denver Metro Wastewater Reclamation District said they believe the concentrations are safe.

Warfarin, which also is a common rat poison and pesticide, is so effective at inhibiting growth of aquatic plants and animals it's actually deliberately introduced to clean plants and tiny aquatic animals from ballast water of ships.

"With regard to wastewater management we are subject to a variety of federal, state and local regulation and oversight," said Joel Green, Upsher-Smith's vice president and general counsel. "And we work hard to maintain systems to promote compliance."

Baylor University professor Bryan Brooks, who has published more than a dozen studies related to pharmaceuticals in the environment, said assurances that drugmakers run clean shops are not enough.

"I have no reason to believe them or not believe them," he said. "We don't have peer-reviewed studies to support or not support their claims."

[erasmus111]

Even doctors tell you to flush your expired medicine.

Posted by observer2020 at 10:50 AM : Apr 20, 2009

Where I live, we are told NEVER to flush medicine down the toilet. We are told to take it to the pharmacies so they can dispose of them.

[erasmus111]

I don't know what other people will do, But I intend to pursue filtering my drinking and cooking water. I probably can't be sure to filter all these contaminants, but doing something is better than doing nothing.
A little peace of mind is better than great doubt.

Posted by grumpygeezer at 5:22 AM : Apr 20, 2009

Our water is constantly being tested and is supposedly alright to drink, but I still won't drink it because I don't feel like ingesting chlorine and all the other chemicals that are in it. I have a separate water tap that is filtered.

[SteveDeibele]

The pharmaceuticals and chemicals that are used to create the pharmaceuticals have a number of reasons for being in our water. Some chemical contents are the result of residues on the production vessels, others are the result of intermediate processing steps, and still others are certainly the result of disposal. The rules governing chemical waste and disposal will continually evolve as technology changes and as the public sentiment changes. From a scientific perspective, the "cocktail" mixes of chemicals can play highly influential roles in human and animal healths. Health responses to environmental changes can be extremely nonlinear, so the most appropriate approach is to put GREAT effort in minimizing chemical dumping into the environment. The pharmaceutical and chemical industries should not self-regulate, as time and again we can find examples where a business looks out for its own immediate interests, even at the expenses of the public. The article has insufficient information to make many critical-thinking conclusions. But clearly, 271 million pounds is a big deal, especially when you know the science and can reasonbly assume that the concentration of these pharmaceuticals are very nonuniformly distributed. The concentrations, in PPM, PPB, PPT, are also scientifically important. It is completely incorrect to say our uncontrolled, unrepeatable "cocktail" exposure to these chemicals makes us healthier. You don't have to look very hard to find case after case where chemical cocktails caused health problems for humanity, domesticated animals, and wildlife. Prevention of chemical pollutants in the environment is the key; regulatory changes to chemical and pharmaceutical production and disposal are needed.

Dr. Steve Deibele
Kiel, WI

[weedapeapl]

you better trot on over to Fox for the REAL news.
Posted by jimsmename at 10:58 AM : Apr 20, 2009

I've never seen their site.

What's the address?

[weedapeapl]

Even doctors tell you to flush your expired medicine.
Posted by observer2020 at 10:50 AM : Apr 20, 2009

If you've ever seen the "meds room" at a nursing home, they actually have a toilet installed up high at countertop level for disposing of expired meds - and the meds of residents who have "expired."

They are REQUIRED BY LAW to flush excess meds.

[observer2020]

Amazing what is flushed nowadays. Even doctors tell you to flush your expired medicine. Remember people....we ALL live downstream. They need to devise a "safe" way of disposing of our chemicals, medicines, etc., before we all turn into one-eyed, six-legged mutants.

[weedapeapl]

The article mentions the weight of the drugs, however no mentioning of the weight of the water in the US. Unless such information is available, how is someone able to calculate the ppm
Posted by jwesel1 at 7:02 AM : Apr 20, 2009


271 MILLION pounds of Drugs were released into waterways used for drinking water and you want to split hairs? No thanks!
Posted by skyk-2009 at 8:33 AM : Apr 20, 2009

Yah! How dare you confuse Sky King with facts!!!!

Don't you know? Liberals are ALLERGIC to facts!!!

How are is the liberal media going to create another hysterical scare story if you get bogged down with FACTS????/


LOL!!!

[louiville2]

Hey thats why I flush twice because I know Berkley is somewhere down stream.

[calgal4]

Drugs in the water, hormones and antibiotics in our meat, caffeine/guarana/ephedra in our drinks, pollution in our air....it's a miracle we're not all pychos with large breasts, lungs, and gonads, who have full immunity from everything!!!

[txlakeside]

My god there sure are a lot of STUPID folks questioning a story they should be worried about! One idiot actually posted that Europeans are healthier because they have pharmaceuticals in their water .... ROFLMAO! And another trying to figure out PPM based on weight when it is actually figured on total mass (volume x density) ! The story had nothing to do with PPM rather total pounds dumped! Dumb as dirt!