Takeaways from Take-Back Plan

Almost a year ago, Los Angeles County supervisors asked the Public Works Department to look into forming some sort of partnership to assist the county in collecting unused and discarded prescription drugs and “sharps,” a medical term for devices with sharp points or edges that can puncture or cut skin. The county formed a working group that included the director of Public Works, the Chief Executive’s Office, county counsel, the Sheriff’s Department, the Departments of Health Services and local sanitation districts. Pharmaceutical companies were left notably without representation. The solution county officials devised was to force pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay for collection bins for drugs and sharps to be placed inside local pharmacies and grocery stores, dictating the bins be placed where cross-contamination, among other concerns, could occur. The stores, pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies oppose the plan for several reasons: It’s costly; it’s unsafe; and they had pitched a more comprehensive, less expensive alternative – an educational plan that would provide significantly more information and the potential to have a more lasting and significant impact. County officials’ plan flies in the face of logic. As a grocer or a pharmacist, why would you want to put your customers in danger by placing a bin that contains medical waste within the reach of your customers’ children or inside a business where they buy produce? The county’s plan is not only a punishment for grocery retailers and pharmacists, it’s also a punitive proposal for pharmaceutical manufacturers that will be forced to pay for a plan that has proved to be ineffective in other counties such as Alameda. The pharmaceutical industry is trying to be a responsible actor in this situation, which is why the no-cost, comprehensive education plan being proposed makes so much more sense than a costly, ineffective one. The industry plan would be a first-of-its-kind, public-private partnership on drugs and sharps disposal education. It has broad industry support and has no cost to the county or local residents, meaning the county could address the concern and avoid adding unnecessary costs and regulations that are only going to raise the cost for consumers and discourage businesses from the area. In addition to the health, safety and cost concerns imposed by placing these medical waste bins inside stores, another problem with the county’s “extended producer responsibility” take-back program is the lack of fairness and the precipitous standard it creates. Does the county now intend to hold all manufacturers accountable for every use and disposal of their products, for the lifetime of the product and then some, regardless of cost or reason? That seems to be the benchmark created under the guise of “product stewardship” – which is a justification for punitive, draconian measures undertaken by anyone who produces anything commercially in California. Under such a burden, it’s no wonder California is struggling to retain and attract manufacturing jobs. It makes it pretty expensive to produce something if you also have to worry about paying for every possible use and providing all disposal means for your customers. Requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to fund an ineffective take-back program sets a terrible precedent. This initiative also could incentivize local manufacturers to leave the region for an area with a better manufacturing climate. If Los Angeles County genuinely wants to retain and attract manufacturing and biotechnology jobs, as well as foster growth for our pharmaceutical industry, then county officials need to do a better job of working with their concerns instead of just foisting more costs and regulations on them. Stuart Waldman is president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, a Sherman Oaks-based business advocacy organization that represents L.A. County employers at the local, state and federal levels of government.