clean water agency prevention group. our organization represents about 51 wastewater treatment plants to protect water quality. we protect this ordinance. we know it is wiser and less expensive to keep the pollution out of the water in the first place. we also know that many complex chemicals like those in pharmaceuticals are so persistent that even the most sophisticated trains cannot remove them. even if we could, hypothetically, that technology and energy required would be so huge that the cost of the public would not be sustainable. which is why we strongly support product restriction registration to stop pollution where it starts. area waste-water treatment agencies have led the way in california to prevent

pharmaceutical pollution. in one month we collected more than 30,000 pounds of pharmaceuticals. in september of this year, the usda collected 110,000 pounds of pharmaceuticals in one day. we know that the demand for copper disposal is there. it is no longer acceptable to throw things down the toilet or in the trash. batteries, paint, carpet, pharmaceuticals. the cost of this is so high that it should not be borne by cash strapped local government. manufacturers have distribution mechanisms that can be safe and cost-effective for the public to take back, and we urge you to support this ordinance. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> i am with san francisco suicide prevention. san francisco has 120 suicides

as opposed to the 80 homicides every year, 6000 suicide attempts each year. one every hour and half. most of these attempts take place with pharmaceuticals or over-the-counter drugs. we would like to speak out in favor of this measure. according to an article in the journal of american medical association that appeared in 2006, one of the most salient preventative measures that could be taken against suicide was the removal of lethal means from the immediate surrounding by person in crisis. especially a young person. this implies -- applies to adolescence that make impulsive a thames, especially if they have access to means in their homes -- impulsive attempts, especially if access to means in their home.

we can protect the children and the environment. i urge that we take that into account. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. after this next speaker i will call more names. [reads names] >> good afternoon. my name is bruce. i am the director of state government relations for a generic drug manufacturers. my company is the largest generic in the united states, facilities in multiple states. as well as more than 20 countries. one out of every 13 prescription drugs in the united states is accounted for by my company. while we share this goal in the ordinance to reduce the risk of drug abuse, accidental

poisonings, and protecting the water supply, we respectfully opposed this proposal and the method in which it uses to address this issue. we believe that this approach could be difficult, if not impossible, to implement on the scale of san francisco county and city. we also believe that it would increase health care costs and reduce access to lower care drugs. -- lower-cost drugs. currently they account for 70%, but we are only 22% of the cost. i would like to address a couple of things very quickly. first of all, we would beg to differ with the spokesperson from the department of the environment on what the cost of this would be. i worked on this effort in maine, which is similar in population to this city. proposing a cap of $1.5 million

for the first year with an expectation that it would exceed $2 million each year to run such a program on a statewide basis. generics have razor-thin profit margins. generic manufacturers cannot afford to foot the costs of these programs. if a program like this were implemented, it would potentially leave generic manufacturers with two options. first, raise the prices to cover the cost of the program, which would be difficult, or to decline to allow our products to be sold into the city. if that were the case, even if some manufacturers this -- declined to sell their drugs here, you could have products that were no longer available. supervisor mirkarimi: i have a question, through the chair. what is your profit in the united states? the profit margin for the sale of moderate -- sales of pharmaceutical -- sale of pharmaceuticals? >> i honestly cannot answer, and

i can get it for you. supervisor mirkarimi: do you want me to answer for you? with regards to your company's lobbying efforts in the state of maine, we called their. i am curious, what follow-up after your company's intervention in maine on this lot, what did you do point to follow up to say what level of state voluntary program would you like to establish? >> we did work with the legislature on an alternative at the time, which the senate was willing to pass. the sponsors in the house and environmental protection storage of institute, who were behind this effort, declined to accept a program that was anything but a manufacturer funded take back. we offered an alternative that we were willing to voluntarily

participate in, but that was not acceptable to the department of environmental protection. they made it clear that they preferred no program rather than an alternative program. supervisor mirkarimi: so, status quo, then. >> it is still an issue for conversation up there. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am hazardous materials program manager for the county of santa clara. in may of 2007 the board of supervisors of santa clara county advanced a product stewardship responsibility resolution in full support of the efforts you are taking on today. i think it needs to be called out that local government has saddled this burden and the purpose of product stewardship is to simply shift the financial and physical was bonn's ability for end of life management back

to those producers that profit for them. the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals in this country are content with privatizing those profits and socializing those costs. as long as we as local governments continue to accept that responsibility, we will have absolutely no voluntary coordination or cooperation from the manufacturing community. whether it is pharmaceuticals, pesticides, the list goes on and on. many of these products are banned from landfills. local governments have no choice but to deal with them. as it relates to expecting the federal government, for that matter the state government, to take care of the public health of our local jurisdiction, i urge you to support this ordinance and applaud you in your efforts. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i will read the names of the cards i have left. [reads names]

that is all the cards, if other people want to speak out. >> hello, my name is andrea and i am here on behalf of clean water action. we have 60,000 members here in california, most of whom live in the san francisco bay area. we applaud san francisco for once again showing leadership by introducing this ordinance to promote product stewardship. this is the type of proactive action needed to stop pollution at the source and is essential to truly protect our water resources. i, this from a very specific perspective. i spend a great deal of my time working to be sure that remediation for our waterways are adequate to bring water back into compliance with clean

water quality standards, water quality act standards. i want to say that these plans to take -- i have to do about 2000 right now on the books -- these can take over one decade, to develop these plans. one century to implement. it will cost californians millions of dollars. the thing is, it is a never- ending cycle. the emerging contaminants like pharmaceuticals in our water like we see today, they are the cleanup plans that we will have to do? line in the future. we believe that a program, like the one that san francisco needs to implement, must move forward. we think it must meet the specific needs of san francisco and take into consideration the specific experiences from other jurisdictions that have moved ahead on creating these drug

products three program. i want to address two things that came up in previous comments. should this be done at the state or national level? we actually hear this from the other side. the reality would be nice, but the truth of the matter is that oftentimes these initiatives have to start at this level. we applaud you for that. supervisor chiu: thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, next beaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you, supervisors. i am the director of state government relations for the consumer health-care products association. we are a trade association representing major u.s. manufacturers of non- prescription drugs. we must respectfully oppose this legislation. our member companies participate in programs like the american medicine chest challenge,

providing education for consumers about properly disposing of medicine and national drug take back days, such as the one being sponsored on november 13. if you look at the products in your home that you use every day, if you look at those products for drug fact labeling, you might be surprised to find how many of the common products they use are regulated as non- prescription drugs, like to faced and lip balm. if this legislation is passed, the outcome for consumers could result in many of the products they rely on every day could no longer be available to them if the regulatory burden is so high that some companies have to make the choice between not selling the product or setting of a system for products that, in many cases, for the manufacturers i represent, are not likely to be returned to the city using this program. we encourage support of the

existing programs like the american medicine chest challenge and to oppose this legislation. thank you. supervisor chiu: next speaker, please. >> mr. chair, and i am here to represent the california healthcare institute, a statewide association of 250 entities of pharmaceutical companies, like science companies, medical of but manufacturers, and universities. there are 275,000 employees in those companies. chi has submitted a letter that i would encourage you all to read. i will lift a few comments and then the conclusion of a letter. product stewardship programs must be a shared responsibility. in your proposal you define

extended producer responsibility as shared responsibility. this is not shared responsibility, it is sole responsibility placed on the manufacturers. the disposal of pharmaceuticals in the sewer system is a minor cause of the amount in the water system. most of the pharmaceuticals that wind up in the water supply are the result of patients taking those drugs, not metabolized and extreme -- excreted. let me point out, in a letter there is a reference to a german study in 1998 from german sewage plants and rivers. in that experience they have mandatory take back programs. they discovered no discernible reduction in the concentration of pharmaceuticals in surface water as a result. no discernible production with

mandatory take back programs. in conclusion, patient and environmental safety related to madison is a top priority of the biomedical industry. cha supports the necessity of a clean environment and save water, opposing efforts to place the burden on the biomedical industry that will not achieve the goal of the ordinance. we are willing to be part of a comprehensive and reasonable solution that includes -- [tone] however this ordinance does not do that, and we are opposed to this legislation, we would encourage you to study the issue further. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker. i was just handed two more cards. [reads names] >> good afternoon, supervisors. paul juicebee, we are the recycling company here in san

francisco. we are also the disposal company. pharmaceuticals do not belong in a landfill. it is extremely onerous and not efficient to take them to a household hazardous waste facility. we support legislation of this type that would have some sort of take back for pharmaceutical companies and drug stores for this. supervisor mirkarimi: the wall govern and administer the land waste, the waste that is processed through your company -- you all government and administer the land waste, the ways that is processed your company, but would you call the primary concerns of drugs disposed in the waste stream? >> they do go to the landfill. and it is not a landfill that is

properly maintained. they can leach into the environment, get into groundwater, that kind of thing. hopefully within the next five years we will have a contract for the disposal. it is still probably a good idea to not have them in a landfill. supervisor mirkarimi: you have been with the company for how long? >> 33 years. supervisor mirkarimi: has anyone from the pharmaceutical industry contacted you to say they wanted to help with the diversion? >> not to my knowledge. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is gail [unintelligible] ,ceo of [unintelligible] bio, a nonprofit organization representing a live science companies in california. we support a clean environment and applaud the concern that is

shown to keeping our waterways safe. but we oppose the sf board since on drug disposal. we believe that we need to address it at the national level. that needs to be a shared system and a coordinated effort. as you may know, the federal government already has a program initiated in product stewardship. the smart disposal program is a joint effort of the u.s. fish and wildlife services, the american pharmacists' association, and the pharmaceutical manufacturers association. together, public and private enterprises are working to have a coordinated effort at keeping api's out of the system and we think that san francisco should support this effort. an uncoordinated effort could do more harm than good in

undermining the federal efforts already underway. bye-bye to dissuade a couple of issues that my colleague has already mentioned. first, the waterways are shared. as a patchwork of ordinances' amongst city governments, it will not effectively address the problem. multiple european studies have found that mandatory take back programs are not effective. studies have shown that over 90% of the drugs that get into landfill and waterways are because of excretion from patient use, not take back programs. we would urge the city of san francisco to reject the city program and, in its stead, support the smart disposal federal program already under way, and to also support the american medical chest challenge day coming next month.

thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. thank you. >> my name is [unintelligible] and i am a volunteer with the department of the environment. i support the safe drug disposal ordinance. almost everyone has old medication that they do not know to -- what to do with. personally i have tried to take them back to my school clinic, what marines, they will not take them. many people still follow the old advice of flesh of -- flushing them down the toilet. this is at least in part because of synthetic estrogen winding up in the environment where does not belong. we need a way to make sure that this place and does not wind up in the environment. thank you supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. -- thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. mac's speaker, please.

>> my name is susan, recent graduate of the san francisco bay presidio graduate school in sustainable management. i have been actively studying and working in this area for several months now. last week i attended the international symposium on safe medicine disposal in portland, maine, where a couple of hundred people from around the country who are grappling with these problems got together to compare notes, sharing experience and knowledge. the magnitude of the problems are becoming recognized, because magnitude is staggering. of the $225 billion in prescription medicine prescribed annually, estimates are as high as 40%. which represents 200 million pounds of and use of medication reaching the landfills and waterways. as stated, waste treatment

plants are not equipped to properly filled to the use of these medicines. there is an impact on wildlife and human health. there are a lot of studies coming out, which is why everyone is more concerned about this. in 2002 there was a study that showed of 139,000 screens, 80% had measurable concentrations of prescription and non- prescription medicine. the environment is one problem. the other one is illicit drug use. something that was really highlighted in the conference last week, where law enforcement agencies reported that 55% of illicit drug use today came from family and friends medicine cabinets. it is a growing problem. with today's take back program at san francisco has been running for a while, i think

that this ordinance, where the states -- supervisor chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. we approve of an alternative way, i think that one thing that was raised earlier is -- what has the industry done? one month ago walgreen's started a voluntary program, the as a

first national chain. you cannot really send them through the mail. which is a problem in itself, trying to regulate something that the federal laws will not allow us to do. they have sent a message through the legislation to craft legislation and states to move towards the support of programs. let's allow these processes to take place. why would we want to be out front in this process? it is not like the federal government is dragging its feet by there. let's be part of a broader conversation.

this legislation was introduced in april. we appreciate the offices of the supervisor and we have done amendments that might capture retailers like walgreen's or someone and it would postpone this conversation. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you.

>> not exactly on this topic, if i have your permission, i will speak. supervisor chiu: you need to speak directly to the topic at the time. if this is related. ok, great. next speaker, please. as a representative of the sentence cisco -- san francisco, i am concerned about watershed pollution. this ordinance, what i really need to understand is the empirical data. from what i've heard from the department of the environment, the collection done by the department has been very minimal.

recently you heard that the united states drug agency has thousands of pounds of drugs in a day, with several other federal agencies that are involved in the collection of medicines because of suicides. as has been stated, this is a cause for us to look at this situation in different ways. what we will start doing is informally informing doctors and hospitals, pharmacies, of the source of their medications that are given to be very cautious. plus not just giving a lot of medications.

many doctors prescribe medications. sometimes would cause. sometimes without cause. so, it is good for this city of san francisco to set up a resolution to encourage doctors and other sources to not give out a lot of medications unnecessarily. now, one of the issues that has not been discussed here is animal waste. we have hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats, with waist that winds up in the landfill, in the watershed and the day. we need empirical data and the department of the environment should be one of the leading agencies to collect and give this to us. thank you. supervisor chiu: are there any

other members of the public that wish to speak to this item? seeing no one at this time, public comment is close. colleagues? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i appreciate the robust discussion around this. before i forget, i have a number of amendments that have been circulated. i do not know if you want me to go into detail? >> i think that that would be helpful. many of these have been raised based on the initial proposal. supervisor mirkarimi: this ordinance was introduced in april, it was never tabled. it was in the legislation since the time of its introduction. we have taken into consideration a number of concerns that strengthen the ordinance from a retail, manufacturer perspective