Consumer Protection

Environment

Good Government

Public Health

Higher Education

Mass Transit

Social Justice

Home

Don't Major in Debt!

Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products

There is growing concern over pharmaceuticals and other personal care products entering surface and groundwater.  Pharmaceuticals include chemicals such as over-the-counter medicines, cosmetics and other personal care products, as well as antibiotics and growth hormones used with livestock.

A finding by the Associated Press (AP) that prescription drugs and other medicines were found in the drinking water supplies for millions of Americans is troubling.  However, pharmaceuticals in our waterways is not a new phenomenon. Scientists have known about this problem for some time, but with advanced technologies we are now able to detect them at low levels.  Many believe that as long as pharmaceuticals have been in use, they and their metabolites have contributed to the overall environmental contamination load.  This issue began to gain recognition in Europe in the early 1990s, when German scientists found a cholesterol-lowering drug in groundwater.  Soon after, other European researchers discovered chemotherapy drugs, antibiotics and hormones in drinking water sources.

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) include over-the-counter (OTC) medications such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen; prescription medications such as antibiotics and those used for cardiac disorders and hypertension; female sex hormones used in birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy; cosmetics and other personal care products such as perfumes; as well as veterinary medications and growth hormones used with livestock.  Some PPCPs are endocrine disrupting compounds, which have the potential to interfere with hormonal production.

In response to the AP article, some water utilities were quick to point out that such low levels of pharmaceuticals, much lower than what is considered a medical dose, pose no real threat to humans.  But the reality is that no one really knows what the true impacts to humans are; while some scientists believe the exposure levels are so low they’re insignificant, others are concerned about cumulative, long-term, chronic and synergistic effects in humans.  And with the release of antibiotics into our waters, disease-causing bacteria may become immune to treatments, and as a result, drug-resistant diseases may develop.

One point on which scientists generally agree is that aquatic ecosystems are noticeably at risk from exposure to pharmaceuticals. With fish and amphibians showing behavioral and sexual mutations, they are in effect the new “canaries in the coal mine.”

Typically, prescription and OTC medication residues get into the water supply by being passed out of the body and flushed into sewer lines and septic tanks; externally-applied drugs and personal care products are washed down the drain when we shower or bathe; and unused or expired medications are unwisely disposed of by being flushed down the toilet.  Since wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and septic systems are not designed to remove pharmaceuticals and personal care products, the compounds end up in surface waters and groundwater.
In response to the recent AP reports, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a statement that, “New York City’s drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system.”  They are correct.  All of the pharmaceuticals reported in drinking water supplies are unregulated in tap water.  Although the drugs found by the AP research were at low concentrations, measured in parts per billion or parts per trillion, any level is legal and currently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require water utilities to test for these substances.

During the 1997 Watershed MOA negotiations, the environmental parties recognized that pharmaceuticals could contaminate our waters and successfully pressed the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) to agree to conduct a study to determine if pharmaceuticals were present in New York City source waters.  WWTP effluents and reservoir samples were collected at 12 locations within the New York City Watershed and analyzed for 11 compounds.*  Results of the tests conducted by NYSDOH and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) showed that trace concentrations of heart medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, anti-convulsant medications, a mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer were indeed detected in varying degrees.

As a nation, we cannot ignore this problem or give it short shrift any longer. There are steps that can be taken that will begin to address this issue.

1. Establish a national strategy to address how these contaminants make their way into the environment.  EPA must assume a leadership role and take action.  Congress directed EPA to screen pesticides for hormonal activity in humans through the enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (Section 136) authorized EPA to screen for drinking water contaminants as well.  While EPA did develop an Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee in 1996, there has been very little progress.  After 11 years and in response to a lawsuit filed by environmentalists, 73 out of 87,000 chemicals were finally placed on a draft list of chemicals EPA intends to screen for.
   
   
2. Include pharmaceuticals, personal care products and endocrine disruptors in the Contaminant Candidate Listing (CCL).  Section 1412(b)(1) of the SDWA requires EPA to publish a list of unregulated contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require control through national primary drinking water regulation.  The CCL merely advises people that the contaminant may be regulated in the future.  Of the 287 pharmaceuticals analyzed for inclusion in the CCL, only one—nitroglycerin—was added.  Strangely, nitroglycerine was listed not because of its contaminant status, but because it can be used to make explosives.  EPA has not only failed to screen for these PPCP contaminants, but also failed to even add them to the CCL.
   
   
3. Hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable by calling on them to reformulate medications to allow for more efficient human intake, thereby making them more environmentally friendly.  As has been widely reported in the media, even the pharmaceutical industry is taking note.  In remarks at an industry conference, Mary Buzby, Director of Environmental Technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. said, “There’s no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they’re at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms.”
   
   
4. Upgrade Wastewater Treatment Plants to technologies that will remove pharmaceuticals during treatment.  The tools and technologies exist to remove pharmaceuticals from our water supplies—including reverse-osmosis, membrane filtration, carbon filtering and exposure to ozone or ultraviolet light—and such technologies should be employed.  This year, the U.S. Geological Survey will conduct a pilot study to see which of these treatment technologies will best reduce pharmaceuticals in the New York City Watershed.
   
   
5. Establish pharmaceutical “take-back” programs, which are collection programs aimed at reducing the quantity of unused pharmaceuticals entering the environment.  These initiatives provide the legal framework and the logistic resources required to allow the general public to turn in pharmaceuticals to be disposed of safely.  Several states, cities, and counties throughout the United States—including Alachua County, Florida; Clark County, Washington; Kendall County, Illinois; La Crosse, Wisconsin; Olmsted Falls, Ohio; and Southern California—have successfully initiated long-term pharmaceutical collection programs, while others have organized single-day or annual collection events.
   
   
6. Provide states with more funding.  There should be increased funding for research into the potential aquatic and human health impacts from exposure to trace concentrations of these contaminants.  Our concern is not so much what we know, but what we don’t know.  The studies conducted by NYSDOH and USGS in New York were funded through SDWA monies, and that funding has been used up.  Although Congress reauthorized additional funding in FY04, appropriations have not been forthcoming.

Clean, healthy drinking water is vital, and with our population aging and pharmaceutical use on the rise, the problem can only be expected to get worse.