The Journal

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 278 No 7452 p586
19 May 2007

This article
Reprint Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

• White paper (5)
• Dispensing errors
• Insect bites and stings
• Community contract
• Locum pharmacy
• Pseudoephedrine
• The Journal (2)

Letters to the Editor

The Journal

Neither eco-friendly or security conscious (Mr D. Knott)

No response from the Society is just as interesting (Mr P. Walton)

Neither eco-friendly or security conscious

From Mr D. Knott, MRPharms

Upon reflection, am I the only eco-friendly and security-conscious reader of the PJ? Worldwide, 53,932 copies (based upon an average circulation from January to December 2006) are being received in non–biodegradable and non-recyclable plastic. What do we do with our shrink-wraps? Should we not, in a caring society be playing our part and requesting, no demanding, that The Journal be sent in a suitable material that will not end up in a landfill site?

The name and address of the recipient and, in the majority of cases their registration number, is printed on a plastic that I stretch on receipt to render the confidential information irretrievable. Currently the wrapping is not suitable for putting through the ubiquitous shredder.

I would be most interested to hear other members’ views on the topic as well as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s. Cost and practical implications would be its response, but what do you, the reader, think?

David Knott
Hornchurch, Essex

Biodegradable polywrap (which would break down in landfill sites or under UV light in 12 months) would cost a further £50,000 per issue (over £2.5m per year).

Readers can return their polywrap to be recycled by the manufacturer to Polyprint Mailing Films Ltd, Mackintosh Road, Rackheath Industrial Estate, Rackheath, Norwich NR13 6RJ.
— EDITOR

CLARIFICATION Journal packaging
In the editor’s response (above) to David Knott’s letter (PJ, 19 May, p586) we gave misleading information provided by the supplier about the cost of distributing The Journal in biodegradable polywrap.

We have investigated the options further and it is cost effective to switch to biodegradable polywrap, which will take place from this issue (23 June 2007).

No response from the Society is just as interesting

From Mr P. Walton, MRPharmS

I would like to commend The Pharmaceutical Journal for informing readers when the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has been given a chance to respond to a letter and has declined to do so. Informing readers of no response is as important as informing them of any response given. I hope that this encourages the Society to respond to letters when given the opportunity to do so, as failure to do so could have negative connotations in the minds of readers.

In the past I have complained to the managing editor of the PJ when letters have been delayed, but now I am more than happy that readers will know the reason for any time delay that separates a letter from the event being written about. Maybe this change in the style of the letters’ pages is not new, but it is the first time I have noticed it.

Philip Walton
Manchester

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Pseudoephedrine)