Conscious Choice: Biomonitoring: Emissions Testing for the Body

28 Illinois legislators had their blood screened for chemicals to create awareness for a pending biomonitoring bill. All 28 had some level of mercury in their hair — and 9 of the samples, or 32 percent — exceeded the safe guidelines established by the EPA and the FDA.

Illinois State Representative Karen May was one of the participants in the study. “It really hit home to see my mercury levels so high,” she said. “Coal plants are responsible for most of our mercury pollution [in Illinois].”

May 2007

Biomonitoring: Emissions Testing for the Body

By Keri Lynch

The average American comes into contact with thousands of toxic chemicals every day, a whole host of unpronounceable and unknown compounds that are used to make clothing, furniture, pesticides, cleaning products, plastics, cosmetics and more. Do citizens—or even scientists—know what this mix of chemicals does to the human body? The honest answer is no.

With new laboratory technology, it is now possible to test individuals for a wide variety of chemicals using samples of urine, breast milk, blood or hair. Chemicals that can be detected include heavy metals, PCB’s, dioxins, pesticide residues, flame-retardants, volatile organic compounds and cotinine, from tobacco smoke.

It is called biological monitoring or “biomonitoring.”

“(Scientists) can measure the amount of substances that could be toxic in people with these screening techniques,” says Max Muller, a Chicago-based environmentalist. “Each person carries a unique ‘chemical body burden,’ and you start to worry when the doses or concentrations might be toxic. We may be getting to that point with some chemicals.”

But wait? Doesn’t the government assure the safety of these products?

“The government does not test chemicals before they are used in products available to everyone,” Muller reports. “There is an FDA for food and drugs but there is nothing like it for chemicals.”

Serious health problems from PCB’s, lead, radon and asbestos led to regulation of these chemicals under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act which gave regulatory authority to the Environmental Protection Agency, but only for those four substances.

“People don’t realize that chemicals such as mercury will be around forever once they are introduced into the environment,” said Dr. Milton Clark, health and science advisor for the U.S. EPA. “Other chemicals such as flame retardants may last decades. The wise strategy is to use a precautionary approach with chemicals to evaluate the risk of human exposure.”

Another scientist estimated that 5,000 new chemicals are introduced each year with little or no evaluation of their safety. Dr. Peter Orris, professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Illinois-Chicago School of Public Health, said chemicals should be fully tested and regulated. But currently, the burden of proof lies with the public to prove that chemicals may be harmful rather than the users or manufacturers proving, or even fully testing, whether the materials are safe.

“We are ingesting these (chemicals) like we ingest food and we need to pay attention,” Orris said. “It stands to reason that these products should be tested.”

Since 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has conducted biomonitoring studies using samples from three thousand randomly selected individuals. The goals are to establish reference points or baselines for chemical exposures and determine future research priorities related to human health. The 1999-2000 report found 27 chemicals, including 13 heavy metals, 6 metabolites (from pesticides) and 7 phthalates (from plasticizers).

California recently passed a biomonitoring law, which left it to experts to determine the specifics. Legislators in Illinois introduced a biomonitoring bill that, if passed, would provide for the University of Illinois at Chicago to get a program for biomonitoring rolling. It should be noted that it took two years to pass the biomonitoring bill in California, and many expect major hurdles to get an Illinois bill passed, like cost. Testing is expensive, estimated at several thousand dollars per person. California’s estimated costs are $7 million a year.

“This is a discussion piece,” Max Muller said, framing the issue again. “It probably won’t result in a biomonitoring program this or even next year, but the issue will finally be on the table.”

Keri Lynch is a graduate student of journalism at Columbia College Chicago, and an intern for Conscious Choice.

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: