Summary of NRC Report on Biomonitoring

As a service for our users, BiomonitoringInfo.org has prepared this Summary of the U.S. National Research Council's 215-page report: Human Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals. The 2006 NRC report describes the biomonitoring situation today, identifies strengths and limitations of current data, outlines future challenges and provides a roadmap for meeting those challenges. (Full NRC Report available for a fee) EMAIL THIS

CDC Third National Report

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. July 21, 2005. Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. National Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, GA. Third in a series of biennial biomonitoring reports that provide an ongoing assessment of the U.S. population's exposure to environmental chemicals. EMAIL THIS

Biomonitoringinfo.org Science Advisory Council members interviewed in press coverage:

Associated Press. July 21, 2005. "Dr. Charles McKay, a medical toxicologist for Hartford Hospital in Connecticut, said researchers will be able to use the report as a reference to determine what levels of chemicals are typically found in Americans. It also will be helpful for doctors, he added. "It allows us to reassure people if they are concerned ... that the actual amount that you take into your body for a large number of chemicals is trivial, is vanishingly small," said McKay, also associate medical director of the Connecticut Poison Control Center at the University of Connecticut Health Center. (Search for "CDC environmental chemicals" in AP Archive, full text for a fee;or free online through some subscribing newspapers and Web sites)

Greenwire. July 22, 2005. "It's nice to see the trends," said Michael Holland, a medical toxicologist and professor at SUNY Upstate Medical University. Holland, who sat on the independent advisory board that recommended which chemicals the CDC should test for, said there were few surprises in the scientific research released yesterday. However, Holland said the challenge facing CDC and EPA will be in determining what the data really means. "Detecting a chemical doesn't mean anything if you don't know what the health effects are." he said. "If we knew the health effects for each chemical like we do for lead, that would be great." (Greenwire Archive; full text available online to subscribers)

Commentary

Limitations and Uncertainties of Biomonitoring Surveys Conducted With Small Populations. A commentary by Biomonitoringinfo.org Science Advisory Council member Elizabeth L. Anderson, Ph.D., Sept. 1, 2006, on the trend in the public announcement of very small sample size biomonitoring, such as the June 1 release by Environmental Defence Canada of the results of its 5-family survey in Canada. The commentary addresses the requirements of scientifically credible biomonitoring studies and points out the common scientific limitations of interpreting the results and drawing meaningful conclusions about public health from non-random, small-sample surveys. NOTE TO MEDIA: Reporters seeking further information and perspective may contact Biomonitoringinfo.org by clicking on "Biomonitoring Experts for Journalists." EMAIL THIS

Commentary on CDC's "Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals," an analysis and commentary by Biomonitoringinfo.org Science Advisory Council member Charles A. McKay, MD, and João H. Delgado, MD, Division of Medical Toxicology, Hartford Hospital/University of Connecticut School of Medicine. EMAIL THIS

Perspective on Environmental Defence’s report “Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadians” by EM-COM, an internet-based information resource based at the Institute for Population Health at the University of Ottawa. EMAIL THIS

Perspective on Environmental Working Group (EWG) Report on Chemicals Found in Neonatal Cord Blood Samples. A commentary by Biomonitoringinfo.org Science Advisory Council member Charles A. McKay, MD. July 14, 2005. EMAIL THIS

Why Are Chemicals in My Body? A timely, five-question Q&A for the general public by Biomonitoringinfo.org Science Advisory Council member Ronald D. Hood, Ph.D. EMAIL THIS

Recent Studies

International Journal of Toxicology, February 2007, The “Low Dose” Hypothesis: Validity and Implications for Human Risk. An article by BiomonitoringInfo.org Science Advisory Council member Michael A. Kamrin addresses a hypothesis that has been used to suggest that the low levels of environmental chemicals typically observed in biomonitoring studies may be having an effect on human health. The review examines both recent and older studies that have been cited to support the hypothesis and concludes that “these ‘low dose’ effects have yet to be established, that the studies purported to support these cannot be validly extrapolated to humans, and the doses at which the studies have been performed are significantly higher than the levels to which humans are exposed.” EMAIL THIS

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, February 2007, Biomonitoring equivalents: screening approach for interpreting biomonitoring results from a public health risk perspective. An article by S.M. Hays, R.A. Becker, H.W. Leung, L.L. Aylward and D. W. Pyatt discusses how the ability to make health risk assessments lags behind the analytic chemist's ability to quantify minute substances in human biological specimens, such as blood, urine and breast milk. The paper discusses the issues in converting existing safe exposure levels, which are based on intake doses from laboratory animal studies, to the exposure levels, such as parts per billion in blood, provided by biomonitoring studies. The paper presents methods and approaches that can be used to derive such screening levels (termed 'Biomonitoring Equivalents,' or BEs) for a range of chemicals and biological media). EMAIL THIS

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, January 2007, Reporting results of biomonitoring studies. Feature article by W.G. Foster (Biomonitoringinfo.org Science Advisory Council member) and John Agzarian reviews communications strategies used in biomonitoring studies and presents an approach for communication of results to study participants. The authors conclude that "the information communicated must inform the recipient about their exposure and contain sufficient evidence-based information to appropriately guide decisions about changes in behavior or the need to seek medical intervention, if warranted. For most chemicals, however, data is incomplete, making determination of health risks an uncertain process." EMAIL THIS

Environmental Health Perspectives, November 2006, Spheres of Influence: Setting a Baseline for Biomonitoring. The cover art, a FOCUS section on "Signs of the Times: Biomarkers in Perspective," and seven research papers highlight the findings of the 2004 International Biomonitoring Workshop. Of these, the paper by Albertini et al. summarizes the lessons learned while the other papers present case studies of biomonitoring results on six chemical classes. EMAIL THIS

McLaughlin Centre for Population Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, October 17, 2006, Workshop Proceedings on Understanding Human Biomonitoring. Report on an Oct. 5 workshop at the University of Ottawa's McLaughlin Centre at which representatives of academic institutions, government agencies, industry and NGOs discussed ways "to increase the understanding of human biomonitoring and the importance of robust study designs, scientifically sound interpretations of results and effective communication of new results." Presentation topics included Health Canada's biomonitoring program, the information resources on Biomonitoringinfo.org, and the challenges of interpreting biomonitoring data (Workshop Summary). EMAIL THIS

Toxicological Sciences, September 2006, Strategic Biomonitoring Initiatives: Moving the Science Forward. Paper by eight academic, government and industry scientists (Jürgen Angerer, Michael G. Bird, Thomas A. Burke, Nancy G. Doerrer, Larry Needham, Steven H. Robison, Linda Sheldon and Hal Zenick) presenting perspectives from speakers at a session on "Integration of Biomonitoring Exposure Data into the Risk Assessment Process" at the January 2006 annual meeting of the International Life Sciences Institute's (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute. Acknowledging the vast array of data now available from biomonitoring programs in the U.S. and Europe, the session speakers noted that "better estimates of biological concentrations of substances in the tissues of human populations can be combined with other exposure indices, as well as epidemiological and toxicologic data, to improve risk estimates. With this type of combined data, the potential exists to define exposure levels at which hazard and risk are of minimal concern." Other topics discussed include limitations in interpreting biomonitoring data and the importance of communicating the significance of the data to the public. (Full text available online for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

Environmental Health Perspectives, August 2006, Biomonitoring and Biomarkers: Exposure Assessment Will Never Be the Same. Journal article by Dennis Paustenbach and David Galbraith discusses the implications for biomonitoring and exposure assessment of modern analytic technology that now makes it possible to measure almost any chemical present in the human body. The authors note that "biomonitoring data, by themselves, are not informative in helping consumers understand their individual health risk." In addressing the challenge of how scientists can best communicate the results of studies to the public, they recommend that "these data be carefully interpreted, with the goal of establishing baseline exposure information, rather than creating surrogates for conclusions about human health risk." EMAIL THIS

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, July 24, 2006, Human Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals. A committee of the National Academy of Sciences reviews current practices on biomonitoring and recommends ways to improve the interpretation and uses of human biomonitoring data. The report may be read online for free, a prepublication copy (pdf) can be downloaded for a fee, or the report purchased for later delivery. Reporters seeking further information and perspective may contact Biomonitoringinfo.org by clicking on "Biomonitoring Experts for Journalists." EMAIL THIS

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, April 2006, Biomonitoring: Is body burden relevant to public health? Journal article by Dennis Paustenbach and David Galbraith reviews the history of biomonitoring and the limitations and potential benefits of these studies. The authors conclude that: "Overall, we recommend an approach of careful interpretation, understanding that the data obtained are useful for establishing baseline information about exposure, rather than equating detection with risk. We present suggestions for contextualizing biomonitoring results in order to provide the public with the tools to distinguish genuine health risks from trivial ones." (Full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

International Journal of Andrology, February 2006, Human exposure assessment to environmental chemicals using biomonitoring. Five U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists (Antonio M. Calafat, Xiaoyun Ye, Manori J. Silva, Zsuzsanna Kuklenyik, and Larry L. Needham) provide an overview on the use of biomonitoring in human exposure assessment. The authors discuss "factors relevant for interpreting and understanding biomonitoring data, including selection of both biomarkers of exposure and human matrices, and toxicokinetic information." EMAIL THIS

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, October 22, 2005. Overview: Technical Workshop on Human Milk Surveillance and Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals in the United States. Report on a panel of experts led by Cheston M. Berlin, Jr., MD, and Judy S. LaKind, Ph.D., that "explored issues related to the use of human milk biomonitoring for environmental chemicals (including a wide range of chemicals to which women may be exposed -- industrial chemicals, chemicals in personal care and home/yard products, pharmaceuticals, and recreational and illicit drugs) for understanding human exposure and health, and evaluating and communicating possible health risk." Following up a 2002 workshop on the same subject, the expert panel at this second workshop in September 2004 concluded that the mere presence of environmental chemicals in human milk does not necessarily indicate health risks for infants, emphasized the positive value of breast-feeding for infants and identified a number of recommendations for future research. (Summary and key recommendations for future research in a news release from Penn State Hershey Medical Center; full text available online to subscribers or for a fee. See also Washington Post, October 11, 2005, Infant Nutrition: Breast Is (Still) Best; after two weeks, full text available online only for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

Environmental Health Perspectives, forthcoming article, Biomonitoring Workshop Report: Biomonitoring Study Design, Interpretation, and Communication - Lessons learned and path forward. Article by Michael N. Bates, Joshua W. Hamilton, Judy S. LaKind, Patricia Langenberg, Michael O'Malley and Wayne Snodgrass that describes the recommendations of an interdisciplinary panel that convened for a one-day workshop in November 2004 to focus on "three specific aspects of biomonitoring: characteristics of scientifically robust biomonitoring studies; interpretation of human biomonitoring data for potential risks to human health; and communication of results, uncertainties, and the limitations of biomonitoring studies." EMAIL THIS

International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, June 16, 2005, ISRTP Workshop: Understanding Human Biomonitoring. A collection of speakers' presentation notes and slides from this biomonitoring conference in Sacramento, CA, addressing the "importance of building into a biomonitoring program processes that assure robust study designs, scientifically sound interpretation methods and high quality public communications." Includes overview of workshop prepared by ISRTP. (See also "Workshop Report: Understanding Human Biomonitoring," by Christopher J. Borgert in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, November 2005; full text available online to subscribers or for a fee.) EMAIL THIS

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, April 8, 2005, National exposure measurements for decisions to protect public health from environmental exposures. An article by Dr. James L. Pirkle and three other Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists explains how exposure data such as the biomonitoring assessments released by CDC every two years as the "National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals" help public health officials and physicians protect public health. The authors state: "This exposure information identifies which chemicals get into Americans in measurable quantities; determines whether exposure levels are higher among population subgroups; determines how many Americans have levels of chemicals above recognized health threshold levels (for chemicals with such threshold levels); establishes reference ranges that define general population exposure so unusual exposures can be recognized; assesses the effectiveness of public health efforts to reduce population exposure to selected chemicals; and tracks over time trends in US population exposure." EMAIL THIS

Press Reports(Press Archives)

Chemical & Engineering News, January 28, 2008. Making Sense of Biomonitoring: New tool for interpreting data is based on established safe doses for chemicals. Cheryl Hogue reviews the state of biomonitoring knowledge and the increasing interest in the subject by media, interest groups and government agencies. While noting the remarkable improvements in analytic tools that can now detect "increasingly minuscule" amounts of chemicals in people's blood, urine or breast milk, the writer also points out the key unanswered question: "What do the levels of toxics mean for the health of the individuals tested?" The article describes a new but promising concept for interpreting biomonitoring data. Though challenging to determine, a "biomonitoring equivalent" would correspond to the blood or urine level of a chemical - or its metabolites - that would represent a safe dose of the substance. Though not a tool for determining risk for a particular person, biomonitoring equivalents could help public health officials in screening populations and scientists in prioritizing chemicals for further study. (Full text available online for subscribers) EMAIL THIS

National Post (Canada), June 13, 2006. The search for safe: Our bodies contain a 'chemical cocktail.' All bodies must to survive. But the mere presence of chemical should not set off alarms. Dr. Joe Schwarcz, chemistry professor and director McGill University's Office for Science and Society, challenges the alarmist conclusions drawn by a recent biomonitoring report by Environmental Defence (Canada) that highlights the "toxic chemicals" that enter our bodies from our environment. "Actually, without appropriate context, 'toxic chemical' is a meaningless term," says Schwarcz, adding that "A common way to measure toxicity is to determine the dose below which no adverse effects are seen….curiously, the reports do not mention any reference value. Not even when these exist." He concludes that "we can take some comfort in the fact that, despite the dire picture sometimes painted of our society with 'toxic chemicals,' our average life expectancy increases every year." (Full text available online for a fee through FPinfomart.ca) EMAIL THIS

Wall Street Journal (European edition), Nov. 2, 2005. Chemical Warfare. University of Edinburgh molecular scientist Anthony Trewavas writes that the World Wildlife Federation's "Generations X" biomonitoring campaign and similar campaigns against chemicals by other activist groups mislead the public by not providing information needed to make a balanced judgment and by ignoring a cardinal rule of toxicology: All chemicals are hazardous, depending on the dose. Dr. Trewavas concludes that "if we make policy based not on the best scientific understanding but instead on imagined
dangers or what-ifs, we rely on ignorance." (Full text available to online subscribers) EMAIL THIS

The Observer (London), Sept. 18, 2005. Poison experts attack 'hysteria'
over chemicals. Science editor Robin McKie reports that leading toxicology experts in
Britain reject claims by activists groups that the public should be alarmed by biomonitoring reports showing most people have toxic chemicals in their blood. The article cites Greenpeace and WWF-UK biomonitoring announcements and responses of several toxicologists, including Professor Alan Boobis of Imperial College, London, who says: "These compounds can cause disease but not at the levels found in these tests. Most chemicals were found at a fraction of a part per billion. There is no evidence such concentrations pose any threat to people's health. This is irresponsible, hysterical scaremongering." EMAIL THIS

Oakland Tribune, March 10, 2005. A Body's Burden: Our Chemical Legacy. A three-part series on trace levels of industrial chemicals present in the human body recounts a nine-month biomonitoring project sponsored by the newspaper. The series cites studies linking chemicals to cancers and other health effects and experts who disagree on whether it is likely that minute doses cause harm to humans. All agree on the need for further research. EMAIL THIS

Regulatory and Government Update

California Biomonitoring Program Advisory Panel Begins Work. In December 2007 the nine-member Scientific Guidance Panel of the California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (CECBP) held its first meeting in Sacramento. Established by legislation (SB 1379) signed in September 2006 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), California's biomonitoring program will measure levels of potentially toxic chemicals in a representative sample of the state's residents every two years. The advisory panel is charged with recommending what chemicals to test for and the broad outlines of how the program should be conducted. Administration of the program will be a collaboration of three state government departments: The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the Cal/EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and the Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The biomonitoring findings will help scientists prioritize research on chemicals of concern, public health researchers explore links between exposure to certain chemicals and diseases, and public officials assess the effectiveness of environmental regulations. EMAIL THIS