Home | About this site / SAC |About EHRF |Contact Us
 

 

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