Toxic Exposure Bill Clears Hurdles: SCHWARZENEGGER WEIGHING NATION's FIRST STATE

[Guest guest]

Toxic Exposure Bill Clears Hurdles: SCHWARZENEGGER WEIGHING NATION's

FIRST STATEWIDE BIOMONITORING PROGRAM

By , San Mercury News, Calif.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/652066/toxic_exposure_bill_clear

s_hurdles_schwarzenegger_weighing_nations_first_statewide/index.html?

source=r_science

Sep. 11--Is there a connection between toxic chemicals and high

rates of breast cancer in the Bay Area? Do pesticides build up in

the bodies of Salinas farmworkers? Do people living near oil

refineries in ez or along freeways in San absorb harmful

levels of air pollution?

California may be on its way to finding out.

A bill that would set up the nation's first statewide program to

measure exposure to toxic chemicals by testing thousands of

volunteers has overcome industry opposition and reached the desk of

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The bill, SB 1379, by state Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, and Sen.

Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, would require the state Department of

Health Services to establish a program for residents who agree to

have their blood, urine and other body fluids tested for toxic

chemicals and other pollutants.

The program would be based on an increasingly popular science known

as " biomonitoring. " It seeks to track hundreds of potentially

harmful contaminants -- such as lead, mercury, DDT, PCBs and flame

retardants -- and learn more about their health risks by measuring

how much, and in whom, they accumulate.

Simply because chemicals can be detected in humans doesn't

necessarily mean they are causing harm, scientists note. Virtually

every American is exposed to a wide variety of chemical products --

from fumes at gas pumps to nail polish to garden fertilizer --

usually in small amounts with little or no ill effects. But high

levels of some toxins have been linked to increased risks for

cancer, birth defects, asthma and developmental disabilities. And

much remains unknown.

" We monitor the air, the water and land for chemical contaminants,

but we don't measure the chemical contaminants in people, " said

Janet Nudelman, director of program and policy for the Breast Cancer

Fund, a non-profit San Francisco group that focuses on environmental

risks for cancer. " By doing that, we can provide the kind of data we

need to better understand links between chemical exposure and rates

of disease, and communities that are disproportionately affected. "

If Schwarzenegger signs the bill, the new law would set up a nine-

member panel of experts appointed by the governor and legislative

leaders to design a program.

Voluntary subjects

Nudelman said she expects about 2,000 volunteers representing

varying ages, ethnicities and regions would be sought out first for

testing to compile statewide baseline information.

Afterward, specialized studies could be conducted. Examples include

measuring chemical levels in people living near the ports of Oakland

or Los Angeles, where ships and trucks emit high levels of soot.

Costs would total about $7 million a year, according to the Assembly

Appropriations Committee. Summaries of the findings -- but not

individual test results -- would be made public every two years,

starting in 2010.

For much of this year, the farm, oil, chemical and manufacturing

industries fought the bill after Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar

version in 2005.

The governor and industry critics had said it didn't include enough

scientific checks and balances, and risked misleading people by

overstating health risks from minuscule levels of exposure. But two

weeks ago, industry withdrew its opposition.

" If we are going to do this, we should do it thoughtfully,

professionally and scientifically, " said Margaret Bruce, director of

environmental programs for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, an

industry group in San that dropped its opposition.

" The whole program was based around an activist perception of what

would be important, rather than a scientist's, " she said. " A

biomonitoring program will give useful information if it gives

comparable, statistically valid data. "

Schwarzenegger's staff negotiated changes with Perata and Ortiz.

Those improved the bill, Bruce said. One change required that the

panel organizing the program be made up of experts with backgrounds

in epidemiology, biostatistics, toxicology and other disciplines.

Similar efforts failed three years in a row after industry also

opposed the funding sources. First, the bill was to be paid for by a

cigarette tax, then fees on industry. Now the money would come from

the state general fund.

Re-election plays in

Nudelman, however, insisted that the changes were relatively minor.

She said the California Farm Bureau Federation, American Chemistry

Council, California Chamber of Commerce and others dropped

opposition because they realized Schwarzenegger has made

environmentalism a key part of his re-election campaign and is

likely to sign the bill.

The bill is supported by the California Nurses Association, the

American Medical Association, large labor unions, and environmental

groups such as the Sierra Club.

Since 2000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has conducted

national biomonitoring studies. The last results in 2005 surveyed

2,200 people for 148 chemicals. The CDC found some chemicals such as

DDT, a pesticide banned in 1972, or pthalates, used to soften

plastic, are widely found in Americans. But it did not measure the

health threats.

Dr. , former head of the CDC's National Center for

Environmental Health, supports California's bill. He recalled

studying pesticides and farmworkers for years.

" Over and over again the problem we were dealing with is that we

really didn't have any idea what people were exposed to, " said

, now an adjunct professor at the University of California-

Berkeley. 'We had no way of measuring or knowing. "

He predicted other states will copy California.

" Biomonitoring gives you a chance to do a snapshot and look at

levels across the state, " said. " Do we have hot spots? Are

there people we should be looking at? Do our regulations work?

Unless you can measure it, you can't give people decent advice. "

Contact at progers@... or (408) 920-5045.