San Jose Mercury News  [Printer-friendly version]
September 11, 2006

TOXIC EXPOSURE BILL CLEARS HURDLES

[Rachel's introduction: The California legislature has passed a bill
to create an "early warning system" by measuring toxic chemicals in
the bodies of California residents. The bill now sits on Governor
Schwarzenegger's desk, awaiting his signature or veto. "By
monitoring, 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," said Janet
Nudelman of the Breast Cancer Fund.]

By Paul Rogers

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 Martinez
or along freeways in San Jose 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.

===================================================

Sidebar: CREATING TOXINS DATABASE

** Senate Bill 1379 would set up the nation's first statewide program
to measure exposure to toxic chemicals by testing thousands of
volunteers.

** The program would 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.

** The state Department of Health Services would set up the program
for residents who agree to have their blood, urine and other body
fluids tested for toxic chemicals and other pollutants.

===================================================

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 Jose 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. Richard Jackson, 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
Jackson, 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," Jackson 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 Paul Rogers at progers@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5045.