"BIOMONITORING"

     The Monterey Herald today carries an AP report that the federal government has offered California $1.7 million for "training, laboratory tests and technical support" to measure the levels of toxic chemicals in California residents (i.e., "biomonitoring").  The report notes:

A link between such a "body burden" and negative health effects has not yet been scientifically proven. But many researchers suspect that pollutants in the blood cause long-term damage, perhaps contributing to a decline in fertility, or quietly lowering the IQs of children....

      The California Legislature is considering the enactment of the State's own "biomonitoring" program.  At a cost estimated by the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials to be about $4 million annually, Senate Bill 600  by Assemblymember Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) would establish the "Healthy Californians Biomonitoring Program" to implement "oversight, monitoring and assessment" of the levels of pollutants in the bodies of California residents.

     It is difficult to believe that this program would end up costing only $4 million annually.  As the bill itself recites, "An estimated 85,000 chemicals are registered for use today in the United States. Another 2,000 chemicals are added each year."    Moreover, the bill goes on to recite that  "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has documented the presence of 116 environmental chemicals in the blood and urine of Americans of all ages and races."

     How is a $4 million/year program going to tackle a subject this vast, especially where (as noted earlier) a link between the general levels of pollutants in the body and negative health effects "has not yet been scientifically proven."  As the Assembly Committee analysis referenced above further noted in relating concerns expressed by opponents of the bill:

The scientific basis for studying chemicals in the human, however, faces a number of obstacles.  The basic information concerning the health effects of chemicals is largely absent for many tens of thousands of chemicals.  Accompanying this extensive "data gap" for basic kinds of health effects data (e.g., birth defects, cancer causing) is an even more profound absence of information regarding more subtle health impacts, such as those affecting the nervous or endocrine systems. Further complicating such inquiries is the absence of analytic methods or agreed upon protocols for detecting many chemicals.

     While Proposition 65 is a previous health initiative that potentially tackles a study of the universe of chemicals, the study is at least focused on only two diseases-- cancer and reproductive toxicity.  There is no such limitation in SB 600-- indeed, the bill would authorize the study of tens of thousands of chemicals and presumably then attempt to link those chemicals to any identifiable disease.  This is the type of open-ended, unfocused "study bureaucracy" that could not carry out its mission if the annual funds available were $40 million or $400 million, let alone a measly $4 million.

     The issue for the bill's critics, including me, is not whether it is worthwhile to try to prevent and cure disease.  Of course it is.  The issue is that SB 600 proposes a myopic mission with no contours or specific direction, a feel-good measure that will cost a bunch and likely do little good. 

     The Assembly, however, may be into feel-good measures even more than the Senate (which has already passed the bill); and the Assembly will likely pass this bill on a yet-again party-line vote.  The Governor should have his veto pen ready.

Comments

[Cheap UGG Bailey Button Grey Boots Outlet]

Hah. I think it’s emphasis, but whatever it is, it’s terrible. And I wish it would stop.

[Manon]

VERY INTERESTING QUESTION!I have wondered the same thing as my bilaopr is clearly a medical issue and I respond well and quickly to medication. "Therapy" would do me absolutely no good since the problem is clearly chemical. Not only that, but the mood stabilizer I take is also used to treat epilepsy as well (and was originally designed to treat it)So... why the distinction between the two, since they both involve the brain? Oh, and MRIs of Schizophrenic patients DO show abnormalities, so I don't understand why it's not considered a brain disease, rather than a mental disorder. Again, very interesting question and one I have been meaning to ask myself because of the stigma of mental illness. Why not epilepsy too? Some forms of epilepsy include seizures that disorient the individual (no convulsions, just staring into space) and cause mood changes as well. There are so many different types of seizures, yet they are not considered a mental illness. +5

[Khululiwe]

VERY INTERESTING QUESTION!I have wondered the same thing as my biaplor is clearly a medical issue and I respond well and quickly to medication. "Therapy" would do me absolutely no good since the problem is clearly chemical. Not only that, but the mood stabilizer I take is also used to treat epilepsy as well (and was originally designed to treat it)So... why the distinction between the two, since they both involve the brain? Oh, and MRIs of Schizophrenic patients DO show abnormalities, so I don't understand why it's not considered a brain disease, rather than a mental disorder. Again, very interesting question and one I have been meaning to ask myself because of the stigma of mental illness. Why not epilepsy too? Some forms of epilepsy include seizures that disorient the individual (no convulsions, just staring into space) and cause mood changes as well. There are so many different types of seizures, yet they are not considered a mental illness. +5