Posted on 06/01/2004 7:32:47 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
SAN JOSE, Calif. - (KRT) - What sort of potentially toxic chemicals are floating around in your body? Four parts per billion of pentachloronitrobenzene, perhaps? Trace amounts of dibutyl phthalate? And can they make you sick?
Scientists aren't at all clear on the last question yet. But California lawmakers are considering a bill that wades deep into the national debate over biomonitoring - and asks chemical manufacturers and distributors to pay for it.
Biomonitoring is an emerging science that analyzes human blood, breast milk and urine for trace amounts of pollutants, from lead and mercury to a host of industrial chemicals with unpronounceable names. After decades of testing soil, water, air and food, scientists now are scrutinizing pollution in people, cataloging chemicals that take up residence in fat cells and body fluids in hopes of establishing links to cancer and other diseases.
Last week the state Senate passed the Healthy Californians Biomonitoring Program, carried by Sen. Deborah Ortiz, a Democrat, and sponsored by the Breast Cancer Fund and Commonweal, an environmental group. The bill will be considered in the Assembly this summer.
The legislation would create the nation's first state biomonitoring program, one that would start by looking for 57 chemicals in the breast milk of volunteer women in three California communities, then expand its scope to other body fluids, chemicals and communities. Details of the program would be left to an advisory committee overseen by the California Department of Health Services.
"This really is an opportunity for California to gather the data we need to determine whether or not exposures to toxic contaminants in our everyday life are affecting our health," Ortiz said.
What's drawing vociferous opposition from business groups is how Ortiz wants to finance that scientific endeavor: Her bill would require state environmental officials to identify and levy fees on manufacturers and distributors of those 57 chemicals "at their first point of sale in California." The program, which would start in 2006, could ultimately collect up to $12 million in fees annually.
The bill's political prospects are murky. Ortiz withdrew a similar bill last year for fine-tuning. It's supported by dozens of health, education and environmental groups, among them the California Medical Association, the Sierra Club California and the National Resources Defense Council. But the bill's defeat is a top priority for a powerful business coalition that includes the California Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group and the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill, but he'll probably be advised by an influential political appointee, state public health officer Dr. Richard Jackson. Jackson oversaw biomonitoring programs when he ran the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Environmental Health.
All of us have chemicals, both manmade and natural, in our bodies. A 2003 CDC report evaluating 116 chemicals in more than 2,000 Americans revealed the presence of lead and mercury, as well as residues from pesticides, cigarette smoke, even shampoo. But with many chemicals measuring in a few parts per million or even billion, which ones should we worry about, and at what levels? How much pentachloronitrobenzene, a fungus-killing chemical, is dangerous? What about dibutyl phthalate, found in nail polish and plastic wrap? With a few exceptions, scientists still aren't sure.
Researchers have definitely linked brain damage to ever-smaller amounts of lead. Some pesticides have been linked to cancer. But the dangers of a vast majority of industrial chemicals remain an open question, one that may be complicated by an individual's genetic makeup.
"Biomonitoring is a very important first step in determining risk," said David Ropeik, director of risk communication at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. "But saying it's in you is not the same as saying it will make you sick."
Business groups opposed to the biomonitoring bill have seized upon that issue, saying it's unfair to make chemical manufacturers and distributors pay for biomonitoring programs when the science of harm lags behind the science of detection.
While Ortiz acknowledges that lag, she believes that biomonitoring will ultimately protect the health of Californians. Scientists haven't exactly pinpointed the levels at which the flame retardant chemicals known as PDBEs can harm, but preliminary research on its dangers prompted the state to pass a ban on some PDBEs that will start in 2008. Lead in paint and gasoline was banned before researchers how toxic it could be in extremely low amounts, and children are healthier for it, Ortiz points out.
"It took years to come to a consensus on lead," Ortiz said. "We are at the very beginning of that process in California for these chemicals."
---
More information about Senate Bill 1168 can be found on the California Senate's Web site, www.senate.ca.gov. Click on "Legislation."
---
© 2004, San Jose Mercury News (San Jose, Calif.).
Gee, I wonder why American Corporations would rather outsource than do business under despotic American governments?
Who needs a test? Ted Kennedy IS polluted......100%
I only drink grain alcohol and distilled water to preserve the purity of my precious bodily fluids.
-"Her bill would require state environmental officials to identify and levy fees on manufacturers and distributors of those 57 chemicals "at their first point of sale in California." The program, which would start in 2006, could ultimately collect up to $12 million in fees annually."-
And, therein, lies the crux of the matter. Next: a little monitoring device will be implanted in babies to monitor their lifetime chemicals; anyone caught with said chemicals in their bodies will be taxed.
LOL!
ping
"Pull my finger"
Test complete
These people have waaaaaaayyyyyy too much time on their hands
ping
BTTT!!!!!!
Here in case you missed it, is a little blast from her past - an earlier hare-brained scheme - not too long ago when she sought to impose a tax to discourage the drinking of soda pop(!) and, oh yes, to 'incidentally' generate a little additional Liberal slush-fund cash, with which to buy more votes...
Metals can cause depression. They should start with Al Gore - I think he is a major depressor!
Oh, I don't know. ...The Fifth Amendment maybe?
"When they came for the Catholics, I wasn't concerned, because I wasn't a Catholic. When they came for the ..."
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." --Edmund Burke
"To sit back hoping that some day, some way, someone (else) will make things right, is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping that he will eat you last -- but eat you he will." --Ronald Reagan
Chip, chipping away...Let's just try to do whatever possible to stay away from all the 'slippery slopes' we can, shall we...???!!! There will be plenty OTHERS we DON'T see in time. Do we really need people like Deborah Ortiz 'Nanny-Governing' every single aspect of our lives? How much government is TOO MUCH?
I'd guess that YOU are not a big 'illegal drug user' either, but don't you think we've ALREADY got ENOUGH Government 'help' (interference, intrusion) in our lives ...????
...or have I taken a wrong turn, and somehow found myself in the wrong forum here today...?
Rockingham, I would love to hear you solution for over population.
No more refried beans for me! Pork chops are definately out
,,, you're a walking bio-hazard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.