Advances in Biomonitoring: How New Science Will Change the Game

Society is on the cusp of major advances in exposure science. These advances will have the effect of generating large amounts of information about what chemicals we are all exposed to (and what gets into our bodies), democratizing the collection and availability of that information, driving improvements in chemical toxicity testing and changing regulatory policy. I'm speaking at a chemical industry conference this week, and am using this as an opportunity to reflect on what’s coming, and to think about what it will mean for NGOs, regulators, and industry – as well as for public health, the environment, and the economy.

In the field of biomonitoring, new analytical instruments - such as the Time-of Flight Mass Spectrophotometer (TOF-MS) and others - allow the screening of biospecimens for tens of thousands of organic compounds. This revolutionizes biomonitoring. Instead of taking a single sample and testing it for a specific chemical, or even for 200 specific chemicals, this approach essentially allows researchers to ask the question: What is in your blood and urine? That’s a very different – and potentially very powerful – approach.

Such strategies are already starting to be deployed in small studies, where researchers today are using the TOF-MS to analyze samples from dozens of pregnant women. When these studies scale-up to involve hundreds or even thousands of people they will become revolutionary, especially since they will be partnered with informatic approaches that allow researchers to answer questions such as:

• Which chemicals are most commonly detected in the population?
• Which chemicals occur systematically at higher concentrations in sensitive populations, such as young children or pregnant women?
• Which chemicals exhibit the largest variability in concentration across populations of interest or across geographic areas?
• Which chemicals are increasing over time?
• Which chemicals tend to co-occur in certain populations?  

All of these questions are important for setting priorities, identifying chemicals of potential concern, and driving research and regulatory agendas. 

Historically, we have seen the power of biomonitoring to drive science, public concern, and policy. For example, a decade ago, researchers in Sweden laboriously identified an unknown chemical discovered in their biomonitoring program breast milk samples as pentabromodiphenyl ether. That finding rocketed the PBDE flame retardants into the center of scientific and public attention. There was an immediate demand for toxicity data, for more biomonitoring data, for identification of sources and exposure pathways, and for action, including widespread bans on these chemicals. The PBDEs also created a more generalized public concern about flame retardant chemicals, and sensitized the public to the "whac-a-mole" problem -- where one chemical of concern is phased-out only to be replaced by others that either have their own significant hazards, or are untested.

In another example of the power of biomonitoring, in 2001, researchers from 3M Company published the discovery of PFOA in ‘control’ blood bank samples from the general population. This prompted a business decision by 3M to move away from this chemical in their product lines, and also triggered a decade-long scientific and regulatory effort to scrutinize the toxicity, exposure, and risk from perfluorinated chemicals. Fundamentally, people don’t like to discover potentially hazardous chemicals in their bodies, so biomonitoring has generated dramatic public attention, public concern, and pressure for action. From my perspective, there are still deficiencies in the regulatory response, but at least there is more attention to these problem chemicals, and some regulatory and consumer action has occurred.

My prediction is that the advances in biomonitoring will result in an exponential increase in the discovery of potential chemical hazards in humans. These discoveries will prompt the urgent need for good toxicity testing information, as well as the need for information about the cumulative toxicity of commonly co-occurring mixtures, the uses of these chemicals, and the pathways of exposure. In turn, this information will tend to drive toward more health-protective regulations. The worst position a company could be in is to be blind-sided by the discovery of one if its chemicals in people – especially in vulnerable subgroups such as children – and not have full and adequate data on toxicity, use, and sources of exposure. Industry should take a careful look at their product lines, just to be sure that all of us won't be surprised in the coming years by more nasty discoveries of toxic chemicals in people.

Meanwhile, this is yet another reason why we need a systematic overhaul of our chemical policy law, so that chemicals are tested for toxicity and controlled before they end up in the environment and in people.

Comments