Morello-Frosch advocates frank talk about chemical exposures by physicians
In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its first national study tracking personal exposures to dozens of chemicals in a representative sample of the U.S. population. The agency found that almost all Americans had an array of industrial compounds coursing through their bodies, although levels varied depending on such factors as age and gender. While many of these substances are found in everyday products, most have never been adequately tested for potential health effects.
That report heralded a wave of biomonitoring of human tissues and fluids, such as blood, urine, and breast-milk. Each of the three subsequent CDC reports has increased the number of chemicals surveyed and the sensitivity of the tests. Each new set of findings suggests there is an inexhaustible supply of ever-greater knowledge to be learned about an ever-longer list of synthetic compounds in our bodies.
Besides the CDC, academic scientists and environmental groups have also pursued biomonitoring projects in the past decade or so, adding a twist to the research mix: studies of household air and dust, a potent method of demonstrating the pervasive nature of chemical pollution. Participants in these studies have sometimes publicized their individual results to put a human face on the environmental concept of “toxic trespass.” The concept presumes that people have a right to object to industrial compounds invading their homes and bodies, whether or not these have proven health impacts.
The extensive exposures to toxic chemicals are beyond dispute; for some compounds, 100 percent of people tested in studies have been exposed. And many population-level studies have, in fact, established clear links between environmental pollutants and a wide range of adverse health outcomes, such as the negative effects of bisphenol A on women’s reproductive health.
