|
"We are clearly concerned about what effects the stories of biomonitoring will have," said Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action nonprofit advocacy group. "Any rational woman will say to herself, `Should I be breast feeding?'"
Others see political motives behind some of the tests.
"Everyone's exposed to substances and there's no evidence that the low levels people are exposed to are harming anybody," said Steven Milloy, author of "Junk Science Judo: Self Defense Against Health Scares and Scams." "It's a waste of time and money that only serves to scare people."
Milloy noted that despite all the chemicals, the overall U.S. population is living longer and healthier. Although the tests conducted on Baltz and other Commonweal volunteers, including public television journalist Bill Moyers, are too expensive for most people, proponents believe costs will go down as technology advances. Moyers' body had traces of 84 toxins, including lead and a byproduct of mercury.
There's still a debate among advocates over which of the 75,000 chemicals to specifically look for when biomonitoring. And even when chemicals are found, there's little an individual can do.
But Baltz said the knowledge can at least help consumers make more informed choices over what they eat. "Since we don't have a whole lot of control over most of the environment, we can take charge with the food we eat," he said. "There are few places where you can exercise such power than controlling what we digest."
|
|