Contents
Designing MN Public Health Data Access to Meet Audience Needs ............................ 2
MN Environmental Public Health Tracking (MN EPHT) Updates ................................ 3
Lake Superior Mercury in Newborns: Project Results ................................................... 3
Discussion. .................................................................................................................. 4
Lake Superior Mercury in Newborns Study: Questions and Next Steps for the EHTB . 5
Discussion. .................................................................................................................. 6
Motion 1 ...................................................................................................................... 8
Discussion of the motion. ........................................................................................... 9
Motion 2. ..................................................................................................................... 9
Discussion of the motion. ........................................................................................... 9
Criteria for Selecting a Target Population .................................................................... 10
The National Children’s Study: might the EHTB collaborate with the NCS? ............. 11
Biomonitoring Updates ................................................................................................. 13
East Metro PFC Biomonitoring Follow-up (PFC2) Project Update ............................. 13
The Giigoonh Ogikendaan Biomonitoring Study (Great Lakes Restoration Initiative) 13
1
Members present: Bruce Alexander, Fred Anderson, Alan Bender, David DeGroote, Jill
Heins-Nesvold, Cathi Lyman-Onkka, Geary Olsen, Greg Pratt, Cathy Villas-Horns, Pat
McGovern, and Lisa Yost.
EHTB Staff: Jean Johnson, Eric Hanson, Barbara Scott Murdock, Blair Sevcik, Dave
Stewart, Chuck Stroebel
Other attendees: Assistant Commissioners of Health Aggie Leitheiser and Jeanne Ayers;
Public Health Laboratory staff Joanne Bartkus, Paul Moyer, Paul Swedenborg, Betsy
Edhlund, and Jeff Brenner; Environmental Health staff Jeanne Carls, Sara Dunlap, Carl
Herbrandson, Rita Messing, and Deanna Scher; Minnesota Department of Agriculture
staff Joe Zachman; and Nate Mussell (lobbyist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP).
Bruce Alexander welcomed everyone, invited members, staff, and audience members to
introduce themselves, and called the meeting to order.
Designing MN Public Health Data Access to Meet Audience Needs
Dave Stewart gave a brief presentation about the ways in which staff have worked with
different audiences to gather feedback for improving the public portal’s content and
usability. To date, staff have tailored the portal primarily to meet the needs of local
public health department staff through usability testing, interviews, and other formal
and informal qualitative assessments. He showed examples to illustrate how audience
suggestions have helped make the portal easier to use, both in finding and using data.
He asked panel members to consider the three questions below and offer their
feedback. In asking about other audiences, the goal is allow the staff to focus portal
resources on these audiences, as well as local public health audiences.
1) What other audiences might be potential users of the portal?
2) What other state-specific topic areas might be useful to our priority audiences?
3) What new data displays (e.g., map views, map overlays, zip code-level data, etc.)
might we investigate?
During the discussion, panel members suggested the audiences below:
Healthcare providers (physicians, clinicians)
Environmental health departments in state universities in Minnesota
University students in environmental health
All educational levels, from K-12 to graduate students
Hospitals
Healthcare professions, including school nurses
The Veterans’ Administration: Jill Heins said the VA frequently calls the
American Lung Association for advice and information.
Tribal colleges
2
Suggestions for new topic areas and data displays were fewer, as time was limited.
Panel members suggested mental health issues, particularly those related to
developmental disabilities and autism. National data on these, Blair said, will likely be
included in CDC’s National EPHT Network, described on page 8 in the December 13,
2011 Advisory Panel book. Measures include: (1) the prevalence of autism at age 8
(data source: Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network), and (2)
children receiving services or interventions for developmental disabilities (data source:
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). Pat McGovern suggested adding links from
portal pages to other webpages with useful content.
MN Environmental Public Health Tracking (MN EPHT) Updates
The panel had no questions about the updates to the content on the tracking portal.
These include:
Cancer Query
Cancer Maps
National EPHT Network Launches New Content Area: Developmental Disabilities
Reproductive and Birth Outcomes Query
Air Quality Query
Lake Superior Mercury in Newborns: Project Results
Patricia McCann presented the results of the study that measured total mercury (Hg) in
newborn blood spots from 1465 infants born during 2008 through 2010 to mothers
residing in the US portion of the Lake Superior Basin (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan included). The purpose of this study was to determine the range of mercury
concentrations in these infants and to assess feasibility of using dried blood spots from
infants as an indicator of mercury exposure.
The study found that eight percent of the specimens analyzed were above 5.8 µg/l, the
US EPA Reference Dose (RfD) for methylmercury (MeHg). About one percent (14 of
1465) of specimens were above 58 µg/l, the Benchmark Dose Limit (BMDL) used by EPA
in developing the RfD. The BMDL is the lower 95th confidence interval of the estimated
dose that would double the number of children that test in the lowest 5% of the
population in subtle measures of neurobehavioral toxicity. Thirteen of the fourteen
specimens above the BMDL were from MN. Overall, mercury concentrations were
higher in the MN specimens than in Wisconsin and Michigan specimens, and were
higher during the summer. The results suggest a seasonal exposure pattern, which
supports a fish consumption exposure pathway. For a more detailed overview of the
study, please look at the Advisory Panel book for December 13, 2011.
Pat asked panel members for suggestions for the best ways to communicate the results
to the public and to health providers in the Lake Superior region. The study
anonymized the specimens, so contacting the parents of children with high mercury
results is not possible. For this reason, increased communications efforts and plans
3
focus on local public health officials and on healthcare providers, so that physicians
would be more likely to advise pregnant and potentially pregnant women to eat fish
that are low in mercury. Patricia McGovern suggested reaching out to nurse-midwives.
Discussion. The study sparked a variety of questions. Because the study had used an
experimental method, anonymized the specimens, and recruited participants by mail
after the births, Alan Bender asked whether willingness to participate led to a bias in the
kinds of people who agreed to give informed consent to having their baby’s newborn
blood spots analyzed. Fred Anderson asked whether the study had data on race and
ethnicity. In both cases, Pat replied that the study had no data on these issues.
Because the laboratory method is experimental, Bruce asked, how confident are the
laboratory scientists that the high concentrations are real? Jeff Brenner from the Public
Health Laboratory (PHL) said that the laboratory staff are confident of their results. The
PHL tested the paper used for the blood spot cards for any significant mercury
contamination, ran standard mercury samples to test the instruments, and re-analyzed
the specimens with high mercury results to see if the results were consistent from one
analysis to the next. To test their laboratory instruments and procedures, staff sent
filter paper spotted with blood mercury standards to the Wisconsin and Michigan
laboratories, which sent them back as blind samples for testing. The PHL did not send
duplicate samples to other laboratories for independent analysis (i.e., no external
validation); to date, aside from Utah, no other laboratory has a method for measuring
metals in newborn blood spots.
Bruce also asked whether Pat and other Environmental Health colleagues had tried to
put the findings in a public health context: that is, from these results, did they estimate
the total number of babies with elevated levels that are born each year in the Lake
Superior basin and in Minnesota as a whole? Would these findings be representative of
the population? Pat answered that this estimate has not been done. She added that it
would be difficult to compare the findings with NHANES data because, given the
increased level of mercury in cord blood versus maternal blood, data from newborn
blood spots are not comparable with data from adult blood samples.
Lisa Yost noted that the RfD is based on cord blood. Therefore, it’s important to
establish the relationship between [residual dried] blood spots and cord blood so we
can know what the spot means. It would be nice to be able to analyze a subset in which
cord blood is available. Lisa also asked about the time needed to clear mercury from the
body. Pat answered that, within the first 24 hours, blood mercury has a peak in
concentration and then levels off and follows a one-compartment model with a half-life
of about 50 days. Aggie Leitheiser then asked, if a mother had eaten a fish meal a day or
two before giving birth, would the baby show up as a peak in Hg level? Pat responded
that if the mother hadn’t been eating fish at all, that peak would show up, but if she had
been eating fish routinely, the peak would not affect the baby’s concentration.
4
Cathi Villas-Horns asked whether the fish advisory program is extending any outreach to
men, but Pat answered that, although the program has reached out to men, men do not
necessarily share fish advisory information with their families.
Fred asked whether some portions of the fish body have higher levels of MeHg than
others. Pat explained that methylmercury binds to sulfide groups in the meat, so there
is no way to remove it. When the Fish Advisory program was new, Pat explained, we
told people to remove the fat because of PCBs and similar compounds, and now
everyone thinks that works for Hg, too. That, she said, is a myth.
Aggie Leitheiser asked whether Pat had any speculations about sources of the very high
concentrations. Pat answered that the Hg probably is methylmercury. It’s possible that
Hg from a broken mercury thermometer or skin lightening creams or some other
inorganic mercury (I-Hg) source could have exposed the mothers of high mercury
infants.
Pat McGovern suggested that the March of Dimes might be a funding source for further
research, or that foundations that serve the area might be interested in the regional
issue. Pat said that they were interested in working with the NCS.
Lake Superior Mercury in Newborns Study: Questions and Next Steps for the EHTB
Jean Johnson followed up on Pat McCann’s presentation by acknowledging that the
study’s findings point directly to four sets of questions about…
Sources of exposure
Interpretation of the data
Validity and technical feasibility in the laboratory
Ethical concerns and informed consent
First, the study clearly indicates that, although most newborn exposures are within a
“safe” range, some exposures are occurring above accepted safe levels in a small subset
of the population. The findings also demonstrate a seasonal pattern, which points
towards fish consumption as probably the greatest contributor to the exposure. Given
that the EHTB program adopted this program as its biomonitoring project in a
vulnerable population, have we achieved the goals listed below? These EHTB goals for
the mercury pilot project were to:
1) Characterize exposure in the population, and
2) Assess the feasibility and utility of a novel method that uses newborn blood
spots for mercury biomonitoring.
Jean said that follow-up investigation is needed, both to build on this initial study so the
EHTB program can meet the project goals, and, ultimately, to inform future mercury
biomonitoring and exposure tracking. Finally, what action steps can we take to protect
5
newborns other than fish consumption advisories? Discussion then focused on the
questions below.
1) Sources of Exposure. Should further biomonitoring be conducted in this Lake
Superior population to investigate the sources of exposures?
2) Interpretation of the Result. Should EHTB conduct or seek to collaborate with
other interested partners in a follow-up study of paired specimens to determine
the ratio of total mercury in newborn blood spots to maternal and cord blood?
3) Interpretation of the Result. Should EHTB conduct biomonitoring using newborn
blood spots in a comparison population? In a representative sample of all
Minnesota newborns to serve as a reference population?
4) Laboratory Method. Should the EHTB program support the further assessment
and documentation of the method by the MDH Public Health Laboratory for the
purpose of disseminating the method or making a recommendation?
5) Informed Consent. Should the EHTB program seek to develop consensus on the
best methods for obtaining informed consent for future use of newborn blood
spots as a biomonitoring specimen?
6) Informed Consent. Given the informed consent requirements currently in law,
should the EHTB program seek to inform elected representatives of the costs
and benefits of biomonitoring for public health surveillance in order to inform
future decision-making?
Discussion. Bruce Alexander suggested that the EHTB program should start with
Question 2, what needs to be done in order to understand what newborn blood spots
mean? But to answer questions about the interpretation of the data, he added, we
need to start with questions about the validity and feasibility of the laboratory method.
What needs to be done so we can interpret the data? The first step is to understand the
laboratory method. The question is, what do the newborn blood spots mean? How can
we interpret the level in the spots if we can’t compare them to the RfD [the reference
dose, which is based on cord blood]. That is an important question to be answered.
What else is known about infants’ exposure to Hg during pregnancy?
David DeGroote commented, that ties into question # 2 on p.22 of the AP book (Can we
improve interpretation of the data from newborn spots?), as it derives from the
methods. Lisa Yost agreed, asking, how comparable is a blood spot with cord blood?
They should be the same, but we don’t know that.
Alan: The issue of informed consent leads to a question about how generalizable these
results are. Bruce agreed, but observed that this is another issue. If you have data that
6
you are going to report, he said, what do we know about what [the mercury form and
content] is in the cord blood?
David asked, are there any standards about inorganic mercury (I-Hg) and MeHg in blood
& serum? Rita said that it depends on the individual and the exposure. Pat said that the
form of mercury in fish is 95% methylmercury.
Greg Pratt asked, does this piece of evidence raise a public health question that should
be investigated further? If so, what steps should be taken?
Bruce replied that, taken at face value, yes. If we compare these data to NHANES, which
is all we have, this population appears to have higher levels of Hg in the summertime. So
yes, this does appear to be an issue. It’s not a huge proportion of the population. The
figure on p 18 [of the AP book] showed 8% of babies born across the year. The graph
shows that babies born in the summer months are exposed above the level of concern.
So children who are born or in utero in the summer months potentially have higher
exposures.
Aggie Leitheiser asked, if the next step is to see whether the blood spot is an accurate
reflection of the exposure in the baby, what is the best comparison? Lisa Yost answered
that cord blood would be the comparison. That’s the established standard. Speciation
should be important, too.
Pat McGovern commented that the solution seems to be a two-fold path. If you want to
replicate this in a population, you want to work with a healthcare provider to get the
volume of babies and help with recruitment and informed consent. And if you feel this
is a concern in the population, this same provider could educate women about fish
consumption. Around Lake Superior, fish advisories are important for that population.
Cathy Villas-Horns suggested following up with families to find out if they eat fish. Lisa
Yost agreed, saying that the high levels in the tail of the graph (in the McCann
presentation) might mean that other sources of mercury might be relevant.
Greg Pratt said that if exposure is coming from fish consumption in smaller lakes, then it
is important to follow up in other places in Minnesota aside from Lake Superior. In
addition, while it makes sense that the exposure is from fish consumption, the evidence
is circumstantial.
Lisa wondered whether the very upper numbers in the population represent mercury
exposures other than methyl mercury in fish. Would it be useful to compare these
results with a different MN population, one that has less fish consumption or different
fish consumption? It would be interesting to see if it’s a state problem, or just a
problem in that region.
7
Pat McCann said that focus groups with women of childbearing age along the north
shore of Lake Superior do, anecdotally, appear to show that this population eats a lot of
walleye and northern pike, fish that typically have higher mercury levels. Moreover, the
literature supports the conclusion that, for most people, fish consumption is the primary
source of mercury. Studies found very high levels in Japanese newborns at birth, but
the infants were normal, with no clinical symptoms (see references at the end of Pat
McCann’s AP book entry for Murata, K., M. Dakeishi, et al. (2007), plus Jean Johnson’s
table in her AP book entry for other reports).
Bruce asked whether the EHTB program would have the resources to do any study. To
do a larger study or statewide study, would you have to find other resources? Jean
answered that we have the resources to do a small pilot study of cord blood vs.
newborn blood spots. But staff would like to have a recommendation for a larger study
if we are asked by a legislator what priorities we have.
Greg asked where the resources would be used if the program didn’t use them on the
cord blood vs. newborn blood spots. Jean said, the legislation directs us to assess the
need for further biomonitoring in this community, or other communities, and to assess
the validity of the laboratory method.
Alan said that Jean would like at least one recommendation if the EHTB program is to
respond to the legislature and media inquiries about what to do next.
Cathi Lyman-Onkka commented that if you cannot correlate the data you have now with
cord blood, you would need some method to compare matched cord blood to newborn
blood spots for comparison to other populations. When Jean agreed, she asked how
difficult that would be. Jean answered that it would not take a large number—perhaps
30 infant-mother pairs—the program could recruit pairs of mothers & their newborns
out of a hospital setting with little difficulty.
This discussion led to two motions:
Motion 1
Pat McGovern proposed, and Cathi Lyman-Onkka seconded, a motion that the panel
support a follow up study that would compare mercury levels in cord blood to mercury in
newborn blood spots. The study would use paired samples of cord and newborn blood
spots from each newborn in the study. Such a study would verify whether newborn
blood spots accurately reflect the mercury levels in cord blood and enable the
laboratory to identify the species of Hg in the blood spots. Cord blood is assumed to
reflect the mercury levels in newborn babies. Because the supply of cord blood is much
greater than that in dried blood spots, cord blood enables the laboratory to speciate the
mercury, thus answering uncertainties about the likely sources and chemistry of
mercury in the blood spots. Pat also noted that such a study would not only be
8
consistent with priorities of the legislation, the EHTB Advisory Panel, and other
stakeholders, but that fishing and eating fish are culturally important in Minnesota.
Discussion of the motion. Lisa Yost asked whether dried blood spots offered a
methodological advantage over cord blood, or was this more opportunistic? Pat
McCann answered that they were a convenient source of newborn blood at the time.
Pat McGovern said that she understands, anecdotally, that collecting fetal blood in cord
blood is challenging. You have to notify the hospital delivery suite ahead of time. Blood
spots are easier to obtain. Bruce added that newborn blood spots are lower cost than
cord blood collection, but Betsy Edhlund from the laboratory noted that cord blood is
easier to analyze (and thus less expensive). Pat McCann suggested adding maternal
blood to the study as well, to establish the relationship of maternal blood to cord blood
to newborn blood spots. Jean said the staff would have to work out the details for the
next Advisory Panel meeting and bring the proposal to the meeting.
Bruce asked for a vote on the motion. The motion passed by voice vote, with no
dissent.
Discussion then focused on the next steps. Jean suggested that the laboratory staff
discuss the laboratory methods in the next panel meeting, and that it would be useful to
for Minnesota to know what to say to other states that are interested in the laboratory
blood spot method. David suggested benchmarking the exposures seen in the Lake
Superior basin by establishing a reference population for future population studies.
Jean said that would require a larger population, a larger sample size, and more
resources. Bruce added, if we identify this finding as a potential problem, it begs for
follow up. Even if we don’t have the resources right now, that would be a reasonable
activity for this program. Pat McGovern added that such a study should do an exposure
assessment to validate that fish are the primary source of Hg, and not just assume that
the exposure is methylmercury. Or, she suggested, maybe other validated data are
available that the program can use. The cord blood to blood spots is a pilot validation of
an instrument [for assessing exposure].
Motion 2.
Greg Pratt proposed a motion that the EPHTB program look for resources to investigate
down the road the sources of Hg exposure in other populations in the state. Pat
McGovern seconded the motion.
Discussion of the motion. Geary Olsen commented that the motion was too broad, and
Jean agreed. She asked whether the panel wanted staff to look at a broad reference
population or a target population in one area, to test a smaller population that might
have high Hg levels. Pat McCann said that, since blood spots are not useful for routine
analysis, we should think about the media we should measure. Given that Hg is an
important exposure, it might be better to look at women’s blood to prevent exposure
because we can’t do anything about Hg levels by measuring blood spots.
9
Returning to Greg’s motion, Bruce said that we don’t have a study design to react to,
but this is one population in the state with some high levels. So monitoring newborn Hg
levels is useful. I don’t know that we can get more specific than that. He acknowledged
that the motion is broad, but added that it might be difficult to be more specific without
first examining the issue in greater detail. Jean said that answering that question would
require a broad statewide study. Greg added that the motion enables the program to
develop a small study here and a small study there that would provide pieces to the
puzzle.
Lisa Yost commented that establishing the relationship of the newborn blood spot to
maternal blood and to cord blood in a larger population could be much more helpful for
understanding population exposure. Jill Heins-Nesvold asked, which of the things we
could study would make a difference in preventing mercury exposure to children?
Bruce noted that this program is a biomonitoring and environmental tracking program.
The question is, what can this group do to provide useful information about Hg
exposure? The program can come back to us with specific ideas.
Greg restated the motion: To enable MDH to keep on the table the idea of pursuing
more studies as resources appear: 1) To what extent are other populations exposed, and
2) what are the sources of exposure?
Pat McGovern proposed a friendly amendment to the motion: The workgroup should
develop specific aims and long-term objectives. The primary aim is to validate the
newborn blood method by comparing cord blood to newborn blood spots. The long-term
objectives are to develop other long-term research agendas to characterize exposure in
broader portions of Minnesota—to learn the extent of the source of the problem. The
program staff should come back to the panel with specific recommendations.
The motion, as amended, passed unanimously with a voice vote.
Criteria for Selecting a Target Population
Barbara Scott Murdock reviewed the criteria for selecting a target population that had
been discussed at the October meeting. She presented the four criteria and tested their
efficacy against pregnant women as a proposed general target population. That
population was chosen to enable the program to evaluate exposures to a priority target
population: “children, as young as possible,” based on stakeholder priorities identified in
interviews. These criteria were…
Exposure
Demographic and geographic diversity
Public health policy impacts
Information potential for individual results interpretation
10
Panel members then added and discussed others that should be considered:
Vulnerability
Feasibility
Fundability
Importance of health outcome
Likelihood that exposure at community levels could lead to the outcome
Policy opportunity for intervention
Value as target population: would it add information versus duplicating other
efforts, such as the National Children’s Study (NCS).
She then introduced the next speaker, Pat McGovern, principal investigator of the NCS
study in Ramsey County, Bond Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health
Policy at the UMN, and recipient of an award for outstanding leadership contributions
to the National Children's Study at the NCS Expanded Steering Committee meeting.
The National Children’s Study: might the EHTB collaborate with the NCS?
Pat explained that the NCS is a longitudinal study that will follow 100,000 children
across the US from preconception or in utero to 21 years of age. It is the first large
exposure and health study in children since the 1950s. Since then, exposures have
changed in the environment and in diet. The study is looking at health outcomes that
include such components as pre-term birth, low birth weight, and birth defects.
The Ramsey County study is just finishing recruitment, which began in 2011. The
Ramsey Co study is testing a two-tier high-low intensity method, one of three
recruitment strategies. In the low intensity recruitment strategy, once recruited, the
women are called and interviewed by mail or phone every six months for 20 minutes at
a time. The second group of women starts out with low intensity contact, but the
women convert to high if they are interested and live in the right segment of the county.
Because the full scale study involves a home exposure assessment, plus blood and urine
samples, the researchers felt that was too much of a burden at first. What the
researchers wanted to test was, if the recruitment started out at the low-intensity level,
would the participants convert to high intensity more easily? The purpose is to look at
the yield and bias with each method, Pat explained. With the first method, we mailed
an invitation and waited to see if they mailed us back. Then we added a $10 incentive,
and the response grew by 70%. We have mailed to over 31,000 families, and some 2750
women responded. After the initial consent, the researchers do a high intensity
interview and visit the home. Then they can move on to taking biological and
environmental samples.
Currently, the NCS is doing a pilot study of environmental chemicals and nutrition in 400
to 500 pregnant women and their infants in the NCS Vanguard phase of the NCS. The
study is measuring a short list of analytes in maternal blood and breast milk. Analysis of
the blood metals show that total mercury and lead levels in this NCS population are
lower than in the 2007-08 NHANES. Potentially, MDH can add value to the NCS by
11
measuring and adding state-specific population and analyte data for comparison with
the NCS data. Pat then asked Barbara to describe a potential project in Minnesota.
Barbara said that the discussion was in its early stages, but she and Jean have been
meeting with Lea Foushée, who, with a University of Minnesota Environmental Health
Sciences graduate student, conducted a study of diet and health in 200 White Earth
Objibwe (Anishanaabeg) families in Mahnomen County. Lea’s findings indicate that
these families eat fish as a mainstay of their diet. They raise walleye and lake sturgeon,
stock the local lakes, and eat the fish. Their children have been increasingly found to
have behavioral and cognitive problems in school, and the community is interested in a
follow-up biomonitoring study. Possible funders include an NIH FOA that focuses on
Native American populations and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Foundation, which helped
fund Lea Foushée’s earlier study.
Barbara then posed the following questions to the panel:
1) What do Panel members see as the strengths and weaknesses for the suggested
collaboration between the EHTB, the NCS and the White Earth families?
2) Do Panel members have other suggestions related to a collaboration between
the EHTB program, the NCS and members of the White Earth reservation?
3) What other projects might the EHTB program do that might complement the
NCS or address other problems in Minnesota?
Alan asked whether we had spoken to the head of the tribe, and the answer was no.
Pat McGovern commented that, if staff were looking for mercury and other analyte data
to complement the NCS data, that the tribe in Mahnomen County would be a Minnesota
population that would be complementary to the NCS.
Bruce said that this potential project falls under the motion earlier to explore mercury
elsewhere and report back to the panel, with the idea that it might form an NCS
comparison population. Greg said that Lea has been involved in environmental issues
from way back. Lea and her husband are principals in the North American Water
Organization and Lea is leader of the Indigenous Women’s Mercury Project.
Pat suggested that Jean and Barbara should work on a proposal to explore interest in
the mercury project by discussing it with Lea and the tribe and then reporting back to
the panel. Bruce agreed that we don’t have enough information now, but that this
would be a very interesting population. He advised the earlier project and said that
building on that is not a bad idea.
12
Biomonitoring Updates
East Metro PFC Biomonitoring Follow-up (PFC2) Project Update
Jean gave a brief update of follow up to the PFC2.
Letters and stamped postcards for return have gone out to the participants
A press release went out to the media, and staff (Jean, Jessica Nelson) held a
telephone conference and met with media reporters.
The Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, Oakdale and Stillwater newspapers all carried
stories, and MPR also covered it.
A successful community meeting took place in Oakdale on December 12.
Mary Winnett, the physician who consults on the project, has received about 12
postcards from study participants who request consultation. Jessica and Mary will brief
clinicians at the HealthEast Oakdale clinic.
Paul Swedenborg gave a very brief update about Carin Huset’s repeat of samples from
high PCF participants in the 2008 and 2010 PFC pilot studies. In short, her results for the
repeated analyses confirmed the original findings.
The Giigoonh Ogikendaan Biomonitoring Study (Great Lakes Restoration Initiative)
Rita Messing, from the MDH Environmental Health Division, gave a brief update of this
biomonitoring study in the Fond du Lac population. To date, staff have filed for and
received exempt status from the MDH IRB. They are still waiting on the decision of the
Fond du Lac IRB. Fond du Lac wants to ensure that the community will not be
stigmatized by any of the exposure findings, so they are focusing on the subject
protection and privacy aspects of the project. The tribe is looking for a coordinator to
work with them, and the study staff hope to enroll participants beginning in Spring
2012. Alan asked whether participants would give a one-time blood draw, and Rita
affirmed that.
Next, Bruce asked about New Business and, having heard none, asked for a motion to
adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM.
13