October 14, 2014 Advisory Panel Meeting Summary:
Environmental Health Tracking & Biomonitoring
1:00–4:00 p.m., American Lung Association
Advisory Panel Members: Bruce Alexander, Alan Bender, David De Groote, Melanie Ferris,
Thomas Hawkinson, Patricia McGovern, Geary Olsen, Steven Pedersen, Cathy Villas-Horns, and
Lisa Yost
Advisory Panel Regrets: Fred Anderson, Jill Heins Nesvold, and Gregory Pratt,
MDH staff: Betsy Edhlund, Melissa Finnegan, Carin Huset, Jim Kelly, Jean Johnson, Aggie
Leitheiser, Mary Manning, Pat McCann, Jessica Nelson, Christina Rosebush, Deanna Scher,
Chuck Stroebel, Lisa Strong, Janis Taramelli, Addis Teshome
Others: Matt Simcik, University of Minnesota
Welcome and introductions
Chair Pat McGovern welcomed the attendees and invited the panel members and audience to introduce
themselves.
Sustaining Minnesota Biomonitoring: Workgroup Progress Report
In Kris Van Amber’s absence, Jean Johnson updated the panel members on the Sustaining MN
Biomonitoring Workgroup meetings. The background material for this and the Legislative Presentation
can be found on pages 4-8 of the October 14, 2014 Advisory Panel Meeting book.
Discussion was delayed until Melissa Finnegan, Legislative Liaison for the Minnesota Department of
Health, completed her presentation on the following:
Legislative Process and the Role of the Advisory Panel
The following questions were asked of the panel to consider:


What is the role of the panel in the legislative process?
What additional support and resources do they need?
Discussion
David DeGroote expressed his understanding that as advisory panel members, we have to be careful to
note that we are speaking as citizens, when there is no Advisory Panel position, and not as advisory
panel members. Melissa Finnegan agreed, pointing out that the advisory panel bylaws state that you
have to refrain from sending letters or representing the committee without the approval of the
committee. You have to make it clear that this is your opinion and you are giving this information as a
citizen and not as a member of the EHTB Advisory Panel. As long as you make that clear, then you can be
a citizen advocate. Melissa added that as a panel, if you all want to put things forward that is amongst
you to decide.
Lisa Yost asked about the opportunity for input from interested entities during the process when bills
are going through committees. Melissa Finnegan responded that there was a lot of input from outside
allowed in that process. She suggested that you attend the hearings on a bill that you really care about.
She added that if they are changing the bill in ways you do not like, every amendment is discussed, just
like every bill, and is voted on. People who are for and against it get to weigh in, so that would be your
chance to step in and speak either for or against it. If the bill is changed and goes to the next committee,
you can talk to the author and give your opinion again. So it is a continually malleable process to go
through. Every time a bill is in a committee, this is your opportunity to weigh in and talk about concerns,
ideas, and support, right up until it gets to the floor. There were no further questions.
PFCs in soil and produce: Recent Findings
Deanna Scher, Exposure Consultation Staff with Environmental Public Health, and Carin Huset, Research
Scientist in the MDH Public Health Lab, presented the MDH Perfluorochemicals in Homes and Gardens
Study (PIHGS). Background materials can be found on pages 9-11 of the October 14, 2014 Advisory Panel
Meeting book.
Matt Simcik, Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health, Division of
Environmental Health Sciences, presented recent findings from analyses of farm and garden soils in the
East Metro for Perfluorochemicals (PFCs), and discussed his upcoming “food basket study”, which is
awaiting University of Minnesota IRB approval. The background materials are on page 12 of the October
14, 2014 Advisory Panel Meeting book.
The following questions were asked of the panel:



How should MDH respond to legislators’ questions about potential exposure to East Metro
farmers? Is it likely to be a health concern?
What additional investigation is recommended?
Is additional biomonitoring for PFCs recommended for the East Metro?
The speakers then took questions. Tom Hawkinson asked if there had been any biomonitoring done in
Matt Simcik’s population or whether he had just looked at potential exposure sources. Matt replied that
residents of the area may have been eligible for the MDH PFC biomonitoring projects, but the Hmong
farmers who worked in the area were not necessarily residents. Jean Johnson added that the question
being asked by a legislator was, “Should we be testing this unique population because of this exposure.”
Matt thought that biggest exposure source in the Hmong Community was fish. He also expressed his
surprise that PFOS levels in soil were so high, since he understood that it was not in the Washington
County landfill. So, he did not know the source of PFOS contamination in this particular field.
Bruce Alexander asked where the vegetable concentrations came from in Matt Simcik’s data. Matt
replied that he had applied ratio transfer factors for soil to vegetables from another study. He added
that he would be analyzing the vegetables as soon as they received IRB approval.
Pat McGovern wondered how large the Hmong population was in the location of concern and whether it
was a stable population or a migrant work force. Matt Simcik responded that they were not a migrant
work force and some had farmed in the area for 20 years, but the folks that had been farming the
specific plot with the high levels of PFCs were no longer farming that same spot. He was not sure if they
were completely done with farming or whether they were farming elsewhere. The field is now being
used for beets. Pat McGovern asked if we had any sense how many Hmong families of concern lived and
farmed in this area. Matt replied that there were probably 30 families on that field, all farming for
personal consumption; but some of the crops were also for the farmers’ markets. Pat McGovern asked
whether these families would have had the highest doses. Matt Simcik said that he did not know, but he
guessed that would be true. What he had really wanted to do was look at an area that had not been
disturbed by farming.
Lisa Yost commented that Matt Simcik’s earlier slides showed the distribution being closer to the roads
and that would lead to a different conclusion about the source. Then Matt had discussed bio solids
deposition. She wondered whether Matt had a sense, in that later slide, if the source had been road
related. Matt responded that he did not believe it was.
Thomas Hawkinson commented that it could have been a permeability issue. Matt agreed with him, that
PFCs could be coming from the top. He mentioned that Lake Jane, nearby, was contaminated. He also
did not know the water source, as there was currently no irrigation for this field, so whether it was rain
fed agriculture or whether this was public access water brought to the field was unknown. He hoped to
interview the people who used to farm there to find this out.
Bruce Alexander questioned whether the concentrations were related to the roads; Matt Simcik
responded that he was not saying that. What he had been trying to determine at first was whether he
could look at traffic patterns and road congestion to find areas with higher contamination. All of these
concentrations were higher than the median they had found for the gardens in the PIHGS study,
indicating that soil in close proximity to roads is elevated over background concentrations. Bruce
clarified that near roads means near a point source. Matt replied that there were no manufacturing
storage disposal sources near Big Lake, yet the levels are higher than any other reporting background
concentrations, so that would indicate that roads have some sort of source. Although, Matt pointed out,
we do not know what Minnesota background soil is; we have so many different soil types in Minnesota.
He thought it would be interesting to look at whether soil type has an effect on concentrations. PFCs are
ubiquitous; they have been found in lakes in Voyageur’s National Park. PFC levels could have to do with
soil type, organic matter, or some kind of point source.
Pat McGovern asked whether Matt Simcik had thought of biomonitoring in the East Metro when he did
his soil project or what he thought about it now. Matt answered that he would like to see biomonitoring
in the Hmong community--but how you go about doing that and whether the community would be
receptive to it are important questions.
Jean Johnson asked how many people were in Matt Simcik’s food basket study. Matt replied that he was
trying to recruit 200 total people, so anywhere from 50-75 families. Jean Johnson clarified that the
population being discussed—they rent the farm fields for farming; they may or may not actually live in
the area, because if they lived in the area, they would have been eligible for our biomonitoring to be
done. So they may not have the drinking water exposure component. Matt Simcik replied that he
agreed, although some folks had moved into the area, they had not traditionally lived in the East
Metro—maybe Oakdale.
Pat McCann, MDH Fish Consumption Advisory Program Manager, asked about the recruitment process
for the study. Matt Simcik responded that he had been working with the Hmong community, and he had
a list-serve from the cultural work that had been conducted, such as Right-to-Know workshops. They
would be invited to come to the Cultural Center. He would also use in person as well as ads in the native
media.
Cathy Villas-Horns wondered whether this was the only farm that used bio solids, to which Matt Simcik
responded that he did not know if bio solids had even been put on this farm. He added that from a
national perspective, bio solids are important when you are thinking about PFC contamination.
Cathy Villas-Horns wondered about concerns around bio solids and Hmong farmers in particular. Matt
replied that it was because the farm he happened to sample was a Hmong farm and it was elevated. So
he was concerned for them because they eat different foods, they were farming in a different area, and
they were renting the farms. They were not captured by the MDH PFC studies if they did not live where
they farmed, and they were fishing in the area and eating fish, so he guessed they would have a higher
exposure than the general population.
Pat McGovern asked what the three speakers would recommend, if they had to make a
recommendation for further studies to this group, specifically for biomonitoring and exposure
assessment. Matt Simcik stated that he was going to begin addressing exposure assessment as soon as
his food basket study had IRB approval. Deanna Scher added that one unfortunate aspect of the
biomonitoring done so far was that it had not been done during the growing season, when they were
eating their own homegrown produce, so it likely did not capture many of these shorter-chain
compounds that are not persistent in the body. She wondered whether PFC3 spanned more of the
summer months; if so, that may capture some new information.
Lisa Yost questioned Deanna Scher about the higher concentrations that she had found and how they
compared to the existing screening levels for soil. Deanna answered that the PCA screening levels were
well in the thousands for PFOS, PFOA, and one other. Lisa Yost commented that presumably, even Matt
Simcik’s higher numbers were much below that, but she realized that that was different than bio
concentration into plants; she was just trying to get a gauge on how high the levels were. Deanna
answered that they were much lower than the level of where the state would come in and clean up.
Cathy Villas-Horns wondered how the house dust levels compared to the produce levels. Deanna Scher
commented that when looking at the entryway detects and concentrations compared to the interior
part of the home, it was really the living areas, the interior areas, that they had found the higher
detections and concentrations. This led them to the conclusion that it was really the consumer products
that were in the home—the carpet and the textiles—that were contributing the most to house dust,
rather than any tracking from outside. She noted that she had found a relationship between PFOA in soil
and PFOA in entryway dust. Beyond this relationship, the interior sources overwhelmed any potential
connection between soil and dust in the home.
Pat McGovern asked if she were the legislator of concern here, what would the speakers say to her
about the potential exposures and health concerns for the Hmong community. Deanna Scher stated that
they had done a comprehensive assessment. When they looked across all the PFCs that they had
reference doses for and across exposure pathways, (dust, soil, produce, drinking water), and even with
the worst case assumptions that they put into the assessment, they still ended up with a hazard index of
0.4, and >1.0 is the level of concern. There were some limitations to the assessment, in that she did not
include commercial foods, but based on 0.4; she did not think it was a level of concern.
Matt Simcik’s concern was a cultural concern; the Hmong did not fit the same model because of what
they were eating and how they were obtaining their food. Deanna Scher added that there was more fish
in the diet and that was something that needed attention.
Carin Huset noted that we really do not have a lot of information about PFC exposure to the general
population of Minnesota. We know about the east metro and drinking water exposures, but we do not
really know much more than that. Hmong farmers, whether that’s people in urban inner city areas or
people in outstate Minnesota, we don’t really know a whole lot about those populations either, so I
think there is reason to study a lot more than just the people with the drinking water exposure and get
more information about background levels across the state.
Lisa Yost asked Matt Simcik when he anticipated he might have data on the vegetables that he had
collected. He thought he would have the data within a year; unfortunately, the chemical analysis was
being held up by the IRB approval. He would be looking at the whole suite of PFCs, including PFBA,
which is common in produce. Lisa Yost asked how many data points he would have. Matt replied that he
had many vegetables in the freezer; he would have as many as he could get his student to do; there are
the six in the materials. Carin asked whether Matt was only going to look at the edible components.
Matt responded that in the common produce they were only going to look at the edible components.
However, the edible portion is different culturally for certain produce (such as making tea).
Deanna Scher asked her study partners for their thoughts. Jim Kelly cautioned that these were all good
questions, but the goal of the study they [Deanna] had done was to answer the community’s questions
about what they had felt was a particularly exposed community. To the extent that there are other
unknown exposure sources, he agreed that those are concerns, but suggested thoughtfulness in tackling
these concerns. He cautioned against using ‘random biomonitoring’ as the way to address them. He did
not think enough was known about potential sources of exposure in order to do large-scale
biomonitoring around them.
Matt Simcik would not suggest any random biomonitoring either; he would concentrate on the Hmong
community, because it would seem that they have a different exposure scenario than the general
population.
Pat McGovern wondered whether any of this group had experience with biomonitoring in the Hmong
community, and what their experience had been. Deanna Scher suggested that Pat McCann, MDH FISH
Consumption Advisory Program Manager, had done work on fish consumption. Pat McCann responded
that she had not done any biomonitoring, but she had done a lot of outreach to the Hmong community
about fish consumption. Pat McGovern wondered if there had been receptivity. Pat McCann answered
that they had worked with the DNR, who had an established relationship with the Hmong community
and Hmong speaking staff; and then they also had established relationships with Hmong community
leaders; particularly with people in the community who were leaders in fishing. They were receptive to
interactions at community events through these established avenues. But she cautioned that the Hmong
community had been studied in a number of different ways, and she didn’t think that they were all that
receptive to us studying them.
Pat McCann would also feel uncomfortable trying to pinpoint fishing and fish consumption as a bad
thing. She did not think that PFCs were a big exposure for the Hmong community in general, because of
all the different locations that they fished, and PFCs were not high in fish throughout the metro. They
were only high in particular in sites; therefore, she did not think it was a widespread issue within the
Hmong community. She continued that other studies of fish consumption have not shown that fish
consumption was a big exposure source for PFCs. That was not to say that people who fished in
particular locations that had high PFCs were not exposed. It depended on where they were fishing and
which fish they were eating.
David DeGroote stated that the ultimate question was whether it was likely a health concern. Deanna
Scher noted that what they saw across all the studies was that it was really the shorter-chain
compounds that were getting up into the vegetative plants, and those were the ones that were much
less toxic than PFOS and PFOA. Matt Simcik said that PFOS and PFOA were still getting into these plants
to a lesser extent.
Lisa Yost commented that she thought that the write up was good, but one thing she wished she had
was a little table with the screening values, the RFDs, because her presumption was that the shorterchain PFCs were probably less toxic. She continued that it would have been helpful to have that piece:
reduced toxicity with that shorter-chain is a very important part of the puzzle. Matt Simcik explained
that the shorter chains were much less bio accumulative in people as well.
Alan Bender stated that there were two quick points to remember in summarizing this when trying to
address the legislator. The first is that the sampling of another community was outside the scope of the
original projects. We were looking for a stable community that we could measure over time and assess if
remediation was working, so this would become another protocol, another entire hypothesis. Secondly,
one has to be very careful in a general public health setting not to discredit the consumption of
vegetables or other parts of one’s diet; so we should always be cautious that we are not doing more
harm than good.
Aggie Leitheiser commented that in other conversations, one challenge was that there had been an
issue with the Hmong population being very reluctant to have their blood drawn. Aggie continued that
there were some cultural or historical beliefs involving blood in the older population, not so much in the
younger.
Jessica Nelson reminded panel members that in the MN FEET update, which would be discussed after
the break, the Hmong population was one of the four groups that she was hoping to recruit, so she
would need to work on that as well, irrespective of the PFC project.
Pat McGovern recommended taking a break, and then they would come back with a couple
recommendations for the group to consider. She also thanked the three presenters for their informative
presentations.
After the break, Pat McGovern announced that she and Jean Johnson had worked with a couple people
on a recommendation for the group, so she turned it over to Jean Johnson to articulate that. Jean said
that they thought the place to start was to have a conversation with the Hmong community to see what
their concern was and if they had an interest in biomonitoring. If biomonitoring was truly going to be
community based, it really should come from the Hmong community, so the proposal was that the
Minnesota Department of Health would work with either Matt’s connections in the community, or with
SoLaHmo, another community group, to have a conversation and understand this issue from the Hmong
community’s perspective.
Pat McGovern added that if the Hmong community is interested and would like to be tested, then there
is an opportunity for the MDH staff to collaborate with Matt Simcik and explore how to connect it with
the food basket assessment. She thought that would be a good place to start. Pat asked if anyone
wanted to second that. Alan Bender seconded.
Steven Pedersen questioned how narrow the focus was going to be. He cautioned against approaching
the community with, “The Minnesota Department of Health thinks there’s a problem and wants you to
help figure out if that’s true.” He continued that not much is known about PFCs and the environment or
PFCs and human health. He wondered how a question about those topics would be answered. He
cautioned against asking people to be part of something unless the gaps in knowledge and how the
community could help address the research questions were stated. Pat McGovern said that she
appreciated what Steven Pedersen was saying. She added that part of the context for this
recommendation was that the health department has a long history in health education, reaching out to
groups to communicate health risks and protective strategies, so she thought they would be well
positioned. She suggested starting with the community that Matt Simcik already has a relationship with,
or starting with a known group, with an established researcher, who was already taking the group’s diet
history with a food basket.
Steven Pedersen assured that he was not against this. He cautioned that the health department needs
to be very up front with what is not known and where gaps would need to be filled. Steven wanted to
state in the motion very, very clearly what would be done. Pat McGovern said she appreciated all those
good points.
Melanie Ferris wondered if a second part of this was also seeing if there was a way to do some work to
look into sources of higher concentrations in that field. It seemed like there was a focus on the Hmong
community, but it may be broader or expand depending on what is learned about why that particular
field is a potential hotspot. Pat McGovern asked Matt Simcik if that was part of his study; he answered
that it was not, but he absolutely agreed.
Cathy Villas-Horns asked Matt Simcik to describe the food basket study. Matt explained that the food
basket study involved asking the community where they farmed, where they got their vegetables, how
much of it did they eat, where they fished; what fish were they taking; how much of each species did
they eat; to try to determine what their exposure might be.
Matt continued that he absolutely agreed that this might not be a Hmong community problem. There
could be other fields that were contaminated, whether from bio solids application or pesticides use.
Matt suggested that Geary Olsen might know if PFCs were used with surfactants for agricultural fields or
if there was a pesticide, herbicide or insecticide, or carrier of solvents and surface-active molecules.
Geary Olsen said that pesticides would not have been a source of PFCs. Geary added that if something
was used, it was bio solids that would have been a source of exposure for an agricultural field. Matt
continued that if that was the source for this field, then there were other fields that were certainly an
issue, so it may not be a Hmong issue at all.
Lisa Yost thought that the reason to talk to the Hmong community was because that question had been
brought to us and rather than treating the Hmong community like a group of people who have no
agency of their own, to find out what concerns they have. They had already been studied, so instead of
coming from the outside, come from the inside just to see how they felt about it and get their opinion.
They may not want anybody to look at their vegetables—that was their product. So to start with them,
to see what their concerns and their issues are. Matt agreed that in talking with farmers, some have
agreed to participate; some have not.
Pat McGovern added that she’d heard Melanie’s concern that we should put the question about looking
at PFC sources on the agenda for next time and then focus today on the concern related to the Hmong
community, because that was like another level of investment.
David DeGroote asked if we had any data about levels in various sources of bio waste materials, bio
solids came from somewhere. Matt Simcik responded that we knew the PCA put a limit on wastewater
treatments; they just have not figured out what to do about it. He was also told, from his investigation,
that none of the bio solids had come from metro plants or any that are under the Metropolitan Council.
He added that he would be following up with farmers on this issue.
Lisa Yost thought we also got some perspective today that although the concentrations are well above
background, they are far below the screening levels for soil, so she cautioned that we should be careful
about how we talk about it, because people can become concerned very quickly about something that
maybe isn’t as high a priority.
Pat McGovern wondered if it made sense to focus on this issue with the Hmong, and then if people want
to bring up the issue of looking at bio solids and their distribution in relationship to farming, to put that
on the agenda for the next meeting. David DeGroote interjected that we should take Alan Bender’s
point of not letting this group or this work end up in the middle of something that they should not be
involved with. Geary Olsen shared David’s opinion. He added that he did not feel comfortable voting on
this. Pat McGovern explained that she thought it was due to it being a first step towards doing
biomonitoring with that community in response to a request from the legislature. Geary 0lsen clarified
that he thought that the request was to the Minnesota Department of Health by a state legislator and
that it was up to the Health Department’s prerogative on how to deal with this request or any other
from a state legislator.
Pat McGovern asked Jean whether her group could move forward in the absence of a vote on this and
Jean responded that she thought so. Matt Simcik clarified that his data was part of a Center for
Transportation Studies study and the report had been submitted to the State Department of
Transportation a year and a half ago; yesterday the peer review publication was accepted.
Pat McGovern asked whether the rest of the group felt comfortable not voting on it, knowing that Jean
was going to move forward with her staff to see about this community concern with an identified
Hmong group on this land where Matt was doing his work in response to a legislative concern. Geary
Olsen wondered if this was in Washington County and whether Fred Anderson [Washington County
panel member} was knowledgeable about it? He suggested that the Washington County Public Health
Department could engage in this—and that he would go to them before he would go anywhere. Jean
Johnson offered to talk to Fred Anderson and then report back to this group in February what we have
learned. Geary Olsen thought that was reasonable.
Cathy Villas-Horns noted that the materials did not mention the Hmong farm or bio solids. The materials
said east metro farmers, not east metro Hmong farmers, so. . . Jean Johnson added that at the time, she
wasn’t drawing the distinction, but now that she’d listened to Matt Simcik, she understood that there
was something unique about the Hmong pathway, that was the cultural theory. Matt interjected ‘there
may be—we don’t know’.
Tracking Updates
Matthew Montesano announced that the tracking program had received CDC grant renewal. He also
demonstrated the portal updates, including county profiles, interactive maps of asthma and COPD,
cancer data, and air quality index. The Urban Air Quality and Health Initiative and the Economic Burden
of the Environment on Childhood Disease in Minnesota were described on pages 13-15 of the October
14, 2014 Advisory Panel Meeting book.
Biomonitoring Updates
Biomonitoring updates on the MDH Public Health Lab and East Metro PFC3 Biomonitoring Project were
provided on pages 16-18 of the October 14, 2014 Advisory Panel Meeting book.
Steven Pedersen wondered about the various materials that had been included in the CDC
Biomonitoring grant application. He added that there had been several articles that had come out on
micro beads or micro particles in cosmetics that were flat going through treatment and into our water
systems. He would just like to see that considered in any future grant, since that could separate us from
what other people were looking at and maybe get us that grant next time.
Cord Blood v. Newborn Bloodspot Experiment Results, Other Mercury Project Updates
Betsy Edhlund, Research Scientist in the Environmental Section of the MDH Public Health Laboratory,
reviewed results from The Pregnancy and Newborns Exposure Study. Background materials can be
found on pages 19-21of the October 14, 2014 Advisory Panel Meeting book. Updates on The Pregnancy
and Newborns Exposure Study, the National Children’s Study Newborn Mercury Biomarker Validation
Supplemental Methodological Study, and the Riverside Newborn Mercury Project were included in
written form on page 22 of the October 14, 2014 Advisory Panel Meeting book.
Pat McCann wondered, since there were good recoveries with the standard reference materials (SRMs),
whether there was a difference between the SRM blood and the cord blood. Betsy Edhlund replied that
there could be. She did not know how the chemistry of SRM blood compared to the chemistry of cord
blood.
MN FEET Update
Jessica Nelson presented an update on study design, methods, and current planning activities for the
Minnesota Family Environmental Exposure Tracking (MN FEET) project. Background materials can be
found on pages 23-26 of the October 14, 2014 Advisory Panel Meeting book.
Discussion: The following questions were asked of the panel members:


Given that we are still exploring the relationship between mercury levels in cord blood
v. newborn bloodspots as part of MN FEET, that consent and lab analysis will now come
at a later time for bloodspots (see updates, below), and that participants will receive
their individual cord and urine results, staff recommend that we do not return individual
results for newborn bloodspot mercury levels. Do you agree with this recommendation?
Do you agree with possibly limiting the number of bloodspots analyzed to a subset of
participants?
Melanie Ferris indicated she had mixed feelings about not returning the bloodspot results. She
appreciated that the results would have to be sent back differently and framed in a different way, but
felt that some sort of follow up would be more transparent. Pat McGovern asked how others felt about
that. David DeGroote stated that, since we are talking about a bloodspot methodology that is still a little
experimental and since we plan to return the results for cord blood and urine, he was not sure what
value the somewhat questionable bloodspot data might have. Melanie agreed that the results would
not have the same impact as cord blood and urine, but pointed out that people are sensitive about
bloodspots and the testing that’s done after birth, and that it could be a lingering question for a parent.
Pat McGovern offered an alternative. Typically when results don’t have clinical implications, they aren’t
released to participants, but she said her bias is to release information for the reasons Melanie stated. In
this situation, she suggested a blend: release the cord blood and urine results, but, because of all the
scientific questions about the bloodspot results, say that participants can have their results if they
request them but do not send them routinely. Sending the bloodspot results will involve a lot of
conversation about what they mean relative to the other results. Jean Johnson concurred that
bloodspot results would not be returned routinely, for the reasons we described, but participants can
have them if they really want them. We would have to offer some additional explanation and could
provide counseling or have a physician talk to them and explain why the numbers might be different.
Pat McGovern wondered if that addressed Melanie’s concern. She replied that it did feel better because
there was a place where participants could request results.
Geary assumed that the IRB would be reviewing this. Jessica confirmed this, and added that it will also
be reviewed by SoLaHmo, a community-based research arm of West Side Community Health Services.
SoLaHmo is made up of Somali, Latina, and Hmong researchers. In addition to doing recruitment, they
will also be reviewing the materials. If we discuss this issue and they have concerns about it, we will
have to rethink our strategy.
Steven Pedersen asked about bullet two; what is your definition of a subset of participants? Jessica
responded that we have not yet run power calculations, but are thinking around 300 people. In the
Pregnancy and Newborns Exposure Study, mercury was detected in around 60% of cord blood samples.
If the same is true for this population, it would be around half of the 600 total population, or in the 300
range. The plan would be to only ask women with mercury detected in cord blood to participate in the
bloodspot testing. This would allow us to be most efficient in making the cord blood v. bloodspot
comparison because we should have fewer non-detects in bloodspots. Jessica asked if anyone had a
problem or objection to this subset approach. David DeGroote agreed and said to let the past results
guide what the subset looks like. Jessica noted that we will need SoLaHmo and others’ input on the
wording about it in the consent form, as some participants will not be offered this chance and additional
gift card.
New Business
There was no new business.
Audience Questions
There were no audience questions.
Adjournment
Pat McGovern thanked everyone for their attention and patience. The meeting was adjourned
at 4:00 pm. The next Advisory Panel meeting will be held on February 10, 2015 from 1:00–4:00
p.m. at the American Lung Association in Minnesota.