What Biomonitoring Can and Cannot Tell Us about Causality in Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments

Biomonitoring can provide exposure and effects information on various stressors (chemical or biological) that can be useful for human health and ecological risk assessments. It has been applied over the years where harmful changes in human health or the environment were observed and which may have warranted more detailed investigation. Sometimes biomonitoring programs may have been useful in determining the significance and/or cause of these harmful observations. These data can help to infer, but not confirm, causality as exemplified in classical studies conducted in humans and wildlife. However, in most cases we note that additional work was needed to provide the information necessary to support or refute causality. Today modern technology provides the ability to measure a wide variety of parameters in environmental media, plants, animals, and humans. Finding a chemical in an environmental medium or biological tissue may be helpful in understanding potential exposure (and perhaps to begin estimating hazard) to humans and ecological receptors, but mere presence does not necessarily help to establish effects or assign causality. In this article we evaluate the strengths and weaknesses, in a risk assessment context, of the use of biomonitoring data to support a determination of causality.