One of the objectives of the 3rd Occupational Health Plan is to promote biomonitoring of occupational exposures (also known as biological monitoring) as a means of improving chemical risk prevention. Centralizing the data collected by occupational health services at the national level could provide a tool for monitoring the population of exposed workers from a prevention perspective. A prerequisite for this is to conduct an assessment of the current state of occupational exposure biomonitoring (BS-pro) to understand its organization and to evaluate its validity, constraints, and feasibility. Method SpFrance conducted a survey through interviews with approximately forty individuals from occupational health services (OHS), laboratories, and experts in toxicology and biomonitoring of occupational exposures. The interviews were conducted using an interview guide designed to gather information on their views regarding chemical risks in the workplace, occupational exposure biomonitoring activities, and the benefits, barriers, concerns, opportunities, and drivers for centralizing this data. This diverse range of profiles—including experts, laboratories (private/public), and OSH services (size, sectors covered, type [inter-company, independent, prevention-focused], and geographic distribution)—suggests that the collected information fairly accurately reflects the reality on the ground. The results of this survey were submitted to the PST-3 working group on BS-pro to propose potential recommendations for the biomonitoring of occupational exposures. Results and Discussion Chemical risks in the workplace are still often underestimated, particularly in small businesses. Large companies generally know the list of substances present but are unaware of the individuals exposed and their exposure history. The single occupational risk assessment document and the company form for assessing chemical risks are most often poorly completed, and this is even more so in small businesses. There is little data at the workstation, especially since the exposure record no longer exists. Large companies, with sufficient budgets and an HSE team, can implement long-term monitoring through continuous or periodic biomonitoring campaigns. In contrast, small businesses face greater difficulties in organizing long-term monitoring. The consideration of chemical risks varies depending on the type of occupational health service (SSTI, SSTA, preventive medicine SST). Traceability of past exposures is poor, and this loss of information has become even more pronounced since the elimination of the employee exposure record. Despite the interest shown in occupational biomonitoring by the respondents, its use remains marginal in occupational physicians’ (OP) practices regarding workers’ chemical exposures in France. The role of each stakeholder varies significantly depending on the occupational health service. Nevertheless, the importance of the OHP-occupational health nurse (Idest) partnership should be emphasized. Regulatory aspects play a significant role in this activity (blood lead levels, CMR substances, substances with OELs). The recommendations for best practices in the biological monitoring of occupational exposures (SBEP), issued in 2016 by the French Society of Occupational Medicine, are unknown to several OSH professionals surveyed, and few laboratories are familiar with them. The medical-occupational information form (FRMP), which must accompany the biological sample, is not always provided or fully completed by occupational health services; it is not always required or taken into account by laboratories. The lack of computerization, standardization, and interoperability of BS-pro data at the OSH level prevents a comprehensive view of workers’ chemical exposure by occupation, substance, region, or at the national level (paper or scanned documents are still the preferred method to date). Furthermore, there is little processing of BS-pro statistical data within OSH departments. Apart from lead, approximately half of all annual tests performed involve metal biomarkers, with the other half consisting of biomarkers for PAHs, solvents (primarily BTEX, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene), and pesticides, with the majority being urine tests (one-quarter are blood tests). The list of biomarker analysis laboratories is available in the INRS Biotox database (www.inrs.fr/biotox). However, in reality, only a few large laboratories are involved in most BS-pro assays (excluding blood lead level assays), with one of them being particularly dominant in terms of volume. The limited number of French biological limit values is a hindrance given the difficulty in interpreting BS-pro results. Aside from the biological interpretation values (ANSES VLB and SpF VBR), several occupational health services would like to be able to compare their biomarker test results with national data. However, such data do not exist in the occupational setting by sector of activity to put the results into perspective. The population-based approach of BS-pro, particularly useful for prevention, is currently virtually nonexistent in France, except during measurement campaigns in certain companies. Occupational physicians generally conduct this activity at the individual level. One of the major obstacles cited regarding occupational biomarking is a lack of time. All OSH professionals and experts interviewed emphasize the need for administrative and organizational support, as well as dedicated time for occupational biomarking. The implementation of biomarking, the interpretation, and the reporting of results can be greatly facilitated by the assistance of experts in toxicology and biometrology, who remain far too few in number. Some stakeholders mention cost, but for the majority, the financial aspect is no longer a barrier (covered by the SST and through an agreement with the employer). A project to centralize biometrology data could be built on the principle of give-and-take: 1) collection of BS-pro data from SSTs and laboratories; 2) interactive sharing of results at the national level according to various criteria (sociodemographic, occupational, etc.); 3) centralized provision of documents useful to occupational health (OH) professionals. Nearly all interviewees support this approach due to the service it provides to occupational health (OH) professionals. In particular, centralization enables a comprehensive, even national view of exposure to certain chemical risks (putting results into perspective) through data digitization; it helps raise awareness of chemical risks that are still underestimated and enhances the roles of occupational physicians and nurses. It can facilitate the organization of traceability for workers’ exposures. The SSTs emphasize the importance of simplicity in such a system and desire a user-friendly tool, ideally integrated into the everyday software routinely used by occupational physicians. Data confidentiality was raised, as companies do not wish to be identified or stigmatized (anonymization of data reporting). A standardized data format is necessary to ensure the system’s interoperability. For the BS-pro to succeed, it will be necessary to raise awareness among stakeholders and promote it beyond regulatory requirements: making it known, ensuring its operation is understood, and highlighting its utility. Following this survey, eight recommendations were issued by the PST-3 working group on the BS-pro to provide it with a more operational framework and to promote this practice as a method to be considered whenever occupational health professionals deal with workers exposed to chemical risks. These recommendations are included in the final section of the report.