The truth about American drinking water: Report shows widespread presence of hazardous chemicals
Between the ongoing controversy around fluoridated water and the recent discovery of a chemical in our water systems that may or may not be toxic, the safety of American drinking water is murky, to say the least.
And today, with a new report revealing that tap water is delivering harmful chemicals like PFAS ('forever chemicals'), heavy metals, and radioactive substances to millions of Americans—often at levels far beyond what scientists consider safe—it got even murkier.
The latest update to the Tap Water Database, from the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG), reveals that 324 contaminants were found in drinking water systems across the country, with almost all systems having some amount of detectable contaminants in its water. That's according to safety data collected between 2021 and 2023 by EWG from nearly 50,000 water systems in every state (except New Hampshire, which did not provide its data).
'This is a wake-up call,' said EWG senior scientist Tasha Stoiber in a news release.
Consumers can search the database by zip code to see what specific contaminants were found in their local water systems.
'The impact of human activities on our environment inevitably trickles downstream, impacting our drinking water,' EWG senior science analyst Sydney Evans tells Fortune. She adds that while many of the contaminants have likely been long present in our water and are only being detected now because of improved scientific methods, others appear to be new.
'I would argue that a lot of it has been the way that chemicals and industries are regulated in this country—allowing for a huge number of chemicals to be approved without a whole lot of underlying research to prove that they're safe," she says.
Tap water is regulated by the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974. The law, explains EWG vice president of government affairs Melanie Benesh, requires the Environmental Protection Agency to look at the contaminants that are in drinking water, set safe limits on them, and then require water utilities to implement those standards through regular monitoring, by installing treatment technologies, or by changing their drinking water sources.
'But a lot of those clean water limits are out of date,' Benesh says. 'There are a lot of unregulated contaminants that probably should be regulated contaminants, and the process for adding new contaminants to that list is very slow.'
States are given further authority to set more stringent standards—something that 11 states (Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin) have taken advantage of by setting standards for maximum levels of certain PFAS in drinking water.
The EPA set historic federal PFAS limits last April after determining that there is no safe exposure level in drinking water, as they are carcinogens. But those protections are now in limbo, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. paused lawsuits from both water utilities and the chemical industry, allowing the Trump administration more time to review the EPA limits—and raising fears that they could be made weaker.
California, though, just introduced legislation that would codify those limits within the state.
The following groupings of chemicals are among the most common, according to EWG, which says that, to keep them out of drinking water, utility companies would have to start using more advanced treatment protocols.
'We need to disinfect drinking water so that people don't get different pathogens,' Evans explains. But the disinfection chemicals can then combine with other contaminants and organic matter in the water to make byproducts, 'which, at low levels, are linked to things like bladder cancer,' she says. 'There's a balancing act that needs to be done there.'
This is the cancer-causing chemical made notorious by the film Erin Brockovich, which documented the poisoning of drinking water in Hinkley, Calif. It gets into drinking water as industrial pollution or through erosion of soil and rock. There is still no national standard for chromium-6 in drinking water, as the EPA's safety review of the chemical was stalled by pressure from the industries responsible for contamination. Toxic effects can include stomach cancer, liver and reproductive system damage, and lowered body weight.
Nitrate, from fertilizer, landfill, or animal waste runoff, 'is another big one,' says Evans, adding that it can be naturally occurring at low concentrations. At high levels, she says, it has been known 'to be particularly harmful to babies in the short term,' while more recent research has shown low levels linked to colorectal and other forms of cancer.
This is the large group of long-lasting chemicals that break down extremely slowly over time, used widely, industrially, for things including firefighting foam, nonstick pans, clothing, food packaging, furniture, and textile coatings. Found widely in water, air, soil, and the blood of people and animals all over the world—and in the drinking water of over 143 million Americans—they are linked to a host of health effects at low levels, including immune system suppression, endocrine disruption, low birth rate, various cancers, reduced vaccine effectiveness, and liver damage. 'We have a gap between what is legally allowed in drinking water and what the research shows is dangerous because [legal limits] are outdated,' says Evans.
Perchlorate, a toxic component of rocket fuel, is harmful to humans because it blocks the thyroid from taking in iodide, which is critical to its ability to regulate many bodily functions. Too little iodide can cause harm to metabolism and to physical and cognitive development, and puts children and developing fetuses at the most risk.
The No. 1 way to know you are drinking safe water, says Evans, is to invest in a home water filter—a solution she says comes with 'a caveat.'
'We recognize that it is not the universal solution, because whether it's out there and available and effective or not, not everybody's going to be able to take advantage of it,' whether due to time, energy, or cost, she says. 'It's just not an equitable solution.'
That being said, filtering your water at home is very effective, she says, as long as 'you have the right filter for the job.' It's why EWG tested a range, and included the search-by-zip feature in its new database, pointing first to what contaminants are in your local water and then to which filters best fit your situation. 'Because not all types of filters are going to be effective for all contaminants,' she says, noting that the activated-carbon filter pitchers are the easiest and more affordable, while a reverse-osmosis system will be more effective and expensive.
Bottled water, meanwhile, should be avoided except in the case of natural disasters or other emergencies.
'The main issue that we have with bottled water is that there's really no guarantee that it's any better than your tap water,' Evans says. 'Sometimes it can be, but a lot of times it's not, and the testing, because it's regulated by a different agency, is a lot less transparent.'
Further, she says, it's less affordable, not environmentally sustainable, and could be made unsafe by its bottle's plastic, which can break down and wind up in the water.
Finally, consumers can advocate for stronger tap water regulations. 'Certainly, people can call their legislators,' says Benesh, who advises letting them know you believe in stronger limits—as well as preserving the in-limbo PFAS limits enacted by the EPA last year. 'That's certainly something that consumers can and should do."
More on drinking water:
The new fluoride study dividing the public health world as RFK Jr. calls for a ban on adding it to water
Americans drink more water than almost every other country. Here's why
More than 113 million people are drinking tap water that contains a newly identified chemical—and nobody knows if it's toxic or not
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
39 minutes ago
- Vox
Is it even possible to convince people to stop eating meat?
is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect section, with a focus on animal welfare and the future of meat. Factory farming is a particularly wicked problem to solve. Despite strong public concern for cruelty to farmed animals and large swathes of Americans telling pollsters that they're trying to cut back on meat, we keep eating more of it. And research has shown that it's nearly impossible to persuade most people otherwise. But a new study, which hasn't yet been published and is currently under review at an academic journal, might complicate that consensus. Learning how the sausage gets made In the experiment, University of Toronto professors Lisa Kramer and Peter Landry recruited 1,149 students and separated them into two groups. One group watched a 16-minute clip from the harrowing animal rights documentary Dominion about the treatment of pigs in meat production, while a control group watched a video about the role mushrooms play in forest ecosystems. In surveys taken before the study, immediately after watching the video, and a week later, participants were asked to choose a protein — bacon, chicken, steak, tofu, or none — to add to a meal. Before watching the video, 90.1 percent of students chose meat in their meal; a week after watching the video, 77.9 percent did — a 12.2 percent decline. Demand for pork, specifically, fell more sharply. 'Turns out, it's harder to order meat after watching Dominion,' Seth Ariel Green, a research scientist at Stanford University's Humane and Sustainable Food Lab, wrote in a blog about the study. 'And it's especially harder to order pork after watching the segment on pigs.' (Green didn't work on the study but did provide the authors feedback on its design.) Plenty of researchers have shown videos similar to Dominion to study participants and found little to no effect. So what made this one different? Kramer and Landry say it could simply be the high-quality nature of the film. It was filmed in high definition and artfully edited, with close-up shots of distressed pigs, while most other factory farm footage is low-quality and shaky. It's a disturbing and unflinching look at industrial pig farming, though the narrator — actor Rooney Mara — speaks with a flat tone, as she carefully guides the viewer through practices that, on their face, should be illegal but are common and lawful. Some of those practices include: Confining pigs in tiny crates for virtually their entire lives Slamming runt piglets head-first into concrete as a form of cheap euthanasia Removing piglets' tails, teeth, and testicles without pain relief Using carbon dioxide gas chambers to knock pigs unconscious prior to slaughter, which can cause extreme suffering What's more, the clip that participants watched makes no appeal for them to eat less meat or more plant-based foods, leaving viewers to come to their own conclusions. 'The task of connecting the experiences of pigs on industrial-scale farms (as depicted in the video) to one's own consumption choices is left entirely to the viewer,' Kramer and Landry wrote in the paper. (A lot of studies on the impacts of factory-farming documentaries use advocacy videos that directly ask the viewer to eat less meat.) The study certainly has limits. For one, the average participant was 22 years old and participants skewed slightly female; young people and women are both groups that are more likely to be concerned about cruelty to farmed animals. And it only followed the participants for one week after the experiment. Lastly, researchers didn't track what participants actually ate. Instead, the students indicated which protein they would add to a meal, with the understanding that they had a roughly 50 percent chance of winning a voucher for the meal they chose at a university cafeteria. At first, this struck me as a poor proxy for real-world behavior. But the researchers noted that another study that used a similar voucher approach and tracked what students actually ate found little discrepancy. All this suggests that persuading individuals to eat less meat — a goal that many in the animal advocacy movement have largely given up on — might not be as hopeless as previously thought. Why animal rights groups largely gave up on trying to change people's diets The University of Toronto study results pleasantly surprised Green, who researches how to move society away from factory farming. For a time, he had been convinced that efforts to persuade people to eat less meat — especially with appeals to animal welfare — were ineffective. His beliefs were informed by his research: Late last year, he and some colleagues published a meta-analysis, which is currently under peer review, looking at more than three dozen rigorous studies designed to persuade people to eat less meat. Overall, the studies found little to no effect. (It's worth noting, however, that a few studies involving much lengthier interventions, like reading an essay and joining a 50-minute group discussion or sitting through a lecture, have demonstrated sizable effects). This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter Sign up here for Future Perfect's biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more. Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@ Green's findings align with a change in the animal rights movement that took hold around a decade ago. Since the 1970s, animal advocates have poured a lot of resources into persuading people to go vegetarian or vegan. Organizations ran expensive advertising campaigns, handed out millions of pamphlets at universities, lectured in classrooms, and penned letters to the editor and op-eds in newspapers, among many other tactics. But in spite of all the effort, American meat consumption kept rising. By 2015, the largest animal advocacy organizations were shifting their focus toward political and corporate campaigns to ban some of the most egregious factory-farm practices, like tiny cages for pigs and egg-laying hens. Some groups also advocated for technological change — namely, making plant-based meat taste better, more affordable, and more widely available. The idea was that instead of trying to influence one person at a time, which had proven so difficult, they'd instead change the food system. The pivot produced a lot of tangible progress for animals: Over a dozen states have restricted cages for farmed animals, and plant-based meat tastes better and is more widely available than ever. But I've wondered whether animal advocates have given up on public persuasion too soon, and in turn, made it harder to maintain their hard-won institutional and technological progress. Animal advocates in Canada protest the cages that many egg-laying hens are confined in. Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals Hens in battery cages, which are so small the animals can't spread their wings for their entire lives. Shatabdi Chakrabarti / FIAPO / We Animals Progress won through corporate or political campaigns might struggle to withstand backlash 'if there isn't also culture change happening and people's attitudes shifting' about factory farming, Laura Driscoll, a social scientist who works at the Stray Dog Institute — a foundation that funds groups working to reform the food system — told me. For example, plant-based meat sales jumped significantly between the late 2010s and early 2020s, but they've recently dipped back down. There might be a bigger market for these products, and more consumers might be immune to the fallacious argument that they're overly processed, if more people were persuaded of the ills of factory farming. Some states are now rolling back animal welfare laws that advocates had previously persuaded them to adopt, while some members of Congress are pushing to eliminate all state-level cage bans. Many food companies that pledged to eliminate eggs from caged hens in their supply chain aren't following through. In the absence of a broader base of voters and consumers who see factory farming as an important social issue, corporations and politicians know they can backslide without much resistance. The art of persuasion Compared to straightforward metrics like how many pigs are still trapped in cages, culture change is 'harder to understand and harder to measure,' Driscoll said, so it's hard to know how much animal rights groups should invest in it. And if it works, it takes a lot of time and repeated exposure to get there. A study participant may not alter their meat consumption after watching one video or reading an essay, but they might change over time if they hear about it enough — and hear persuasive messages that appeal to them. Currently, people are receiving very few messages about factory farming or meat reduction, as it's rarely covered in the news or discussed by politicians. Videos about the issue hardly ever go viral, and animal advocacy groups have pulled back from education and persuasion. Meanwhile, as Green told me, consumers are inundated with messages telling them to eat more meat. Some of those messages are explicit, like fast food advertisements or influencers telling us we need more (animal) protein, to implicit ones, like recipe videos on social media or our friends and family members eating a standard American diet rich in meat. Meat companies also mislead consumers to believe farmed animals are treated much better than they actually are. It's hard to imagine the public making meaningful reductions in meat consumption or advocating for significant changes to factory farming in this political, social, and information ecosystem. As researchers are prone to saying, more research is needed to know what could persuade more people on this issue: 'There's just not that much great research out there,' Green said. 'If you're a researcher in this field and you want to make a contribution, it's not that hard to be the first person to do something.' The case for both dietary change and meat industry reforms can be made persuasively. Based on the Dominion study, it might only take 16 minutes of an unvarnished look into factory farms for it to break through to some people. In today's crowded attention environment, capturing those 16 minutes of people's time will be harder than ever, but Green said it's still worth the effort. 'I think that persuasion is a beautiful thing where we try to convince people using reason and argument, and take them seriously' as moral agents, he said. 'I do not want to give up on this.'
44 minutes ago
Supreme Court decision bolsters efforts to defund Planned Parenthood
The Supreme Court on Thursday said individual Medicaid recipients do not have a right to sue over their state's decision to cut off Planned Parenthood from the government-funded health insurance program for low-income residents. The 6-3 decision, which broke along ideological lines, was a significant victory for conservative efforts to defund the private health clinic network, clearing the way for other states to follow suit. "The Supreme Court rightly restored the ability of states like South Carolina to steward limited public resources to best serve their citizens," said John Bursch, the attorney who defended South Carolina before the high court. Planned Parenthood draws more than a third of its revenue from government grants, contracts and Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion care, like cancer screenings and contraception treatments. "Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crisis," Planned Parenthood South Atlantic president Paige Johnson said in a statement. The organization, which said it has served more than 50,000 state Medicaid beneficiaries so far this year, vowed to continue operations at its two South Carolina clinics. At issue in the case was whether the Medicaid Act -- which guarantees a "free choice of provider" that is willing and qualified --- allows beneficiaries to sue their state if the government infringes on the ability see a preferred provider. In 2018, South Carolina's Republican Gov. Henry McMaster issued executive orders disqualifying Planned Parenthood from participation in the state's Medicaid program, which is a jointly funded federal-state initiative. Julie Edwards, a Medicaid beneficiary and type-1 diabetic who sought medical care at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, South Carolina, sued the state alleging a violation of the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court's majority, said that Congress never intended to allow individual recipients to sue states to enforce terms of the Medicaid Act and that it retains the sole responsibility through power of the purse. "It generally belongs to the federal government to supervise compliance with its own spending programs," Gorsuch wrote. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said that the decision thwarted the will of lawmakers and undermined a key civil rights law. "Today's decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people," she wrote. "At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians -- and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country -- of a deeply personal freedom: the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable." South Carolina's two Planned Parenthood clinics have served mostly low-income, minority women for more than 40 years. "By denying Medicaid enrollees the ability to enforce their right to choose among qualified providers, the Court has effectively closed the courthouse doors to those seeking to protect their access to care," said Jane Perkins, legal director at the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit advoacy group. "This decision disproportionately impacts low-income individuals who rely on Medicaid for essential health services." Anti-abortion groups, which have long targeted Planned Parenthood as the nation's largest provider of abortion services, hailed the Supreme Court decision.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
What is needle spiking? The dangerous travel threat festivalgoer should know
As Americans travel abroad this summer for music festivals and nightlife, authorities and advocates are warning of a growing threat: needle spiking. Nearly 150 people reported being pricked with needles across France over the weekend, during its nationwide music festival Fête de la Musique. The French Interior Ministry said 13 cases were recorded in Paris, and police have arrested at least 12 people in connection with the attacks so far. Investigations are ongoing, and it wasn't immediately clear if the victims were injected with anything. However, the scale of the incident and its potential to produce similar ones this summer is a "shock" and a cause for caution, according to Colin Mackie, founder of Spike Aware UK, a non-profit that raises awareness about spiking. This recent attack highlights the need for travelers to be aware of spiking risks while partying abroad. It's important to be prepared and know what to do if it happens to you. What is needle spiking? Needle spiking involves people being unwantingly jabbed, typically in the arm or leg, by an attacker via a hypodermic needle, Mackie said. Victims may see a bruise or small red mark at the injection site and, if injected with an unknown substance, report blurry vision, nausea, or feeling woozy, dizzy, and even loss of consciousness, according to Spike Aware UK's website. Needle spiking can happen anywhere to anyone: Cases have been reported mostly at public places such as festivals, bars and clubs, according to 2023 data from the U.K. government. While women made up 74% of reported incidents, a YouGov poll from December 2022 reported 10% of women and 5% of men had been spiked. Pleae share #spikeawareuk #spiking #crime #spiked While varied, the injected substances are typically cheap and easy for perpetrators to access, Mackie said. A report by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee found the types of substances people are injected with vary and include prescription drugs, tranquillizers, amphetamines or GHB (also called liquid ecstasy). There's no consensus on a predominant substance type injected, according to a spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) in the U.K. 'Spiking is a complex offense to investigate as drugs can pass through the system quickly and there is often a lack of evidential opportunities, which is why quick reporting and early evidence gathering, including forensic testing, is key," the NPCC spokesperson said to USA TODAY via email. Interestingly, the motive behind needle attacks is largely not sexual assault, robbery, or other obvious crimes, according to Mackie. They almost seem like "pranks," he said, making it even harder to find justice under the law. Even if you're feeling well, you should take any sensation of a needle prick seriously and seek medical attention, Mackie advised. This is important because serious diseases can be transmitted through intravenous exposure. Additionally, it would be wise to consider getting travel insurance beforehand, as this can help cover the costs of any medications that doctors may prescribe to prevent related illnesses. "It can be quite a long course of drugs to protect (victims) from HIV and hepatitis," Mackie said. "They don't know what was in the needle or where the needle's been." A longstanding issue with incremental progress Needle spiking isn't a new phenomenon overseas. Attacks surged in 2021 after the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to social media campaigns and boycotts across Europe and the U.K. as partygoers advocated for better reporting protocols and safety measures at venues. According to Mackie, activism has led to a relative slowdown in incidents in recent years, and the U.K. is at the forefront of policy reform in response. The advocate, whose son died in a spiking-related incident in 2017, is currently lobbying the U.K. parliament to strengthen a proposed law that would make spiking a stand-alone crime. This would give law enforcement "clear procedures" for these cases, Mackie said, and lead to more actual prosecutions. "Police are certainly more active and engaging with victims," Mackie said. Venues have stepped up measures, too, implementing surveillance cameras and extensive security checks at the door. Girlies in LA plz stay safe #needlespiking #roofied #editionhotel What you can do to protect yourself (and still have fun) Travelers should heed extra caution if heading into large party crowds this summer. A few simple steps can look like:
