ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
What's Inside: Clorox Shares a Little
Stewart to Pickens: "Is it horribly unsafe, is that what this fracking is?"
EPA (Finally) Regulates Rocket Fuel in Tap Water
Senate Hearing Focuses on EWG's Chromium-6 Study
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Toxins in our Kids' Foods: Where is the FDA?
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Fluoride in Your Water: How much is too much?
Borax: Not the Green Alternative It's Cracked Up to Be
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
If you ask a caveman a chemistry question...
By Alex Formuzis, EWG Vice-President for Media Relations
Good news. Maine governor Paul LePage claims he has read the scientific research on the health dangers posed by bisphenol-A, the plastic component and synthetic estrogen.
His conclusion?
"Quite frankly, the science that I'm looking at says there is no [problem]. There hasn't been any science that identifies that there is a problem. The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen. So the worst case is some women may have little beards."Read it for yourself in the Bangor Daily News.
Actually, as many Daily News readers pointed out in comments on the story, it's testosterone, the male hormone, not estrogen, that bears the blame for unwanted hair growth in women. Oops.
Hundreds of actual scientists who have conducted thousands of studies have found very serious health affects associated with BPA. A few of them:
- Cancer
- Diabetes
- Early puberty
- Heart disease
- Infertility
- Neurological disorders
- Obesity
I'm not sure what qualifications or education Gov. LePage has that would make him an authority on chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system.
I was in Walt Hoesel's 11th grade chemistry class back in '89; I even passed it. But when reporters call and ask my opinion about the latest study connecting BPA to yet another serious health risk, I put them in touch with scientists from EWG's research department.
In 2008, lawmakers in Maine passed the Kid-Safe Product Act, which set up a system to set priorities for state regulations aimed at protecting children's health. BPA was to be the first "chemical of high concern" to be phased out of baby products.
The plan passed with near-unanimous support among legislators. But since coming into office earlier this year, LePage has been on the warpath to repeal a number of the state's environmental laws. In fact, Ann Robinson with the law firm Preti Flaherty, who represents the toy industry (which uses BPA-based plastics in many products), was a top aide to the LePage transition team and drafted a list of laws and regulations the governor should consider axing - including the ban on BPA.
You can read more about Robinson and her influence in the LePage administration from before he was even sworn in here.
Whatever you do, don't sit back, relax, and assume the government is keeping your products safe.
Fluoride in your water: How much is too much?
By Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Scientist
Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed that public water systems cut back on the amount of fluoride they add to drinking water. Whether you live in a city with fluoridated water or not, you're probably aware of the longstanding debate (often more like a battle) over fluoridation.
Over the last several years, Environmental Working Group has carefully reviewed the evidence of fluoride's benefits to teeth - and its potential toxicity - and this week EWG wrote the federal agency urging it to lower fluoride levels even more than it had proposed.
Here's why:
Fluoride strengthens teeth and makes them more resistant to cavities. That's good. But fluoridated water has some significant drawbacks - especially compared to treatments that apply it directly to teeth, such as fluoridated toothpaste or other dental treatments.
- Fluoride replaces calcium in teeth and bone. A portion of the fluoride you ingest takes the place of calcium in your teeth and bones. In places where there is lots of fluoride in water, people can develop weaker bones and serious tooth damage known as "fluorosis." Whether lower levels of fluoride have the same effects is not clear, but an estimated 40 percent of Americans have dental fluorosis, ranging from mild to severe.
- Toothpaste works just as well, without the downsides. Last year, the European Union concluded that because of these risks, toothpaste and other topical treatments were a better option than fluoridated water.
In their recent announcement, federal officials cited a review by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as justification for continuing to fluoridate water. But when we read between the lines (a handy skill in our line of work), we noticed that the CDC review found that water fluoridation and toothpaste provide a similar level of protection, at least in adults.
It's very worth noting that while fluoridated toothpaste contains thousands of times more fluoride than drinking water, it can be used safely to deliver the benefits directly to the teeth while minimizing how much gets into the body and bones.
- Drinking water is an inexact delivery route. We can't tailor the amount of fluoride in drinking water for each demographic group. Pregnant women, athletes and people with diabetes all drink lots of water and as a result will likely ingest more fluoride than teens - who are rumored to subsist purely on soda.
Proposed limit not low enough, especially for vulnerable groups
The lower fluoride concentrations in drinking water being recommended by the government will still be too high for some groups. EWG estimates that 20 percent of babies less than 2 years old will end up ingesting too much fluoride, particularly babies fed powdered baby formula, which is mixed with water. Because they're so small, bottle-fed babies drink approximately 10 times more water than adults every day.
The first two years of life are a vulnerable, because babies are growing rapidly and more of the fluoride finds a permanent home in their bones or teeth. In short, for infants it's all downside and no benefit. About 10 percent of older children will also get too much fluoride from the combination of drinking water, toothpaste and the small amount of fluoride in food, pesticides and other sources.
About 40 percent of Americans have fluorosis, though it is often very mild. Regardless, we at EWG believe that it just makes sense to minimize fluoride ingestion until the safety of the proposed lower levels can be assured. Although current drinking water guidelines focus on fluoride toxicity to bone and teeth, studies from regions with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride have also found indications of neurotoxicity and hormone disruption, and even increased rates of a rare type of bone cancer in boys.
Better than nothing, but not enough
EWG does welcome this move to lower fluoride levels - for years we've been concerned about the safety of water fluoridation. That said, federal agencies haven't fully tallied the risks of fluoride and the potential to administer it more safely. The Environmental Protection Agency published a toxicity assessment that concluded that adding fluoride at 0.7 parts per million is safe, but based its calculations on some questionable assumptions. Without them, the assessment would have shown the opposite.
The point is, fluoride belongs ON your teeth, not IN your body. Surface application works and is safe - as long as kids learn to spit out their toothpaste (harder than you might think!).
Key fluoride tips for water drinkers
It's good news that the federal government wants to reduce the allowable fluoride levels in drinking water. But EWG doesn't think their proposal goes far enough, so we encourage you to take precautions at home. These are our top tips:
- NO fluoride for babies. The American Dental Association (ADA) says there is no proof of benefits before teeth emerge. Avoid mixing powdered or concentrated baby formula with fluoridated water.
- NO fluoridated toothpaste for children younger than two.
- Use less toothpaste. Use a pea-size amount of child-strength toothpaste for bigger kids, but only once they can reliably rinse and spit
- Rinse, don't chew. If you are considering a fluoride supplement, look for rinses instead of chewable tablets to lessen the amount that ends up inside your child's body.
- Alert your tap water provider. If you live in an area with fluoridated water (find out here), let your water utility know about the new federal guidance. Fluoride levels in water should not exceed 0.7 parts per million.
[A big thanks to Flickr CC & Gustty for the pearly whites]
Borax: Not the green alternative it's cracked up to be
By Rebecca Sutton, PhD, EWG Senior Scientist
I'm just going to start with the bad news, OK? Borax is not a green cleaning ingredient, as many have been led to believe.
Yes, the 20-mule team laundry booster box has a very "green" look to it and plenty of recipes for "green" homemade cleaners require it. But we won't be fooled, and we hope you won't be, either. In short: EWG does not recommend using borax to clean your home.
What is borax?
Borax is a (powdery, white) mineral that also goes by a few other names (just to make it confusing!): sodium borate, sodium tetraborate, or disodium tetraborate. A close cousin of borax is boric acid, which has many of the same concerns discussed below. While you might prefer to remember only one of these names, knowing them all helps you sleuth it out better when reading labels. Borax is a pesticide that poisons insects, fungus and weeds, but it also has plenty of other uses that we encounter in consumer products.
How are we exposed to borax?
In our daily lives, there are two ways most of us encounter borax: when we clean and when we preen. It's also in slimy toys and some nutritional supplements.
1. Cleaning products
It's not easy to find out what's in most cleaning products, with a few exceptions. But it's important to try, since many products are a source of harmful air contaminants and, to make it that much harder, greenwashing is rampant.
If you're thinking about making your own cleaning products as a safer alternative, we recommend that you not use the recipes that include borax, since it may pose health risks, too. Unfortunately, it's often pitched as a "green" or "natural" ingredient - but we don't agree. If you're going to make your own, consider these borax-free ideas.
2. Personal care products
Boric acid or sodium borate can also be found in personal care products. The cosmetic industry's own safety panel states that these chemicals are unsafe for infant or damaged skin, because they can absorb readily into the body. Despite this guidance, boric acid is found in some diaper creams. See EWG's Skin Deep cosmetics database for other personal care products containing borax or boric acid and click here for diaper creams that don't contain it.
Both the European Union and Canada restrict these ingredients in body care products made for children under three years of age and require that products containing these ingredients be labeled as not appropriate for broken or damaged skin. No similar safety standards are in place in the United States.
3. Goopy toys
Play Doh, silly putty, and other slimy toys may also contain boric acid. Homemade playdough is a safer alternative to the store bought variety - here's a simple, borax-free recipe.
4. Nutritional supplements
Boron, a component of borax and boric acid, is considered a trace nutrient, though its essential biological role is unknown. As a result, some nutritional supplements contain boron, which may be in the form of boric acid - check the list of ingredients.
What's the problem with borax?
Borax can have short- and long-term health effects:
Short-term irritant. Borax can be irritating when exposure occurs through skin or eye contact, inhalation or ingestion. Poison reports suggest misuse of borax-based pesticides can result in acute toxicity, with symptoms including vomiting, eye irritation, nausea, skin rash, oral irritation and respiratory effects. Toddlers and young children face special risks from hand-to-mouth transfer of carpet or crack and crevice, dust or spray borax treatments.
Hormone disruption. Borax and its cousin, boric acid, may disrupt hormones and harm the male reproductive system. Men working in boric acid-producing factories have a greater risk of decreased sperm count and libido. According to EPA's safety review of these pesticides, chronic exposure to high doses of borax or boric acid causes testicular atrophy in male mice, rats and dogs.
Animal studies reviewed by the EPA indicate that while the female reproductive system is less sensitive to borax, exposure to it can also lead to reduced ovulation and fertility. Borax and boric acid can cross the placenta, affecting fetal skeletal development and birth weight in animal studies of high-dose exposures.
In its 2006 review of the safety of borax pesticides, the EPA declined to perform a risk assessment that included exposures from cleaning supplies, cosmetics and other consumer goods along with professional and consumer pest-control products. As a result, it's difficult to assess the level of risk that may be involved in using borax to clean your home. In light of the reproductive effects reported in both animal and worker studies, we suggest that you avoid borax in homemade or store-bought cleaning supplies.
What should I use to keep my house clean?
Most people buy cleaning products at the store, but making your own is pretty easy if you're up for it. Here are some simple tips for both - keeping in mind that a few basic products -- like all-purpose scrub -- are all that you really need:
Buying cleaning products. At the store, look for certified green products with the Green Seal or EcoLogo mark on the label whenever possible. And check with the manufacturer for a complete list of ingredients in any cleaners you use. If they won't tell you what's in it - don't buy it.
Unfortunately, borax will often only be listed on the product's label when its marketing reflects its pesticide qualities (e.g., the label claims it's an anti-bacterial product). If it's not marketed that way, manufacturers tend to claim that it's inert (which they can), because then it need not be listed on the label. Clear as mud, right? That's how they like it.
Making your own. Common kitchen ingredients like vinegar, lemons, and baking soda make great homemade cleaning supplies. Always take care when combining ingredients - some combinations are safer than others! For example, combining bleach with any acid (vinegar, lemon juice) will create very toxic vapors that you don't want to breathe. Click here for some specifics about what not to combine.
Whether you buy or make your own, remember: other than plain soap and water, most cleaning supplies should be handled with caution, since many may be skin or eye irritants or produce caustic vapors.
Check out EWG's Healthy Home Tips on green cleaning for safer ways to keep your home clean.
[Many thanks to Flickr CC & brainsthehead for the lemony pic]
Bottled Water Industry to EWG: Shut Up!
By Alex Formuzis, EWG VP for Media Relations
When the head of a public interest group (like, say, EWG) receives a threatening letter from one of the nation's top industry lobbyists, it generally means he's done something right.
On January 27, 2011, Joseph Doss president of the International Bottled Water Association demanded that Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook and his organization stop ranking and rating various bottled water brands.
A good sign: Our reports hit a nerve with industry
EWG's 2011 bottled water scorecard hit a nerve with the industry. We found that many brands routinely fail to provide information to consumers about the water's specific geographic source, purification methods and the results of purity testing. Overall, more than half of the 173 bottled water brands surveyed flunked EWG's transparency test.
Only 3 of the 173 brands we surveyed divulged answers to these three questions:
- Where does the water come from?
- Is it purified? How?
- Have tests found any contaminants?
Many brands make vague claims of a pristine source or purity -- but offer few concrete facts. If people are willing to pay up 1,900 times the cost of tap water, they deserve better than that.
They told EWG to "cease and desist"
"IBWA demands that the Environmental Working Group immediately cease and desist from making and propagating false, misleading, unsubstantiated, and disparaging statements about the labeling and quality of bottled water," Doss wrote in a letter to Cook. We're having it framed.
Misleading and unsubstantiated statements? Hardly. We extensively surveyed websites and labels and called dozens of customer service numbers to nail down the facts. We reported to the public precisely what we found - no more, no less.
If Doss would like to address some of the claims his members make on their labels, we're all ears. For instance, what does this boast even mean (courtesy of Oregon Rain Natural Virgin Water)?
"100% rainwater. Over the Pacific Ocean, where fresh, cold air from the North Pole meets warm air from the equator, clouds dripping with naturally clean, pure water are produced. These clouds travel from the ocean, avoiding populated areas and arrive over the Willamette Valley. There on a specialized farm, Oregon Rain captures the water, passes it through a one-third micron filter and ozonates it in the bottle. The result is truly Heaven in a Glass."
We deconstruct more marketing hype in our 2011 bottled water labeling study.
You have a right to know
Water utilities are required by law to test regularly for pollutants and make yearly reports to customers. The bottled water industry doesn't have to tell the consumer a single thing about the contaminants inside those plastic bottles.
Apparently, Doss and the bottled water industry want to keep it that way.
These intimidation tactics by the bottled water industry and its Washington, D.C. lobbyists won't fly. EWG will keep doing what it does best - advancing the public's right to know about what's in food, water and household protects.
If you agree with us, drop Joseph Doss a note. Here's his email: jdoss@bottledwater.org. And here's EWG President Ken Cook's letter back to Doss - it's a good read.
What's Inside: Clorox Shares a Little
By Rebecca Sutton, EWG Senior Scientist
Last week (Feb. 9), Clorox surprised me when it took a small step along the path to complete disclosure - and real consumer empowerment - by releasing a list of all the fragrance ingredients used in its products. What the company didn't disclose is which of these ingredients are in which products - a major obstacle for consumers trying to avoid specific substances.
Still, this is way more transparency than we've seen from any other major cleaning products manufacturer. Clorox deserves a pat on the back for the increased openness (you decide how small or big a pat), and so do consumers and advocates who have been pushing the issue of secret toxic ingredients onto the front burner. SC Johnson (maker of Windex and Pledge) has promised a similar list by January 2012.
My, that's a l-o-n-g list of chemicals
My second surprise was just how long the list is. Clorox uses 1,219 different fragrance ingredients. That's fully 38.5 percent of all ingredients approved by the International Fragrance Association.
Clorox makes a lot of products with undoubtedly a lot of different scents, but I'm still shocked it works with over 1,000 distinct chemicals to make products like Formula 409 and its famous bleaches smell a little better. It makes me wonder just how many chemicals we're being exposing to every day when we clean and preen with run-of-the-mill fragranced body care products and cleaners like Pine-Sol, Green Works and Tilex. Yuck.
Any other surprises? Why, yes...
Clorox continues to use toxic fragrance chemicals
The company no longer mentions polycyclic musks on the list of chemicals it never uses because the company - unfortunately - reneged on its promise to phase them out. Its just-released list of fragrance ingredients includes two of them, Galaxolide and Tonalide. Both have been linked to hormone disruption and breaking down cellular defenses against other toxic exposures. Research has also shown that these chemicals accumulate in people's bodies and turn up in blood and breast milk.
A third musk compound with potential for hormone disruption and cell damage is also on Clorox's list of approved fragrance ingredients: musk ketone. High blood levels of musk ketone in women may be associated with gynecological abnormalities, including mild insufficiency of the ovaries and compromised fertility.
The Clorox fragrance list includes a few other troubling ingredients:
- Acetaldehyde - a possible human carcinogen, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Oxybenzone - a hormone-disrupting chemical commonly used in sunscreens that has been detected in the bodies of 97 percent of Americans and is linked to low birth weight in baby girls
- Phenol and Benzyl Alcohol - both neurotoxins
- Triethanolamine - a chemical that can cause asthma to develop in otherwise healthy individuals.
What next?
All the same, I have to congratulate Clorox for opening the books on its fragrance chemicals - for years the nine letters in the word "fragrance" have covered up a whole lot of toxic chemicals.
This is good news, to be sure. But it should by no means be the end of the line. EWG would like to see these chemicals identified on specific products - right on the product label - so consumers can tell what they're buying. The more we know, the better. Ditching the musks would be a smart move, too. With more than a thousand different chemicals in the mix, surely losing a few of the most toxic is doable.
And how about offering a few more fragrance-free options? It's pretty clear that fragrance-free cleaning and preening is loads better than exposing yourself and your family to toxic chemicals.
EWG's recommendation for shoppers? Clorox just gave us 1,219 more reasons to buy fragrance-free cleaning and beauty products. You can search for some of them right here.
[Thanks to Fickr CC & Clorox Toilet Product for the sparking clean pic]
Stewart to Pickens: "Is it horribly unsafe, is that what this fracking is?"
By Emily Ion, Dusty Horwitt, and Elaine Shannon
On a recent episode of Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," Texas oil and gas executive T. Boone Pickens proudly declared, "I have fracked 3,000 wells in my life. I have never seen anything damaged."
Pickens, 82, was vigorously defending hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking"), the high-pressure underground injection of chemical-laced water that releases deeply buried reserves of natural gas across the country. Stewart responded:
"I'm sure there are people who would say, 'I have, it's been on my land and I've seen the toxicity.' Is there a way to protect the health of the land and the people who are on top of these huge reserves?"
"There've been several hundred thousand wells fracked," Pickens said. "Yes. Sure there is. There's no question of that."
But then he changed the subject. In other words -- Pickens ducked Stewart's question.
And no wonder. Residents of heavily-fracked land say fracking is contaminating their drinking water. Some say water flowing out of their kitchen taps is so polluted with natural gas that it catches fire. For a stunning demonstration, check out the documentary Gasland, recently nominated for an Academy Award.
In response to the growing controversy, officials of the Environmental Protection Agency have a plan for a thorough study of fracking. They intend to test water as it goes into a gas well and as it comes out and to examine the infusion of chemicals before and after fracking.
That's the smart approach. Thanks in part to pressure from the oil and gas lobby, Congress has generally exempted fracking from federal environmental regulations. Last year, we reported that many natural gas and oil drilling companies use diesel and petroleum distillates full of toxic chemicals in their fracking fluid, profiting from a convenient exemption in the 2005 energy bill and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We found that at least some companies appeared to be injecting diesel without necessary permits - a conclusion confirmed recently by an investigation by Reps. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Can injections of diesel and related toxics contaminate water supplies? Pickens says no. EPA needs to find out.
A 2004 EPA investigation of hydraulic fracturing was cut short before the agency performed any field work or water testing. EPA declared that in coal bed methane formations, fracking posed little or no risk to drinking water. An EPA whistleblower contended the agency had failed to conduct a scientifically rigorous study. This time around, with companies threatening to drill in more populated areas, including underneath New York City's drinking water supply, it's vital for EPA to do a comprehensive, credible investigation independent of political considerations.
Jon Stewart spoke for a lot of us who want to know, "Is it horribly unsafe, is that what this fracking is? Is it that we can't do it without poisoning the country?" Perfectly safe, T.Boone Pickens said. Trust the gas industry to do the right thing.
We say - not so fast. We'd like a lot more information. How about you?
EPA (Finally) Regulates Rocket Fuel in Tap Water
By LeeAnn Brown, EWG Press Associate
Perchlorate, a common ingredient in rocket fuel and a potent thyroid toxin, will be regulated in drinking water, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced yesterday (Feb. 2).
The agency also said it would develop legal limits for a group of 16 other toxic chemicals found in drinking water. Currently, EPA regulates about 90 known water contaminants.
A Long Time Coming
Environmental Working Group has advocated federal regulation of perchlorate since its 2001 investigation of perchlorate contamination in California's drinking water. In 2009, after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found perchlorate in 15 top-selling brands of infant formula, EWG urged the Obama administration to take action to regulate the chemical, which EPA estimates to be in the drinking water supplied to up to 17 million Americans.
Ken Cook, president and co-founder of EWG, welcomed EPA's increasing efforts to safeguard our drinking water:
"Since there is no question about the low-dose toxicity of perchlorate, it's time for Americans to stop drinking rocket fuel. We will continue to be exposed to perchlorate in food from industrial, agricultural and natural sources, so there need to be robust safeguards to keep contamination in water from further endangering public health."
Federal scientists have documented health risks from the rocket fuel component for years. A 2006 CDC survey suggested that perchlorate affected thyroid hormone levels in women, but the Bush administration decided not to regulate it after strenuous lobbying by the defense and aerospace industries, which hoped to avoid expensive cleanups. In 2008, three EPA scientific advisory panels objected to that decision, which was reversed by yesterday's announcement.
Taking action for cleaner drinking water
Last month, California officials proposed to lower the state's public health goal for perchlorate in tap water from 6 parts per billion to 1 part per billion in order to take into account the greater vulnerability of infants. Perchlorate exposure can interfere with normal brain development, according to recent research.
EPA's Jackson has made cleaning up drinking water a top priority for her agency. In an interview with CNN, Jackson said,
"The aim is to find solutions that meet the health and economic needs of communities across the country more effectively than the current approach."
A 2009 analysis by EWG of the nation's drinking water found 315 pollutants in water, 202 of which have no legal limit in tap water.
Get EWG's history of perchlorate health effects research here.
Senate Hearing Focuses on EWG's Chromium-6 Study
By Nils Bruzelius, EWG Executive Editor
WASHINGTON, DC - Environmental Working Group's recent national study that detected widespread drinking water contamination by carcinogenic chromium-6 was the subject of intense discussion this morning at a well-attended and sometimes contentious 2½-hour U.S. Senate hearing. (You can watch the webcast and read the majority and minority statements and witness testimonies here.)
"Keep on Doing What You're Doing"
At the conclusion, EWG's work drew high praise from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, who told EWG President Ken Cook to "keep on doing what you're doing. I like what you're doing. I certainly welcome it. We can't stop the science or telling the truth to the American people."
In his testimony, Cook noted that the four water utilities that had so far followed up on EWG's findings by conducting and reporting their own tests for chromium-6 had all found it in their water in amounts similar to or even higher than those reported by EWG's researchers. "It's not a partisan issue, it's not a regional issue, it's an American issue," Cook told the senators.
Even Water Can be Partisan
In a reflection of the partisan divisions in Congress, however, several Republican senators took issue with the EWG study, which detected the contaminant in single samples of drinking water from 31 of 35 cities tested. Leading the criticism was ranking member Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who charged that the EWG study was "biased and the conclusions skewed to fit a particular agenda."
Inhofe also repeated an inaccurate complaint made by some water utilities that EWG had refused to disclose the details of the methodology it used in testing for chromium-6, whose formal scientific name is hexavalent chromium. The truth is that a detailed account of the methods used in the study was included in the report from the moment it was published online on Dec. 20, 2010. EWG has released the zip codes where the samples were taken but not the names and addresses of the volunteers who took the water samples from their taps following strictly prescribed procedures.
Although the session was broadly titled an "Oversight Hearing on Public Health and Drinking Water Issues," not one of the six witnesses and nine senators who spoke failed to cite EWG's work.
EPA Announces It Will Regulate Perchlorate in Drinking Water
Shortly before the hearing began, the Environmental Protection Agency made a significant announcement that it will formally address concerns about two other drinking water pollutants. One is perchlorate, an ingredient in rocket fuel and explosives that has long been the focus of concern by EWG and others. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, the first witness, said the agency was reversing the agency's earlier decision under the administration of former President George W. Bush not to regulate the pollutant, which is known to disrupt the thyroid gland's production of hormones essential to the normal development of fetuses and infants.
"Between 5 and 17 million people may be served drinking water containing perchlorate," Jackson said.
The EPA has also begun a process to regulate a group of 16 drinking water contaminants, known as volatile organic compounds or VOCs, that are used as industrial solvents and can cause cancer, Jackson said.
What the Witnesses Said
Linda S. Birnbaum, director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, told the committee that chromium-6, the pollutant featured in the 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich," is "a known human carcinogen" when inhaled, based on both human and animal studies. In animal studies, she said, its potential to cause cancer had been shown in animals that drank water containing chromium-6 in amounts uncomfortably close to what "people might be drinking."
Some Republicans raised concerns that efforts to regulate these contaminants and chromium-6 would have "job-crushing" effects on business or utilities and impose unaffordable costs on utilities, but several Democrats responded that developing technologies to remove such contaminants has great potential to create jobs and new business.
Boxer has filed bills to set deadlines or EPA to set enforceable limits on both perchlorate and chromium-6 in drinking water. She struggled at times to keep the senators' questions focused on drinking water issues, fending off attempts by Inhofe and others to question Jackson about her agency's plans to regulate greenhouse gases and chemicals used in natural gas drilling.
The final witness, Dr. Thomas Burke, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, told the panel, "The current EPA standard [for chromium-6] is outdated and does not reflect the current science. There is little doubt that it is a carcinogen via oral exposure."
The recent evidence, he said, "coupled with the Environmental Working Group report of the widespread presence of chromium-6 in the nation's drinking water supplies indicate it is time to act to understand and reduce the population risks."
EWG agrees that it is time to act -- and is very pleased to see this forward movement on some of the drinking water issues we're working on.
[Thanks to Lindsay Talley for the hearing photo]
