Tag Archives: arsenic

What’s In Your Water?

Posted on by

Groundbreaking Investigation Finds Alarming Levels of Arsenic, Lead and Toxic Chemicals in U.S. Tap Water

A joint investigation by the Guardian and Consumer Reports found drinking water samples from systems servicing more than 19 million people in the U.S. contained unsafe levels of multiple contaminants.

Millions of people face serious water quality problems in the U.S.

On Tuesday, the Guardian released the results of a nine-month investigation conducted jointly with Consumer Reports (CR) which showed alarming levels of heavy metals like arsenic, lead and chemicals from plastic PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in drinking water samples across the U.S.

According to the Guardian, millions of people face serious water quality problems in the U.S. because of contamination, deteriorating infrastructure and inadequate treatment at water plants.

As part of the study, CR and the Guardian selected 120 volunteers to provide tap water samples which were then tested for heavy metals like lead and arsenic, contaminants and PFAS — a group of compounds found in hundreds of household products that are linked to learning delays in children, cancer and other health problems.

The samples came from water systems that service more than 19 million people.

Here are four key findings from this report:

  • A total of 118 of 120 samples analyzed had concerning levels of PFAS, arsenic or lead exceeding safety thresholds set by CR scientists and other health experts.
  • Almost every sample had measurable levels of PFAS and more than 35% of samples contained the potentially toxic “forever chemicals,” at levels that exceeded CR’s  maximum safety threshold.
  • About 8% of samples contained arsenic at levels above CR’s recommended maximum.
  • One tested water sample in New Britain, Connecticut, had a lead concentration of 31.2 ppb — more than double the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) action level of 15 ppb, and 25 ppb higher than the water quality report sent to people who use the water.

In response to the findings, EPA spokesperson Andrea Drinkard said 93% of the population supplied by community water systems get water that meets “all health-based standards all of the time” and that the agency has set standards for more than 90 contaminants. That includes arsenic and lead but not PFAS.

However, according to an analysis of more than 140,000 public water systems published by the Guardian in February, millions of people in the U.S. are drinking water that fails to meet federal health standards, including limits for dangerous contaminants.

‘Forever chemicals’ (PFAS) in tap water

CR’s results showed PFAS in 117 of 120 samples tested, from locations across the country. Two CR samples had PFAS levels above the federal advisory level of 70 ppt, with the highest amount at 80.2 ppt.

PFAS chemicals have been manufactured and used in a variety of industries in the U.S. since the 1940s, according to the EPA. They can be found in food packaging, commercial household products, stain and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick cookware, polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, fire-fighting foams, oil and plastics industries and contaminated drinking water.

PFAS chemicals seep into water from factories, landfills and other sources. They’re often called “forever chemicals” because they can accumulate in the body and don’t easily break down in the environment.

An investigation into the health effects of PFAS involving research of 69,000 people revealed a “probable link” between exposure to a type of PFAS chemical and six health problems: high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and testicular and kidney cancers. Research has also linked PFAS to learning delays in children.

As reported by The Defender, science suggests links between PFAS exposure and a range of health consequences, including possible increased risks of cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, liver damage, kidney disease, low birth-weight babies, immune suppression, ulcerative colitis and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

At least 2,337 communities in 49 states have drinking water known to be contaminated with PFAS, according to a January analysis by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization.

Despite evidence of widespread contamination and health risks, the EPA has not set an enforceable legal limit for PFAS in drinking water. It has established only voluntary limits, which apply to just two forever chemicals — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) — at 70 parts per trillion combined.

Harvard environmental health professor Philippe Grandjean has suggested that the limit should be just 1 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, citing his 2013 research published in Environmental Health.

Most municipalities don’t test for PFAS, and when they do, it’s only on a small scale.

Toxic arsenic in tap water

Almost every sample CR tested had measurable levels of arsenic, a common groundwater contaminant, including 10 samples with levels between 3 and 10 ppb, according to the Guardian.

CR scientists and environmental advocacy groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have said the limit should be 3 ppb or lower, but the EPA allows arsenic in drinking water up to 10 ppb to balance the costs for water system operators against reducing health risks.

Research suggests exposure to minimal levels of arsenic can pose long-term health risks. A 2014 study in Environmental Health found that arsenic at 5ppb or greater was associated with reduced IQ in children.

As The Defender reported in March, arsenic was “ranked number one among substances present in the environment that pose the most significant potential threat to human health,” according to a congressional report that resulted from an investigation into heavy metals like lead and arsenic found in baby food.

According to the report: “Exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ, diminished future economic productivity, and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior in children. Toxic heavy metals endanger infant neurological development and long-term brain function.”

Dangerous level of lead in tap water

Concerns of lead in drinking water first made national headlines during the Flint, Michigan water crisis in 2015. Scientists and the EPA have agreed there is no safe exposure level for lead, though the EPA’s action level for lead is set at 15 ppb.

While New Britain’s annual water quality report for customers indicated that its average lead level was 6 ppb, one sample tested by CR showed lead concentrations of 31.2 ppb, more than double the EPA’s action level of 15 ppb.

Lead typically works its way into drinking water through lead pipes leading to peoples’ homes or in the homes’ plumbing. An estimated 3 to 6 million homes and businesses in the U.S. still get water through older lines that contain lead, according to EPA estimates, and an unknown number of homes have plumbing fixtures made of the heavy metal.

It is well established that inorganic arsenic and lead found in tap water are neurotoxic and can result in reduced IQ as well as adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, such as autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) — two conditions that have been steadily climbing for several decades, reported The Defender.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, lead can also cause reproductive issues, low bone density, poor kidney function, cognitive decline and negatively impacts every organ system in the body. High levels of exposure can cause encephalopathy or death.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has identified no “threshold or safe level of lead in blood.”

Next steps — solving the problem

Although people can seek cleaner drinking water by using filters and home filtration systems that remove dangerous contaminates, CR says fixing the problem shouldn’t be up to consumers.

The NRDC has called on the Biden administration and Congress to enact legislation requiring the expeditious removal and replacement of lead lines and to take immediate steps to address PFAS contamination in drinking water.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/arsenic-lead-toxic-chemicals-tap-water/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8a2338f9-c91c-4d41-816c-8533cf90d2d8

Arsenic in Your Chicken?

Posted on by

The Arsenic in Your Chicken

By Chris Hunt | |

While industrial livestock production involves a remarkably wide array of bad practices, a few manage to extend beyond mere imprudence into the realm of Total Insanity. For instance, the reckless abuse of antibiotics for growth promotion. Or the construction of uncovered multimillion-gallon cesspools for storing livestock manure in residential areas. Or, of course, feeding arsenic to animals raised for food.

Today, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future published a study in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives that provided further evidence of the risks associated with the use of arsenicals in animal agriculture. Just in case anyone still needed convincing (Ahem! FDA, Pfizer and industrial chicken magnates). The study, which involved analysis of chicken breast samples purchased at grocery stores in 10 cities across the US, revealed that chickens likely raised with arsenic-based drugs yield meat that has higher levels of inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen that has also been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, cognitive deficits and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Why would anyone feed arsenic to chickens?

While you and I might associate arsenic only with the plotlines of old who-done-it novels in which affluent elderly gentlemen are slowly poisoned by long-suffering caretakers or disgruntled relatives, its use by industrial chicken producers is anything but fiction. Back in the 1940s, producers started using arsenicals to promote growth, treat disease and improve meat pigmentation. The practice eventually became standard; according to industry estimates, by 2010, 88% of all chickens raised for human consumption in the US were given the arsenic-based drug roxarsone. (And – fun fact – we raise about 9 billion chickens for meat every year.)

Although pharmaceutical giant Pfizer voluntarily pulled roxarsone from the US market in 2011, it can still sell the drug abroad – and other than the sort of basic commitment to social responsibility that big players in the industrial livestock sector love to advertise yet incessantly avoid, there’s nothing stopping Pfizer from reintroducing roxarsone to the US market (i.e., the FDA hasn’t actually banned its use). Moreover, Pfizer still sells nitarsone, another arsenical drug similar to roxarsone.

What happens to the arsenic fed to chickens?

Turns out that when you feed arsenical drugs to livestock, the arsenic doesn’t just magically disappear. Instead, trace amounts of arsenic fed to chicken are excreted in their manure – and when hundreds of thousands of chickens are raised on a factory farm year after year, the arsenic can accumulate pretty quickly, eventually contaminating soil, groundwater and surface waters.

But not all the arsenic is excreted in manure; some portion also ends up in the poultry meat that US consumers eat every day. The newly published CLF study is the first to quantify concentrations of specific forms of arsenic (most notably inorganic arsenic) within chicken meat, and the first to directly compare arsenic concentrations in meat samples from birds likely raised with arsenical drugs to samples from chickens raised without these drugs.

The results

The researchers tested samples of three types of chicken breast: organic (which means the meat came from birds that were required to be raised without arsenical drugs), antibiotic-free (which means the birds were raised without antibiotics, but not necessarily without arsenicals) and conventional (which, given the high rate of arsenical use when the study was conducted between December 2010 and June 2011, means the birds likely received arsenical drugs). The researchers also contacted the various poultry producers to determine whether they had established policies to prohibit arsenical use, and divided the samples accordingly.

A few highlights from the analysis:

  • Conventional samples had higher inorganic arsenic levels than antibiotic-free and organic samples.
  • In meat samples containing roxarsone, levels of inorganic arsenic were four times higher than levels in organic chicken, and two to three times greater than the safety standard for inorganic arsenic in foods proposed in a 2011 FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine study. (Note that the FDA retracted this recommendation shortly afterward.)
  • 70 percent of samples from conventional producers without policies prohibiting arsenical use had inorganic arsenic levels that exceeded the aforementioned FDA safety standard.
  • The researchers had the foresight to preemptively reject any ridiculous “if-you-cook-chicken-to-the -recommended-temperature-arsenic-will-disappear” argument from industrial poultry apologists by cutting each sample of chicken in half, cooking one half and testing both the cooked and raw samples. Unsurprisingly, cooking didn’t eliminate the arsenic. But somewhat alarmingly for poultry consumers who prefer not to eat raw meat, cooked chicken samples had higher levels of inorganic arsenic than their uncooked counterparts.
  • Using a model for cancer risk developed by the EPA, the researchers estimated that based on the levels of inorganic arsenic discovered in the study, industry-wide use of arsenical drugs could cause an average of 124 cancers per year.

Good science to shift bad policy?

The levels of inorganic arsenic discovered in chicken are cause for concern, especially since many of us are already exposed to the carcinogen through additional dietery and environmental paths (for instance, see Consumer Reports’ 2012 report about arsenic in rice). But unlike these other sources of exposure, which typically result from natural arsenic deposits, industry or residual contamination from the days of widespread arsenical pesticide use, as noted in the study, “arsenical poultry drugs are deliberately administered to animals intended for human consumption. Consequently, exposures resulting from use of these drugs are far more controllable than exposures from environmental sources.”

The authors of the study concluded their analysis in the reserved, impartial tone characteristic of practiced scientists, stating, “Our findings suggest that eliminating the use of arsenic-based drugs in food animal production could reduce the burden of arsenic-related disease in the US population.” Since I’m not writing for a peer-reviewed science journal, I’ll allow myself to be a little less diplomatic in my own summary: this study provides further evidence that continued use of arsenicals in food animal production poses an entirely unnecessary threat to public health. While the practice might boost the profits earned by poultry giants and the manufacturers who supply them with arsenical drugs, it’s imprudent and irresponsible. As such, the FDA has no legitimate justification for its ongoing failure to prohibit arsenicals from food animal production.

© 2013 GRACE Communications Foundation

 from:    http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/2561/the-arsenic-in-your-chicken