Buzz
Recently, the Environmental Working Group introduced an updated database that allows users to input their zip code and receive a detailed report on the contaminants found in their tap water. While this tool is highly useful in many respects, it also comes with significant limitations.
Essentially, this tool reorganizes publicly available data to highlight substances the government deems safe but the EWG considers problematic. Keep in mind, the EWG is the organization behind the “dirty dozen” list of supposedly pesticide-heavy vegetables (which are actually safe to eat) and claims you need their sunscreen rankings to make safe choices (you don’t).
Personally, I find the water database somewhat valuable—it’s more informative and educational than their other initiatives. However, it’s important to acknowledge that the EWG has a financial stake in this. After alarming you about your water quality, they prominently display a button: “Want to remove these contaminants?”
Clicking that button redirects you to a page where you can purchase water filters, ranging from a $13 refrigerator filter to a $2,100 professionally installed system, via Amazon links that earn the EWG a commission. It’s crucial to understand that the EWG profits by creating fear and confusion.
Conflicts of interest don’t invalidate information, but they can influence how it’s presented. The EWG issued a press release outlining how they wanted the media to report on this topic, and many outlets complied. They suggested that your tap water might pose a cancer risk, with the EWG positioned as the sole truth-teller. However, if you look beyond the fear tactics and approach the findings critically, the tool can be quite useful.
This Information Was Always Public, But Now It’s Accessible
The standout feature of this database is its existence and user-friendliness. By entering your zip code, it displays the water providers in your area. Detailed test results, complete with context on acceptable levels and testing history, are just a click away.
All the data originates from government reports, so you might assume you could access them directly. However, I found this nearly impossible. Visit the EPA’s website here and see if you fare better. I searched for my water provider by name—no matches. Scrolling through state listings didn’t help either, as I couldn’t locate the specific report for my water.
On the EWG’s site, however, locating your water provider is straightforward. I also discovered that my water supply is sourced from two additional locations—one of which has known lead contamination issues. I wasn’t aware these systems were linked. The EWG’s presentation of this data clarifies many details that the EPA reports obscure.
EWG Fails to Highlight the Most Critical Information
The EWG report lists various contaminants, yet the most significant one, lead, is tucked away behind a button labeled 'What about lead?'
Upon checking the water supplier for Flint, Michigan, the EWG report initially states that the tap water meets federal health-based drinking water standards. However, clicking the 'What about lead?' button reveals the harsh reality of Flint's alarmingly high lead levels.
Moreover, the EWG database lacks guidance on prioritizing the most hazardous contaminants, merely indicating their presence or exceeding health guidelines. While you can search for water filters by contaminant, many listed in the report, like dichloroacetic acid, are absent from the filter search options, leaving users without solutions or recommendations.
Is My Drinking Water Safe?
If your water complies with the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards, it is generally considered safe.
However, the EWG emphasizes the importance of adhering to public health goals, such as the maximum contaminant goal level, set by entities like the EPA and California’s state water control board. These goals often differ from enforceable limits due to technological constraints, such as the inability to detect low contaminant levels or treat water effectively.
If your water meets the legal cutoff, it might simply mean further reduction wasn’t feasible. While no one advocates for higher contaminant levels, the water is likely safe, though not ideal. Deciding whether to invest in water filters for non-hazardous tap water is a personal choice. Personally, I’ll continue drinking mine unfiltered.
Is Bottled Water the Better Option?
Bottled water isn’t necessarily superior to tap water. The EWG and I share this view. Many bottled waters are merely repackaged tap water, sometimes filtered but not rigorously tested for contaminants. Unless your local water supply is severely compromised, as in Flint, there’s little benefit to choosing bottled over tap.
