Interview with Dr. David Andrews, Senior Scientist for the EWG in Washington, D.C. (January 2017)
1. Many of our peers understand the importance of clean, safe water for people in our country and in the developing world but are unaware of the pervasiveness of the issue of chromium-6 on a national level. Many of us were too young to remember Erin Brockovich, or were never exposed to the media stories informing people of an issue regarding chromium-6 affecting their water supply. Scientists and chemists such as Dr. Abby Knight have done research in the field of peptoid-armed plastic microbeads that can absorb chromium-6, creating a safer way to purify water on a large scale. This technology, however, is controversial, not available to the general public, and to our knowledge, not yet finalized or implemented outside of experimentation. As a scientist, what would be your message to students and young people regarding chromium-6 and what we need to know?
Dr. David Andrews [DA]:
Students should be inquisitive about how our natural environment and constructed society including man-made objects interact with our bodies and our environment. Scientific literacy and the ability to critical[ly] evaluate information and information sources is the most important skill that students and young people need to develop. For chromium-6 it is important to evaluate the underlying data that raises concern about chromium-6 including the National Toxicology Program and their 2-year carcinogenicity studies. Understanding how science is translated into drinking water regulations on a state and federal level will give a better understanding for why no standards exist for chromium-6. An evaluation of how and why EPA did not complete their draft health assessment of ingested chromium-6 in 2011 is an interesting case study in the role of industry and industry funds research to derail legislation.
2. In what ways can people protect themselves from and/or limit their exposure to chromium-6? The level of chromium-6 deemed by the California EPA to be the maximum amount to keep people at minimum risk for contracting cancer, reproductive problems, and liver problems over a lifetime of exposure/ingestion, is .02 parts per billion. Although there has been a Public Health Standard set in California at 10 parts per billion, creating a potential significant risk to Americans -- especially people with weaker immune systems, such as infants, who ingest water mixed with formula, and growing children -- levels higher than this have been found in Oklahoma, Arizona, and California, the only state with this legally enforceable limit.
DA: The drinking water standard of 10ppb in California is not a public health standard but a regulatory standard. Setting a regulatory standard is a negotiation between water utilities, potentially regulated industries that have released the contaminant and the protection of public health. EWG argued that the state of California overestimated the costs and underestimated the benefits. Water filters at home including the ZeroWater pitcher filter and under the sink filters that use reverse osmosis (typically about $200 vs $20 for the pitcher type) are certified to remove or greatly reduce chromium-6 levels. This is an immediate action but people should also encourage the state and/or federal government to pass chromium-6 drinking water regulations that are health protective for all citizens.
3. Is the rise in chromium-6 levels in drinking water in the last two decades due to lack of regulation (on a state and/or federal level) or due to lack of enforcement? California is currently the only state with a Public Health Standard, or any legally enforceable limit on chromium-6 in drinking water, but it is currently set at 500 times the Public Health Goal (PHG). Even with California's proposition 65 (regarding notifying the government of which chemicals are purchased and used by companies to determine what chemical waste is created and deeming it safe or not), and a $2500 fine per day of violation, levels higher than the California EPA’s PHG have been found in California.
DA: I am unaware of information on how chromium-6 level have changed in the past two decades. The concerns regarding consumption of chromium-6 and the potential for stomach cancer as well as the ability to detect chromium-6 at levels down to 30ppt level are recent. Likewise, the scientific understanding of chromium-6 levels from both human and environmental sources is just not being studied. The recent sampling of water utilities across the country mandated by the EPA in response to earlier testing that EPA did is helpful in assessing the prevalence. What is missing is an EPA that has the ability to complete health assessments and set new drinking water standards. The agency has yet to set a drinking water regulation for an unregulated contaminant since the latest modification of the Safe Drinking Water Act occurred in the mid 90s.
4. Should legislation like proposition 65 be implemented in other states? Are there alternative legislative solutions or actions that can or should be taken?
DA: Proposition 65 is a right to know based piece of legislation that requires labeling of known carcinogens and reproductive toxins. The need to label products that contain these chemical constituents provides some incentive for companies to avoid the use of listed chemicals. From a public health perspective the legislation is helpful but would directly address chromium-6 or other water contaminants.
Find out how you can become involved. Join ACTWA today!