EDF Health

Top 10 cities with the most lead pipes

By Roya Alkafaji and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: June 6, 2023

Note: This blog has been updated and adapted. For the most up-to-date information, please visit our new page, Top 10 Cities with the Most Lead Pipes.

 

Roya Alkafaji, Manager, Healthy Communities and Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative

EDF identified 10 cities in the U.S. with the most lead service lines (LSLs) based on numbers reported in 2021.[1] These cities collectively have over one million LSLs, representing 12% of the 9.2 million EPA estimates are in the country.

Below we rank each city from most LSLs to fewest, and briefly describe the progress each city has made toward LSL replacement. Some have robust programs, while others have yet to start addressing the problem.

The List

1. Chicago, IL

Chicago Department of Water Management reported 387,095 LSLs in 2021, more than twice as many as the next city on this list. Three-quarters of its service lines are LSLs, and virtually all the rest are of unknown material. City ordinance actually mandated that LSLs be installed until the federal government banned them in 1986.

Decades later, Chicago is struggling to pull itself out of a deep hole relative to most other large cities that took earlier action against lead pipes. Chicago has a small LSL replacement program but applied for a $336 million loan from EPA in 2020[2] and $8 million in state revolving funds (SRF) from Illinois EPA in 2023 to accelerate the effort.

2. Cleveland, OH

Cleveland Water reported 185,409 LSLs in 2021, about 43% of all its service lines.

The utility has a small LSL replacement program but is seeking more than $63 million in federal infrastructure funding from Ohio EPA in 2023 to accelerate the effort.

3. New York, NY

New York City reported 137,542 LSLs in 2021 and an additional 230,870 lines that are of unknown material. About 43% of the city’s service lines are lead or of unknown material.

It has a small LSL replacement program and is seeking more than $58 million in federal infrastructure funding from New York State DEP in 2023 to accelerate the effort.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Lead / Tagged , , , , | Authors: , / Comments are closed

European Food Safety Authority reaffirms that BPA uses for food are not safe. Where is FDA?

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative and Maricel Maffini, PhD, Consultant / Published: April 19, 2023

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals, and Maricel Maffini, consultant

Warning message written in bold red letters with words Bisphenol A Exposure. 3d illustration.

What Happened?

Today, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) finalized its Re-evaluation of the Risks to Public Health Related to the Presence of Bisphenol A (BPA) in Foodstuffs report. After considering public comments on its November 2021 draft, the agency reaffirmed its conclusion that Europeans of all ages are exposed to BPA at levels 100 to 1,000 times greater than EFSA considers to be safe.

Why It Matters

EFSA found that consumers’ dietary exposure should be less than 0.2 nanograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day (ng/kg-bw/day) to protect their immune systems from harm.1 Although EFSA didn’t analyze the reality for U.S. consumers, we used FDA’s 2014 estimated dietary exposure for BPA (the most recent available) to calculate that Americans’ exposure is 1,000 times greater than what EFSA deems safe.

Our Take

EFSA’s analysis is primarily based on scientific evidence that FDA had not considered in previous reviews. With the final report in place, EFSA has completed a rigorous, transparent, and comprehensive risk assessment. FDA now has no excuse for delaying action on a food additive petition submitted by EDF and our partners that the agency agreed to consider on May 2, 2022. That petition requested that FDA revoke its approvals for using BPA in adhesives and can coatings and set strict limits on using it in plastic that contacts food. FDA has not yet responded.

EFSA’s Conclusions

EFSA found that extremely low exposures to BPA can lead to an overactive immune system producing out-of-control inflammation. BPA was also associated with disrupting the endocrine system, harming reproduction, and reducing learning and memory. The immune system was most sensitive to BPA exposure.

After calculating a safe level of BPA—known as TDI (tolerable daily intake)—that would prevent anticipated harm, EFSA compared it against the estimated dietary exposure of the European population. The agency concluded that “both the mean and the 95th percentile dietary exposures in all age groups exceeded the TDI by two to three orders of magnitude.”

Putting BPA New Safe Level in Context

EFSA’s safe dose of 0.2 ng/kg-bw/day is extremely low. It may be useful to compare it to exposure from drinking water. For an adult weighing 120-pounds who drinks 2 liters of water a day, it would take only 1.2 parts per trillion of BPA to exceed the safe level.2

Next Steps

We will press FDA to act with greater urgency on our overdue petition. We are also looking at whether there is increased risk to communities near where BPA is made or processed.

NOTES

1 The limit was 0.04 ng/kg-bw/day in the draft EFSA report.

2 0.2 ng/kg-bw/day * 60 kg / 2 liters = 1.2 ng/L = 1.2 ppt. This does not account for other sources of BPA in the diet.

 

 

Posted in BPA, EFSA, Emerging science, Emerging testing methods, Environment, FDA, Health science, Public health / Tagged , , , | Authors: , / Read 1 Response

Broken GRAS: FDA’s half-step to limit bias and conflicts of interest in GRAS determinations may backfire

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: March 15, 2023

Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, consultant

What Happened? FDA finalized a long awaited guidance for industry in December to help reduce conflicts of interest and bias when a chemical manufacturer chooses to convene an expert panel to assess whether a new chemical additive is generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

Why It Matters: As written, FDA’s Best Practices for Convening a GRAS Panel guidance is excellent. If food companies convene GRAS panels consistent with the guidance, the panels’ evaluations will be more credible because they should have less of the pervasive bias and conflicts of interest that plague the current system and all too often result in unsafe chemicals being added to food. But that’s a big if.

Our Take: Unfortunately, we think the guidance is likely to backfire because of the limited scope — FDA explicitly makes GRAS panels optional – a choice the agency made when it finalized the GRAS rule in 2016. Chemical manufacturers will simply avoid convening GRAS panels, relying solely on their employees or a consulting firm they hire to conduct these safety evaluations. These employees and consultants typically have significant bias and conflicts of interest because positive opinions help their employer or client. We raised this issue in comments to FDA, calling for the best practices to apply to everyone involved in the safety evaluation process. FDA did not address our comments in their recommended best practices in the revised final guidance.

While making GRAS panels optional is a serious problem, a more fundamental concern is that FDA may not have an opportunity to review the GRAS safety evaluations made by employees or hire consultants because the company chooses not to notify the agency. FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety fails to consider just how often companies choose not to tell the agency that a new chemical is being added to food. In our Broken GRAS series, we provided six examples of the serious risk posed by the GRAS system, the most public being hundreds of people sickened due to consumption of tara flour, an ingredient in a Daily Harvest frozen meal. Last November, using marketing materials we showed FDA that the number of new chemicals bypassing its review likely outnumber those voluntarily submitted to the agency.

We see no evidence that the agency systematically investigates or even audits the GRAS determinations that bypass their review despite promises made by the agency over the years and a scathing 2010 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office calling for action.

Next Steps: In his effort to reform FDA’s dysfunctional food safety program, FDA Commissioner Califf told a reporter that “I want to throw in chemical safety as another really, really important area for the future – for humankind, really – and where science is evolving rapidly.”[1] If he follows through, fixing GRAS is an important step to rebuild consumer confidence and reduce the ongoing risk to public health. If he fails, the agency will continue to be hamstrung in preventing health risks posed by chemicals of unknown safety.

Go deeper: Broken GRAS series, Neltner et al (2013) Conflicts of Interest in Approvals of Additives to Food Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe: Out of Balance; Toxic Free Act; Food Chemical Reassessment Act.

[1] FoodFix, January 31, 2023 edition.

Updated April 9, 2023 to add link for Broken GRAS series.

Posted in Broken GRAS, Conflict of interest, FDA, GRAS / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Read 1 Response

Unleading Baby Food: FDA’s proposed limits are a positive step, but…

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: March 1, 2023

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

What Happened: FDA recently released draft action levels for lead in foods intended for babies and young toddlers.1 Action levels represent the point above which FDA is likely to regard food as adulterated – essentially unsafe – and seek a recall. This is a key step in implementing FDA’s Closer to Zero Action Plan.

  • Lead limits would be 10 parts per billion (ppb) for most foods.
  • Limits would be 20 ppb for dry infant cereals and single-ingredient root vegetable products, because these products may have greater lead contamination levels. (Root vegetables are primarily carrots and sweet potatoes.)

The new action levels do not apply to juices; FDA proposed limits on those in April 2022.

Why It Matters: There is no safe level of lead in the diet.

For young children living in homes without lead pipes or lead paint, diet is the primary source of their lead exposure. FDA makes clear in the proposal that:

“Even low lead exposure can harm children’s health and development, specifically the brain and nervous system. Neurological effects of lead exposure during early childhood include learning disabilities, behavior difficulties, and lowered IQ. Lead exposures also may be associated with immunological, cardiovascular, renal, and reproductive and/or developmental effects. Because lead can accumulate in the body, even low-level chronic exposure can be hazardous over time.”

Lead can enter the food chain through multiple sources, including crops grown in contaminated soil and/or irrigated with contaminated water, atmospheric deposition from industrial activities, and old food-processing equipment that contains lead. The objective is to get exposure closer to zero.

Our Take: We applaud FDA’s proposed limits, which are more protective than the European Union’s 2021 standards. BUT…on the flip side:

  • FDA failed to set action levels for popular grain-based snacks, like teething biscuits and snack puffs. The agency needs to rectify this failure with all deliberate speed.
  • More protective action levels are achievable, especially for non-rice cereals and for foods that don’t contain rice or root vegetables.
  • Proposed action levels do not apply to multiple categories of foods, including:
  • FDA’s justification for the draft action levels lacks transparency—undermining both credibility of the levels and the likelihood industry will comply with them.

In addition, USDA and industry need to expand their support for research on the methods for growing, harvesting, and processing root vegetables, rice, and quinoa to further reduce lead contamination in these important foods. Research should include both store-bought and homemade baby foods.

Go Deeper: Visit our new Deep Dives blog to see our 3-part series, which provides a more detailed analysis of FDA’s proposal—including our recommendations for setting more protective limits and improving the transparency and credibility of the agency’s process of setting action levels.

NOTES
1 FDA’s guidance refers to babies and young children. Younger than two is a very narrow definition of young children, especially since children up to age six are particularly vulnerable to the harm that lead causes to their brains. Other federal agencies set standards for this broader age range. Toddlers are generally considered to be between 1 and 3 years of age. Therefore, we use the term “young toddlers” to avoid confusion.

Revised on March 21 to correct quote.

Posted in Deep Dives, FDA, Health policy, Health science, Public health, Unleaded Juice / Read 1 Response

EPA greenlights 21 states’ SRF plans to fund LSL replacement projects

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: November 16, 2022

Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals

What’s New: EPA announced it has awarded $1.16 billion to the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs in 21 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories to support lead service line (LSL) replacement projects. In order to secure funding, these states developed and submitted Intended Use Plans (IUPs), which included LSL replacement projects that met EPA’s requirements.

Why It Matters: These 25 programs can now begin distributing their share of the first of five years of funding from the $15 billion Congress included in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) specifically for full LSL replacement projects. The remaining states are working to get their IUPs submitted to EPA.

Read More »

Posted in Drinking water, Lead, Public health / Tagged , , , , , , | Comments are closed

Anti-androgenic chemicals as a class of related substances with cumulative toxicological effects

By Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals Initiative / Published: November 14, 2022

Maricel Maffini, consultant, and Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director

Scientists and regulators have known for decades that certain chemicals disrupt the actions of male hormones—identified collectively as androgens—in the body. Because of their effects, these chemicals are called anti-androgens or anti-androgenic chemicals.

During gestation, fetal testes begin producing testosterone, the critical hormone required to develop reproductive organs and genitalia. Insufficient production of testosterone leads to malformation of the genital tract that may need corrective surgery in infant boys and may result in reproductive health problems later in life. Ortho-phthalates (aka phthalates), known to interfere with the production of fetal testosterone, are considered anti-androgenic chemicals.

Although phthalates are perhaps the most recognizable group of anti-androgenic chemicals in the diet, there are others, including bisphenol A (BPA), propyl paraben, and certain pesticides used in food crops. Because they cause similar harmful effects, namely adverse health outcomes for male reproductive system, their safety assessment must take into account the cumulative effects of similar substances in the diet as established by law. But what does “cumulative effect” mean? Below, we use a recent study to explain what it means, why it is important, and why FDA is failing.

Biology is not math and the concept of something from nothing Read More »

Posted in Adverse health effects, FDA, Phthalates / Tagged , , , , | Authors: / Read 1 Response