EPA takes first steps to regulate microplastics in drinking water

Tiny pieces of plastic have been found in almost every organ in the body, including the brain and lungs. For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency is adding these microplastics to the list of drinking water contaminants it is considering for future regulation.

Subscribe to read this story without ads

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

“For too long, Americans have been sounding the alarm about plastic in drinking water and being ignored. Today that ends,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at a press conference Thursday.

The EPA, which is required to publish a list of pollutants every five years, released its sixth draft on Thursday. The draft list also includes pharmaceuticals (antibiotics, antidepressants, hormones, etc.), disinfection byproducts (formed when chlorine reacts with organic materials in water), and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (informally known as “forever chemicals”). PFAS and disinfection byproducts were placed on the 2022 list.

Once the list is completed and published, EPA will decide whether to set national limits on the levels of contaminants allowed in public drinking water.

While Thursday’s action is a first step toward removing microplastics from drinking water, it in no way mandates public water systems to do so, which could take years.

Early studies have shown that exposure to microplastics can increase the risk of cancer, fertility problems and heart disease, but scientists say the data is far from conclusive and it is difficult to know how much exposure, if any, causes adverse health effects.

Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said at a briefing that the department is launching a $144 million program to measure exposure to microplastics, understand the health risks and find ways to eliminate them.

“We still don’t have clear answers about cause and effect or solutions,” Kennedy said. “We still don’t know how these particles interact with the immune, endocrine, and nervous systems, and there are no validated methods to safely remove them.”

Some environmentalists hailed the move as a step in the right direction. Others see it as a performative move, in contrast to the EPA’s recent regulatory actions, such as rolling back mercury emissions standards, reversing drinking water restrictions on certain PFAS, and deferring Biden-era greenhouse gas emissions limits.

“Zeldin’s EPA has not taken bold action to ensure drinking water safety,” Suzanne Novak, director of drinking water advocacy at environmental law group Earthjustice, said in a statement. “This is a PR stunt that doesn’t require a single test, a single drinking water standard, or a single community protection.”

Betsy Sutherland, former director of the EPA’s Office of Water Science and Technology, said the measures announced Thursday are not as groundbreaking as they are being made out to be.

“What RFK is trying to do with this highly deceptive spin statement is to pretend that this is a genuine aggressive move on Zeldin’s part, when in fact it is just the beginning of a potential study,” said Sutherland, a volunteer with the Environmental Defense Network, a nonprofit group made up of former EPA staff. “They are trying to take credit for something that is so early in the process that no one will benefit for years.”

But Rebecca Fry, a professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said she is “cautiously optimistic.”

“The fact that we’re not monitoring it means there’s missing data,” Frye said. “This allows us to get new information, and new information is always good.”

Julian Fairley, an associate professor at the University of Arkansas who studies drinking water byproducts, said adding new compounds to the list of contaminants could make it easier to get the funding needed for future research.

“It’s a very long and difficult process to identify compounds that may be in drinking water, understand the concentrations that are present, and then try to answer the question of whether they are having an adverse health effect,” Fairley said. “When you apply for a grant, from an academic perspective, you have an added layer of justification to get research funding.”

Microplastics are less than 5 millimeters in size and come from large pieces of plastic that break down in the environment. They are also intentionally manufactured as “microbeads” for consumer products such as toothpaste and exfoliating scrubs, but the U.S. began phasing out their production about a decade ago.

Humans can inhale them through particles in the air or ingest them through food and water. Plastic packaging and utensils are common sources of microplastics in the home and tend to release particles when worn or exposed to heat.

A small study conducted in February found microplastics deep within prostate cancer tumors, but it was unclear whether their presence played a role in cancer progression. While 90% of the tumors contained microplastics, 70% of the non-cancerous samples also contained microplastics. Other studies have found microplastics embedded in brain tissue, blood, and even lung tissue. None proved that their presence caused any harm.