November, 19 2008, 11:55am EDT

FDA Should Adopt EPA Tap Water Health Goals for Bottled Water
FDA plan won’t improve testing for common bacteria
WASHINGTON
Bottled water costs hundreds of times more than tap water, but when it
comes to consumer protections, it's no better. FDA has proposed to
improve testing bottled water for bacteria. But even these new rules
would leave the public in the dark, because unlike tap water, for which
all test results are made public, manufacturers conceal bottled water
test results from the public.
Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Scientist Dr. Olga Naidenko
has advised the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that its
Sept. 17 proposal to require more testing of bottled water for coliform
bacteria "is not sufficient to guarantee bottled water quality."
Naidenko, who co-authored EWG's Bottled Water Quality Report
, published Oct. 15, said FDA's proposed regulation would offer
consumers limited improvements over the current situation, in which
bottled water is rarely tested for purity.
The EWG study found that ten popular bottled water brands contained 38
chemical pollutants and, in four cases, bacteria, some with contaminant
levels no better than tap water.
"For all the hoopla and high prices, bottled water should meet a far higher standard of purity than tap water," said Naidenko.
Scores of contaminants are allowed in tap water, not because they are
safe, but because the cost of removing them is more than most municipal
water treatment systems can afford.
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has identified many of these contaminants as serious
health risks and has set formal tap water health goals at zero
contamination. EPA's legally enforceable standards for municipal water
facilities are less protective than its health goals because the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to balance health risks
against cost and technological feasibility.
But consumers expect that when they pay premium prices for bottled
water, they are buying a product that has been meticulously purified
with state-of-the-art technology.
"Bottled water can easily be filtered to meet these EPA health goals,
but the industry and FDA have taken the low road, opting for the
maximum allowable amount of contamination in their products," Naidenko
added.
The FDA proposal, published in the Federal Register
on Sept. 17, contains a major loophole that would benefit the bottled
water industry: bottlers would not be obligated to make public their
test results, as EPA requires of municipal water treatment systems.
"Considering that bottled water is hundreds or even thousands of times
more expensive than municipal water, consumers deserve much greater
health protection from toxic contaminants in bottled water," Naidenko
wrote.
"Water Americans drink, whether from a bottle or a faucet, should be
rigorously tested to ensure both sources are as free from hazardous
chemicals and bacteria as possible," said EWG Senior Scientist Renee
Sharp, a co-author of EWG's Bottled Water Report.
To make bottled water truly safe, EWG urged FDA to strengthen the proposed regulation on three counts:
- FDA
should adopt EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) as
enforceable standards for chemical and microbiological contaminants in
bottled water. -
FDA should require bottled water companies to disclose fully all test results to the public.
-
FDA should require companies to disclose source and treatment information on bottled water labels.
EWG's comments can be seen at https://www.ewg.org/node/27368
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
'I Don't Like Censorship': Omar Slams Proposed TikTok Ban as Hawley Aims to Fast-Track Passage
"There are very legitimate concerns about privacy and the harvesting of private user data on social media platforms, but this proposal doesn't address those," said the Minnesota Democrat.
Mar 29, 2023
Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar on Tuesday joined the ranks of progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups voicing opposition to proposals to ban TikTok as Republican Sen. Josh Hawley plans to force a vote on his bill sometime this week.
"I am opposed to efforts by some Republicans and Democrats to unilaterally ban an entire social media platform," Omar (Minn.) said in a statement.
"First of all, I don't like censorship," said Omar. "There are very legitimate concerns about privacy and the harvesting of private user data on social media platforms, but this proposal doesn't address those. Instead, it singles out one platform—TikTok—and bans it outright."
Amid a rise in what Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) has called "xenophobic anti-China rhetoric," U.S. lawmakers have introduced three pieces of legislation that would crack down on TikTok, which is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance.
Rep. Michael McCaul's (R-Texas) DATA Act, which passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year, would require the White House to sanction companies that are "subject to the jurisdiction" of China and "believed to have facilitated" the transfer of sensitive personal data.
The RESTRICT Act, introduced by Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and John Thune (R-S.D.), would authorize the U.S. Commerce Department to "review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries," which could trigger a TikTok ban or sale.
Hawley's (Mo.) No TikTok on United States Devices Act, meanwhile, seeks to outlaw TikTok use nationwide.
The far-right lawmaker "plans to seek unanimous consent on the floor this week" to pass his bill, Punchbowl Newsreported Tuesday. Hawley said that "this is the moment to act" after last week's "unbelievable" hearing, during which TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew was accosted by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
According to the outlet, Warner and Thune may put forth their competing bill, in which case there's a chance of neither passing the Senate before the Easter recess.
"We should create actual standards and regulations around data harvesting and privacy violations across social media companies—like many countries around the world have already done—not ban particular platforms we don't like."
"Aside from raising legitimate First Amendment concerns, this is bad policy," Omar said Tuesday. "We should create actual standards and regulations around data harvesting and privacy violations across social media companies—like many countries around the world have already done—not ban particular platforms we don't like."
With this line of criticism, Omar echoed Bowman and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whose inaugural TikTok video on Saturday endorsed arguments made last month by defenders of digital rights and civil liberties.
Fight for the Future director Evan Greer, for instance, said in February that if members of Congress truly want to protect U.S. residents from the surveillance capitalist business model also embraced by domestic Big Tech firms, "they should advocate for strong data privacy laws that prevent all companies (including TikTok!) from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone."
For her part, Omar stressed that "as a frequent target of disinformation campaigns, I am sympathetic to... concerns that TikTok could be used for propaganda and hate speech."
"But again, this problem is not unique to TikTok," the lawmaker continued. "Twitter, Instagram, and famously, Facebook have all been used by foreign adversaries for disinformation campaigns targeting U.S. citizens. Our regulations should address these broad issues instead of singling out one platform."
"Lastly, there are legitimate concerns about the Chinese government—including their brutal repression of the Uyghur people and their suppression of basic rights of freedom of expression in their country," said Omar. "But banning one social media company based in China will not solve those problems."
"The American model rests on our protection of those freedoms—the ability to speak publicly against the government, or if you choose, to share a 10-second video cooking your favorite meal," she added. "That is the beauty of our democracy and our constitution. That is what sets us apart from authoritarian regimes like China. And that is the example we should set for the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
WATCH: Sanders Rips Schultz Over 'Unforgivable' Efforts to Crush Worker Organizing
"What Starbucks is doing is not only trying to break unions, but even worse," said the Vermont senator. "They are trying to break the spirit of workers who are struggling to improve their lives."
Mar 29, 2023
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is testifying Wednesday morning before a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who used his time to grill the billionaire on the coffee giant's scorched-earth union-busting campaign that has drawn hundreds of unfair labor practice charges and dozens of complaints from the NLRB.
In his opening statement at the hearing, Sanders ran through the litany of allegations against Starbucks and said the company has launched "the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country."
"That union-busting campaign has been led by Howard Schultz," the senator said.
"What is outrageous to me is not only Starbucks' anti-union activities and their willingness to break the law—it is their calculated and intentional efforts to stall, stall, and stall," Sanders continued. "They understand that the turnover rate at Starbucks is high. They understand that if workers do not see success in getting a contract and improved wages they may get discouraged. So what Starbucks is doing is not only trying to break unions, but even worse. They are trying to break the spirit of workers who are struggling to improve their lives. And that is unforgivable."
Watch the hearing live:
Sanders asked Schultz a series of specific questions about his role in Starbucks' attempts to undercut unionization efforts, including whether he intends to comply with a recent NLRB ruling ordering him to record and distribute a video informing workers of their right to organize under federal law.
Schultz refused to make such a commitment, repeatedly contending that Starbucks has not broken the law—a claim that at one point prompted audible laughter in the hearing room. The billionaire also tried to downplay his role in company decision-making related to the union drive, telling Sanders that he was not involved in any move to terminate or discipline a worker for supporting unionization.
When Sanders asked whether Starbucks would pledge to exchange proposals with union negotiators within two weeks in order to jumpstart stalled contract talks, Schultz demurred, insisting that the company is already negotiating in good faith with workers, who are demanding a higher starting wage, 100% employer-covered healthcare, and other benefits.
\u201cBernie Sanders to Howard Schultz: "Have you ever threatened, coerced, or intimidated a worker for supporting a union?"\n\nSchultz won't answer no. "I've had conversations that could\u2019ve been interpreted in a different way than I intended..."\u201d— More Perfect Union (@More Perfect Union) 1680103097
Schultz also defended Starbucks' management for repeatedly walking out of scheduled contract talks with union negotiators, claiming that the company will only agree to bargain if everyone taking part is physically present, not taking part over Zoom or any other virtual platform.
But on Tuesday, the NLRB said Starbucks' in-person-only condition for contract talks is a violation of federal labor law.
Following Schultz's appearance, the committee will hear from a separate panel of witnesses, including current Starbucks worker Maggie Carter and former employee Jaysin Saxton, who was fired after he led a union drive at a store in Augusta, Georgia. Last April, that location became the first Starbucks shop in Georgia to unionize.
The NLRB filed a complaint in December alleging that Saxton was unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected union activity. Saxton is one of more than 60 union organizers fired by Starbucks since December 2021, when workers in Buffalo, New York voted to form the company's first union in the U.S.
Since then, nearly 300 Starbucks locations have opted to unionize in the face of aggressive pushback from the company, which has slashed workers' hours, withheld raises, denied new benefits to unionized shops, and shut down entire stores in an effort to crush organizing momentum.
Starbucks Workers United said that more than 50 Starbucks employees from across the U.S. traveled to Washington, D.C. to attend the hearing, which comes after weeks of stonewalling from company executives.
Schultz, who has been accused of nearly 100 labor law violations since early 2022, finally agreed to testify earlier this month under threat of subpoena. Schultz stepped down as Starbucks' chief executive on March 20, though he remains on the company's board of directors.
"The HELP Committee intends to make clear that in America we must not have a two-tiered justice system in which billionaires and large corporations can break the law with impunity, while working-class people are held accountable for their actions," Sanders said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Scam Is a Non-Starter': Dems Blast McCarthy's Latest Call for Painful Cuts
"Unsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Mar 29, 2023
Congressional Democrats reiterated their opposition to steep federal spending cuts on Tuesday after Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy issued a vague outline of his caucus' demands, which include more punitive work requirements for aid recipients and steep cuts to non-military spending.
The GOP leader laid out the broad demands in a Tuesday letter to President Joe Biden as progress toward an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a default remains nonexistent.
McCarthy (R-Calif.) called for another meeting with the president to discuss the debt ceiling standoff, which is a result of the House GOP majority's insistence on painful budget cuts as a necessary condition for any borrowing limit increase. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the U.S. will default on its debt this summer unless Congress acts.
McCarthy wrote that House Republicans' demands include "but are not limited to" cuts to "excessive non-defense government spending" and stronger "work requirements for those without dependents who can work."
On the latter point, the California Republican favorably cited former President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform law that doubled extreme poverty. Biden supported the law as a senator.
As president, Biden has demanded a debt ceiling increase without any accompanying spending cuts. In response to McCarthy's letter, Biden pushed House Republicans to release a detailed budget plan but stressed that spending talks "must be separate from prompt action on Congress' basic obligation to pay the nation's bills and avoid economic catastrophe."
Bloombergreported last week that House Republicans are in the process of "finalizing" a budget offer that's expected to propose capping spending "at 1% growth annually for a decade" and imposing more strict work requirements on food aid recipients. One recent analysis estimated that more than 10 million people could lose federal nutrition assistance if the GOP gets what it wants on work requirements.
Republicans are also pushing for legislation that would ease the permitting process for oil and gas projects.
In a Tuesday appearance on CNBC, McCarthy said he is prepared to recommend $4 trillion in total spending cuts—but he didn't provide specifics on which programs would be cut and by how much, drawing mockery from Democratic lawmakers.
"If he comes to the president's office with no specific plan, no specific details about what the Republicans want to cut, what are they going to talk about? The weather?" asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, tweeted in response to McCarthy's letter that "this scam is a non-starter in the Senate."
"Unsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes," Wyden wrote.
\u201cUnsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes. This scam is a non-starter in the Senate.\u201d— Ron Wyden (@Ron Wyden) 1680030424
Last week, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) released warnings from federal agencies that would likely be targeted by the GOP's austerity spree in an effort to highlight the far-reaching impacts of spending cuts the party has floated thus far.
"The draconian cuts would take away the opportunity for 80,000 people to attend college and impact all 6.6 million students who rely on Pell Grants," DeLauro said, citing agency estimates. "If implemented, 200,000 children will lose access to Head Start, and 100,000 children will lose access to childcare, undermining early education and parents' ability to go to work."
DeLauro wrote Tuesday that "Republican calls to cut government funding put everything from child care to opioid treatment and mental health services to nutrition assistance at risk for millions."
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy, echoed concerns about the potentially devastating effects of the House GOP's plans.
"The recent turmoil in the banking system pales in comparison to the chaos and harm that could ensue if House Rs force a debt-limit impasse and default: recession, lost jobs, and critical payments to seniors, veterans, businesses, families, and states unpaid," Parrott wrote Tuesday following the release of McCarthy's letter.
"A letter isn't a budget," Parrott continued, "so it conveniently allows House Rs to hide that these cuts—in basic food assistance, healthcare, and programs that fund child care, schools, and more—would go to cover some of the cost of more tax cuts for the wealthy rather than to reduce the deficit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.