There's Fecal Matter in Our Drinking Water — Here's What Scientists Are Doing About It
Traditional methods, like fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) testing, are limited because they only detect high levels of contamination and don't reveal the source, whereas the newer microbial source tracking (MST) technique is more detailed, cost-effective, and better suited for current climate challenges.
Fecal contamination is a widespread and serious global issue, affecting nearly 2 billion people, and this improved testing could help public health officials respond faster and more accurately to threats, especially as aging infrastructure and climate-driven flooding increase risks.Researchers have found a new way to test for water contamination. And it's thanks to our poop.
In late 2024, researchers from Chungnam National University and Gyeongsang National University published their findings on a new technique for detecting fecal contamination in water using human viral DNA, known as microbial source tracking (MST), in the journal Water Research.
And while this may make you let out a little "ew" under your breath, it's critical to know that fecal contamination is, in fact, a significant issue both globally and here in the United States. The World Health Organization explained, "In 2022, globally, at least 1.7 billion people use a drinking water source contaminated with feces. Microbial contamination of drinking-water as a result of contamination with faeces poses the greatest risk to drinking-water safety."
And as noted in a 2020 study published in the journal Current Environmental Health Reports, "Aging sewer infrastructure in the USA and elsewhere will require rapid methods to assess fecal contamination of water. The number of extreme weather events, including flooding events, is forecasted to increase with climate change and has been associated with contamination of water resources."
Related: Your Cutting Board May Have 200 Times More Fecal Bacteria Than a Toilet Seat
Runoff contamination can transfer harmful bacteria to humans, such as E. coli, leading to various health concerns. Therefore, recognizing fecal contamination in the water supply is crucial for your health. Thankfully, scientists are on the case.
As Food Safety explained, conventional testing involved sampling water by adding droplets to a microbial culture (known as fecal indicator bacteria or FIB). Although this method is both cheap and easy, it can only detect fecal matter at higher contamination levels.
However, a viral-DNA method employs microbial source tracking (MST), which can detect biomarkers of fecal matter at much lower levels. While the MST method itself isn't new — it's been around for roughly two decades — the real breakthrough is these researchers' deployment of human-specific crAss-like phage DNA markers, which is a really fancy way of saying they can now spot smaller traces of fecal matter and identify if it's human waste far more precisely than before. It can even detect where the fecal matter originated — i.e., if it's human or animal — or identify multiple sources at once.
A 2024 study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment examined this updated MST method by "investigating the abundance, sources, and potential causes of fecal contamination" across three marine and seven freshwater stations in Vaughn Bay, Washington. This research included tests conducted in a shellfish growing district during both "base- and storm-flow events."
Related: Is It Safe to Drink Water From a Glacier? We Asked a Glaciologist
This research team evaluated the old-school FIB method, along with optical brightener assessment (a fluorescent compound that indicates fecal contamination), and the newer MST method, the last of which "targeted a broad range of hosts including, such as humans, birds, cows, horses, ruminants, dogs, and pigs, with sequencing-based MST in identifying fecal contamination sources."
After testing the waters, they identified a few critical points. First, birds and humans are the primary culprits of contamination; second, stormwater runoff exacerbates contamination significantly; and third, the sequencing-based MST provides the most effective testing approach. The researchers noted that this method is more cost-effective per sample and yields much more detailed information, which is why they now recommend its use to officials.
But here's a little other fun fact for you: Fecal contamination doesn't just happen in our waterways. As the Washington Post explained in 2023, there's fecal contamination on essentially everything.
The paper pointed to a 2012 study that tested 85 grocery carts and found that 72% of them tested positive for fecal bacteria. Another 2017 study looked at "microbial contamination" in home kitchens, including fecal coliforms. It found fecal coliforms in 44% of homes, "most often in samples from kitchen sinks, sponges, and dishcloths," and E. coli in 15% of homes, "mostly in samples from kitchen sinks." So, go ahead and wash your hands right now. And be grateful for scientists who help us keep our waterways safe.
Read the original article on Food & Wine
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's cynical bait-and-switch on IVF
Donald Trump Prescription drugs Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow To hear President Donald Trump tell it, he wields an almost magical ability to lower Americans' health care costs. Yet that doesn't seem to extend to one area where he made explicit 2024 campaign promises: in vitro fertilization. Just this weekend, Trump claimed he had lowered prescription drug costs as much as 1,500%. 'I don't mean 50%,' Trump clarified. 'I mean 14, 1,500%.' This is obviously false and innumerate. You can't cut something more than 100%. It would mean drug companies were not only giving their drugs away for free, but actually paying people exorbitant sums to take them. But the self-proclaimed 'father of IVF' appears to be an absentee dad. His past vows to make the expensive and arduous IVF process 'free,' or at least require insurers to cover it, would fall under that seemingly magical umbrella as well, of course. But contrasting with his repeated pressure on drugmakers to lower costs — regardless of whether it's in his power to do so — Trump and his administration haven't done much of anything to make his IVF promises a reality. And it sounds like they've given up trying, to the extent they meant to pursue this policy in the first place. Indeed, this looked a whole lot like a cynical pander during the 2024 campaign. And the administration's actions since then only seem to confirm it. The Washington Post reported this weekend that the Trump administration has no actual plan to get insurers to cover IVF, more than six months into the new administration. The only concrete action Trump has taken on this front was back in February, when Trump instructed his domestic policy council to submit 'recommendations' on 'aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' He gave it 90 days. Those recommendations were due in mid-May. But there is still no word on what, if any, recommendations were produced, and the administration last week reportedly declined to comment on the situation. Fast forward to today, and the White House is apparently waving the white flag on Trump's biggest IVF promise. White House officials reportedly blamed inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to pass a law. But that's not exactly the kind of impediment that Trump usually respects. His first six-plus months back in the presidency are rife with attempts to take bold and legally dubious executive actions that challenge the courts to stop him and companies to defy him. That's even applied to health care specifically. Just last week, Trump sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical company CEOs giving them 60 days to comply with an executive order that sought to lower prescription drug prices — even as experts say he has no such authority. Trump has also sought to squeeze drugmakers in other ways, including threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. But the White House hasn't engaged in those hardball tactics to make insurers cover IVF. Administration officials aren't putting any public pressure on Congress to pass the law it says it needs, either, and they don't even seem to want to talk about the situation. And if that's the new reality, it was entirely predictable — and predicted. It was almost exactly a year ago when Trump debuted this promise. 'The government is going to pay for [IVF], or we're going to get — we'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. We're going to do that,' Trump said in August 2024. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' That's not a 'we'll try to make this happen' promise. That's a 'we're going to make this happen' promise. By October, Trump had declared himself the 'father of IVF' (something his campaign later labeled a joke). And Vice President JD Vance at his 2024 debate declared that making IVF more 'accessible' was core to the GOP's health agenda. Even at the time, though, many dismissed the promises as hot air. Trump and his campaign were dealing with political fallout from strict red-state abortion bans, some of which had imperiled IVF access and coverage. Rhetorically bear-hugging IVF, a practice that's widely popular with voters, made sense. But free IVF or ubiquitous insurance coverage never seemed an especially serious idea. Not only are IVF costs very expensive, stretching into tens of thousands of dollars per treatment, but many anti-abortion conservatives are starkly opposed to it. The process involves producing embryos that are never used and are often destroyed, creating a moral quandary for anti-abortion blocs that believe life begins at conception. The idea that a Republican administration would spearhead making that cheaper — or even making the government pay for the creation of later-discarded embryos — was always far-fetched. Because of all of this, many Republican lawmakers strongly rejected Trump's proposal when he debuted it. Some even acknowledged that it appeared to be a rather transparent bit of pandering that was not to be taken seriously. 'People get emotional about an issue, so they decide to completely pander and go way over a position they never really supported because they're afraid people accuse them,' Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said at the time. It appears that's precisely what happened here. That's bad news for anybody who might have been counting on this proposal. These issues, after all, deal with one of the most heart-wrenching circumstances that many families will ever confront: problems conceiving children. The cost is prohibitive for many people. An October Ipsos poll also showed many Americans supported the idea. They said by a 55-26% margin that Congress should pass a law requiring insurers to cover IVF. The Washington Post back in February profiled a young woman who had heard Trump deliver the promise and reluctantly voted for him. When the White House in February announced its limited IVF recommendations, saying it was delivering on Trump's promises, she called it 'bullsh*t.' It's getting more and more difficult to quibble with that summary.
Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
Highly contagious disease surges in some US states amid report of possible fatal case
Hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) is on the rise in some parts of the U.S., public health departments have reported. The highly contagious viral illness is most prevalent among children under 5, but people of all ages can become infected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In Virginia, the Fairfax County Health District has published an alert of six HFMD outbreaks earlier this year, mainly affecting children 4 and younger. The U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Health has confirmed 189 cases of the disease in St. Thomas, including a possible fatal case involving a toddler. In March, the Pan American Health Organization issued an alert urging member states to "strengthen the prevention and control of hand, foot and mouth disease, especially in children, due to their high vulnerability and the risk of serious complications in the central nervous system." Tina Q. Tan, M.D., an attending physician at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago and president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said that HFMD most commonly occurs during the summer and early fall when the weather is warmer. "We are seeing more cases at this time," she told Fox News Digital. "It is a very common infection that is usually mild." The viruses that most commonly cause the illness are the Coxsackie and Enteroviruses, the doctor said. HFMD can be transmitted through viral particles while sneezing, coughing or talking, the CDC says. People can also spread the virus after touching contaminated objects and surfaces. In the case of blistering rashes, the fluid from the blisters can also spread the virus. "The illness is very contagious, so it can spread quickly in daycare and school settings," Tan said. "Persons are most contagious during the first few days of the illness, but it can also be spread through stool for several weeks." "We are seeing more cases at this time. It is a very common infection that is usually mild." Infants and children can continue to go to daycare and school as long as they have no fever, are feeling well enough to drink and participate in activities, and have no open lesions or copious drooling when they have the mouth sores, according to Tan. The primary symptoms of HFMD include fever, skin rash and painful, blistering mouth sores, per the CDC. "The rash is most commonly found on hands and feet, appearing as raised or flat red spots that can turn into blisters," Tan told Fox News Digital. "The painful mouth sores, blisters or ulcers can occur on the tongue, gums and mucous membranes," she added. Most people only experience mild illness and get better without treatment within seven to 10 days. People can manage pain and fever with over-the-counter medications. They should also drink plenty of fluids to prevent dehydration, the CDC recommends. While complications are rare, the CDC advises that pregnant women see a doctor if they contract HFMD. "Patients or parents should seek medical care if they feel they are uncomfortable with the symptoms that they or their child are having and the symptoms are worsening; if they are unable to take adequate fluid and there is a decrease in urine output; or anytime they feel that there is a change in mental status," Tan said. The most common complication of HFMD is dehydration due to painful mouth lesions that prevent adequate fluid intake, according to the doctor. "It can also cause nail loss in those individuals who had involvement of fingers," she said. "Very rarely, it can cause serious complications like viral meningitis, encephalitis and paralysis." To prevent the highly contagious virus, the CDC recommends washing hands frequently with soap and water. For more Health articles, visit People should also clean and disinfect common surfaces and shared items, such as doorknobs and toys, Tan advised. There is not currently a vaccine for HFMD in the U.S.
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's cynical bait-and-switch on IVF
To hear President Donald Trump tell it, he wields an almost magical ability to lower Americans' health care costs. Yet that doesn't seem to extend to one area where he made explicit 2024 campaign promises: in vitro fertilization. Just this weekend, Trump claimed he had lowered prescription drug costs as much as 1,500%. 'I don't mean 50%,' Trump clarified. 'I mean 14, 1,500%.' This is obviously false and innumerate. You can't cut something more than 100%. It would mean drug companies were not only giving their drugs away for free, but actually paying people exorbitant sums to take them. But the self-proclaimed 'father of IVF' appears to be an absentee dad. His past vows to make the expensive and arduous IVF process 'free,' or at least require insurers to cover it, would fall under that seemingly magical umbrella as well, of course. But contrasting with his repeated pressure on drugmakers to lower costs — regardless of whether it's in his power to do so — Trump and his administration haven't done much of anything to make his IVF promises a reality. And it sounds like they've given up trying, to the extent they meant to pursue this policy in the first place. Indeed, this looked a whole lot like a cynical pander during the 2024 campaign. And the administration's actions since then only seem to confirm it. The Washington Post reported this weekend that the Trump administration has no actual plan to get insurers to cover IVF, more than six months into the new administration. The only concrete action Trump has taken on this front was back in February, when Trump instructed his domestic policy council to submit 'recommendations' on 'aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' He gave it 90 days. Those recommendations were due in mid-May. But there is still no word on what, if any, recommendations were produced, and the administration last week reportedly declined to comment on the situation. Fast forward to today, and the White House is apparently waving the white flag on Trump's biggest IVF promise. White House officials reportedly blamed inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to pass a law. But that's not exactly the kind of impediment that Trump usually respects. His first six-plus months back in the presidency are rife with attempts to take bold and legally dubious executive actions that challenge the courts to stop him and companies to defy him. That's even applied to health care specifically. Just last week, Trump sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical company CEOs giving them 60 days to comply with an executive order that sought to lower prescription drug prices — even as experts say he has no such authority. Trump has also sought to squeeze drugmakers in other ways, including threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. But the White House hasn't engaged in those hardball tactics to make insurers cover IVF. Administration officials aren't putting any public pressure on Congress to pass the law it says it needs, either, and they don't even seem to want to talk about the situation. And if that's the new reality, it was entirely predictable — and predicted. It was almost exactly a year ago when Trump debuted this promise. 'The government is going to pay for [IVF], or we're going to get — we'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. We're going to do that,' Trump said in August 2024. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' That's not a 'we'll try to make this happen' promise. That's a 'we're going to make this happen' promise. By October, Trump had declared himself the 'father of IVF' (something his campaign later labeled a joke). And Vice President JD Vance at his 2024 debate declared that making IVF more 'accessible' was core to the GOP's health agenda. Even at the time, though, many dismissed the promises as hot air. Trump and his campaign were dealing with political fallout from strict red-state abortion bans, some of which had imperiled IVF access and coverage. Rhetorically bear-hugging IVF, a practice that's widely popular with voters, made sense. But free IVF or ubiquitous insurance coverage never seemed an especially serious idea. Not only are IVF costs very expensive, stretching into tens of thousands of dollars per treatment, but many anti-abortion conservatives are starkly opposed to it. The process involves producing embryos that are never used and are often destroyed, creating a moral quandary for anti-abortion blocs that believe life begins at conception. The idea that a Republican administration would spearhead making that cheaper — or even making the government pay for the creation of later-discarded embryos — was always far-fetched. Because of all of this, many Republican lawmakers strongly rejected Trump's proposal when he debuted it. Some even acknowledged that it appeared to be a rather transparent bit of pandering that was not to be taken seriously. 'People get emotional about an issue, so they decide to completely pander and go way over a position they never really supported because they're afraid people accuse them,' Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said at the time. It appears that's precisely what happened here. That's bad news for anybody who might have been counting on this proposal. These issues, after all, deal with one of the most heart-wrenching circumstances that many families will ever confront: problems conceiving children. The cost is prohibitive for many people. An October Ipsos poll also showed many Americans supported the idea. They said by a 55-26% margin that Congress should pass a law requiring insurers to cover IVF. The Washington Post back in February profiled a young woman who had heard Trump deliver the promise and reluctantly voted for him. When the White House in February announced its limited IVF recommendations, saying it was delivering on Trump's promises, she called it 'bullsh*t.' It's getting more and more difficult to quibble with that summary.
