Hidden Danger in Drinking Water Revealed in New Study
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Low levels of nitrate in drinking water can be associated with an increased risk of preterm birth and low birthweight, according to a new study.
The research published in PLOS Water by Jason Semprini, a professor at Des Moines University College of Health Sciences, Iowa, found that even a level of less than half the level considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could affect birth outcomes.
Newsweek has contacted the EPA outside of regular working hours via email for comment.
Why It Matters
The findings address growing concerns about the adequacy of U.S. drinking water safety standards, particularly for pregnant women, joining a recent study which also said that even levels of chemicals deemed safe may be harming birth outcomes.
A national study led by researchers at Columbia University found that levels of arsenic deemed safe were associated with below average birth weight and other adverse birth outcomes, and this study highlights how nitrate can have similar impacts, prompting concern that America's drinking water standards could be harming expecting mothers, and the wider population.
File photo: a cup being filled from a drinking water tap.
File photo: a cup being filled from a drinking water tap.
Gregory Bull/AP
What To Know
Nitrate is a naturally occurring compound produced during the natural decay of plant matter in soil, and it can get washed by rain out of the soil and into lakes, rivers and streams, as well as seeping down through the soil into groundwater.
At high levels, it is recognized that nitrate causes health problems, as the compound can impact the way the body transports oxygen.
However, the new study highlights that even at low levels, below what the EPA considers safe, may still be harmful to health. Previous studies have identified risks posed to the general population, including links between drinking water nitrate and colorectal, bladder and breast cancers, and thyroid disease.
In his study, Semprini analyzed 357,741 birth records from Iowa between 1970 to 1988 and linked each birth to county-level nitrate measurements taken within 30 days of conception.
In that time frame, nitrate levels were discovered to have increased by an average of 8 percent a year, with a mean exposure of 4.2 mg/L across the births assessed.
The study found that early prenatal exposure to greater than 0.1 mg/L nitrate, which is only 1 percent of the current EPA limit of 10 mg/L, was associated with an increase in preterm birth, where a baby was born after less than 37 weeks.
Meanwhile, early prenatal exposure to greater than 5 mg/L nitrate increased risk of low birth weight babies, at less than 2,500 grams.
States with higher levels of nitrate in their drinking water in some areas include Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Central California, Texas, Washington, Idaho, Delaware and Maryland, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
In some parts of these states, levels of nitrate in drinking water systems were higher than the EPA's 10 mg/L safety limit.
What People Are Saying
Jason Semprini, a professor at Des Moines University College of Health Sciences, Iowa, said, per medical news outlet medicalxpress.com: "There is no safe level of prenatal nitrate exposure. The estimated impact from prenatal exposure to nitrates reflects 15 percent of the harm from prenatal exposure to smoking cigarettes. I do not want to diminish the importance of efforts to prevent smoking during pregnancy ... but, I must ask, do we give nitrates 15 percent of the attention we give to smoking?"
He added: "The regulatory threshold for nitrates in public water does not consider prenatal exposure and has not been updated since established in 1992. Ignoring the potential harm from lower levels of prenatal nitrate exposure, the current regulatory standards are not adequately protecting America's mothers or children."
What Happens Next
As the study was limited to one state, making it limited in scope, national and further research is needed to determine the full impact of low-level exposure to nitrate in drinking water systems on public health.
Reference
Early prenatal nitrate exposure and birth outcomes: A study of Iowa's public drinking water (1970–1988): Semprini J (2025). PLOS Water 4(6): e0000329. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000329
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
EPA employees put names to 'declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes over 70 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. "Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise," the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond Monday to messages seeking comment. Employees want the EPA get back to its mission 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established — which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water." The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. EPA has cut funding and rolled back federal regulations Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's 'living the repercussions of everything.' She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: "That's decades worth of loss.' ___ ___
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
EPA employees put names to 'declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes over 70 Nobel laureates.
an hour ago
EPA employees put names to 'declaration of dissent' over agency moves under Trump
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they 'undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.' More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes over 70 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. "Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise," the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond Monday to messages seeking comment. 'I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to,' said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. 'Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing,' she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established — which 'only matters if you breathe air and drink water." The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. 'People are going to die,' said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. 'And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die,' she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's 'living the repercussions of everything.' She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: "That's decades worth of loss.' ___
