At the hearing, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report recommending that bottled water producers be required to label their products with the same information that municipal water providers are required to disclose.

Currently, there are separate requirements for bottled water — regulated under the FDA — and municipal water, regulated under the EPA. The EPA requirements are more stringent, and require more testing.  For example, the EPA limits phthalates, a chemical used in plastics manufacture that causes cancer. The FDA does not.

In addition there are state requirements for bottled water that in some cases are more stringent than the FDA requirements, but less stringent than the EPA requirements.

The GAO surveyed consumers in all 50 states and reported that consumers are misinformed about bottled water — they often think that bottled water is safer or healthier than tap water.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Working Group, a watchdog nonprofit group, also reported at the hearing. EWG said it believes consumers need more information to make good choices. Consumers should know where the water comes from, how it is treated, and what contaminants are in it, according to the EWG’s Richard Wiles.

That information is not currently on the label in many cases, although it may be available at the bottling company’s Web site, as a spokesman for the International Bottled Water Association pointed out at the hearing.

But complete disclosure is rare.  An EWG study released at the hearing checked 188 bottled water brands and found that less than 2 percent disclose all three basic facts about their water, on the label or in a Web site. Those facts are the water’s source, how it was purified, and what contaminants remain.

The EWG recommends using a home water filter for your tap water.  I researched the possibilities and got one I’m very happy with. If you want to consider the highest-quality, most durable water filter on the market, take a look at Multi-Pure. As a distributor, I  can give you a great discount on it!

EWG released the study this month analyzing blood from five minority American women from around the country, who happen to be high-profile environmental activists. The two-year study found up to 48 toxic chemicals in the blood of the five, when testing for 75 compounds.

The compounds were chosen because they:

* are common in consumer products

* are not effectively regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act

* may be associated in animal studies with cancer, reproductive problems and behavioral effects.

The study found these contaminants in the blood of all five participants: flame retardants, Teflon chemicals, synthetic fragrances, the plastics ingredient bisphenol A (BPA) and the rocket fuel component perchlorate.

Participants tested postive for 35 to 60 percent of the 75 chemicals on the list. Each also showed a high level of at least one controversial unregulated chemical.

For example, the blood of New Orleans resident Beverly Wright, Ph.D., registered in the 87th percentile for perfluorochemicals (PFC’s) used in Teflon, in stain-resistant coatings such as Goretex and Stainmnaster, and in grease-resistant food packaging. Her blood also registered in the 87th percentile for mercury, especially dangerous to infants and fetuses.

Also found in her blood was:

* BPA, a plastics additive that mimics estrogen;

* perchlorate, a rocket fuel ingredient and common tap water and food contaminant;

* lead;

* polycyclic musks, fragrances associated with hormone disruption in animal studies; and

* PBDE’s, flame retardants found in furniture, computers, and televisions.

Meanwhile, reform of the current protection laws is under debate on Capitol Hill, according to the EWG.

If you are concerned about these chemical contaminants, you may want to consider getting a home water filter that allows you to filter out the bad stuff and avoid the chemical perils of plastic packaging. You can carry your purified water with you in healthy stainless steel bottles.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) says it “does not… find a significant environmental impact” connected with a controversial natural gas drilling practice, noting that it has been in use for 50 years in New York State. The practice, hydraulic fracturing, involves pumping fluids including diesel fuel into the ground in order to force open natural gas reservoirs for drilling.

Despite the state agency’s “finding,” it turns out the state hasn’t done any looking for evidence. The Environmental Working Group, an activist group based in Washington, DC, asked the state agency to disclose its test results. But, according to an EWG report, the state admitted having done no testing and having no test results on the environmental safety of hydraulic fracturing.

The question is coming to the fore now because several natural gas companies are significantly interested in using the technique in the Marcellus shale formation in upstate New York, which is close to the reservoirs that hold New York City’s water supply.

In 2004, the US Environmental Protection Agency reported that diesel fuel, used as a fracturing fluid, results in toxic compounds being left underground, “likely to be transported by groundwater supplies.”

In the wake of EWG’s report, New York City Councilman James F. Gennaro demanded the state acknowledge its lack of testing in the matter and perform tests to see whether the proposed chemicals would be dangerous to the NYC water supply.