Bottled Water Under the Microscope: What Independent Lab Data Reveals

Heavy Metals, Real-World Exposure, and Why Context Matters

Water is essential for life but conversations about water quality have become increasingly confusing. Headlines warn of “toxic contaminants,” social media posts cherry-pick numbers, and warning labels often lack explanation. The result? Fear without context.

At the Animal Based Nutrition Research Foundation (ABNRF), our goal is different. We believe people deserve clear, science-backed information that helps them make informed decisions not panic-driven ones.

For this first installment of our bottled water investigation, we focus primarily on heavy metals, while also reporting our findings on BPA and PFAS. What was detected? How much? How do those levels compare to regulatory standards? And most importantly, what do these numbers actually mean in real life?

Why Heavy Metals Deserve Attention and Perspective

Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum are naturally present in the environment. They exist in soil, water, air, and food - even in pristine ecosystems.

At high doses or with chronic exposure, certain heavy metals can pose health risks. But risk is not determined by presence alone. It is determined by:

• Dose
• Frequency
• Duration of exposure
• Total dietary load
• Nutritional status of the individual

This is why responsible science never asks, “Is it there?”
It asks, “How much, compared to what, and over what timeframe?”

BPA and PFAS: Why We Also Tested Them

While this report focuses on heavy metals, we also evaluated bottled water for compounds frequently discussed in public health conversations: BPA (bisphenol A) and PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).

Unlike heavy metals, which occur naturally in the environment, BPA and PFAS are primarily associated with industrial processes, packaging materials, and manufacturing. Because bottled water often involves plastic packaging or industrial processing, evaluating these compounds helps provide a more complete picture of potential exposure.

In our testing:

• BPA was detected in Evian & Voss
• PFAS were detected in Fiji

The results indicate low concentrations that require careful interpretation within the context of laboratory detection capabilities, regulatory guidance, and real-world consumption patterns.

How We Tested

ABNRF commissioned independent laboratory testing of popular bottled waters using validated analytical methods. We converted values from milligrams per liter (mg/L) to parts per billion (ppb) to make the numbers easier to interpret and to align them with commonly used regulatory benchmarks, allowing for clearer comparison across studies and guidelines.

If a metal was listed as:

• Not Detected (ND): It was below the lab’s ability to reliably measure
• Below Reporting Limit (RL): Present at levels too low to quantify with confidence

What Are BPA and PFAS and Why Are They Studied?

BPA (Bisphenol A)

BPA is an industrial compound used in certain plastics and resins, including some food and beverage containers. It can migrate from packaging into liquids under specific conditions such as heat exposure, storage time, or manufacturing processes.

BPA is studied primarily for its ability to interact with hormone signaling pathways. Research has examined potential effects related to:

• Hormone signaling disruption
• Reproductive health
• Metabolic regulation
• Developmental exposure during early life

Most BPA exposure in the general population comes from food packaging and receipts, not drinking water. Health relevance depends on dose, duration, and total exposure across all sources.

PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances)

PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals sometimes called “forever chemicals” because they persist in the environment and can remain in the body for long periods.

Research has evaluated associations between higher PFAS exposure and:

• Changes in cholesterol levels
• Immune system effects
• Thyroid hormone changes
• Liver enzyme changes

These findings are primarily observed in populations with elevated exposure, such as contaminated groundwater regions. Risk depends on cumulative exposure over time rather than single measurements.

Understanding Regulatory Benchmarks

Before reviewing results, it’s essential to understand the standards used for comparison.

EPA Drinking Water Standards (Federal)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) designed to protect public health over a lifetime of daily consumption.

Key EPA standards:

• Lead: 15 ppb (action level)
• Arsenic: 10 ppb
• Cadmium: 5 ppb
• Mercury: 2 ppb
• ​PFOA/PFOS: 4 ppt

These are risk-based safety thresholds, not zero-tolerance limits.

California Proposition 65 (Prop 65)

Prop 65 is not a safety standard. It is a consumer warning law that uses extremely conservative exposure thresholds.

For example:

• Lead (reproductive harm): ~0.5 micrograms/day (500 nanograms)
• Arsenic: Cancer warnings can be triggered at trace exposure levels
• Lists certain PFAS chemicals (like PFOA and PFOS)

This is why products can be well within EPA safety limits and still carry Prop 65 warnings. The two systems serve very different purposes.

Regulatory Context for BPA and PFAS

BPA

Regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have evaluated BPA exposure for decades. While limits and recommendations continue to evolve as new research emerges, current guidance focuses on maintaining exposure below established daily intake thresholds based on lifetime exposure modeling.

PFAS

The EPA recently established extremely low advisory levels for certain PFAS compounds in drinking water due to their persistence and potential long-term effects. These limits reflect precautionary policy approaches designed to minimize lifetime accumulation.

Importantly, regulatory limits are designed to protect health over decades of daily exposure, not occasional consumption.

ABNRF Heavy Metal Results

(All values in parts per billion — ppb)

Glass Bottled Waters

• Mountain Valley Spring
• Voss
• Saratoga
• Aqua Panna
• Icelandic Glacial

Plastic Bottled Waters

Heavy Metals Results (All Values reported from the lab in milligrams per liter -mg/L and converted to Parts Per Billion – ppb for this blog)

Detection Thresholds Used by the Lab

Heavy Metals Results by Brand

Glass Bottles

Plastic Bottles

We don't recommend drinking water from plastic. Learn why in Paul's YouTube video at the bottom of the blog.

Clarifying Heavy Metal Results

In our testing, most heavy metals were reported below the laboratory’s Reporting Limit (RL). However, in two instances involving plastic bottled waters, metals were detected above the reporting limit and quantified.

This distinction is important.

When a result is above the reporting limit, it means the laboratory was able to measure and report a specific concentration with confidence. When a result is below the reporting limit, it means that if a metal was present, it was at a level too low for the lab to quantify precisely.

To clarify how laboratories report results:

• MDL (Method Detection Limit) is the lowest concentration the lab’s instruments can detect as present. Results at or near this level indicate possible presence but are not precise enough to report as an accurate numeric value.

• RL (Reporting Limit) is higher than the MDL and represents the lowest concentration at which the lab can reliably quantify and report a numerical result with confidence.

In practical terms:

• Above RL → quantified and reported value

• Below RL but above MDL → detected at trace level, estimated

• Below MDL → not reliably detected

When we say a result was “below the reporting limit,” it does not mean a substance was definitively absent. It means that if present, it was below the threshold for precise measurement.

In contrast, the two quantified detections in plastic bottled waters reflect measurable concentrations that were reported with confidence. As discussed elsewhere in this report, interpretation of those values requires comparison to regulatory benchmarks and consideration of total exposure.

This distinction matters. Clear reporting ensures that quantified results are acknowledged accurately, while trace or near-detection values are not overstated. Transparency requires both precision and context.

What Do These Numbers Mean?

Arsenic in Fiji Water

Detected: 1.02 ppb

EPA limit: 10 ppb

To reach the EPA’s arsenic limit from Fiji water alone, a person would need to consume approximately 10 liters per day, this is several times higher than typical daily water intake for most adults.

To approach Prop 65 exposure thresholds, intake would need to be even higher and sustained beyond typical hydration patterns.

Aluminum in Evian

→Aluminum has no federal EPA MCL, but is regulated via secondary standards for taste/appearance

Detected: 403 ppb

EPA secondary (aesthetic) guideline: 50–200 ppb

Aluminum is not regulated as a primary health contaminant in drinking water. For most individuals, dietary aluminum exposure comes primarily from food, cookware, and additives, not water.

Again, dose and total exposure matter.

BPA and PFAS Findings from ABNRF Testing

In addition to heavy metals, our independent testing evaluated bottled water for BPA and PFAS using validated analytical methods.

BPA Results

• Evian: 0.014 ppb

  • Method Detection Limit (MDL): 0.0074 ppb
  • Reporting Limit (RL): 0.02 ppb

• Voss: 0.0088 ppb

  • Method Detection Limit (MDL): 0.0074 ppb
  • Reporting Limit (RL): 0.02 ppb

  For both Evian and Voss, BPA was detected below the laboratory’s reporting limit; the values represent estimated trace concentrations near the limits of measurement precision.

  Because the results fall below the reporting limit, the exact concentration cannot be quantified with high certainty. These levels are extremely low and near the threshold of detection. Due to the minimal level observed in Voss, additional batch testing may be conducted in future analyses to confirm consistency.

PFAS Results

• Fiji: 0.000878 ppb
  • Method Detection Limit (MDL): 0.0007 ppb
  • Reporting Limit (RL): 0.00193 ppb

This value was also detected near the laboratory’s detection threshold and below the reporting limit, indicating trace presence at very low concentration.

Detection at or near these thresholds does not indicate meaningful exposure by itself. As with heavy metals, interpretation requires consideration of dose, frequency of intake, and total exposure across all sources.

Why Water Is Rarely the Biggest Contributor

This is a crucial point often missing from online discussions:

Rice and Arsenic: A Real-World Example

Independent testing and peer-reviewed research consistently show:

• Rice often contains 100–400 ppb of arsenic
• Some rice products exceed 1,000 ppb

To ingest the same amount of arsenic found in one serving of rice, a person would need to drink dozens, sometimes hundreds of liters of water at the levels measured in our testing.

This does not mean rice should be feared. It means:

• Exposure must be evaluated across the entire diet
• Singling out water without context is misleading

The Bigger Picture: Total Dietary Exposure

Heavy metals come from many sources:

• Drinking water
• Rice and grains
• Vegetables grown in certain soils
• Seafood
• Food packaging
• Cookware
• Environmental exposure

Risk depends on:

• Cumulative intake
• Bioavailability
• Nutrient status (iron, calcium, selenium can reduce absorption)
• Overall metabolic health

This is one reason ABNRF emphasizes nutrient-dense, mineral-rich diets — adequate nutrition helps the body defend against and excrete environmental toxins.

What BPA and PFAS Results Mean in Practice

The detection of BPA in Evian and Voss and PFAS in Fiji reflects trace environmental and packaging-related exposure pathways that are measurable using highly sensitive laboratory methods.

The primary scientific concerns associated with these compounds include:

• BPA’s interaction with hormone signaling systems
• PFAS persistence and long-term accumulation in the body
• Potential effects observed in high-exposure populations

However, health impact depends on:

• concentration of exposure
• frequency of consumption
• total lifestyle exposure
• duration over time

The levels detected in this analysis were extremely low and near the laboratory’s limits of detection. For most individuals, bottled water represents only a small contributor to total BPA or PFAS exposure compared with food packaging, household materials, and environmental background exposure.

As with heavy metals, evaluating total exposure across diet and environment provides the most meaningful assessment of potential risk.

Why Independent Testing Still Matters

Even when levels are low, independent testing:

• Creates transparency
• Allows brand-to-brand comparison
• Replaces speculation with data
• Empowers consumers without fear

Marketing claims are not enough. Numbers matter, but only when they’re explained honestly.

What’s Coming Next

As part of our commitment to transparency and independent science, we’re continuing to expand our bottled water research beyond heavy metals to include microplastics and nanoplastics.

Microplastics have already raised important questions about what we may be ingesting through packaged water. Nanoplastics (<1 µm) are even smaller and potentially more biologically relevant. Previous studies, including work from Columbia University, have shown that these particles can be present in bottled water and may vary by source, processing, and packaging.

We have completed independent microplastic testing and are currently evaluating options for more refined analysis, including nanoplastic detection. Testing methods in this area are still evolving, we want to ensure any additional evaluation meets appropriate scientific standards before sharing results.

Once the approach is confirmed, we’ll share our findings to provide clearer context around exposure and what it may and may not mean for your health.

Final Takeaway

• Most waters tested showed heavy metals were below the report limit
• Detected levels were well below EPA safety thresholds
• Prop 65 warnings reflect conservative policy, not inherent danger
• Food sources like rice often contribute far more heavy metal exposure than water
• Health decisions should be made based on total dietary exposure, not isolated numbers

Bottled Water Analysis

Below are the complete lab reports behind this analysis. We publish these in full because transparency isn't a summary. It's the data itself.

See the full lab reports here:

Heavy Metal Analysis

BPA Analysis

PFAS Analysis

*Questions or comments? Contact our team.