I’m being hounded by Bear Grylls. The British adventurer and TV presenter keeps telling me that I need a water filter. And, as galling as it is to admit it, his incessant adverts for the under-sink Water2 filtration system have got me thinking. Do I need one?
Perhaps you, like me, have been deluged by ads for filters on Instagram. Water2, I’m looking at you. This company might be targeting me — and some other 20 people I know are all being Grylled — but it is far from the only one in the filtrations business. There’s the classic Brita jug, of course. Then there are more involved filtration methods: have you heard of reverse osmosis? No, I hadn’t either. But is it worth bothering with filtering — and if so, then with what?
Certainly, there’s no shortage of headlines to be read around pesticides, microplastics and “forever chemicals” — aka PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), the man-made chemicals used in consumer products from food packaging to firefighting foam. PFAS seem most under fire. Earlier this year, a study by the Royal Society of Chemistry revealed that more than a third of the water courses it tested in England and Wales contained medium or high-risk levels of PFAS — levels that exceeded the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s recommended limits. Yet, the RSC explains: “UK water companies are not required by law to reduce them until they are deemed ‘high risk’.”
Stephanie Metzger, policy adviser at the RSC, says certain forever chemicals (so-called because of their virtually indestructible make-up) are now linked to a range of health issues including testicular cancer, fertility issues and developmental defects in unborn children.
The RSC is campaigning for the UK government to overhaul its drinking water standards for PFAS. Its target is a tenfold reduction in the current legal limit per individual PFAS type — from 100 nanograms per litre of drinking water to 10 ng/l — as well as an overall limit of 100ng/l for the total amount of PFAS. These caps would bring UK water closer to the limits already set in the US and EU countries.
When it comes to the very low levels of contaminants that could build up over time, “the toxicological analysis is complicated”, says Vanessa Speight, professor of integrated water systems at Sheffield University. “Will drinking water with PFAS at current levels give you cancer in 30 years? We don’t yet know. There are so many chemicals in the world around us — PFAS and microplastics, they’re in our clothes; we’re breathing them in. Yes, we can agree they are not good for us, but we have yet to uncover which sources or concentrations might finally make us sick.” In Speight’s opinion, “UK tap water is safe to drink”.
With the exception of lead, which is a proven problem (and millions of UK homes are still fitted with lead plumbing), it’s arguably a question of degree. Just as I prefer my spinach served without pesticides, I’d rather take my water without PFAS — not to mention chlorine. Yes, it’s there to kill bacteria and viruses, and the World Health Organisation says it is safe to ingest in low levels, but I’m not a huge fan of the taste in my tea.
“If the idea of these chemicals bothers you,” Speight continues, “and you can afford to filter, then why not? Just do replace the filters [as frequently as recommended].”
OK, I’m on board.
And so to jugs. I’ll admit: I have never loved the look of Brita’s plastic take. Aarke offers a more beautiful, Swedish-designed glass pitcher; the brand claims that its system, which uses filter granules, reduces limescale, chlorine, copper and lead, while “herbicides, pesticides and PFAS may be reduced by the activated carbon in the granules”. But that sounds a bit woolly to me. The slick steel drum Berkefeld, meanwhile, promises to remove up to 95 per cent of certain PFAS, as well as a plethora of chemicals including pesticides, heavy metals, and microplastics; I tried some water filtered by one and, I’ll admit, it did taste great. But sitting on a countertop, it seems bulky.
For my own home — a Victorian north Oxford house; lead pipe alert — did it make sense to find a fitted solution that doesn’t take up worktop space? “Whole house filtration”, tackling the issue at mains level with a company such as Aquasana, is an expensive option (from about £800). I already commandeer too much of the household budget for “essentials” like nootropics and krill oil; rather than filtering the water I bathe in, I’d prefer to save for those organic blueberries.
The acme of filtration is so-called reverse osmosis, which uses a semi-permeable membrane to filter down to the tiniest level, 0.001 microns — a level that also strips out minerals like magnesium and calcium; many people choose to add minerals back in. The AquaTru under-sink water purifier uses reverse osmosis but also has optional “alkaline” filters to remineralise the water. (So, too, does the reverse osmosis AquaTru carafe system, a glass countertop option.) I liked the taste, but not the waste water reverse osmosis generates (up to 75 per cent of every litre). Nor the cost: both the under-sink system and the jug system cost £464 to buy.
Researching the options made it clear to me that: I do want to filter all drinking and cooking water; I don’t have space for a bulky countertop option; I don’t want to spend a fortune; and aesthetics matter.
The most straightforward answer for me, much as I slightly hate to admit it, seems an under-sink filter. Could I give in to Bear Grylls, and those irritating ads? Or consider an alternative Osmio EZFit range? Water2 won me over; it claims to take out 50 per cent of PFAS.
I’m not all that with a spanner but I installed it in the touted 10 minutes. Now, Bear Grylls, will you get off my back?
Find out about our latest stories first — follow House & Home on Instagram, and sign up to receive our House & Home Unlocked newsletter every Friday