A rebuttal to that article was posted in Forbes and goes into detail dissecting the wording used.
A few keys, .
- Only one out of 130 bottles tested was in excess of FDA's limit of 10 ppb,..some obscure brand Peñafiel that had 17 ppb.
- Five were higher than 3 but less than 10, which the article claimed that 3 should be the limit according to the report (but no reason why 3 instead of 10 is a better number).
So the summary from Forbes, "The primary spin-free numbers in the Consumer Reports article are that, of the 130 brands of bottled water examined for arsenic, 1 exceeded F.D.A. standards. And our refrigerators aren’t exactly teeming with that 1 – if you mixed all the bottled water in the world in a massive vat, Peñafiel would probably make up less than 3 parts per billion itself."
The article could have been titled "No real risk of arsenic in your bottled water", but that would not have garnered much of any mass media attention. Not that we shouldn't be looking and controlling arsenic when levels are high. A 2013 NY Times article points out that there are many place in the world, including the US where levels can range from 10 to 1000 ppb.
Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanschwarz/2019/04/22/arsenic-in-water-scare-raises-risk-for-eye-rolling/#62c92239772d
Arsenic-In-Water Scare Raises Risk For Eye-Rolling
Alan Schwarz
Apr 22, 2019, 09:40am