BevBlog: Bottled Water Backlash Continuing

There are currently 7 responses to “Bottled Water Backlash Continuing”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On July 27th, 2007, rick said:

   So why not switch from PET to cardboard (Tetra) ?

2. 2 On August 3rd, 2007, faubel said:

   we have found the enemy and the enemy is us…
   let’s face it, we as consumers are either too selfish, lazy, stupid or all of the above to change our behavior so we demand industry do something, yet we all could easily pack a refillable bottle in the morning and take it along for the day, but nooooo, we rather buy something along the way and toss it later in the trash
   that’s how our economy works, absurd but real

3. 3 On August 3rd, 2007, Breck Speed said:

   A rational look at the bottled-versus-tap debate (and one that considers the bigger pictures of individual health and the allocation of scarce public resources) should lead us to conclude that (1) bottled water is superior to the tap and (2) we’re likely wasting resources by trying to make all tap water approach bottled-water standards.

   I would love to buy into the ideal of municipal tap water being “just fine” for human consumption as it flows virtually free from the kitchen faucet. Wouldn’t it be great if all sources for municipal tap water were pristine, easy to purify, distributed trouble-free and at low cost through sanitized pipes, and processed only with absolutely safe chemicals to preserve the pipes and kill water-borne pathogens?

   Emotions aside, the gritty reality is bottled water is truly a lot better for you than is municipal tap water. And it is clearly not true that bottled water is more costly to society than are the efforts to create and distribute municipal tap water equal in quality to the bottled variety.

   First, let’s look at the quality issue. A lot of the “fresh water” our local governments use a as source for tap water doesn’t start out all that healthy for humans. Some ground waters and surface waters have organic and inorganic contaminants in them. These contaminants get in water through both naturally occurring processes and as the result of human activity. In the western United States, many source waters have issues with arsenic and radium. This isn’t usually the result of human pollution–it occurs as a result of the contact of ground water with mineral deposits—but it is still bad for humans. In the Great Plains, where the water table is subject to rapid recharge and there is a lot of agricultural activity, you find a lot of nitrates from fertilizers and herbicides like atrazine. In the Northeast, mercury is frequently found in drinking water sources as a result of the burning of coal for energy. Everywhere you find undesirable additives to source waters from human activity (like bacteria), the burning of fossil fuels, and chemical manufacturing. For a list of these contaminants, check out the EPA’s website (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html).

   Our governments try to make their local source waters suitable for us humans by treating the water with chemicals like chlorine and through the magic of “dilution.” The EPA says it is perfectly legal to serve a vast array of organic and inorganic contaminants to tap water customers as long as they are below the maximum contaminants levels (or MCLs) that have been set by rule making. Any municipality having contaminants in their tap water below these levels can proudly say to their customers their tap water is just fine.

   But is it really “just fine?” The EPA has set the bar for this confident pronouncement by creating MCL standards for only 86 potential contaminants. Those standards were set after considering how often the contaminants occur in the environment, the risks of adverse health effects to the public, the technical feasibility of detecting these contaminants, and the impacts of regulation on water systems and the economy. That process entails years of review and a lot of input by citizens as well as industry lobbyists. If there are other chemicals than the 86 you think you ought to be worried about, then you are out of luck; your local water works isn’t even testing for them at any contaminant level.

   In stark contrast to the case of municipal tap water, I can say with assurance that consumers of bottled water do not have to deal with questionable source water, added chemicals, or limited testing. We know consumers will punish us if we don’t provide them with something far better than the tap. Most bottled water companies, like ours, use as a source of their product a protected natural spring or deep well. Some do use municipal tap water as a source but take great care to purify it with highly sophisticated filtration processes before putting it in a sterile, sealed bottle.

   In addition to the minimal standards of the EPA, the bottled water industry is also subject to the standards of the FDA which regulates bottled water as a food product. The FDA has quality standards for bottled water in addition to the EPA standards as well as best manufacturing practices standards, container standards, and labeling standards.

   But even those governmental standards are clearly, by themselves, not enough to assure consumers they are getting a product which is better than tap water. My company voluntarily belongs to the IBWA, which requires testing for 298 potential organic and inorganic contaminants and has extensive requirements around best manufacturing practices. We are inspected and certified by the independent National Sanitation Foundation. We are inspected by military and private customers who require only the highest quality and most consistent products for their end-customers. We are even certified kosher.

   In the end analysis, this is not a close call. Bottled water is a lot better than the minimally tested, chlorinated, flocculated, often fluoridated, transmitted through miles of old pipe, municipal tap water. My kids are drinking bottled.

   Even though I am making a strong statement about bottled versus tap water quality, I sincerely believe we are only talking about a minor sub-issue here. The real overriding issues-—the elephants I see in the room—-are (1) the throw-away culture which leads to the unnecessary trashing of most food and beverage containers and (2) the practical and financial wisdom of our governments trying to make all tap water as good as bottled water when less than 5% of municipal tap water is actually used for human consumption.

   Yes, it is absolutely true beverages other than tap water require the use of containers. But it is also true those containers have clear benefits to consumers. They make beverages portable, sanitary, and preserve them until the time of use. Bottled water has a unique societal benefit when disaster strikes and the municipal tap water systems don’t function at all. Unfortunately, it also true beverage consumers throw most of those containers in the trash instead of recycling them.
   If we as a society recycled all of our plastic, glass, and metal beverage containers instead of throwing them away, what would be the benefit? We would clearly avoid landfill costs, create jobs in the recycling industry, and avoid tapping virgin, natural resources for our reasonable container needs. There are a lot of good ways to get recycling done. Containers deposit laws have been enacted in a number of states although that addresses just a small part of the problem. Almost 50% of municipalities now have some form of curbside recycling which is a much broader recycling effort. Other countries (like our good neighbor Canada) have much higher recycling rates utilizing schemes we could emulate. Wouldn’t it be better for us to work as a society to recycle all consumer packaging instead of attacking one beverage product because it utilizes packages consumers currently throw away?

   Municipal tap water, although relatively cheap to homes because it is subsidized by taxpayers and industry, is not without its own substantial cost. If we didn’t have to spend billions (and soon to be trillions) of dollars on pipes, treatment plants, and chemicals, could we spend that money on other pressing societal needs? The vast majority of tap water is actually used for industrial processes and other mundane purposes such as washing cars and flushing toilets. Does it make sense, or is it even possible, for our local governments to attempt to bring tap water up to the high quality of bottled water? Maybe we could use the money saved by not treating tap water to impossibly high standards to improve our natural water sources. What about the real benefit of not adding tons and tons of chemicals like chlorine and chlorine byproducts to our natural environment?

   A negative, back-and-forth debate about tap-versus-bottled quality doesn’t begin to address the bigger issues we face as inhabitants of this planet. We can recycle. We can make wise decisions on how to spend our tax dollars. We can work together vigorously to keep our surface and ground water suitable for human consumption, wildlife and recreation. Municipal tap water can absolutely be used with great confidence for many purposes. And the bottled water industry can continue to be held to the highest standards of taste and quality for human health and nutrition.

4. 4 On August 3rd, 2007, Steve Multry said:

   Switching to cardoboard would not only give the water a horrid taste but we (the bev industry) would see the same backlash but yet from another corner. Rather than sucking up the global supply of petroleum we would then be cutting down the global supply of trees furthering along global warming, etc. Simply put, the media has found an industry to pick on and a headline to sell newspapers. YES, we all must be concerned but we also must not panic.

   Educating the consumer and continuing to offer a higher quality beverage at a good value will win over our consumers. Does something need to be done? Yes. Is something being done? Yes. The American Beverage Association spends thousands of dollars promoting recycling and developing recycling programs. As stated above, Nestle is going to thinner walled bottles. The industry needs to recognize the consumers concerns moving forward. From where the product is produced, how it is produced, who produces it, etc. I believe I read yesterday that one beverage giant has spent millions to reduce their emmissions and “go green”. With this type of methodology we will prevail.

   The old days of pouring our products in a bottle, slapping on a cap, glue on a label and ship it out the door are over. Now we have to market to AND for the consumer. Not just to the consumer.

5. 5 On August 3rd, 2007, Simon Ginsberg said:

   Commenting on backlash……….the lighter pet bottles were not designed to satisfy the eco groups……they have been lightening the weights for three years to get their costs down in the low-end 3.99 multipack wars………but strange how the PR and signage has changed rapidly to “we are doing it for the environment”.

   In our case we get many comments that say …its nice to see your bottles arent flimsy, that fall apart after you open them….

   I am more concerned that the public will distrust water companies after the Pepsi announcement that their water is from the municipal sources……I guess it was an overstimation that consumers know what RO or Purified water really is………Pepsi or Coke without the syrup.

   And then as more press appears about Nestles use of water sources being drained and that 70% of the bottles that are recycled or fill landfills (hopefully recyled) come from those low end $3.99 store loss leaders/disposables….the coverage will become worse.

6. 6 On August 14th, 2007, Sandra Franks said:

   Excellent comments!! It concerns me that resturaunts may install their own equipment to make their own “prestige” water on site and sell it by the jug full to consumers. How will this ever be regulated and monitored for safety.

7. 7 On March 2nd, 2008, Jesse said:

   The American Beverage Association may spend “thousands” on recycling, but they spend millions in fighting the most effective system for recycling beverage containers, bottle bills, by lobbying state governments considering deposit legislation, and thru their greenwashing front groups such as Keep America Beautiful and the National Recycling Coalition. Shame on them.

Leave a Reply