Recently the bottled-water industry
has come under particularly harsh criticism for alleged gross
waste and pollution. Critics fault the use of clean water resources
by private enterprise, the cost of packaging, and the energy
it takes to transport bottled water to market. And there is some
truth to their arguments; it takes substantial energy and natural
resources to manufacture, bottle and distribute our product.
However on the conservation side,
one of our trucks can service many customers versus individual
households/companies driving their personal vehicles to the store
to purchase the water. Just this one service alone saves thousands
of gallons of fuel and oil each month. Many city's Public Relations
staffs, say that municipal tap water is "just finea 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, locally abundant, treated
only with absolutely safe chemicals and subsequently transported
at low cost through completely clean pipes?
THE REALITY IS THAT BOTTLED WATER
IS TRULY BETTER
Emotions aside, the reality is that
bottled water is truly a lot better for you than municipal tap
water. And it is not at all true that bottled water entails more
cost to society than the cost of creating and distributing municipal
tap water equal in quality to the variety of bottled water offerings.
First, let's look at the quality
issue. A lot of the "fresh" water our local governments
use as a source for tap water doesn't start out all that healthy
for humans. Some ground waters and surface waters have naturally
occurring and abundant organic and inorganic contaminants. In
the western United States, many source waters have issues with
arsenic and radon. Although this isn't the result of human pollution--it
occurs naturally--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, water tends to be high in
phosphates (fertilizer) and atrazine (herbicide). In coastal
areas of the United States, you will often find high sodium and/or
sulfur in local water. Everywhere, you find additives to the
source water from human activity (bacteria), the burning of fossil
fuels (MBTE) and chemical manufacturing and consumption byproducts
(this list is far too long to cite here but you owe it to yourself
to check out the EPA's website).
Local governments try to make their
local source waters suitable for us by treating the water with
chemicals like chlorine, lime and sodium hexametaphosphate, and
by the sheer volume of water, it is hidden through dilution.
Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--through the Safe
Drinking Water Act--says it is legal to serve a vast array of
inorganic chemicals to tap water customers as long as they are
below the maximum contaminants levels (or MCLs) they 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.
EPA SETS STANDARDS FOR ONLY 35 CONTAMINANTS
But is it really? The EPA sets the
bar for this reassuring pronouncement by creating MCL standards
for only 35 potential contaminants. The process that produces
those MCLs entails years of review and a lot of input from industry
lobbyists as well as everyday citizens. If you have concerns
about any chemicals other than those 35 (and, if you pay attention
to reports of recent medical research, you probably should have
concerns) then you are out of luck; the local water works isn't
even testing for them at any contaminant level.
We can say with complete assurance that consumers of bottled
water do not have to deal with questionable source water, adding
potentially harmful chemicals, or limited testing. Our company
uses municipal tap water as a source but cleans it with a highly
sophisticated filtration processes (Reverse Osmosis) before putting
it in sterile, sealed bottles in a clean room environment. Obviously,
we don't have to send that water to the consumer through several
series of aged piping either.
IN THE END IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE
BOTTLED WATER IS BETTER
In the end, this is not a close
call. Our bottled water is a lot better than the minimally tested,
chlorinated, flocculated, fluoridated municipal tap water that
also happens to be transmitted through miles of aged piping.
Remember, ultimately the Market votes with its checkbook and
the results are in, bottled water has demonstrated double digit
growth for well over a decade. Even though we are making a strong
statement about bottled versus tap water quality, We sincerely
believe we are only talking about a minor sub-issue. The real
overriding issues in this discussion--the elephants I see in
the room--are: (1) our throw-away culture which wastes the vast
majority of our food and beverage containers, and (2) the real
wisdom of our government trying to make all tap water as good
as bottled water when less than 1% of municipal tap water is
actually used for human consumption.
As is the case with any beverage,
bottled water requires the use of containers. But it is also
true that those containers have clear benefits to consumers.
They make beverages portable, sanitary, and safely preserved
until it is time to use them. Bottled water is uniquely useful
to our society when disaster strikes and the municipal tap water
systems don't function at all.
Recently our company has reduced
the plastic in our bottles from 23 grams to 17 grams .This has
reduced the energy and plastic used by approximately 35% as we
continue to find ways to lower our carbon footprint.
LET'S NOT ADD TONS AND TONS OF CHEMICALS
TO OUR WATER SUPPLY
Municipal tap water, although relatively
cheap to homes because it is subsidized by taxpayers and industry,
is not without substantial cost. If we didn't have to spend that
estimated trillion dollars on aged water piping infrastructure,
treatment plants, and chemicals, could we not better spend that
money on other 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 indeed;
is it even possible - for local governments to attempt to bring
tap water up to the higher quality of bottled water? Maybe we
could use the money saved by not treating water to impossibly
high standards, but instead improve our natural water sources
for uses other than drinking water. What about the real benefit
of not adding tons and tons of chemicals like chlorine and chlorine
byproducts to our waterways?
FINAL ANALYSIS
In the final analysis, a back-and-forth
debate about tap versus bottled water quality doesn't begin to
address the bigger issues we face as inhabitants of this planet.
We can recycle and we can offer other convenient methods for
consumers to do their part in conserving, like reclycling the
bottles. We can also make wise decisions on how to spend our
tax dollars. We can work together vigorously to keep our surface
and ground water suitable for wildlife and recreation. Municipal
tap water can 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 consumption.
