The Truth about Bottled Water
Reading this is a tall order, but you need to so you understand just some of the things going on without your knowledge.
Written by Greg Lucas, Sacramento Bureau Chief
Monday, January 27, 2003:
Sacramento -- Saying consumers should know what they're drinking, environmentalists and the East Bay Municipal Utility District want bottled water to follow the same disclosure rules as tap water.
Makers of bottled water, which include Pepsi and Coca-Cola, say there is already plenty of disclosure about their water's contents.
Advocates of two bills introduced in the Legislature say there isn't nearly enough.
"People tout bottled water as this pure substance that's trickling from clear mountain springs when, in fact, that may not be the case," said Assemblywoman Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, author of one of the bills.
"When I pick up bottled water, I want to know it truly is something that's good for me and better for me than drinking something else," Corbett said.
Nearly 70 percent of Californians drink bottled water, which nationwide is a $6 billion industry. And by the end of this year, bottled water will have moved past milk, coffee and beer to become the second most popular beverage behind soft drinks, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp.
Bottled water's popularity is fueled in part by suspicions over the quality of tap water.
But Corbett and the backers of her bill say drink no way of knowing whether bottled water is better or worse.
Unlike tap water, bottled water is considered a food product and is subject to the same sanitation and preparation requirements as other food stuffs.
Although often advertising themselves as superior to tap water, bottlers are required in most cases only to meet the same quality standards as tap water.
Of the hundreds of contaminants state and federal regulators measure, bottled water is subject to a higher standard for only two, according to Randy Kanouse, EBMUD's Sacramento lobbyist.
Bottlers don't have to create a "consumer confidence" report each year like water agencies do. The reports tell customers what's in their water. It details levels of contaminants, if any, like lead, aluminium, arsenic and salt.
Corbett's bill, AB83, and a companion bill, SB50, by Sen. Byron Sher, D- Palo Alto, would impose the same reporting requirement on bottlers.
Bottling plants and water vending machines would be subject to annual inspections. Bottlers, vending machine owners and water haulers would pay an $86 fee to cover the costs of the inspections.
Bottlers say the bills aren't needed.
"There are already comprehensive, stringent regulations in place at the federal level for quality labeling," said Stephen Kay, a spokesman for the International Bottled Water Association. "These two proposed bills are proscriptive and redundant."
Kay also cited a bill signed last year that requires bottlers to include an 800 number, Web site or address on their labels so consumers can get more information.
But Adrianna Quintero, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, says knowing the nutritional facts about water is not enough.
"It's pointless to tell me water has zero calories and zero carbohydrates," Quintero said. "Is there arsenic, nitrates, microbiologic contaminants, perchlorate? If these bottlers are doing the right thing, they shouldn't have a problem telling me about it."
The Food and Drug Administration needs to tightened its regulations on bottled water after a four-year study by the NRDC found that of 103 brands surveyed, one- third contained levels of contamination.
The NRDC found the contents of one bottle, labeled "Spring Water," actually came from an industrial parking lot next to a hazardous waste site.
The FDA now insists that bottled water actually come from a spring if the bottler claims it does.
Bottled water sales have been growing at roughly 10 percent each year through the 1990s.
California is by far the biggest guzzler of bottled water, representing about 24 percent of the national market -- twice the consumption level of any other state.
It's attracted the interest of some of the country's biggest beverage sellers like Pepsi, which created Aquafina bottled water. Coca-Cola created Dasani.
Nestle Waters of North America owns Arrowhead, Calistoga, Poland Spring, Perrier, S. Pellegrino and Vittel.
But water districts like EBMUD aren't worried.
"Bottled water doesn't cut into our market share," said Kanouse. "It's kind of like conservation -- it relieves a small amount of the demand we have."
San Francisco Chronicle, December 10, 2002 (Sunday)
Water vending machines targeted by lawsuit
ETHAN RARICK, Associated Press Writer (12-10) 00:28 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --
California water-vending machines tested last summer failed to meet state standards for chemicals about a third of the time, according to a report by environmentalists. "Buying water from a machine in California is like playing a slot machine: You can't be sure what will come out," said a report released by the Environmental Working Group and the Environmental Law Foundation, which checked 274 machines operated by Glacier Water, Inc.
The Environmental Law Foundation planned to sue Vista-based Glacier Water Tuesday in San Francisco Superior Court for an unspecified amount of restitution for consumers. The complaint also asks that the machines be taken out of operation, said Jim Wheaton, president of the Environmental Law Foundation. Glacier Water is the state's biggest operator of water-vending machines. The company operates more than 7,000 machines in California and more than 14,000 nationwide and maintains its water is safe.
"For the past 20 years, Glacier Water has been committed to providing safe, high-quality drinking water," read a statement released by the company Monday. "Our water vending machines start with federally regulated municipal water which then passes through a comprehensive seven-step process. To ensure the public's safety, we complete over 49,000 tests each year through independent third-party (Environmental Protection Agency)-certified laboratories."
Lea Brooks, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health Services, said the agency will perform random tests on Glacier Water's machines as a result of the environmentalists' findings, but she said the water is still safe to drink. The water-vending machines face a tougher standard than tap water, Brooks said. To use the Glacier Water machines, which are often located at grocery or drug stores, consumers deposit money and fill their own jugs or bottles. The water, advertised as cleaner than water provided by utilities, typically costs more than tap water but less than pre-bottled water available in stores.
The two Bay Area environmental groups said they tested the machines, located in nine major counties around the state, for trihalomethanes, or THMs, chemicals that are a byproduct of treating water with chlorine. Drinking water is commonly treated with chlorine. In a third of the cases, the water exceeded the state standard for THMs of 10 parts per billion for "vended water," or water sold from machines, according to Bill Walker, West Coast vice president of the Environmental Working Group.
Studies suggest that exposure above that level can lead to low birth-weight babies and other health problems, Walker said. Water from about two-thirds of the machines also failed to meet Glacier Water's advertising claims that the company's filtering system scrubs out 97 percent of THMs, according to the lawsuit. "It's a question of consumer protection," Walker said. "We tested their machines to see if they're telling the truth and they're not." Water quality in the tested machines varied sharply by county, according to the groups' report.
In San Francisco County, only one out of 15 machines met the state standard, the report said. In Santa Clara County, all 15 tested machines hit the mark.
What really happened to our tap water and underground water?
Clean water is one of the most important needs of our bodies. It is a sad fact that something as essential to life as clean drinking water can no longer be granted to us. Unsafe water is not just a third world problem. In fact, safe drinking water is even harder to find specially in industrially developed countries such as the U.S.
According to research articles and news, most tap and well water in the U.S. now are not safe for drinking due to heavy industrial and environmental pollution. We have reached to a point that, all sources of our drinking water, including municipal water systems, wells, lakes, rivers, and even glaciers, contain some level of contamination. Contaminants range from naturally-occurring minerals to man-made chemicals and by-products. While many contaminants are found at levels not enough not to cause immediate discomforts or sicknesses , it is proven that even low-level exposure to many common contaminants will, over time, cause severe illness including liver damage, cancer, and other serious ailments. Even the chemicals commonly used to treat municipal water supplies such as chlorine and fluoride are toxic and are known to have significant adverse effects on the human body.
Can we depend on bottled water then?
Well, the truth is that bottled water sold in the United States is not always filtered and not necessarily cleaner or safer than most tap water, according to a four-year scientific study recently made public by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The NRDC's study included testing of more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of bottled water. While most of the tested waters were found to be of high quality, some brands were significantly contaminated.
About one-third of the waters tested contained levels of contamination including synthetic organic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic (at least one sample exceeded allowable limits under either state or bottled water industry standards or guidelines).
In fact, about a quarter of all bottled water is actually bottled tap water, according to government and industry estimates (some estimates go as high as 40 percent).
To Be Sure: Protect yourself with a High Quality Water Filter
A good water filter is the best and maybe the only solution nowadays. You can install and maintain the filters yourself and can ensure and feel safe about the water which you and your family drink. Just make sure the filter you choose removes the most spectrum of contaminants. Usually a professional filtration system worth invest in is a 4 to 5 stage water purifier system. Each stage will remove certain types of contaminants, and all stages combined should protect you from just about every contaminant. A reverse osmosis water filter with activated carbon pre-filters, plus an ultraviolet light, are what we have found to be the most thorough and cost effective way to purify drinking water. Such a system will pay for itself within half a year and can last 10-15 years with easy annual filter changes. This will really make you wonder why you paid so much for so long for the poor tasted bottled water when you can make your own crystal clear, safe drinking water right at your sink with your own water filter for pennies a day. Please protect yourself, because no one is going to do it for you.
Some more facts:
There are 35,000 pesticides containing 600 chemical compounds. Yet municipal water systems are only required to test for six. Many of these chemicals are known to cause birth defects, nerve damage, sterility and cancer.
The General Accounting Office reports that 20% of the nation's 65,000 community systems are unable to meet minimum standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
More than 700 organic chemicals have been identified in drinking water, and some of them are suspected cancer causing agents.
A recent government study found that more than 25% of all large U.S. public water systems contain traces of one or more toxic substances. ... Public water systems do not test for the carcinogens and other dangerous chemicals that are being found.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BOTTLED WATER INDUSTRY
Bottled water is the alternative that most people think of first when they discover or even suspect that their tap water may be contaminated. Many people drink bottled water today simply because they prefer the taste to that of tap water. In 1985, $998 million worth of bottled water was sold in the United States, with California accounting for half of the market. This represents a 15% compounded annual growth since 1980. The majority of bottled water is delivered directly to the consumer in five gallon containers, while some of the market share is now going to the small bottle market in retail outlets. The public is becoming more concerned about water pollution and as a result bottled water consumption is growing at 15% per year. Bottled water, costing up to $1.50 per gallon, compared to "free tap water", is a clear indication of how the public feels about what they are drinking.
In the state of California, for example, one consumer in three drinks bottle water. Not all bottled water comes directly from "mountain fresh" streams. Many bottled water companies today process the water they sell. This trend should favour point of use manufacturers in that they enhance public awareness and as a worst scenario, provides the evidence that it is safer to drink processed water than "fresh" water.
EPA BOTTLED WATER SURVEY
When the EPA took a survey of 25 water bottling facilities in 1986, the results of the survey were startling. None of the 25 bottlers of water had ever had a complete analysis of their water. The EPA judged that bacteriological surveillance was inadequate in most cases and 8% of the water tested showed evidence of some bacteria. Sanitation was also determined to be a problem in many of the facilities. Plastic bottles arrived at bottlers without caps in cardboard boxes. They were not washed or rinsed before being filled. Bottle caps are often placed on by hand, further exposing the water to contaminants. For the sake of taste, bottled water may be a good solution but, for the sake of safety, its benefits are debatable. What then is the solution to this ever increasing complex problem
Deficiencies in bottling firms surveillance, facilities and their operation and plant quality control result in the production of bottled water whose quality does not comply with the 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
The pilot survey of 25 bottling establishments and bacteriological and chemical examination of approximately 50 bottled water products revealed the following:
Eight percent of the bottled water samples examined evidenced the presence of the coliform organism which is an indicator of the potential presence of pathogenic bacteria. High standard plate counts gave additional evidence of contamination.
Gross changes in standard plate counts were noted in the 25 samples that are examined during a 63 day storage test.
Discrepancies were found between the actual chemical composition and that stated or implied on the label.
Quality control measures were generally deficient in the bacteriological and chemical analyses of the bottled water and were not regularly performed. Bacteriological surveillance was judged inadequate of finished water.
None of the 25 bottlers ever reported having a complete chemical analysis of their bottled water. Laboratory control data revealed a virtual complete lack of source water testing or chemical analyses of finished water.
Based on criteria covering eight sanitation categories, it was found that in many cases bottling was not performed under sanitary conditions. Sanitary deficiencies were found in all facilities surveyed.
Plastic bottles arrive at the plant in cardboard cartons and are shipped without the caps, thus the interiors are exposed to airborne contaminants and the presence of foreign matter. Yet, these bottles are presumed by the bottlers to be sanitary enough to be filled without even being rinsed.
Glass bottles are usually washed with a hot caustic solution but the temperatures or strength of the caustic solution is seldom monitored. Bottle caps are sometimes used directly from the packages, seldom disinfected and mostly placed on by hand.
The significance of employee sanitation and facility maintenance is that the product water is subject to contamination from the physical surroundings and the people.
In some cases labeling of bottled water did not correspond with the contents revealed by chemical analysis. Results revealed trace amounts of minerals, chemicals and bacteria.
On The Web.
