Facebook
Twitter
Turns out bottled water is readily available without the bottle: It's called tap water.
RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—2010 was a rough year for the bottled-water industry, beginning with a decline in overall sales and revenue, and ending with a lawsuit for deceptive marketing practices against one of the industry's most illustrious brands.
Revenues for bottled water were down 5 percent in 2009 from the year before, a considerable blow to an industry that had seen steady sales increases for a decade. The economy hasn't really helped either. A February 2010 Harris Interactive Poll found that to save money 34 percent of people have switched to carrying reusable water bottles instead of buying bottled. And the year concluded with a class-action lawsuit against Fiji water, due to its claims of being "carbon negative."
THE DETAILS: Fiji brand bottled water is one of the most expensive brands on the market, selling for anywhere from $4 to $8 per bottle. But in terms of its environmental cost, the price tag is much higher, considering that it travels nearly 16 hours from the Fiji bottling plant just to reach the U.S. West Coast. To prevent that environmental cost from sullying its image, in 2008 the company started claiming its product is "carbon negative"—basically, that it pulls more climate-changing greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere than are generated by pumping, bottling, and shipping its water around the world. But the lawsuit states that those claims are deceptive and misleading, in large part because Fiji is taking credit for carbon reductions that haven't happened yet.
To be "carbon negative," the company purchases carbon offsets, which are controversial credits that allow a company to claim that it is offsetting its own greenhouse gas emissions by funding projects like wind farms, solar generators, and tree-planting projects. The problem, and one of the claims made in the lawsuit, is that Fiji is spending money on "forward offset credits," which fund projects that don’t exist yet, and may not exist for several decades.
WHAT IT MEANS: This isn't the only instance of a bottled water company greenwashing its product, says Kristin Urquiza, campaign director for the Think Outside the Bottle campaign organized by the nonprofit Corporate Accountability International. She points to Coca Cola's 2008 campaign to become the world's first "water neutral" water bottler, pledging to replace all the water used in beverages and their production, but not being specific as to how the company was planning to achieve that goal. And in 2007, Nestle Waters North America, bottler of 12 different brands of water, claimed that it reduced water usage in its manufacturing process by 1.3 percent yet increased production by 10 percent. "Bottled water has one of the largest carbon footprints of any bottled product out there, and companies are devoting their marketing budgets to greenwashing, trying to win back the public to their products," says Urquiza.
Nice work
I am speechless. This is a fantastic site and very engaging too. Excellent work! That’s not really much coming from an amateur publisher like me, but it’s all I could think after enjoying your posts. Not like other site. You really know what you’re talking about too. So much that you made me want to explore more. Your blog has become a stepping stone for me, my friend. Thanks for the detailed journey.
000-087
000-153
000-037
HP0-J40
HP0-M38
HP0-S32
HP2-T16
HP0-S26
Clarification on a few points
I work at Nestlé Waters North America, and would like to clarify a few points raised in this article.
At Nestlé Waters, we are always looking for ways to minimize the water we use to make our products. The article suggests that, in 2007, we claimed to have reduced our water usage in manufacturing processes by 1.3 percent, while increasing production by 10 percent. This is not a claim, but a fact, and something we are proud to have expanded upon; over the past six years, we achieved a 5 percent reduction in water use ratio, while increasing our production volume by more than 30 percent. This was done by adopting new processes, and upgrading our technology.
Bottled water also requires less water to produce than most other packaged beverages. It takes 1.4 gallons of water to make a gallon of our bottled water, compared to 2.4 gallons for soda and 5 gallons for beer. Every time a consumer chooses bottled water over a drink like soda or beer, water is saved.
The bottled water industry also spends less than other major beverage sectors on marketing and advertising. According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, bottled water advertising expenditures in 2009 accounted for less than 6 percent of the soda industry, and less than 3 percent of the beer industry.
Finally, bottled water is highly regulated and subject to both EPA and FDA guidelines. Under the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act, bottled water must meet the same requirements of public water supplies. The FDA also sets additional rules for bottled water as a food product. In fact, federal regulations for bottled water are stronger than for tap water when it comes to several key contaminants, including coliform bacteria and lead.
People want access to high-quality drinking water as part of their daily lives, and that is a good thing, especially in an age when American adults consume 450 calories a day from beverages, and 67 percent are classified as overweight or obese (Centers for Disease Control). Simply put, bottled water is an important and healthy choice in situations where there is a lack of water fountains or concern about water quality.
Kevin Mathews
Director, Health and Environmental Affairs
Nestlé Waters North America
Bottled water very unhealthy
Just a less technical comment related to other comments here about why distilled/bottled water is very unhealthy. Basically, distilling de-alkalizes the water and makes it acidic. This affects your cells, denying them the full value of hydration and the healthy absorption of food.
To put it simply, how alkaline your water is can be measured by Ph balance.
Natural water has a Ph of about 9.5. Really good tap water has a Ph of about 7.0. Most tap water comes in about 4.0.
One up on this scale means a multiple of 100, so there's a big difference between a 4.0 and a 5.0 and a huge difference between a 7.0 and a 9.5.
Distilled/tap water has a Ph balance of 0.
Google to do some research on alkaline water or structured water.
Yes, you can buy alkaline water at some savvy stores. You can also buy a machine that will alkalize your tap water. The inexpensive machines really do not work. Figure on $1200 for the cheaper effective version.
In two years this will be the biggest health news. Other comments here have alluded to the science.
Comparison of Reverse Osmosis & Structured Water
Hi Mary,
I thought you might appreciate these comments from inventor Clayton Nolte on Reverse Osmosis.
Reverse Osmosis (R/O) is very popular today but R/O removes all beneficial minerals from the water. It also wastes three out of four gallons of water in the process. The most prevalent of present systems pushes water through micro-porous membranes that are meshed sufficiently fine to prevent the passage of most dissolved solids. This removes approximately 50% of the salt as well as other solids with each pass. R/O processes water for small water units placed outside grocery stores as well as the domestic water supply for small metropolitan communities. The wastewater from R/O units in some places is so concentrated with salts and other minerals that it become a threat to the good bacteria in septic systems.
One of the major disadvantages of reverse osmosis is the large amount of brine discharge that, in some cases, will have deleterious effects on enclosed bays. It can kill fish and other aquatic life. A second, subtler negative effect of R/O is the demineralization of water for human and animal consumption. This water becomes known as 'hungry water', which may have the initial benefit of cleansing the body of unwanted toxins. However, prolonged use can demineralize the body, weakening the immune system.
Excerpted from the free E-book, Introduction to the Health Benefits, Cost Savings and Environmental Advantages of Structured Water available from Ultimate Water for Humanity.
flouride and chlorine
I know Rodale is aware of the flouride and chlorine added to municipal water throughout the country. For many people it is not possible to drink such water. I have hypothyroidism and flouride and chlorine are two of the worst things I could ingest.
Bottled water isn't perfect but most at home filters do not filter out these ingredients. I have considered installing a reverse osmosis filter but at $600 to over $1000 it's a tough call.
Perhaps I will look into structured water that the other poster mentioned...
Thanks for all your great articles. I look forward to my daily email. But I just wanted to point out this other angle to you!
Thanks,
Mary Garito
"Structured Water" Offers Health, Cost & Environmental Benefits
While I agree with the statements about bottled water, I also want to introduce the relatively unknown alternative to water filters known as structured water. These devices that cause water to return to its "natural state" are also referred to as the "greenest water softening" because they don't use chemicals, salts or electricity.
Preliminary research has demonstrated an increase of 500% to 1,200% of the nutritional value of food grown with structured water (measured with a refractometer). Our non-profit organization, Ultimate Water for Humanity, is dedicated to helping provide water to the billion people on the planet who do not have access to clean water.
We are seeking expert assistance (perhaps from The Rodale Institute)or a University to conduct expanded testing to further determine and demonstrate the accuracy of many field reports of positive results including the higher nutrition levels. We offer a free 141 page E-book, Introduction to the Health Benefits, Cost Savings and Environmental Advantages of Structured Water.