Bottled Water: The Risks to Our Health,

Our Environment, and Our Wallets

Marguerite Kaye Huber

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Honors Thesis V499

Fall 2010

1

Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2

Water is Essential to Life, Though Not out of a Bottle ...............................................................................................3

The Numbers Don’t Lie, But the Advertisers Do ........................................................................................................4

Why Do We Drink Bottled Water? .............................................................................................................................5

EPA and FDA Regulations ...........................................................................................................................................7

Health ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12

PET ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14

BPA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Environment ............................................................................................................................................................ 20

Where Do All Our Bottles Go? ............................................................................................................................. 20

Energy Consumption and Waste ......................................................................................................................... 24

Groundwater Depletion ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Economics ................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Price of Tap versus Bottled Water ....................................................................................................................... 29

Is it Worth It? ....................................................................................................................................................... 30

The Big Businesses: Nestlé, Pepsi, Coke .............................................................................................................. 30

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................... 31

The Municipal Water Systems are Flawed Too ................................................................................................... 32

Updating Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................... 33

Ethics ................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................. 36

Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................................................... 38

2

Bottled Water: The Risks to Our Health, Our Environment, and Our Wallets

Marguerite Kaye Huber

Environmental Management

Junior

Abstract submitted for SPEA Undergraduate Honors Thesis Presentations

Melissa Clark

Lecturer

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Faculty Mentor

The simplicity and ease of disposable bottled water has become the norm for most Americans. This generation has become increasingly dependent on the plastic pollutant. Each bottle purchased does not just relieve our thirst, but affects a slew of other aspects of life. Each purchase and consumption of bottled water could be dangerous to one’s health, damaging to the environment, and adds up to water that is 1,900 times more expensive than tap water.

Since water is vital to life on this planet, it should be expected that drinking a bottle of it would be beneficial to your body. Unfortunately, this water could be laced with PET and BPA that has leached from the plastic containers that hold it. Both PET and BPA can cause serious health issues. Even those who just live near bottling plants are experiencing heightened health concerns.

These billions of plastic bottles do not just disappear. They are tossed into landfills and are littering our ecosystems and oceans. The bottles’ production also produces harmful plastic byproducts. Furthermore, the extraction of the water to fill these bottles taps into already depleting groundwater sources. In addition, bottlers are even diminishing community water sources for their own profit-making use.

The price of bottled water is extraordinarily higher than the price of tap water, but in most cases, the water quality is very similar. There is even a chance that an expensive bottle of water is just purified municipal tap water. The notion that tap water is bad has allowed bottled water purchases to skyrocket, and has given big bottlers such as Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and Pepsi the chance to rake in billions of dollars.

The increasing dependency on bottled water may not have happened had our governments not neglected to preserve watersheds, and monitor and update aging pipes and infrastructure. There happen to be skeptics of both bottle and tap, but either way, good quality drinking water is going to become harder and harder to find. Overall, I want to prove that bottled water is not all it is made out to be, while noting that municipal systems also need to increase their standards to provide clean drinking water to all.

3

Water is Essential to Life, Though Not out of a Bottle Water is an essential element to life on planet Earth. Everyone needs water to survive, especially when

up to 60% of the human body is composed of it (USGS, 2009). Approximately 75% of the earth’s surface is

covered by water, but only 1% of that is drinkable (Soechtig, 2009). Therefore clean drinking water is not as

abundant as it may seem. With water as a limited available resource, and not as plentiful in some regions as it is

in others, it has recently become common for water to be bottled and sold. Representative Dennis Kuchinich (D)

of Ohio claims that, “Water is a basic human right, it’s necessary for survival of life. When you start

commodifying the necessities of life in such a way as to make it more difficult for people to gain access, you

have the basis for serious political instability,” (Soechtig, 2009).

Serious political instability is now the reality. Water has become profitable and marketed to those who

can afford buying bottled waters when they already have access to clean water out of their tap. The World Bank

places the value of the world water market at $800 billion. They see water as blue gold; they do not see it as a

fundamental right, only a way to make a profit, according to Ruth Caplan, the National Coordinator for

Defending Water for Like Alliance for Democracy (Gleick, 2010, p. 9). The heart of the controversy over selling

water is that water is fundamentally no different than oil or any other private commodity (Gleick, 2010, p. 9).

We no longer see water as a basic human right, but as a product with an enlarged price sticker that we

pick up in the store, rather than get from our kitchen sink, or water fountain. We no longer drink from public

water fountains and having easy accessibility to bottled water has decreased their demand. The more we buy

bottled water, the more we are convinced that bottled water is not a luxury, but rather a necessity (Gleick, 2010,

p. 107). We have been persuaded by big businesses such as Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Pepsi to drink more bottled

water. Our nation has been brainwashed to believe that paying a thousand times more for individual plastic

bottles and not taking advantage of our readily available tap water is a rational idea (Gleick, 2010, p. XII).

4

Perfectly summed up in his book, Bottled and Sold: the Story Behind our Obsession with Bottled Water,

Peter Gleick writes, “Certainly, the environmental problems with bottled water, the economic costs to

pocketbooks, and the growing support for improving tap water quality and reliability are all contributing to new

thinking about the simple act of buying a plastic bottle of water,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 161). Each simple purchase

does not just relieve our thirst, but affects a slew of other aspects of life. Each purchase and consumption of

bottled water could be dangerous to one’s health, damaging to the environment, and adds up to water that is

1,900 times more expensive than tap water. It doesn’t look like common sense to continue purchasing bottled

water due to the enormous ramifications it causes, but millions upon millions of people keep buying, keep

drinking, and keep polluting every single day.

The Numbers Don’t Lie, But the Advertisers Do Decades ago, portable, plastic water bottles did not exist in the United States. Perrier was one of the

first brands of bottled water to become popular. According to Elizabeth Royte, author of 2008’s Bottlemania,

people did not start walking down the street with their water bottles until 1989 when water could be put in

clear, lightweight bottles made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET). After that, bottled water sales in the 90’s

tripled in size, from 4.5 gallons per year for the average American in 1986, to 12.7 gallons per year per person in

1997 (NRDC, 1999). More recently, in 2007, Americans bought more than 29 billion bottles of water (Soechtig,

2009). Unfortunately, Americans now drink more bottled water than milk or beer (Table 1), with the average

American consuming roughly 30 gallons of bottled water each year, largely from single-serving plastic containers

(Gleick, 2010, p. 6). Even more unfortunate, it has even been estimated that one fourth of bottled water we are

buying is actually bottled tap water (NRDC, 1999).

A scary thought is that, “every second of every day in the United States, a thousand people buy and

open up a plastic bottle of commercially produced water, and every second of every day in the United States, a

thousand plastic bottles are thrown away, 85 million bottles a day. More than 30 billion bottles a year at a cost

5

to consumers of tens of billions of dollars,” (Gleick, 2010, p. IX). To put that into perspective, if it took a reader

20 seconds to read just this paragraph, 20,000 bottles have already arrived in the landfill. Just think how many

will be in there after that reader finished this paper.

Basically, Americans are bottled water gluttons. Bottled water is around every corner and extremely

accessible. Why is this? The big water bottle businesses have paid millions of dollars to tell us to drink more

water, but not just any water, only bottled water. Craig Stevens, V.P. Communications of the American Beverage

Association asserts that, “The bottled water industry does not see itself in competition with tap water,”

(Soechtig, 2009). Despite Stevens claim, there have been several people who have come right out and stated

that it is a cut-throat competition. For example, Susan Wellington, President of Quaker’s U.S. beverage division,

was caught saying, “When we’re done, tap water will be relegated to showers and washing dishes,” (Soechtig,

2009). Furthermore, Robert S. Morrison, chief of Gatorade’s parent, Quaker Oats Co., blatantly pronounced that,

“The biggest enemy is tap water.” It is impractical, however, for many bottled water companies to bash tap

water, because ironically many rely on it as their main water source (Soechtig, 2009).

Why Do We Drink Bottled Water? If Americans are buying so much bottled water, there has to be a good reason why they are spending

substantial amounts of money on it. There are four main reasons why people buy bottled water: fear of their tap

water, taste, style, and convenience (Gleick, 2010, p. XI).

Fear of Tap

We all try to avoid the things that we fear. Some people fear that the water that comes out of their tap

will harm them. Fear of sickness and of invisible contamination is an effective tool (Gleick, 2010, p. 6). A lot of

Americans are afraid of waterborne diseases, microbes, and dirty pathogens they do not really know anything

about. The fear of tap water could come from considerable media coverage about illness due to drinking

municipal tap water rather than drinking bottled, or because bottled water advertisers inadvertently suggest

6

that tap water is inferior to bottled. The percentage of people who drink bottled water based on the fact that

they think it is safer than tap water is 35% according to the American Water Works Association Research

Foundation’s Consumer Attitude Survey on Water Quality Issues (Figure 1).

Taste

On the other hand, only 7% drink bottled water based on taste (Figure 1). Usually a concoction of

minerals are added to bottled water to make it taste good. “Some minerals are required for a decent taste. By

necessity, therefore, Coca-Cola then adds a carefully prepared mix of minerals- ‘pixie dust’ some in the industry

call it- back into the water to create a finished product with a standardized taste, no matter where the water

originated or was processed,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 80). So a bottle of Dasani is going to taste exactly the same no

matter where the source water came from. This is unlike tap water, where each source and

region has a distinct taste. When taken out of its plastic bottle, numerous surveys have shown most people

cannot distinguish between bottled waters or between tap and bottled water when served at the same

temperature (Gleick, 2010, p. 81).

Style

Barbara Lippert, an ad critic for Adweek Media claims that bottled water is the greatest advertising trick

of all time (Soechtig, 2009). Royte admits that Pepsi and Coke have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get

us to drink more water. The companies claim drinking their water will make you healthier and more beautiful.

They associate their waters with celebrities, athletes, and models to entice you to buy more bottled water. If A-

listers drink expensive bottled water, you should too. Royte also observed that bottled water advertisements

make the implication that tap water is unhealthy, by using words like ‘pure’ to describe their waters. This trick

then implies that tap water is impure, thus attributing to the fear of tap.

7

Convenience

Not only is this generation one of bottled water guzzlers, it is a rather lazy and selfish generation too.

Lippert accurately claims,“We need to know that there is something, just for us, that we can throw away. We

want everything individualized and personalized, just for us. And not to have to wash it or take care of it, we

want to just throw it away. And we want it immediately available and convenient otherwise we’ll have a fit,”

(Soechtig, 2009). There is no responsibility required with bottled water. We buy it, we drink it, and then we

throw it away, never to be thought of again. There is no thought of what reprocussions this purchase has.

The single-serve bottle is not just convenient because it can be thrown away, but also because there

usually is no other option. It has become a challenge to find a public water fountain these days, even in areas

like schools and sports arenas. Even so the bottled water industry has spent their money making their product

as convenient as possible (Gleick, 2010, p. 86). The public is ultimately being forced to purchase bottled water

because some buildings no longer accommodate for the free public water that used to be so popular and

convenient.

EPA and FDA Regulations The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the regulatory agency behind the public

water supplies of surface water through the Safe Drinking Water Act. Bottled drinking water on the other hand

mainly comes from groundwater, but since many municipalities already use surface water as their source, and

some bottlers use municipality sources, bottled water can come from surface water as well. Additionally, the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates bottled water as a packaged food under the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act. The EPA then creates the standards for tap water that is supplied by public suppliers, while

the FDA creates standards for bottled water based off the EPA standards (EPA, 2005).

The reason the two waters are regulated under different entities is because bottled water did not truly

exist when the laws were being drafted. “The federal agencies given oversight over our drinking water have no

8

authority over bottled water- a product never anticipated by the drafters of the original federal drinking water

laws. Instead the FDA regulates bottled water because it is considered a ‘food product’ sold in individual

containers,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 34).

EPA Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires the EPA to establish primary and secondary national

standards for public water systems to control the level of contaminants in drinking water (US GAO, 2009).

National primary regulations are legally enforceable standards of contaminant levels, while national secondary

regulations are non-enforceable standards that affect the aesthetic or cosmetic qualities of the water, such as

taste, odor, and color (US GAO, 2009). The EPA has national primary drinking water regulations for 88

contaminants (US GAO, 2009). The SDWA also requires public water systems to release annual water quality

reports to their customers that summarize local water quality about the water’s source, quality, and

contaminants (US GAO, 2009). These public water quality reports can be accessed online at anytime. The SDWA

even provides provisions to protect groundwater sources, funds for water system upgrades, and assessment of

drinking water sources to contamination (EPA, 2009).

Accordingly, tap water is rigorously tested under such EPA supervision. Tap water that comes from a

public supplier requires disinfection, hundreds of tests per month for bacteria, pathogen filtration, no confirmed

E. coli and Fecal Coliform, testing for Cryptosporidium and Giardia, and one per quarter testing for synthetic

organic chemicals (NRDC, 1999). Bottled water does not have such regulation (Table 2). There are even certain

regulated contaminants that must be monitored in city tap water and not in bottled water. Some of these

contaminants include asbestos, bromate, Di (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate, and Haloacetic acids (NRDC, 1999). There

is also a long list of unregulated contaminants for tap water that do not have a maximum contaminant limit, but

still must be measured. Some of the unregulated contaminants that are monitored in tap water and not in

bottled water include Dibromomethane, Chlorotoluene, and Dichloropropene (NRDC, 1999).

9

The annual reports that are required by the law inform the community of the types and size of

contamination that may occur in their drinking water. The 2010 Water Quality Report for Bloomington, Indiana,

provides the public with sources of their contamination, the highest levels allowed, the highest levels detected,

and the EPA’s ideal goals (Table 3). If there is anything in the water quality report the community is unsure of,

they are encouraged to call the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline.

FDA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

On the other hand, bottled water is not as strictly regulated under the FDA. Bottled water regulation is

also filled with loopholes that allow some waters to be unreliable. For example, water that is packaged and sold

in the same state is exempt from FDA regulations, and that includes 60-70% of the bottled water sold in the

United States (NRDC, 1999). FDA’s review chemist in food safety, Lauren Robin, explains, “If it is produced in

Maine, and sold within Maine, it is not under FDA jurisdiction. We regulate products that are in interstate

commerce. That means products that move from state to state,” (Soechtig, 2009).

Bottled water is tested significantly less for contaminants and purity than tap water. The FDA allows for

E. coli and Fecal Coliform contamination, unlike tap water (NRDC, 1999). Bottled water does not have to be

tested for Cryptosporidium and Giardia either. The reason the FDA has no standard for Cryptosporidium is

because bottled water comes from either a municipal source or spring water, which is also groundwater, and

thus should be protected from such contamination. Bottlers do not have to test for it because they just assume

that the contaminants aren’t there (Gleick, 2010, p. 76). In addition, no disinfection or pathogen filtration is

required, bacteria testing only takes place once a week, and testing for synthetic organic chemicals is only once

a year (NRDC, 1999).

Bottlers are not invincible, and one should not assume so. The EPA has even found 27 percent of

groundwater wells studied to sometimes have viral contamination. The Agency’s report states, “EPA determined

that there is the potential for ground water to be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria or viruses, or both,

10

and that the presence of fecal indicators can demonstrate a pathway for pathogenic enteric bacteria or viruses

to enter ground water sources,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 77). Since bottlers assume the contaminants are not there,

they are not testing for them, or doing anything proactive about it. If contaminants exist the EPA requires

municipal water to be treated while, bottled water is not required to do so (Gleick, 2010, p. 77).

Furthermore, the FDA does not require bottled water manufacturers to submit a regular testing report

to the agency (Soechtig, 2009). These reports are also not made available to the public. Jane Houlihan, Vice

President of Research at Environmental Working Group, quipped, “Those tests can stay hidden in company filing

cabinets, they can stay in back up hard drives,” (Soechtig, 2009). Ultimately, the public is not going to see them.

Overall, rules and regulations do not seem to apply for bottled water. A July 2007 report on general

food safety from the House Energy and Commerce Committee states, “FDA has no rules governing testing

protocols, record retention. . . manufacturing, quality assurance and control, or the right to examine any records

that a food processing firm chooses to keep voluntarily,” (Royte, 2008, p. 145). According to William K. Hubbard,

a former FDA assistant commissioner, most domestic plants are inspected only once every 5 to 10 years (Royte,

2008, p. 145). That is not nearly enough to provide safe drinking water to consumers.

The rules are not even rules; they are suggestions as in Title 21, part 129, section 35 of the FDA

regulations, which specifies details for testing bottled water, states: “Analysis of the sample may be performed

for the plant by competent commercial laboratories (e.g., EPA and State-certified laboratories). [emphasis

added+” (Gleick, 2010, p. 41). Should we be drinking bottled water that does not have to be tested?

The International Bottled Water Association and NSF International

Specifically, the EPA and the FDA do not certify bottled water, so there are two organizations that do:

The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and NSF International (EPA, 2005). The IBWA is a trade

organization for water bottlers and requires its members to meet its “model code” and annual inspections (EPA,

2005). An example of an IBWA certified company is Nestlé Waters North America Inc., which includes brands

11

such as Ice Mountain, San Pellegrino, Poland Spring, Perrier, and Nestlé Pure Life (IBWA, 2009). NSF

International has its members undergo random unannounced plant inspections, and those who are certified

must meet all FDA requirements (EPA, 2005). Some NSF International certified brands include Nestlé Waters

North America Inc.’s Arrowhead, and then Fiji, and Evian (NSF, 2010).

Different Agencies, Different Rules

It makes sense that if our waters are not under the same regulation that there will be discrepancy

between them. Both the EPA and the FDA have many other duties besides just testing and making sure our

water is safe to drink. David Michaels (PH.D., M.P.H.), an Environmental and Occupational Health Professor at

George Washington University revealed that the FDA is overwhelmed with the drug industry, causing the

inspection and regulation of bottled water to be of a lower priority (Soechtig, 2009). “While utilities test tap

water hundreds of thousands of times a year and report their results to state and federal agencies, bottling

plants self-test, and they host an FDA inspector infrequently. The plants have low priority, says the agency,

because the industry has a good safety record. When inspectors do show up, they test only for selected

contaminants, depending on the reason for the sampling,” (Royte, 2008, p. 145). These differences are a result

of our nation’s inconsistency with drinking water regulation.

Different regulatory agencies cause there to be different rules, and different rules call for a difference in

the quality of water. In 1998 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) tested a thousand samples of 103

brands of bottled water (Royte, 2008, p. 142). One third of the samples revealed contaminants such as arsenic,

bromine, and Coliform bacteria. Arsenic is one of contaminants addressed in the EPA’s national primary drinking

water regulations and has a legally enforceable maximum contaminant level, unlike bottled water. Then in 2004,

the American Society of Microbiology tested 68 types of mineral water to find 40 percent with bacteria or fungi

and 21 had the ability to support bacterial growth in lab cultures (Royte, 2008, p. 143). Even though these

bacteria are technically safe to drink under EPA standards, it is not recommended for those who are young, old,

or sick.

12

Often, we are mislead by the pristine pictures on the labels of our bottled water. It probably was not

bottled on the top of an untouched glacier (Table 4). Instead, some bottles have been found to contain benzene,

mold, sodium hydroxide, kerosene, styrene, algae, yeast, tetrahydrofuran, sand, Fecal Coliforms and other forms

of bacteria, elevated chlorine, ‘filth’, glass particles, sanitizer, and even crickets (Gleick, 2010, p. 47). Benzene

and styrene are both monitored under the SDWA; benzene leaching from gas storage tanks and styrene from

discharge from rubber and plastic factories (EPA, 2009).

A great example of bottler water companies caught in a lie is the 2006 Fiji Water advertisement. The

magazine ad read, “The label says Fiji because it’s not bottled in Cleveland.”After seeing the ad, Ciaccia, the

company responsible for managing Cleveland’s water system, had Fiji’s water tested. They found that both Fiji

and Cleveland’s water met all federal standards, but the lab results found that Fiji Water contained volatile

plastic compounds, 40 times more bacteria than are found in well-run municipal water systems, and over six

micrograms per liter of arsenic (Gleick, 2010, p. 16).

Since the bottled water companies are not required to notify the public with annual water quality

reports, it is not common to hear about illness resulting from bottled water consumption. Rather, the media has

a field day when a lot of people become ill from municipal supplies. Ultimately, there have not been any

confirmed cases of illness from drinking bottled water in the United States. This could be because it just has not

happened, it was not reported to the public, or it happened but the source of illness was not successfully traced

(Royte, 2008, p. 146). A report from the Worldwatch Institute found that products can be recalled up to 15

months after the contaminated water has been produced, distributed, and sold (Royte, 2008, p. 146). What

good is a water recall when chances are the water has already been consumed?

Health Due to the fear of tap water, many drink bottled water assuming it is the healthier option. “Some people

have gone to drinking bottled water literally because they are concerned about their water, and the problem is

13

they are unaware of the fact that buying bottled water is not necessarily safe, that you end up being exposed to

other chemical compounds,” cautioned Stephan King, (PH.D., M.P.H.) a toxicologist and epidemiologist with

Toxicology Inc. (Soechtig, 2009). The information label lists all the nutritional aspects that water lacks, but there

are still lots of things in our water (Gleick, 2010, p. 59). On contrary, bottled water can actually lead to health

concerns for those with a weak immune system, such as the elderly, infants, and cancer, transplant, and

HIV/AIDS patients (NRDC, 1999).

In 2009, the documentary, Tapped, produced an independent study of what is really in bottled water

with the help of Dr. King. In one study, they used bottles bought off the shelves at a grocery store. What they

found horrified Dr. King. Test America found that their store-bought samples contained toluene, a constituent in

gasoline and has been used in paint thinners. This neurotoxic agent can be linked to adverse reproductive

effects. In the second study, they sampled bottled water that had been left in the trunk of a car for one week.

The test identified styrene, a cancer causing agent that can also cause adverse reproductive effects, in the

water. Both toluene and styrene are monitored under the SDWA. Additionally, three different types of

phthalates were found: diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, and di-n-octyl phthalate. Phthalates are known to

cause dysfunction in the fetus and adverse reproduction outcomes for males and females (Soechtig, 2009).

Adrianna Quintero, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, revealed that, “It really concerns

me when I see mothers blindly trusting bottled water and handing their children bottles of water. Putting their

complete trust in a product without so much as questioning, what am I giving my child?” (Soechtig, 2009).

Even more frightening than what is in our water, is that we do not know how these contaminants will

affect human health in the long run. Melissa Jarrell, (PH.D.) assistant professor of criminology at Texas A&M

University, believes, “We don’t know what the long term consequences are to this type of exposure. So people

think when they’re drinking bottled water, that they’re getting a health product. They’re not conditioned to

think, well, maybe there is something in the plastic. And then we trust government, we trust industry, when

14

they say everything is okay, we say okay sounds good to us,” (Soechtig, 2009). Even worse is that the scientists

who work for product defense companies are never going to produce a study, let alone publish one, that finds

an unflattering result. Their entire job depends on it, alleged David Michaels. These bottled water companies are

working hard to keep the public from knowing what can be in their drinking water.

PET Most plastic water bottles are made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a polymer derived from oil

that adds flexibility, color, and strength to plastic (Royte, 2008, p. 148). “It is resistant to heat, mineral oils,

solvents, and acids. It is impermeable to carbonation. It is strong, light, impact resistant, naturally transparent,

and completely recyclable. And it doesn’t impart a taste to its contents. As a result, PET is the most common

plastic used for food packaging,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 91). Roughly 80% of the PET manufactured in the United

States ends up in Nestlé, Coke, or Pepsi containers (Soechtig, 2009).

Is it Harmful?

Overall, there has been controversy over whether the use of PET in our containers could be harmful to

our health. Phthalates such as PET, are known to disrupt the endocrine system, which is vital in growth and

development (Royte, 2008, p. 148). Some research suggests that PET can leach into water. Three separate

studies have found instances where PET can cause possible damaging effects.

Study 1

For instance in 2006, William Shotyk, a geochemist at the University of Heidelberg, found antimony

used as a catalyst in the manufacture of PET, leaching into bottled water. When ingested in small doses,

antimony can cause dizziness and depression; while in large doses, nausea, vomiting, and death. The amounts

Shotyk detected were well below government standards, but they kept rising the longer water was kept in the

PET containers. Samples opened immediately after bottling had 160 parts per trillion (the U.S. allows 6 parts per

15

billion, equivalent to 6,000 parts per trillion, in tap water). After three months, the antimony level doubled, and

after another three months it nearly doubled again. This is all still well below federal limits (Royte, 2008, p. 149).

Study 2 and Study 3

Additionally, two European studies researched the possibility of chemicals ending up in the beverages

we drink. The studies found evidence of estrogenic activity in mineral water. Both studies had a focus on the

estrogenic potential of mineral water that was bottled in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic (Barrett,

2009).

In the first study, which was published in the March 2009 issue of International Journal of Hygiene and

Environmental Health, a recombinant yeast-based in vitro assay assessed the estrogen activity in 30 PET-bottled

mineral water samples (Barrett, 2009). Ninety percent of the samples came back negative for estrogenic activity.

Barbara Pinto and Daniela Reali, investigators in the University of Pisa Department of Experimental Pathology,

suggest that the estrogen-positive samples may have appeared due to being contaminated at its source, during

processing, or after bottling (Barrett, 2009). Several studies found the suboptimal storage conditions, such as

prolonged exposure to sunlight and high temperatures, can cause leaching of chemicals from PET bottles into its

contents (Barrett, 2009).

In the second study, graduate student, Martin Wagner, and chairman, Jörg Oehlmann, of the

Department of Aquatic Ecotoxicology at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, tested 20 brands of mineral

water packaged in PET, glass, or coated paperboard. Of the 20 brands, 12 were found to have elevated

estrogenic activity, which included 78% of those bottled in PET (Barrett, 2009).

Or Is It Safe?

Despite the research that has been conducted, Gleick presents that, “PET is widely considered to be one

of the safest forms of plastic for food packaging, and few credible studies have ever claimed to find a risk of

16

leaching,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 91). Also, neither of the previous European studies could produce results that

claimed there is a potential human health risk to drinking from PET-bottled beverages (Barrett, 2009).

Furthermore, the FDA insists that PET is safe, but only under normal conditions. Interestingly enough,

“the agency stops short of saying chemicals don’t leach into food and water. Instead, it says levels of chemical

migration from PET bottles are ‘well within the margin of safety based on information available to the agency,’”

(Royte, 2008, p. 149). As with the inconsistent regulation of water, the inconsistent results of the effects of PET

on human health could definitely cause major confusion for the public. One group says it is bad, while one says it

is good, all while our health is on the line. Regrettably, the real effects of PET will probably not be known for a

number of years.

Flint Hills

Flint Hills, located in Corpus Christi, Texas is the largest, privately owned oil refinery and producer of

para-xylene, a clear liquid derived from mining crude oil, and a primary ingredient in the production of PET

(Soechtig, 2009). Suzie Canales, director of Citizens for Environmental Justice, verified, “What a lot of people

don’t know is that it *para-xylene] is in the benzene family, and benzene causes cancer. So as they’re raking in

the bucks, the people here are sick and dying,” (Soechtig, 2009). As a member of the Corpus Christi community,

Canales’ sister had died of breast cancer. Canales recalls that at her funeral, many people came up to her about

how so many people in the area were getting sick from cancer. The oil refinery was the missing link. “Not only

do they need to think of that purchase of one plastic bottle and what it can do to their health, but by continuing

to purchase these, it is just going to keep them in business. So if they stop buying that and not only protect their

health, but the people they have never met, people that are suffering and dying like here in Corpus Christi,”

Conales confessed.

Corpus Christi residents, Jim and Bobi Miller also know the impacts of living near Flint Hills. “Something

causes a lot of these neighbors to be sick. Not just me, but my other two neighbors, they’re sick. Anything that is

17

not pure air has got an effect on your health. And the air conditioners bring it right on in the house,” tells Jim

Miller. Jim’s breathing now has to be supported by an oxygen tank. The Millers had not planned on living so

close to the refinery, but now since they are so close, it will be difficult for them to even try to sell their house

(Soechtig, 2009). These are people that are stuck in the wrong place and there is almost nothing they can do

about it. Miller explained, “You know there’s battles you can fight and win, and battles you can start and you

lose. This is a battle, that if I started, I’d lose; a man like me can’t go against Flint Hills.” Unfortunately that is

true.

The air pollution control agency in Texas was not allowed to inform the community of the possible toxic

substances in the air, that they had the right to complain, or that they had a right to clean air (Soechtig, 2009).

Any employees who divulged information could be fired. The only way the agency could act was if someone had

called to complain. Only then could the agency go into Flint Hills, investigate, write up violations, and make the

company reduce their pollution. The employees could do nothing to help the community until someone

complained. The state agency was protecting the corporation, not the community. This is another case of public

suffering due to inconsistency.

Robert Bullard, Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center declared, “When you think about

the finished product of a plastic bottle, you don’t think about the process and the headache and the pain and

suffering and the health effects that come from living next door. It’s out of sight, out of mind. But these are real

problems that are being experienced by real people,” (Soechtig, 2009).

Melissa Jarrell PH.D. and Assistant Professor of Criminology at Texas A&M University hinted that there

are real reasons why the people living in this area, breathing this air, and drinking this water have higher rates of

cancer, birth defects, and other illnesses. Overall birth defects in Corpus Christi are 84% higher than the entire

Texas state average (Soechtig, 2009). It is easy to see that this community has become truly sick from Flint Hills’

operations.

18

BPA Another risky ingredient in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastic is Bisphenol A (BPA), a

nonsteroidal estrogenic compound (Rubin, Murray, Damassa, King, & Soto, 2001). BPA can be found in many

products such as sports bottles, baby bottles, and water coolers (Soechtig, 2009). It can also be found in the five-

gallon jugs used for home or office delivery, the lining of food cans, dental sealants, some wine vats, water

mains, and tanks lined with epoxy resins, (Royte, 2008, p. 151). The hard, polycarbonate, reusable bottles, with

the resin code 7 on the bottom seemed to be perfect until it is became known that polycarbonate can leach tiny

amounts of BPA, a chemical that mimics estrogen (Royte, 2008, p. 151).

There is a large chance that we all own or have used a bottle that contains BPA, despite that some

bottles now claim they are “BPA free.” Even with such bottles, the hormonally active chemical is widespread in

the environment, with detectable serum levels present in 90% of humans in the United States, (Josephson,

2006). The industrial world has been using BPA for about 50 years, and some investigators believe that its

widespread use might explain the recent increase in prostate cancer rates (Josephson, 2006). Several studies

have noted a plethora of different complications in lab animals caused by BPA. “According to more than a 100

government-funded studies, tiny amounts of BPA cause genetic changes that lead to prostate cancer, as well as

decreased testosterone, low sperm counts, and signs of early female puberty in lab animals. The genetic

mechanisms affected by these chemicals work similarly in all animals- including humans,” (Royte, 2008, p. 151).

Study 1

Frederick Vom Saal (PH.D., M.P.H.), curators’ professor with the Division of Biological Sciences at the

University of Missouri-Columbia believes, “Bisphenol A may be one of the most potent, toxic chemicals known

to man. The problem is Bisphenol A acts at very low doses as an estrogen,” (Soechtig, 2009). Dr. Vom Saal claims

that most of the regulatory agencies around the world function with the idea that stronger the dose, the more

potent the poison, but that is not true for any hormone. Dr. Vom Saal conducted a test with a BPA dose 25,000

19

times lower than ever tested. He found that it greatly damaged every single part of the developing male mouse

reproductive system (Soechtig, 2009).

Dr. Vom Saal even admitted, “There is virtually no major human health trend over the past 30 years that

hasn’t increased, such as childhood diabetes, that is not related to exposure to this chemical.” It has been found

to relate to obesity, breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, brain disorders, such as ADHD, liver disease,

ovarian disease, disease of the uterus, and low sperm count in men. Prostate cancer appears to be the

constantly linked to early BPA exposure. According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer rates have

been on the rise since 1975 (Josephson, 2006). Could BPA be the cause?

Study 2

Gail Prins of the University of Illinois at Chicago Department of Urology and Shuk-Mei Ho of the

University of Cincinnati Department of Environmental Health have conducted a rat study that provides the

direct link between low-dose BPA exposure during development and later prostate cancer (Josephson, 2006).

Their study, which gave newborn rats high or low doses of estradiol (the environmental equal of BPA), found

possible long-term effects, shown by changes in methyl groups on DNA that are responsible for turning genes on

and off. These alterations can leave a permanent mark, causing sensitivity to diseases later in life (Josephson,

2006).

Prins claims, “Our evidence shows that in an animal model, some genes are altered by the addition or

removal of methyl groups on the DNA, which changes the ability of those genes to be transcribed and translated

into proteins. It is possible that these effects may pass through generations as has been shown recently for

sperm cells,” (Josephson, 2006).

So is it Safe?

No conclusion can be made yet, because future studies must be completed first. Rebecca Sokol, a

Professor of Medicine at the University of Southern California warns that we shouldn’t extrapolate human

20

effects from rat studies. It would take over 50 years for results of early BPA exposure to show up as prostate

cancer (Josephson, 2006). Although science knows it can have alarming results in lab animals, the same may not

be so for humans. No direct connection between BPA and human illness has been proved yet. Patricia Hunt, a

molecular biologist at Case Western Reserve University who’s been studying BPA for almost a decade, says, “If

we wait for comparable human data and it comes out like animal data, we aren’t going to be breeding as a

species,” (Royte, 2008, p. 152). The National Institutes of Health’s review concluded that BPA does pose some

human health risks to fetuses and children, but only minimal (Royte, 2008, p. 152). Those who make and use

BPA protest the chemical poses no risk to humans, but their studies only looked at high doses, not low.

Ultimately, the IBWA is not concerned with BPA so they do not test for it (Royte, 2008, p. 152). BPA, like PET, is

downplayed by the bottled water companies. Dr. Vom Saal declared, “They will spend any amount of that 7

billion dollars necessary in advertising to the American public, trying to convince them this chemical is

completely safe.”

Environment Not only do plastic bottles cause consequences to our physical health, but to our planet’s health as well.

There is the cost of extracting oil, a finite resource, to produce the plastic bottles. Even producing the bottles

requires a large amount of water, plus the water that is extracted to drink. Then there is the cost of what to do

with all of those bottles, especially when not nearly enough of them get recycled.

Where Do All Our Bottles Go? Once a single-serve plastic water bottle is consumed it does not just disappear when it is tossed into a

garbage can. Of the 80 million single serve bottles of water consumed daily, 30 million end up in landfills

(Soechtig, 2009). That is 80 million separate bottles every single day. If it does not make its final resting place in

a landfill, it could either be incinerated, or become a disturbance in natural ecosystems. “Most single-serve

bottles are either buried in landfills or burned in incinerators, or they make their way to the far corners of the

earth: blown underneath train platforms, into the back of caves and alleys, along roadways, onto beaches, and

21

out to the middle of the ocean, where the containers break into tiny pieces that sea creatures mistake for food,”

(Royte, 2008, p. 154).

More often than not, bottles will end up in landfills, which are quickly being filled up. “In a landfill, heavy

equipment crushes water bottles, but they still take up space. For how long? No one knows: after all, PET is only

about 25 years old. But estimates range up to a 1,000 years,” (Royte, 2008, p. 156). We are wasting valuable

space in landfills by filling it with bottles that are perfectly recyclable. Recycling is the best option, because it

reduces demand for landfill space, but unfortunately it does not help reduce the demand for oil because bottlers

are not using recycling content anyway (Royte, 2008, p. 155). Ironically, it is cheaper for bottlers to use virgin

PET than recycled PET.

Recently, the bottled water industry has been pushing that their bottles are fully recyclable. “‘The

bottles our member companies produce are 100% recyclable,’ blared a full-page ad taken out by the

International Bottled Water Association in the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle in August 2007,”

(Gleick, 2010, p. 96). In an effort to combat criticism of high environmental and energy costs, some companies

have turned to a new approach. The new approach, called ‘lightweighting,’ reduces the cost of production, the

energy required for shipping, and the mass of plastic in landfills (Gleick, 2010, p. 102). These are the new eco-

friendly water bottles with the flimsier plastic and smaller shape. Regrettably, lightweighting does not increase

recycling rates or reduce the amount of bottles in landfills (Gleick, 2010, p. 103). It definitely does not decrease

the amount of bottles American purchase; it only helps them feel less guilty about it.

The problem is that most Americans do not recycle, or do not have the access to it. Even though most

bottles are recyclable, most of them never are. “In 2007 the National Association for PET Container Resources

(or NAPCOR) reported that over 5.6 billion pounds of PET bottles and jars were available for recycling, but only

1.4 billion pounds of PET were actually recycled- an overall recycling rate of under 25 percent,” (Gleick, 2010, p.

22

97). Plastic water bottles and plastic overall is the least recycled of all the waste in the United States, (Gleick,

2010, p. 97).

Lack of Recycling

Recycling rates throughout the world are not extraordinary and the United States’ rates look even more

dismal. The average international recycling rate for beverage containers for the world is 50%, but the United

States is 20% and this number has been declining (Soechtig, 2009). Betty McLaughlin, the former Executive

Director for the Container Recycling Institute, declared, “It’s just because there isn’t enough recycling capacity.

There’s not enough collection,” (Soechtig, 2009).

Low recycling rates can be attributes to two different situations. First, the recycling centers were not

created for recycling PET bottles. Recycling all the PET bottles in America is not currently feasible. Traditional

recycling programs were not designed with plastics in mind, but rather aluminum and glass (Gleick, 2010, p.

100). Not only that, but they aren’t easily accessible. Recycling centers are not abundant, making it less

attractive to haul all your recyclables to a center that is far away. “Most U.S. communities can recycle the

empties, but because most bottled water is consumed in places that often lack recycling bins- on the street, in

the movie theaters, at parks, and on the road- the product has a pitiful recovery rate: barely 15 percent,” (Royte,

2008, p. 154).

Second, there is no real incentive to recycle unless the state has a bottle bill. A recycling bin is just not as

easy to find in a public place as a garbage can is. Betty McLaughlin insisted, “If 1/3 of their products are not

being consumed at home, that means that’s 1/3 that has no chance of making it to the recycling bin. That’s 56

billion containers. That’s an awful lot to just give up,” (Soechtig, 2009). To create incentive to recycle some

states have enacted bottle bills. States with bottle bills recycle 60 to 90 percent of their beverage containers,

while the national average for states without bills is just 23 percent (Royte, 2008, p. 156).

23

Bottle Bills

Bottle bills consist of consumers paying a small deposit on their purchase of the bottle and then receive

that deposit back when the bottle is returned for recycling (Soechtig, 2009). In 1971, Oregon passed the very

first bottle bill based on the idea that you pay a nickel deposit on a glass or aluminum container when bought

and you get your nickel back when returned (Gleick, 2010, p. 100).

Only 11 states currently have bottle bills. These include California, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa,

Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont (Soechtig, 2009). Sadly, most bottle bills do

not include deposits for bottled water because they did not exist in 1971 when the first bills were passed (Gleick,

2010, p. 101). Of these 11, only 6 states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New York, and Oregon) have

expanded their bills to include plastic water bottles (Soechtig, 2009). New York became the 6th state in 2009.

States with a 5 cent deposit get about a 70% return rate, while Michigan has a 10 cent deposit and has a 97%

return rate (Soechtig, 2009). It can be concluded that Michigan’s bottle bill is an extremely successful recycling

plan. “It really is a proven system. It has been in place in most of these states for 25 or more years and we know

it works well,” states McLaughlin. Even though it works well, most states do not have bottled water included in

their bottle bills because it was not relevant when the bills were passed decades ago (Soechtig, 2009). In

addition, bottlers do not make it easy to get these laws changed.

Bottles in the Ocean

Captain Charles Moore, founder of Algalita Marine Research Foundation perfectly sums up, “It’s a

bother to people. They are not taking the time; they don’t have the space to keep it around until they can get it

to a recycling center or to the landfill. When it rains, all that plastic is mobilized, goes down the streams, into the

rivers, and down to the sea. That’s why we are seeing so much of it in the environment,” (Soechtig, 2009).

Captain Moore explains that when we throw something away it becomes out of sight out of mind, but it has to

go somewhere, and that place is Kamilo Beach in Hawaii. The beach is bombarded with our plastic leftovers,

24

making it more like a garbage pit than a beach paradise. Moore continues, “Of 80 million bottles of water we

drink in the United States every day, many of them make their way to the sea, where they are carried by ocean

currents and end up deposited on some distant shore. This is the constituents of sand now. Instead of being

coral and shells and rock, it’s plastic. This is a beach of the future. This is what we are going to recreate in if we

continue to pollute the environment with plastic.”

The captain and his crew explore what is known as the Eastern Garbage Patch in the central Pacific

Ocean. The patch, or gyre, is twice the size of the state of Texas, and basically consists of a whirlwind of trash.

These gyres are repeated in the North and South Atlantic, South Pacific, and Indian Ocean (Soechtig, 2009).

Moore is especially concerned that plastic parts are starting to outnumber plankton in those parts of the

ocean. Moore accounts what happens when they go out on his boat to collect samples, “Well, what we do is we

go out to this gyre and trawl a net, it just so happens that when we pull in that net, more than finding the

plankton in the ocean, we’re finding plastic. And so what we see here in this jar is a one mile trawl out in the

middle ocean, as far from land as you can get anywhere on earth. And instead of it being clear ocean water with

ocean animals, it’s a plastic soup, with more plastic than plankton.” That jar is filled with bits and pieces of

plastic swirling through the water. There is no plankton. In 1999, Moore did a survey and found 6 times has

much plastic as plankton. When the survey was repeated in 2008, they found 40 times as much plastic as

plankton (Soechtig, 2009). It is obvious that our waste has been increasingly encroaching on natural habitats

such as plankton.

Energy Consumption and Waste The making of a bottle of water has its own costs as well. Multiply that by the billions produced each

year and those costs increase significantly. Materials, production, and transportation are the three main areas of

energy consumption and waste.

25

Materials

Oil is a main ingredient in the creation of plastic bottles. Since we have already passed our peak of oil

consumption, there is no longer enough to keep up with our consumption, especially with the world’s

population dramatically increasing. Using all this oil to make single-serve plastic water bottles just so we can

enjoy it on the go seems kind of silly.

For many, there has been a backlash over the use of oil, not water. As addressed in Bottlemania, 17

million barrels (714 million gallons) of oil a year are used to make plastic water bottles for the U.S. market. That

oil could fuel 1.3 million cars for one year (Royte, 2008, p. 138).The production of a kilogram of PET, roughly 30

one-liter plastic bottles, takes around 3 liters of petroleum (Gleick, 2010, p. 94). In addition to all the PET that is

being produced, some of it never even gets to be used. In 2006, almost 4 billion pounds of PET went to waste,

which is equivalent to 72 billion bottles (Royte, 2008, p. 158).

Besides oil, water is an obvious material in bottled water. The manufacture and filling of a bottle

consumes twice as much water than will ultimately be in the bottle. This is because bottle-making machines are

cooled by water (Royte, 2008, p. 140). On average, only 60 to 70 percent of the water used by bottling plants

ends up in the final product, the rest of the water is wasted (Royte, 2008, p. 140). In 2006, Coke used 290 billion

liters of water to produce 114 billion liters of beverages (Royte, 2008, p. 158). That is 176 billion liters of wasted

water; water that could have been used elsewhere for a better purpose.

Production

To produce all the bottles, energy is constantly being used to run the machines, the plant, transport

materials to the production plant, and to chill the water (Figure 2). More energy is then required to turn PET into

bottles, to filter, ozonate, or otherwise purify the water, to run the machines, and to chill the bottle before use

(Gleick, 2010, p. 94). Treatments such as ultraviolet radiation, micro or ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and

ozonation, all require added energy (Gleick & Cooley, 2009). Additionally, machines must rinse, fill, cap and label

26

the bottles. The average machine can clean, fill, and seal around 15,000 bottles per hour (Gleick & Cooley,

2009).

Not only are the tangible bottles damaging our ecosystems, but the PET used to produce them is

damaging as well. Many petrochemical plants have major leaks in the ground that allow PET to contaminate

groundwater (Soechtig, 2009). Furthermore, producing the plastics creates its own waste. Resources are not

being allocated efficiently, creating externalities such as emissions of nickel, ethylbenzene, ethylene oxide, and

benzene from the plastic-making process (Royte, 2008, p. 138).

Transportation

Not only is energy required to make plastic bottles, but energy and resources are used to transport

bottles across the country and around the globe. The energy requirement depends on two factors: the distance

and the mode of transportation. The farther the distance means more energy is consumed. Air cargo is the most

intensive mode of transport, followed by truck, rail, or bulk ocean shipping (Gleick & Cooley, 2009). Since water

is heavy, one metric ton per cubic meter, the energy required to transport bottled water is enormous. As a

result, this energy consumption contributes to gas emissions into the atmosphere. For example, Poland Springs

burned 928,226 gallons of diesel fuel in 2007 on transportation alone (Royte, 2008, p. 139). Accordingly, the

Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that shipping one million gallons of water from Fiji to New York

City can generate 190 tons of carbon dioxide, while the average American contributes over 20 tons each year

(Royte, 2008, p. 153).“It makes a neat story for the anti-bottle crowd. Water is sent thousands of miles to people

who already have clean, cheap water (us), while locals at the source go thirsty,” (Royte, 2008, p. 154). That is

odd, isn’t it?

Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute and author of Bottled and Sold, estimates that the total energy

required for every bottle’s production, transport, and disposal is on average equal to filling a quarter of that

27

bottle with oil (Royte, 2008, p. 139). In his book, he writes, “This energy cost is a thousand times larger than the

energy required to procure, process, treat, and deliver tap water,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 95).

Overall, these costs are not unique to bottled water. It takes 48 gallons of water to make a gallon of

beer, 4 gallons of water to make one of soda, and 4 gallons of water to produce a gallon of milk (Royte, 2008, p.

140). “But those other beverages aren’t redundant to the calorie-free (and caffeine- and coloring-free) liquid

that comes out of the tap, and that’s an important distinction,” (Royte, 2008, p. 140).

Groundwater Depletion Essentially extracting all this ground water to be bottled has had an effect on the amount of water

available in certain locations. Water levels are dropping, or even disappearing completely due to constant

pumping. Not just pumping for bottled water use, but any use of water is creating visible strain on water bodies

(Figure 3). “Already larger bodies of water across the United States are changing in ways that worry scientists.

Lakes Superior, Huron, and Michigan, which contain nearly 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water, have

been in steep decline since the late 1990’s, with water levels lower than normal because of reduced snowmelt

and increased evaporation,” (Royte, 2008, p. 201). Nestlé pumps 114 billion gallons of groundwater that would

feed into Lake Michigan every year, and Coke and Pepsi made an agreement with Detroit to bottle and ship

Great Lakes water (Royte, 2008, p. 201). What about the people who rely on the Lakes for their drinking water? I

am from the Chicago area, and I drink water from Lake Michigan. Our water quantity is now sacrificed for those

who purchase bottled water when they can easily drink out of their own tap.

To combat concern over the local impact of water withdrawals by bottlers, “the industry has conjured

up misleading ‘science’ to counter local opposition to proposed new bottling plants,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 72). A

2004 research paper funded by the Drinking Water Research Foundation concluded that, “relative to other uses

of ground water, bottled water production was found to be a deminimis user of ground water. . . Ground water

withdrawals for bottled water production represent only 0.019% of the total fresh ground water withdrawals in

28

the U.S,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 72). Ironically, their conclusion was so inappropriate that the research article failed

peer review for scientific publication and has thus never appeared in a research journal (Gleick, 2010, p. 73).

It is true that in some places bottling water does not have a large impact and should not be a concern,

but other places have found serious adverse impacts (Gleick, 2010, p. 74). Our groundwater is not evenly

dispersed across the nation. Different parts of the nation are blessed with an abundance of natural

groundwater, while some, like the West, are not. Imagine a large pool of water pumped at a constant rate. It

would evenly deplete. Now imagine a number of different sized pools all pumped at the same rate. In this

situation, which is similar to how our groundwater actually is, the pools would be depleted at different times. It

is not about the total amount of groundwater used, because it is not all in one pool. It is the amount used

separately that affects the local community (Gleick, 2010, p. 73).

There have been several tests done that actually show the effects a bottling plant has on groundwater.

In 2004, USA Springs proposed a plant to be built in Barrington, New Hampshire to pump 300,000 gallons of

water a day from the local aquifer. After a 10 day trial, sectionals of a local wetland were completely dry (Gleick,

2010, p. 75). In Maricopa County, Arizona, the Sedona Springs Bottled Water Company began pumping

groundwater in the Tonto National Forest. The pumping dramatically altered the flows of Seven Springs Wash

and the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area, leading lowered surface waters to cause the death of native fish,

leopard frogs, Mexican black hawks, sycamore and ash trees, and die-back deer grass (Gleick, 2010, p. 75). How

can bottlers say pumping has no affect?

Economics The big businesses: Nestlé, Coke and Pepsi, provide exactly what they claim; big business for the

community. The companies employ a large number of people, so it is hard for governments to have to choose

between environmental concerns or unemployment (Soechtig, 2009). Should we protect people’s jobs, or

protect the natural environment? It would be equally hard to try and do away with municipal drinking water

29

systems and only drink bottled. The switch “would be enormously expensive for the society as a whole. It would

leave vast quantities of Americans with the Hobson’s choice of paying more for drinking water or relying on a

public supply that could be increasingly inferior if it were abandoned by the elected officers and government

decision makers,” says the NRDC’s Eric Goldstein (Royte, 2008, p. 208).

Even so, most laws do not require new buildings to be built with access to public water fountains.

“Well-maintained fountains are becoming about as scarce as working pay phones,” (Royte, 2008, p. 210). Take

for instance the construction of the new University of Central Florida’s football stadium, which was completed

and opened in 2007. On opening day, with a crowd of 45,622 and a temperature of around 100 degrees, people

became thirsty. Ironically, the new $54 million stadium was built without a single water fountain (Gleick, 2010,

p. 1). Security allowed no one to bring in their own water and the only water available was in a bottle for a

purchase of $3. The concessions ran out of bottled water before the game ended and 18 people had to be taken

to the hospital while 60 were treated for heat-related illness (Gleick, 2010, p. 2). The stadium should have been

built with at least 20 water fountains under the 2004 Florida building code which requires one water fountain

for every 1,000 seats. A spokesperson for the International Code Council in Washington said, “Selling bottled

water out of a concession stand is not what the code meant,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 2).

Price of Tap versus Bottled Water It is not hard to see that bottled water is much more expensive than local tap water. For example, tap

water in the city of Bloomington, Indiana is about $2.14 for 1,000 gallons, or .00214 cents per gallon (CBU,

2010). If one were to purchase the same amount, 1,000 gallons, of Coca-Cola’s Dasani bottled water from the

local Marsh Supermarket at the price of $2.21 per gallon, it would cost $2,210. For 1,000 gallons of drinking

water, Dasani bottled water costs $2,207.86 more than tap water. That is quite a markup considering Dasani is

just purified tap water. Additionally, this mark up can really start to cost consumers if it becomes a regular habit.

If a customer were to buy a 24 pack of half liter bottles of Dasani at $6.99 every week, they would spend

$363.48 in just one year on bottled water. If they liked more prestigious water, 52 weeks of buying 12 liters of

30

Fiji Water would set them back $1,236.56 for 165 gallons. That would be the equivalent of paying for

approximately 577, 831 gallons of Bloomington tap water; just to drink. Table 5 shows price comparisons of

common bottled waters at a Bloomington Marsh Supermarket as of September 2010 versus the City of

Bloomington Utilities tap water price in 2010.

Is it Worth It? In most cases, about 40% of bottled water is really just filtered tap water (Soechtig, 2009). Both Dasani

and Aquafina derive their water from municipal sources. Aquafina includes on its labels that it is bottled from a

public water source, but Dasani on the other hand, does not (Soechtig, 2009). Many labels portray a scenic

escape where we wish our water came from, but in reality it is not from far very away (Table 4).

Bottled water has its advantages of being convenient, but has the disadvantage of being expensive.

Making bottled water a part of everyday life is a personal choice. The water may taste better, and it may look

cooler, but that does not necessarily mean it is the better option. It is worth the price when it is the only option.

When there is an option, is it worth spending that kind of money for a product that flows cheaply from your

kitchen faucet?

The Big Businesses: Nestlé, Pepsi, Coke Two of the biggest producers of bottled water are PepsiCo’s Aquafina and Coca-Cola’s Dasani. Both

joined the bottled water scene when they saw their soda sales falling (Soechtig, 2009). Royte believes that the

biggest victory for bottled-water critics was when Pepsi decided to include “Public Water Supply” on its Aquafina

labels (Royte, 2008, p. 160). Aquafina water originates from a public water source and is subjected to a prided

seven-step treatment process called Hydro-7. The steps include removal of particles, catchment of smaller

particles, elimination of organic matter, removal of solids with pressure, isolation of trace elements, clear water

creation, and a final purification stage (Pepsico, 2010).

31

Dasani water also originates from a local water utility and at some plants, a groundwater source. The

water goes through initial water treatment, and then passed through a granual activated carbon filtration

system, purified with reverse osmosis and UV light disinfection, mineralized, and then final ozone disinfection

(Coca-Cola, 2010).

As big businesses, these companies take advantage of their power. Eugene Brown, a city council

member in Durham, North Carolina recalls that during a severe drought Pepsi was still pumping and bottling

water, while their lakes and streams dried up. “It would make common sense to put a temporary halt on the

plant,” states Brown, “but they would not stop,” (Soechtig, 2009). After being confronted about communities

low water levels, Nestlé testified that the lower water levels had nothing to do with the water they were taking

(Soechtig, 2009). They are tough entities to defeat and they will do anything to prove to the public that their

product is the best option.

Conclusion Overall, bottled water is not horrible, and tap water is not horrible, but both have their own faults that

cause consumers to choose to drink one or other. Both bottled and tap will require extreme amounts of reform

to produce high quality water that is also environmentally conscious. “Bottled water does have its place-it’s

useful in emergencies and essential for people whose health can’t tolerate even filtered water. But it’s often no

better than tap water, its environmental and social price is high, and it lets our public guardians off the hook for

protecting watersheds, stopping polluters, upgrading treatment and distribution infrastructure, and

strengthening treatment standards,” (Royte, 2008, p. 225).

There is not just one problem here, there are multiple that must be addressed. “Those of us who live in

the richer nations of the world are buying more and more bottled water because we increasingly fear or dislike

our tap water, we distrust governments to regulate, monitor, and protect public water systems adequately, we

can’t find public fountains anywhere anymore, we are convinced by advertisers and marketers that bottled

32

water will make us healthier, thinner, or stronger, and we’re told that it is just another benign consumer

‘choice,’” (Gleick, 2010, p. 171).

Municipal water systems need to be updated and watersheds need to be protected to help increase our

trust and safety with drinking tap water. Bottled water needs stricter laws and regulations to offset its

environmenta and health consequences. Both changes would require enormous amounts of time and money.

But isn’t our drinking water and our planet worth it? If we are not allowed access to a basic necessity of life, how

could we trust our governments? They have to drink this water too. It does not just affect the consumers, it

affects the producers too. They are not exempt from being exposed to BPA, PET, and Cryptosporidium because

they are going to get thirsty at some point, and what they get to drink is what the public gets to drink.

The American public is moving in the right direction though, it just might take a while to actually get

there. “Sales are slowing, and in some places even falling, for the first time since the modern bottled water

industry began,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 145). People are starting to understand that we did survive without bottled

water a number of years ago and that we can do it again. Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri even

banned the sale of bottled water on their campus. Other U.S. schools such as Brandeis University, Penn State,

and Ohio Wesleyan University are following suit (Gleick, 2010, p. 159).

It may look like there may be a bright future, but bottlers are going to make sure that does not happen.

“As anti-bottled water efforts accelerate and threaten sales and profits, the industry has begun to respond with

a growing public relations push, increased spending on advertising, new lobbying efforts to stop legislation they

don’t like, and a general battening down of the PR hatches,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 159).

The Municipal Water Systems are Flawed Too Not only is the bottled water industry flawed, but municipal water systems are as well. For the most

part, the water we receive from our tap is very safe to drink, but that is not always the case. “In 2006, 89.3

percent of the nation’s nearly 53,000 community water systems were in compliance with more than 90 EPA

33

standards. That left 29.8 million people with water that missed the mark on either health or reporting standards,

or both. (Many in this group live on Indian lands, and many drink from small systems, which have the most

trouble meeting regulations),” (Royte, 2008, p. 211). This could be especially unsafe to those who are in the risk

category, and this would include the very young, the pregnant, the very old, or the immunocompromised. Those

in this category should consult a doctor before drinking tap water (Royte, 2008, p. 221). The at-risk category is

even expanded by some scientists to include children, teens, lactating women, and anyone over 55 (Royte, 2008,

p. 221).

Additionally in 2001 the NRDC studied the water reports of 19 cities and 5 of them were given a poor or

failing grade for burying, obscuring, and omitting findings about health effects of contaminants in city water

supplies, printing misleading statements, and violating a number of right-to-know requirements, such as reports

must identify known sources of pollutants in city water (Royte, 2008, p. 223). The municipal water system may

seem like the safer option at times, but it too is flawed.

Updating Infrastructure In order for the country’s municipal water systems to compete with bottled water, they are going to

have to update their infrastructure which will be extremely pricey. “Paying more to protect source water and

upgrade infrastructure isn’t impossible. Municipal water in this country is spectacularly underpriced-

nationwide, about $2.50 for a thousand gallons. That consumers are willing to pay several thousand times more

for bottle water that tastes good indicates we’re willing to make some sacrifices for water that actually is good.

Raising water rates is one answer; a tax on bottled water is another; and a clean-water trust fund, financed by

industries that profit off of, or damage the quality of, clean water, is yet one more,” (Royte, 2008, p. 219). There

are many ways it can be done. If the public is willing to spend extra money on bottled water, they should be

willing to spend extra to improve municipal systems. Having to pay more for water is probably the only way to

protect and improve it (Royte, 2008, p. 209). A prominent environmental advocate even told Royte, “We already

34

have the money, we’ve just decided to use it blowing up other countries’ water infrastructure instead of fixing

ours,” (Royte, 2008, p. 219).

The money may be there, or it could be there, but is it necessary? Residents drink or cook with only 1 to

2 percent of the water that flows into their home: most goes for lawn watering, car washing, toilet flushing,

showers, and laundry. Why spend millions to bring water up to high standards, if so little is actually consumed?

(Royte, 2008, p. 207). But then again if we do not drink from public supplies, and let our systems decay, the

worse the water will become and the more we will have to depend on bottled water for our drinking needs.

Ethics The most important controversy in bottled water is whether or not the industry should be able to

commodify a basic human right. All human beings should be allowed easy access to clean drinking water. “We

all have a right to clean water. And we all need to acknowledge that no water is pure, that all water is recycled.

There’s no point in skirting the issues and fudging the facts: in some places, at some times, bottled water may be

of higher quality than tap. But that doesn’t mean we should all rely on it,” (Royte, 2008). Bottled water has a

time and place, but it should not be our only source of drinking water. We already have access to clean drinking

water, it comes out of our kitchen sink or the dispenser on the refrigerator door, we do not need to drive to the

store to access it.“Suburban shoppers in America lug cases of plastic water bottles from the grocery store back

to homes supplied with unlimited piped potable water in a sad and unintentional parody of the girls and women

in Africa, who spend countless backbreaking hours carrying containers of filthy water from distant contaminated

sources to homes with no water at all,” (Gleick, 2010, p. XII). Sounds ironic, right? The United States has the

technology and the money to provide safe water to its citizens, while many countries do not, yet the U.S. is still

not doing anything about it. The public has access to too much of a good thing and most do not realize how

thankful we should be for it.

35

As a result, the anti-bottle crowd is not the only group to be up in arms, the religious sector is too. Clean

drinking water, like air, some religious leaders argue, is a God-given resource that shouldn’t be packaged and

sold. Others have gone further and declared that drinking bottled water is immoral and even a sin (Gleick, 2010,

p. 138). It is hardly one of the Ten Commandments, but a good point nonetheless.

Essentially, clean water is a right that many community folk could not produce on their own. They need

the full support of local, state, and federal governments to understand that it is their job to protect our water.

Maude Barlow, of the Blue Planet Run Foundation and Sara Ehrhardt, National Water Campaigner of the Council

of Canadians say, “The solution lies in declaring water as a human right and a public trust to be guarded by all

levels of government; in sharing information and best practices on our public water systems; and in overseeing

and protecting our public drinking water for future generations,” (Royte, 2008, p. 209). Protection has to start at

the top of government with a push from the bottom.

The production of bottled water is causing residents harm, such as in the case of Flint Hills, and our

environment harm.. We have a right to a healthy environment too; particularly one where water is abundant

and available to everyone, but that is not the case. “Meanwhile, across the nation and around the globe, rising

temperatures, population growth, drought, and increased pollution and development continue to strain water

resources- its distribution, availability, and quality. The coming scarcity will hurt the growth of jobs, housing, and

businesses. Scarcity will force us to change our minds- and it is to be hoped, our behavior- about everything

from landscaping to how often we eat meat,” (Royte, 2008, p. 201). The future use of water will affect more

than how much we get to drink; it will define our lives and how countries are run.

Overall, we are at a huge turning point. The world is expanding, which means more people will be going

thirsty while America gulps down millions of gallons of water that developing countries need more than we do.

We all need water, and we should all be allowed that right, but both bottled water and tap are going to have to

be reworked and restructured to provide it. “We are in the midst of a critical transition and the path we choose

36

in the next few years will determine whether we move toward a world of safe, expensive water for the

privileged and wealthy in the form of bottled water or private water systems, or toward more comprehensive

safe water for all,” (Gleick, 2010, p. 172).

Bibliography Barrett, J. R. (2009). Endocrine Disruptors. Estrogens in a Bottle? Environmental Health Perspectives , 117 (6),

A241.

Coca-Cola Company. (2010). Dasani website. Retrieved from http://www.dasani.com

Gleick, P. H. (2010). Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water. Washington DC: Island

Press.

Gleick, P., & Cooley, H. (2009). Energy Implications of Bottled Water. Oakland, CA: IOP Publishing.

International Bottled Water Association. (2009). IBWA website. Retrieved from http://www.bottledwater.org/

Josephson, J. (2006). Chemical Exposures: Prostate Cancer and Early BPA Exposure. Environmental Health

Perspectives , 114 (9), A520.

Langwith, J. (2010). Opposing Viewpoints Series: Water. Greenhaven Press.

Natural Resources Defense Council. (1999). Bottled water: pure drink or pure hype?

NSF International. (2010). NSF International website. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.org/index.asp

Pepsico. (2010). Aquafina website. Retrieved from http://www.aquafina.com

Royte, E. (2008). Bottlemania: Big Businesses, Local Springs, and the Battle over America's Drinking Water. New

York: Bloomsbury USA.

Rubin, B. S., Murray, M. K., Damassa, D. A., King, J. C., & Soto, A. M. (2001). Perinatal Exposure to Low Doses of

Bisphenol A Affects Body Weight, Patterns of Estrous Cyclicity, and Plasma LH Levels. In Environmental Health

Perspectives (pp. 675-680). Brogan & Partners.

Soechtig, S. (Director). (2009). Tapped [Motion Picture].

US Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Safe Water. Retrieved from Water & Health Series: Bottled Water

Basics: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/faq/pdfs/fs_healthseries_bottlewater.pdf.

37

US Environmental Protection Agency(2009). Water on Tap: What You Need to Know. Washington D.C.: US

Environmental Protection Agency.

US Environmental Protection Agency (2009). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.Washington D.C.: US

Environmental Protection Agency.

US Geological Survey. (2009, October). USGS. Retrieved March 15 , 2010, from

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html.

US Government Accountability Office. (2009). Bottled Water: FDA Safety and Cnsumer Protections are often Less

Stringent than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water. Washington D.C.: Report to Congressional

Requestors.

38

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Why consumers drink bottled water

Source: American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Consumer Attitude Survey on Water Quality Issues, p. 19

(1993)

39

*White

boxes indicate activity with energy input

Figure 2: Flow diagram showing examples of where energy is required during bottled water

manufacturing, use, and disposal. There is energy associated with each major life-cycle stage and

additional energy required with each transportation action. We evaluate the energy required in the

first four stages, including transportation (colored orange) between them. Energy for waste collection,

disposal, and recycle was not computed here, but is likely to be a small fraction of the first several

stages.

Source: P.H. Gleick and H.S. Cooley, Energy Implications of Bottled Water (2009)

•Making PET resin (from raw or recycled materials)

Transportation of PET

•"Blowing" PET bottles from resin

Transportation of empty bottles

•Water Processing; bottling; testing; labeling

Transportation of finished

product

•Chilling for sale and use

Transportation

•Collectionand disposal*

Transportation

•Collection, processing, and recycling*

40

Figure 3: Water level of Lake Mead as of August 2010. The white section of the rock is where the

water level used to be.

41

Table 1: Sales of major beverages in the United States, 2006

Source: California Energy Commission 2007, note: 2007 sales of bottled water exceeded 33 million liters.

Beverage Million liters

Carbonated soft drinks (regular and diet) 57,169

Bottled water (95% still and 5% sparkling) 31, 238

Beer 24,489

Milk 21,476

42

Table 2: Key differences between EPA tap water and FDA bottled water regulations

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, Bottled water: pure drink or pure hype? (1999)

Some Key Differences Between EPA Tap Water and FDA Bottled Water Rules

Water Type Dis-infection Required?

Confirmed E. Coli & Fecal Coliform Banned?

Testing Frequency for Bacteria

Must Filter to Remove Pathogens, or Have Strictly Protected Source?

Must Test for Crypto-sporidium, Giardia, Viruses?

Testing Frequency for Most Synthetic Organic Chemicals

Bottled Water No No 1/week No No 1/year

Carbonated or Seltzer Water

No No None No No None

Big City Tap Water (using surface water)

Yes Yes Hundreds/ month

Yes Yes 1/quarter

(limited waivers available if clean source)

See Table 1 of NRDC's bottled water report for further comparisons and explanations.

43

Source: City of Bloomington Utilities 2010 Water Quality Report

Table 3: City of Bloomington 2010 Water Quality Report

Detected Contaminants Table

Highest Level Highest Level

Ideal Goals

Substance Allowed Detected (EPA's MCLG's) Sources of Contamination

(EPA's MCL*)

Microbiological Contaminants

Total Coliform Bacteria 5 percent 3.8 percent 0 Naturally present in the environment

Heterotrophic Plate Count

500 CFU/ml 22 CFU/ml None

Natural lake bacteria; wildlife; septic systems

Total Organic Carbon TT* 47% removal average None Naturally present in the environment

Turbidity TT* 0.24 NTU None Soil runoff

Cryptosporidium TT* 0.1 oocysts 0 Natural lake bacteria; wildlife; septic systems

Inorganic Contaminants

Barium 2 ppm 0.015 ppm 2 ppm Erosion of natural deposits

Copper 1.3 ppm 0.044 ppm 1.3 ppm Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits

Chloramines (as

Chlorine) 4.0 ppm 2.8 ppm 4 ppm Water additive to control microbes

Fluoride 4 ppm 1.36 ppm 4 ppm Water additive which promotes strong teeth

Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 10 ppm 0.02 ppm 10 ppm

Runoff from fertilizer use; leachate from septic systems; erosion of natural deposits

Lead 15 ppb 5.6 ppb 0 Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits

Organic Compounds

Total Trihalomethanes 80 ppb 65.3 ppb (average) 0

By-product of drinking water chlorination

Haloacetic Acids 60 ppb 51.1 ppb (average) 0 By-product of drinking water disinfectant

LISTED ABOVE are the 13 contaminants detected in Bloomington's drinking water during 2009. All are within allowable levels. Not listed are the over 60 primary contaminants for which we tested that were not detected in Bloomington drinking water.

Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce levels of contaminants in water.

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best availabe treatment technique

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): the level of contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.

44

Table 4: Where bottled water actually comes from

The Water Comes from Where?

Bottled Water Label Water Source

Arctic Wolf Spring

Philadelphia area, southern New Jersey

Arctic Clear

Bartlett, Tennessee

Arctic Falls Purified

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Arctic Falls Bottled

Cedar Grove, New Jersey

Arctic Springs

Los Angeles

Arctic Spring

Lakeland, Florida

Glacier Mountain Natural Spring New Jersey

Glacier Mountain Bottled Logan, Ohio

Glacier Bottled Water Company Processed municipal water from vending machines

Glacier Spring

Victoria, Australia

Alaska Premium Glacier Pipe 111241, Juneau Municipal Water*

Everest

Corpus Christi, Texas

Yosemite Los Angeles municipal supply

*http://ezinearticles.com/?Water-Quality-of-Glaciers-Do-We-Want-It?&id=480313

Source: Gleick, P., Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water (2010)

45

Table 5: Price comparison of bottled water from Marsh Supermarkets as of September 2010 and City

of Bloomington Utilities tap water rates for 2010.

Price of Bottled Water Versus Tap Water

Nestle PureLife

Ice Mountain

Pepsi Aquafina

Coca-Cola Dasani Evian Fiji

City of Bloomington Utilities

24 1/2 liter bottles or 12 1 L (16.9 fl. Oz.) (3.17 gallons) (12 L) $5.29 $5.99 $6.49 $6.99 $19.58 $23.78 0.0068 cents If same amount bought every week for a year (165 gallons) (624 L) $275.08 $311.48 $337.48 $363.48 $1,108.16 $1,236.56 0.3531 cents