Rant 08/09

Recently, the news was a-buzz with sudden realization that bottled water is practically the new #1 health and environmental problem in America. Water bottlers are not being transparent enough, they are not all coming clean as to the source of their products, nor are they all telling you how the water is treated. The little plastic bottles are clogging the landfills! The solution? Drink tap water. It is just as good -- and cheaper!

Of course, I have a problem with all of this.

Now, I have to see the source of information, since the source can tell a big story. I did a little digging and found a source (don't know if it is the source) named the Environmental Working Group (EWG). I looked at the issue as they presented it and learned that their main gripes were the chemicals and pharmaceuticals found in bottled waters; some samples contained an unnamed chemical responsible for breast cancer cell proliferation and so on. (They did sample testing at one of the top water testing labs.) There are many other issues cited, including the source of the bottled water (this was a big one), and mainly how much information the bottlers revealed about their product... Not to mention their pointing out the outrageous retail cost compared with tap water.

They point to a statement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Some bottled water is treated more than tap water, while some is treated less or not treated at all. Bottled water costs much more than tap water on a per gallon basis... Consumers who choose to purchase bottled water should carefully read its label to understand what they are buying, whether it is a better taste, or a certain method of treatment (EPA 2007b).

OK, some is treated more and some is treated less, and yes, one should read the label. If the label doesn't describe the treatment method, certainly, I would keep looking. But does more mean better? Does less mean not as well? Couldn't you say the same about all municipal waters? You can end up with a lot of questions, see.

Anyway, they see a lot of problems with bottled water and conclude that it should be regulated, since tap water is. They want:

Full disclosure of all test results for all contaminants. This must be done in a way that is readily available to the public.
Disclosure of all treatment techniques used to purify the water, and:
Clear and specific disclosure of the name and location of the source water.

Who can argue with that? We need more government intervention in our lives for our safety. That's the role of government - to keep us safe, right? Well, actually the role of government is to keep us free, but that is another issue. Instead of more government regulations, designed, really, to bleed private enterprise with the cost of compliance, why not just put the truth up on the EWG website and shame the culprits into transparency and compliance? That would be a lot less expensive, I would think. After all...

The mission of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment...

OK, so educate us. Oh, wait, there are a couple of more paragraphs...

In 2002, we founded the EWG Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates on Capitol Hill for health-protective and subsidy-shifting policies.

EWG specializes in providing useful resources... to consumers while simultaneously pushing for national policy change.

Oh -- they want government to do the job... Government can create mandates, whereby EWG can merely educate.

Sorry, I got off the rails there.

So, what is EWG's solution to nasty bottled water?

"Consumers should drink filtered tap water instead of bottled water. Americans pay an average of two-tenths of a cent per gallon to drink water from the tap. A carbon filter at the tap or in a pitcher costs a manageable $0.31 per gallon (12 times lower than the typical cost of bottled water), and removes many of the contaminants found in public tap water supplies.² A whole-house carbon filter strips out chemicals not only from drinking water, but also from water used in the shower, clothes washer and dishwasher where they can volatilize into the air for families to breathe in. For an average four-person household, the cost for this system is about $0.25 per person per day.³ A single gallon of bottled water costs 15 times this amount."

This is their solution? This is where I have a problem with the issue as it is presented by the EWG. First of all, were there any public water supplies tested as well as the bottled water samples? Apparently not. (If they had, they'd find out a few things about public water supply too. The thing is, they DO know and know damn well. Review their site.) Since they don't touch on that, they don't tell you how municipal water product varies from location to location. Isn't this a gripe they have about bottled water?

Second, they don't touch on fluorides present in either bottled water or tap -- conveniently left out of the article. Does your public water contain fluoride? Mine does. Does your charcoal filter remove it? Nope. But that is the treatment they suggest. In fact, right on Brita's filter device packaging is stated (or was), "Does not remove beneficial fluoride." Right. Since their product does not remove it, it is spun as being beneficial.

Third, why is the in-home post-filtering of municipal water being promoted if tap water is so much safer? We know that municipal water contains 'acceptable' levels of contaminants, of course, deemed acceptable by someone at the EPA... So, by U.S. gvernment standards, it is safe to drink, right? But, do they have regulation for acceptable levels of waste pharmaceuticals found in public water supplies or source waters? Mmmm... no. Yet the EWG slams 'bottled water' for its products' content of that very type of contaminate.

Makes one begin to wonder who is really behind the research and this particular spin on water quality.

Again, why no mention of fluorides?

OK, so I am poking around the EWG's web site, you know, 'cause I have never heard of them before, right? So I find another piece entitled, 'Fluoride in dog food - Pets' health at risk?' Well, we have dogs, so I am interested and read the story about how there is so much fluoride in bone meals and so forth.

In reading down the page there is a chart comparing the level of Fluoride in; 1. a Cancer study, 2. Level at which tooth enamel fluorosis occurs, 3. EPA's recommended safe level in drinking water, and 4. The level of fluoride exposure dogs get in food containing bone meal. Of course, #4 is the highest level and #3 is the EPA's acceptable level for drinking water...

I began to wonder, "If they don't want you to feed your dogs the fluoride-laden dog food, what recommendation do they make for watering them? Fluoride-laden tap water?" It is clearly shown on this chart that tap water contains from 5-10 times the amount of fluoride than the amount found in the Harvard cancer study... So one question I have is, "Aren't they concerned about our dogs drinking fluoride, in addition to eating it? And, if fluoride in tap water (the maximum allowable suggested by the EPA) is 5-10 times greater than the amounts found in the cancer study, then why is the same organization telling us, in the previous story on Bottled Water, to drink charcoal filtered tap water (which doesn't remove fluoride)?"

Yep, sure leaves me wondering who is behind the bottled water story. Could it be that it is in response to the Associated Press' series on waste pharmaceuticals in public water supply? Well, that would be one explanation, I suppose, but why would the 'evironmentally friendly' EWG take the stance that tap water is, then, safer than bottled water -- especially since they further urge us to take action against rocket fuel in our drinking water elswhere on their site?

...yet the Environmental Working Group would have you focusing on Bottled Water instead.

Maybe we can understand why for the next 'Rant.'

Thanks for reading!
- Tom Cornwell