STEPHANIE TANIZAR
Assistant Perspectives Editor
In Chicago, a 10-cent tax was added to the price of each and every bottle of water. In San Francisco and, most recently, Seattle, bottled water has been banned outright.
Bottled water sales are on the rise, with 2007 sales reaching $11.7 billion, or 8.82 gallons, in the United States alone. Worldwide, bottled water totaled 47 billion gallons, according to Beverage Marketing. That is five billion gallons up from water bottle production in 2005.
On the surface, the problem with bottled water isn’t immediately apparent. Bottled water contains no caffeine, no sugar and no calories. Bottled water is convenient: it comes in portable bottles the everyday student can scoop up on the way out the door. Bottled water is healthy and it comes from clear mountain springs and unsoiled glaciers.
That is, of course, according to advertisements and labels put out by water bottling companies.
But according to a four-year survey conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, tap water is more rigorously tested than bottled water for purity’s sake and contaminants. Bottled water is required to be tested less frequently for bacteria and is not required to be disinfected or tested for parasites. This poses a health threat to people with weakened immune systems such as the frail elderly, infants, cancer patients and HIV/AIDS victims.
In fact, about one-fourth of bottled water is actually tap water, marketed with a prettier label – and a heftier price tag.
The tax makes an estimated $21 million for the city alone, according to the issue of the Chicago Tribune. Treehugger.com reports that Seattle spent $58,000 on bottled water in 2007, without factoring in the costs of transportation and the manufacturing of plastic bottles. Monetary problems are just the tip of the iceberg.
The energy required to produce bottled water amounts to about 17 million barrels of oil annually. From a global standpoint, the figure multiplies by about five times. Water bottling is a costly process, not in the least because of transportation — which usually doubles the energy output to create each bottle.
Ironically enough, in order to bottle one liter of water, three liters are needed to actually make the bottle and get everything into the right place.
In April 2007, Nestle began using bottles with 30 percent less plastic than normal bottles. While this is a step in the right direction, it is not a long-term solution.
It is not because of poorly refined water that the tax on bottled water in Chicago was implemented. Greenhouse emissions are released in the manufacture of the disposable plastic bottles, less than 20 percent of which are recycled after use, according to the Herald Tribune. The target of the tax is plastic.
The energy involved in making the plastic bottles goes above and beyond the benefits of portable water bottling.
Bottled water is about 1,000 times more expensive than tap water, with little reason for consumers to choose the bottle over tap. Superficially, the bottling industry has a serious impact on environmental and monetary issues, but the true danger lies deeper.
By increasing the price on what is basically water, multinational corporations have turned a basic right into a privilege for the wealthy few. Water is a fabled treasure, affordable only by those rich enough to afford better health and better living.
An abstract, impossible theory? Think again. While bottled water advertisements do not outright state that tap water is beneath public consumption, rising bottled water sales imply a public belief that tap water is much less than safe. With that implication comes a lack of trust in municipal water supplies.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimated in 2005 that a total of $17.5 billion was needed to improve California’s drinking water infrastructure. That same year, California lost 222 million gallons of viable water to leaking pipes.
The thing about bottled water is that not everyone can afford it, and those who cannot are forced to endure a municipal system badly in need of an upgrade – an upgrade that could easily be financed by the bloated prices of bottled water.
The long-term goal should be an improvement in public water systems and a weaning off duplicitously healthier bottled water. By swearing off bottled water for city-sponsored functions, Seattle and San Francisco are proclaiming their trust for their water systems. According to the Boston Globe, more and more restaurants have also begun to hop on the anti-bottled water bandwagon.
These are all praiseworthy steps toward better municipal water, but the real fight begins in the private home. Instead of buying packs of overly priced water, why not try refilling a sturdier bottle daily? Ultimately, the hope for a better future rests where it always has: with you.
03-27-2008
