Right: The first bottled water was sold in England several centuries ago. The product was seen by some as necessary in combating water-borne diseases like cholera.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of banning the sale of bottled water
1. The product is unnecessary and expensive
Critics argue that purchasing bottled water is unnecessary in developed countries, where bottled water is most commonly sold. They claim that consumers are purchasing the image associated with bottled water and that they are doing so at considerable expense.
In an article published in Choice on March 21, 2018, Kate Browne noted perplexedly, 'Bottled water is a product people are happy to pay top dollar for - despite most Australians having access to safe drinking tap water at a fraction of the price.'
Browne went on to argue that consumers appear to be responding to positive images of the product created through marketing. She stated, '(Consumers) found the imagery of clean and natural sources displayed on the bottled water packaging ...reassuring.'
A Fairfax Media survey of bottled water sold in Sydney's cafes, supermarkets and convenience stores in July, 2016, has found seven out of 34 brands are 'purified' tap water. The average price of bottled tap water is $2.75 per litre. The average price of spring and mineral water is $5.18
Donna Lewis, acting engagement, education and partnerships manager at Sydney Water has observed, 'Our research found that the perception of water quality is the primary driver for choosing bottled water over tap. The reasons for this association are numerous, but much of it comes down to clever marketing campaigns by bottled water distributors.
By telling consumers the safest drinking water comes from a bottle, beverage companies indirectly imply that tap water is unsafe and can't be trusted. '
The Fairfax Media survey found a third of the bottles were tinted blue, which strengthens the image of purity. Some have opted to use see-through labels, such as Capi, Fiji and the new-look Evian, which desires to ''showcase the purity of the contents''.
Gary Mortimer, marketing expert at Queensland University of Technology, said manufacturers use labels, colours and design to appeal to different market segments. Mortimer further stated, 'Marketers can't claim bottled water is better for you than tap water, so they use things like ''fresh'', ''natural'' or use images like snow-cap mountains to lead us to believe that.'
Extensive studies have demonstrated that in most countries tap water is at least as safe as that purchased in a bottle. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines specify that tap water 'should contain no harmful concentrations of chemicals or pathogenic micro-organisms, and ideally it should be aesthetically pleasing in regard to appearance, taste and odour. Water authorities use filtering, settling, coagulation and disinfecting to ensure the safety of drinking water. They also use sufficient disinfectant to stop the re-growth of microorganisms as the water travels through the pipe system to the tap. Additionally, water utilities monitor the water quality 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and conduct thousands of tests each year to ensure quality and safety.
CoolAustralia.org has highlighted the cost to Australian consumers of purchasing a product they can acquire for virtually nothing from a tap. The organisation's website asks, 'Put your hand up if you are happy to pay more than 1,000 times over the cost for anything. No hands showing? Now put your hand up if you would buy a bottle of something down at the shops for $3.50 that you can get for free with no effort. No hands showing? Well our hands should be up - this is what millions of us do every day.'
Responding further to the question it has asked, CoolAustralia.org states, 'Australians purchased over 726 million litres of water in 2015. The average cost of the most popular bottled water in Australia is $2.75 per litre. Therefore Australians may have spent up to $2 billion dollars on bottled water in 2015.'
Those who believe bottled water is in no way superior to tap water argue that purchasing bottled water is simply a waste of money.2. Bottled water contributes to pollution
Plastic bottles add to physical pollution on land and in rivers and oceans as a result of the dumping of the plastic bottles which contained the product.
It has been estimated that more than half a trillion plastic bottles will be sold annually by the end of the decade. The demand, equivalent to about 20,000 bottles being bought every second, is driven by an apparently constant demand for bottled water and the spread of a western, urbanised culture to China and the Asia Pacific region.
More than 480bn plastic drinking bottles were sold in 2016 across the world, up from about 300bn a decade ago. If placed end to end, they would extend more than halfway to the sun. By 2021 it is estimated this will increase to 583.3bn.
Water bottles are predominantly made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics. PETs do not biodegrade, rather they photo degrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. Those fragments absorb toxins that pollute waterways, contaminate soil, and can sicken animals, including those that form part of the human food chain. Plastic rubbish also absorbs organic pollutants like BPA and PCBs. These contaminant may take centuries to decompose while sitting in landfills.
According to the Ocean Conservatory, plastic bottles and plastic bags are the most prevalent form of pollution found on our beaches and in our oceans. Worldwide, round 100 million tonnes of plastic are produced each year, of which about 10 million tonnes ends in the sea.
At sea and on shore under the influence of sunlight, wave action and mechanical abrasion these larger items slowly break up into very much smaller pieces called micro plastics. Thus bottles degrade from being a floating bottle to tiny plastic particles that are easily eaten by fish and other marine species or simply spread even further afield. It has been estimated that a single one-litre bottle could break down into enough small fragments to reach beaches across the globe.
An analysis of waters around Australia found on average there were around 4,000 micro plastic fragments per square kilometre, although some hotspots had concentrations of around 15,000 to 23,000. The vast majority of the micro plastic fragments came from plastic packaging such as cups, bottles, bags, as well as fragments of fishing gear.
This plastic pollution has a major impact on marine life. It is estimated around 90 per cent of seabirds are ingesting plastics. These plastics can cause blockages of the gut or perforation of the intestines. Ingestion of plastic can also cause toxic chemicals such as phthalate (a plasticiser that effects the hormone system) to leach into the animal.
44 percent of all seabird species, 22 percent of cetaceans, all sea turtle species and a growing list of fish species have been documented with plastic in or around their bodies. It is estimated that some one million sea birds and 100,000 marine mammals are killed annually from plastic in our oceans.
Scientists at Ghent University in Belgium recently calculated people who eat seafood ingest up to 11,000 tiny pieces of plastic every year. In August 2016, the results of a study by Plymouth University reported plastic was found in a third of United Kingdom-caught fish, including cod, haddock, mackerel and shellfish. Last year, the European Food Safety Authority called for urgent research, citing increasing concern for human health and food safety 'given the potential for micro plastic pollution in edible tissues of commercial fish'.
3. Manufacturing the bottles is a waste of resources
Opponents of bottled water note that the product is wasteful of resources. The plastic bottles, primarily made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, are made from a hydrocarbon extracted from crude oil.
A study published in Environmental Research Letters found that an estimated total of between 32 million to 54 million barrels of oil was required to generate the energy to produce the amount of bottled water consumed in the United States in 2007. The energy use breaks down into roughly four parts of the production cycle: that used to make the plastic and turn it into bottles, to treat the water, to fill and cap the bottles, and finally to transport them.
A recent study conducted by the Pacific Institute determined that about one million tons of polyethylene terephthalate PET were used to make plastic bottles in the United States in 2007, with three million tons used globally; the energy used to produce that global amount of PET and the bottles it was turned into was equivalent to about 50 billion barrels of oil. This is the largest single component in the energy cost of bottled water production; however, every stage in the process contributes further to the cist.
The Pacific Institute concluded that the amount of energy required to produce, bottle and distribute bottled water is 2,000 times more than is required to make tap water.
A further indication of the waste of resources represented by bottled water is that it takes more water to produce a bottle of water than the bottle itself contains.
The International Bottled Water Association recently conducted an investigation into the amount of water it requires to produce a bottle of water. The results, released in October, 2013, found that for North American companies, it takes 1.39 litres to make one litre of water.
Critics claim that even this is a very conservative estimate as it refers only to the amount of water involved in packaging the water, it does not factor in the water cost associated with bottle manufacture or product transportation.
Italian studies have found that More than six litres are required to produce and cool 1.5 litres of bottled water.
4. The quality of bottled water may be suspect
Critics of bottled water argue that the product may not have the health benefits supporters claim for it. Instead, opponents suggest, water in plastic bottles may be damagingly contaminated.
Recent United States studies have found that more than 90 per cent of bottled water products tested contain micro plastics (minuscule pieces of plastic). Micro plastic concentrations in one bottle of Nestl Pure Life were found to be as high as 10,000 plastic pieces per litre of water. The new evidence of plastic contamination in bottled water has led to an investigation by the World Health Organisation into the potential health risks to consumers.
A study by the State University of New York in Fredonia has suggested that those drinking a bottle of water every day could be consuming about 56,875 pieces of micro plastic in a year from that source alone.
The samples analysed were from 250 bottles of water produced in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Thailand and the United States and were contaminated with plastic including polypropylene, nylon, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The research found that the micro plastic in the water was coming from processes to do with bottling or from the cap itself.
Although the adverse effect of micro plastics on human beings is unknown, there have been ill effects observed in some other animal species. Jane Williamson, deputy director of Macquarie University's Marine Research Centre, has stated, 'Based on a study we did assessing plastic ingestion with a small animal called a beach hopper, we know that micro plastics can accumulate within the body. In beach hoppers this caused weight gain, reduced performance, and even death.'
Testing by the US-based Environmental Working Group (EWG) in 2008 revealed that every bottled water brand analysed contained at least eight different pollutants, including heavy metals, radioactive isotopes, caffeine, chlorine, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, disinfection by-products, solvents, plasticizers and propellants. Researchers at the University of Missouri testing the water quality of commercial bottled waters found that one brand triggered a 78 per cent increase in the growth of breast cancer cells compared to the control samples used. Chemical contamination from the bottles is believed to be the culprit. The plastic used in single-use bottles (polyethylene terephthalate - PET or PETE) poses a cancer threat. If reused, these bottles can also leach chemicals such as DEHA and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), another potential endocrine disruptor implicated as a carcinogen.
It has further been noted that the quality control applied to water before it is bottled is less rigorous than that applied to tap water. Professor Stuart Khan, associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of New South Wales, has noted that tap water and bottled water are regulated differently. Tap water needs to meet much more stringent quality criteria and is monitored far more carefully than bottled water. Those bottling water have far less control over potential contaminants entering the water from the collection hinterland than do the authorities responsible for dams and reservoirs.
Dr Peter Cox, principal advisor on public health at Sydney Water, has observed that even with the cleanest water out of a spring, microorganisms will change the water quality. Professor Cox has stated, 'People like to believe bottled water is pure, straight from nature, with no human intervention, but it has to be treated.'
5. Harvesting spring water harms rural environments
There have been several disputes in regional Victoria surrounding water bottling companies harvesting underground water by contracting with local farmers who sell the bore water as part of their irrigation allocation.
Other farmers in these districts have complained that the permanent removal of this bottled water takes it from the watertable and potentially levels the region more exposed in times of drought.
Indigo shire Mayor, Jenny O'Connor, whose council has recently blocked an application from a bottled water business to extract groundwater has stated, 'This is a finite, precious resource... As a councillor, I feel I need to take a stand on an issue of great concern to the community.'
Councillor Bernard Gaffney introduced the motion to block the proposed bore because he said it was on prime farming land, in a catchment supplying Beechworth and Yackandandah with water that could potentially run dry in a drought.
Stanley Regional Community Incorporated's legal moves began in 2014 when members voted to join Indigo Shire at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to defend the council's rejection of Stanley Pastoral's planning application to collect, store and transport water from a small farm south of Stanley.
The local group has called on the Victorian Parliament to change the Water Act to ensure 'transparent community and environmental interest tests are considered during the regulatory process for the sale of groundwater'. They want the Water Act change to prioritise the use of water for agricultural purposes and to prevent water being permanently taken out of the area for bottling.
A spokesperson stated, 'It is the Act - and therefore parliament - which continues to fail farm-rich communities like ours, which depend on reliable groundwater supply to maintain our natural environment and way of life.'
Similar complaints have been made in Queensland where Coca-Cola has a lease to extract water from groundwater at Springbrook. Under the terms of the agreement, Coca-Cola are restricted to operating from 8.30am-5pm six days a week and can take two tanker loads each day - but there is no limit on how much water they are allowed to take per visit.
Local resident Ceris Ash stated, 'They are threatening the world heritage values of Springbrook National Park.
They are taking their water out of the ground, but that all still feeds into the creeks and streams that go through the national park and down to the coast. We have an incredibly sensitive ecosystem here with rare animals and trees found nowhere else on the planet.'