GAO: tap water pretty much safer than bottled water

[gravenewworld]

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09861t.pdf


Do you buy bottled water?

 

[rootX]

I think it is stupid to buy water unless you wouldn't get tap water or you have too much money.

I just keep a water bottle and keep on refilling with tap water.

 

[mgb_phys]

Coke launched Dasani bottled water in the UK
First they got into trouble with the advertising standards agency for describing it as pure when it was simply London tap water, then it was 'voluntarily withdrawn' when it turned out that their bottling process added unacceptable levels of carcinogens.

A friend of mine is having chemotherapy, one of the warnings is to only drink freshly poured tap water because of the risk of bacteria in bottled or filtered jug water.

 

[Cyrus]

Could you at least summarize this 8 page pdf, rather than simply posting a one line question?

 

[Evo]

Bottled water is not only a silly, unnecessary extravagance, the amount of plastic it is adding to landfills is horrendous. Buy a plastic bottle, fill it with water, rinse, repeat.

 

[lisab]

Bottled water is not only a silly, unnecessary extravagance, the amount of plastic it is adding to landfills is horrendous. Buy a plastic bottle, fill it with water, rinse, repeat.

Hear, hear. I've used the same 4-or-so bottles for over a year.

My tap water is absolutely fantastic.

 

[Phrak]

Coke launched Dasani bottled water in the UK
First they got into trouble with the advertising standards agency for describing it as pure when it was simply London tap water, then it was 'voluntarily withdrawn' when it turned out that their bottling process added unacceptable levels of carcinogens.

A friend of mine is having chemotherapy, one of the warnings is to only drink freshly poured tap water because of the risk of bacteria in bottled or filtered jug water.

Where do you get this? When water is placed into a pleasing container with a special name it obtains to a unique form. You can tell because people drink it for a reason, so you should too. Water has nearly magical health benefits. It's, like, the staff of life, dude. Everybody know that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

GAO: tap water pretty much safer than bottled water

I just read it and I don't see where it says this. Only that the regulations regarding public drinking water are more rigorous. I actually saw nothing in the entirety of the article that contained any sort of actual conclusions on safety of bottled water. There were only conclusions regarding regulation and insinuations that lack of regulation may mean lack of safety.

 

[gravenewworld]

I just read it and I don't see where it says this. Only that the regulations regarding public drinking water are more rigorous. I actually saw nothing in the entirety of the article that contained any sort of actual conclusions on safety of bottled water. There were only conclusions regarding regulation and insinuations that lack of regulation may mean lack of safety.

Among our other findings, the states’ requirements to safeguard bottled water often exceed those of FDA, but are still often less comprehensive than state requirements to safeguard tap water.

There's also a link in the article to the full report. Does the GAO really need to explicitly state everything to get the point across? The GAO basically said tap water is safer because it has more stringent oversight to prevent things like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS160197+24-Jun-2008+PRN20080624

The product in question may contain a diluted form of a common food grade
cleaning compound that results in a bitter or sour taste. This could pose a
potential health concern if ingested in large quantities over an extended
period of time and should not be consumed or used in preparing infant formulas
or other foods or beverages. No illnesses have been reported.

 

[Phrak]

The product in question may contain a diluted form of a common food grade
cleaning compound...

Yeah, well, so what packaged, manufactured, or fast food doesn't? It's either edible soap or that hint (or overwhelming) taste of fungus you get at the coffee machine when the vendor got lazy and didn't dush the hoppers with edible soap.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There's also a link in the article to the full report. Does the GAO really need to explicitly state everything to get the point across? The GAO basically said tap water is safer because it has more stringent oversight to prevent things like this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS160197+24-Jun-2008+PRN20080624

That PDF isn't the report?

Mere lack of regulation does not make bottled water less safe than tap water. It makes it less regulated. There are plenty of places out there where they have had scares about their tap water. Even just the plumbing in your home or apartment could be contaminating your tap water. I've drawn tap water in places where the water came out milky coloured and even brownish.

 

[gravenewworld]

That PDF isn't the report?

It's just a general overview/summary of the report, unless you want to read the 50+ page document:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09610.pdf

Mere lack of regulation does not make bottled water less safe than tap water. It makes it less regulated.

Eh, you are splitting hairs here IMO. In general it is true that when things like drugs or water are more regulated, they are generally safer than when not, but as with anything in life there are certainly no 100% guarantees. The FDA is much more stringent with regulations on prescription drugs and hardly regulates things like supplements. Which are generally more safe for consumption in your opinion? Regulation is no guarantee because you will still have things like Vioxx that will happen, but things like that happen far less often than events when less regulation is involved (for example things like Ephedra or Hydroxycut).

There are plenty of places out there where they have had scares about their tap water. Even just the plumbing in your home or apartment could be contaminating your tap water. I've drawn tap water in places where the water came out milky coloured and even brownish.

But again contaminants in tap water could come from your house plumbing, not the source of the water. Like the GAO report said:

Public water systems must annually provide consumer confidence reports that summarize local drinking water quality information about the water’s sources, detected contaminants, and compliance with national primary drinking water regulations as well as information on the potential health effects of certain drinking water contaminants. FDA does not require bottled water companies to provide this information.

I fail to see how more information does not equate to more safety . Bottled water may be as safe as tap water, but who knows? The information out there to at least insulate this isn't out there because it isn't required!

 

[Cyrus]

I fail to see how more information does not equate to more safety . Bottled water may be as safe as tap water, but who knows? The information out there to at least insulate this isn't out there because it isn't required!

Gravenewworld, I would like you to do the following:

(1) Not provide a link to a 50+ page pdf saying 'here read all this'. No one is going to do this. So if you have actually sat down and read this entire report, highlight the important pages you think are of particular interest to the rest of us.

(2) The quote you provided simply says that bottled water companies do not have to provide this information to the consumer, it did not say they don't have to pass the same standards (or even what those standards are) before it can hit the market. Therefore, what you said in bold above is a dishonest statement given the facts you have provided. It simply implies that bottled water is at *least* as good as tap water, but possibly better.

(3) This is nothing new. In fact, it's old news. So I'm puzzled as to why you are so surprised by this information.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I fail to see how more information does not equate to more safety . Bottled water may be as safe as tap water, but who knows? The information out there to at least insulate this isn't out there because it isn't required!

Here seems to be the primary issue that the report is concerned with...

We found that, for the most part, FDA’s bottled water standard of quality regulations are equivalent to EPA’s regulations for drinking water, but FDA has yet to set a standard for DEHP. Under the FFDCA, FDA is required to establish standard of quality regulations for bottled water that are no less stringent than the maximum contaminant levels established in EPA’s national primary drinking water regulations, and the agency has done so for most contaminants. In most cases where FDA has not adopted EPA’s national primary drinking water regulations, the agency has provided a rationale for not doing so. For example, FDA stated that it did not adopt EPA’s maximum contaminant level for asbestos or EPA’s treatment technique for the parasite Cryptosporidium because if municipal water is used as a source, it already has to meet EPA regulations, and it is unlikely that other sources of water, such as springs and aquifers, would contain these contaminants.

On top of FDA regulation 80% of bottled water producers also belong to the International Bottled Water Association which has even more strict guidelines than the FDA and EPA. There are also other bottled water safety orgs besides the IBWA.

So apparently according to this report you cite the only real concern is this DEHP since it is the only significant difference in regulation.

 

[gravenewworld]

Gravenewworld, I would like you to do the following:

(1) Not provide a link to a 50+ page pdf saying 'here read all this'. No one is going to do this. So if you have actually sat down and read this entire report, highlight the important pages you think are of particular interest to the rest of us.

That's what the first link was for, it was a brief summary of the report that was pretty much only 3-4 pages. Why would I summarize a summary?

(2) The quote you provided simply says that bottled water companies do not have to provide this information to the consumer, it did not say they don't have to pass the same standards (or even what those standards are) before it can hit the market. Therefore, what you said in bold above is a dishonest statement given the facts you have provided. It simply implies that bottled water is at *least* as good as tap water, but possibly better.

Of particular note, FDA does not have the specific statutory authority to require bottlers to use certified laboratories for water quality tests or to report test results, even if violations of the standards are found. Among our other findings, the states’ requirements to safeguard bottled water often exceed those of FDA, but are still often less comprehensive than state requirements to safeguard tap water

It is all in the first link. It does not imply at all that bottled water is as good as tap. If the FDA is the only oversight watching bottled water manufacturers and they don't even have the power to obtain information about the quality of the water going into the bottles how does this imply that bottled water is as good as public tap water where much more comprehensive information on the quality of the water must be disclosed to an agency like the EPA?

(3) This is nothing new. In fact, it's old news. So I'm puzzled as to why you are so surprised by this information.

Eh. You hear of stories like this, but this is the first time that I know of that something as big as the GAO has spoken about it.

 

[gravenewworld]

Here seems to be the primary issue that the report is concerned with...

On top of FDA regulation 80% of bottled water producers also belong to the International Bottled Water Association which has even more strict guidelines than the FDA and EPA. There are also other bottled water safety orgs besides the IBWA.

Sounds like another lobbyist group running Washington.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27185076/from/ET/

n the Wal-Mart and Giant Food bottled water, the highest concentration of chlorine byproducts, known as trihalomethanes, was over 35 parts per billion. California requires 10 parts per billion or less, and the industry's International Bottled Water Association makes 10 its voluntary guideline. The federal limit is 80.

*snip*

The researchers also said the Wal-Mart brand exceeded California's limit by five times for a second chlorine byproduct, bromodichloromethane.

Don't forget, states have their own guidelines for public tap water purity too. It sounds like CA state's regulations are even tighter than the IBWA's.

 

[Cyrus]

That's what the first link was for, it was a brief summary of the report that was pretty much only 3-4 pages. Why would I summarize a summary?

You are making a thread about this topic, I would expect you to have more to say about it than "Do you buy bottled water?".

It is all in the first link.

Then reference it. I'm not going to go sifting through that paper doing your homework for you.

It does not imply at all that bottled water is as good as tap. If the FDA is the only oversight watching bottled water manufacturers and they don't even have the power to obtain information about the quality of the water going into the bottles how does this imply that bottled water is as good as public tap water where much more comprehensive information on the quality of the water must be disclosed to an agency like the EPA?

Source? (If it's from the paper, then show me where.) I did not see a source for what you said in bold.

Eh. You hear of stories like this, but this is the first time that I know of that something as big as the GAO has spoken about it.

Perhaps, I don't follow what the GAO says closely enough to confirm nor deny that statement.

 

[Cyrus]

Edit: I think you added this before I finished typing my reply:

Of particular note, FDA does not have the specific statutory authority to require bottlers to use certified laboratories for water quality tests or to report test results, even if violations of the standards are found. Among our other findings, the states’ requirements to safeguard bottled water often exceed those of FDA, but are still often less comprehensive than state requirements to safeguard tap water

Thank you, finally, for a sourced piece of information.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is all in the first link. It does not imply at all that bottled water is as good as tap. If the FDA is the only oversight watching bottled water manufacturers and they don't even have the power to obtain information about the quality of the water going into the bottles how does this imply that bottled water is as good as public tap water where much more comprehensive information on the quality of the water must be disclosed to an agency like the EPA?

Bottled water companies must submit to testing from government agencies as well as do their own testing. There is a whole section on all of the legally required testing in the report you cite.

Sounds like another lobbyist group running Washington.

Unless you have some reason to disparage the IBWA, along with sources describing why, perhaps you should leave off the comments designed to discredit them?
Oh and perhaps you wouldn't mind finding out for us which lobbyists spurred the report you cite for your thread?

Don't forget, states have their own guidelines for public tap water purity too. It sounds like CA states regulations are even tighter than the IBWA's.

Regulations even tighter than the EPA's then? Did you not note that the FDA regs are very nearly the same as the EPA and IBWA's are tighter than the FDA's? So if California's are tighter than the IBWA's then they are probably even tighter than the supposed gold standard set by the EPA.

 

[cristo]

Coke launched Dasani bottled water in the UK
First they got into trouble with the advertising standards agency for describing it as pure when it was simply London tap water, then it was 'voluntarily withdrawn' when it turned out that their bottling process added unacceptable levels of carcinogens.

I remember that.. it lasted for a couple of weeks! I was amazed when I was offered a bottle of Dasani in the US when I asked for a bottle of water. It seems like people over there don't mind paying a few dollars for a bottle of tap water! Needless to say, I didn't!

 

[gravenewworld]

Bottled water companies must submit to testing from government agencies as well as do their own testing. There is a whole section on all of the legally required testing in the report you cite.

That's putting spin on it. The FDA devotes a laughable 2.6 FTE's for inspecting bottled water. The FDA almost never takes water samples. State inspectors are required to inspect the same way FDA inspectors do and they almost never take samples either. Bottlers are also not required to do their testing in certified labs like state water ways have to be tested against. Bottled water also isn't subject to the clean water act because it is treated like a food.

Unless you have some reason to disparage the IBWA, along with sources describing why, perhaps you should leave off the comments designed to discredit them?

Since when isn't the IBWA a lobbyist group? They tried filing lawsuits to block a tax on bottled water in NY and tried pressing the USDA to get water put into the food pyramid:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/nyregion/20bottle.html
http://www.prweekus.com/pages/Login.aspx?retUrl=/Water-bottlers-lobby-to-get-onto-FDAs-food-pyramid/article/44087/&PageTypeId=28&ArticleId=44087&accessLevel=2 (not full article but remember reading about this in my college's newspaper back when I was an undergrad)

Oh and perhaps you wouldn't mind finding out for us which lobbyists spurred the report you cite for your thread?

Read Appendix I. The GAO basically did a 3rd party investigation. It interviewed officials from both groups like EWG and IBWA as well as US government officials. So while the EWG probably did get the ball rolling on this issue, the GAO conducted its own investigation and came out with the report you read.

Regulations even tighter than the EPA's then? Did you not note that the FDA regs are very nearly the same as the EPA and IBWA's are tighter than the FDA's? So if California's are tighter than the IBWA's then they are probably even tighter than the supposed gold standard set by the EPA.

Did you not read the part where it said that state regulations on public water ways in many instances are even more strict than the FDA's? Like the MSN article said, for trihalomethanes the Federal limit (EPA) is 80 ppb while the state of CA requires it be under 10 ppb. The IBWA only makes it optional to be under 10 ppb. So yes, what you said in bold is true. Read Appendix II. It compares the standards of the FDA, EPA, and IBWA. In some cases the IBWA has higher standards than the EPA, while the EPA has higher standards than the IBWA in other cases. IBWA standards are a moot point in this issue for two reasons--one being the fact that bottlers aren't even required to submit to testing from certified labs and two the results of the tests don't even have to be disclosed to the FDA. What's the point of IBWA standards if the FDA can't even be sure it's being enforced?

BTW the EPA standards listed in appendix II are only the EPA's maximum allowable levels. They say nothing about what the EPA really recommends.

 

[Pythagorean]

The water quality in this chunk of interior Alaska sucks. Calcium carbonate. I have a Brita filter, but it's the second one I've bought (the hard water wasn't friendly to the upper water reservoir).

Anyway, in between Brita pitchers, while pining over the $$$ it would cost, I bought 1 gallon jugs of Alaska glacier water.

 

[mgb_phys]

IIt seems like people over there don't mind paying a few dollars for a bottle of tap water!

I wouldn't mind paying for bottled Yorkshire tap water here.
The water here is straight from rainfall->filter->tap they don't even fluoridate it. Very pure but completely tasteless - and people still buy water filters.

 

[Moonbear]

I remember that.. it lasted for a couple of weeks! I was amazed when I was offered a bottle of Dasani in the US when I asked for a bottle of water. It seems like people over there don't mind paying a few dollars for a bottle of tap water! Needless to say, I didn't!

It's tap water with some added stuff. I think Dasani is one that adds some salts to the water to adjust the flavor.

I usually have some bottled water around. It's what you use when the tap water isn't safe to drink or when the water isn't running...such as when there's a water main break or a flood is contaminating the water supply. It's also what you drink when you visit developing countries that don't have a reliable source of safe tap water. Oh, and my sister gives my nephew some bottled water, because she lives in that backward country of the People's Republic of South Jersey (as JimmySnyder about it), and they don't fluoridate the tap water in her area, so she gets some sort of bottled water that's fluoridated for the kid to promote healthy teeth.

When I do buy bottled water, I buy the stuff that's just bottled tap water (usually labeled something like "drinking water" instead of "spring water") because it's cheapest for throwing a gallon jug in the closet for emergencies.

 

[mgb_phys]

Iso she gets some sort of bottled water that's fluoridated for the kid to promote healthy teeth.

Thats one of the concerns in the report - most bottled waters don't have added fluoride and (I really can't believe this) 9% of kids drink mostly or only bottled water.

 

[JasonRox]

Could you at least summarize this 8 page pdf, rather than simply posting a one line question?

Please. It's more like 3 pages. You have a title page, a page that is blank, etc...

It's a 3-4 page summary to a 50 page report.

What do you want now? A summary to a summary?



Another note. It mentions that bottles water takes more energy to produce (obvious, but it states it). It's already more environmentally to use tap water. Nevermind the waste that comes afterwards!

I'll have to take a look at how Canada regulates this. I'm assuming bottled water is not regulated here at all.

 

[Moonbear]

Thats one of the concerns in the report - most bottled waters don't have added fluoride and (I really can't believe this) 9% of kids drink mostly or only bottled water.

I can believe there are that many kids drinking bottled water. I haven't read the report...does it distinguish between those drinking fluoridated or non-fluoridated water? Most of the kids in the town where my sister lives, for example, drink a lot of bottled water because their parents are aware of the need for fluoride, and spend the extra money on the brand that contains it since it's not in the tap water there (there are also chewable fluoride tablets that the dentist can prescribe, so some use those instead or in addition to the bottled water). But, most bottled water does not include fluoride...I don't even see that stuff in stores around here where tap water is fluoridated. I haven't looked in the stores in the more rural areas where most people have wells rather than public water supplies. The same problem would apply for anyone drinking well water.

 

[rootX]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8141569.stm

Australia town bans bottled water


A rural town in Australia has voted overwhelmingly to ban the sale of bottled water over concerns about its environmental impact.

I believe this hasn't been posted yet.

 

[mgb_phys]

Vancouver has banned bottled water on city council properties, they are trying to ban it in schools. There is also a campaign for restaurants to serve tap water here.

In Canada - Aquafina is just bottled Vancouver tap water.

 

[Cyrus]

Please. It's more like 3 pages. You have a title page, a page that is blank, etc...

It's a 3-4 page summary to a 50 page report.

What do you want now? A summary to a summary?

It's generally in poor taste to ask a question to something I already answered, Jason.

 

[Moonbear]

Oh, I forgot, I DID buy bottled water recently. I needed a clean gallon jug for the iced tea I was making, and 75 cents for a jug of water was an inexpensive way to get a new iced tea pitcher (I wanted to take the iced tea to work to share when we had to work a long day at the farm last week and none of my other pitchers has a tight-fitting lid that I could transport without spilling). I just checked the container (I knew it was just plain old tap water type water...I wasn't buying it for the water, it was the gallon jug I was after...it'll get reused until it falls apart now), and yep, the label says "Source: Martins Ferry Municipal Water Authority."

 

[Cyrus]

That's putting spin on it. The FDA devotes a laughable 2.6 FTE's for inspecting bottled water. The FDA almost never takes water samples. State inspectors are required to inspect the same way FDA inspectors do and they almost never take samples either. Bottlers are also not required to do their testing in certified labs like state water ways have to be tested against. Bottled water also isn't subject to the clean water act because it is treated like a food.

Can you please provide a source for this statement, with a direct quote that supports what you have said?

Read Appendix I. The GAO basically did a 3rd party investigation. It interviewed officials from both groups like EWG and IBWA as well as US government officials. So while the EWG probably did get the ball rolling on this issue, the GAO conducted its own investigation and came out with the report you read.

Could you read Appendix I and properly quote the relevant portions. You can't post a 50 page .pdf and tell people "Go read (x,y,z)" and argue points in the meantime.

Like the MSN article said, for trihalomethanes the Federal limit (EPA) is 80 ppb while the state of CA requires it be under 10 ppb. The IBWA only makes it optional to be under 10 ppb. So yes, what you said in bold is true. Read Appendix II.

So now we must read two appendices?

It compares the standards of the FDA, EPA, and IBWA. In some cases the IBWA has higher standards than the EPA, while the EPA has higher standards than the IBWA in other cases. IBWA standards are a moot point in this issue for two reasons--one being the fact that bottlers aren't even required to submit to testing from certified labs and two the results of the tests don't even have to be disclosed to the FDA. What's the point of IBWA standards if the FDA can't even be sure it's being enforced?

Source, page number, paragraph?

BTW the EPA standards listed in appendix II are only the EPA's maximum allowable levels. They say nothing about what the EPA really recommends.

Source, page number, paragraph?

 

[physics girl phd]

Vancouver has banned bottled water on city council properties, they are trying to ban it in schools.

That's funny. Our son's school (in the US) demanded we send him with bottled water for their "snack time" (which they had because one of the students was diabetic and needed a snack daily... and they felt therefore that all the students in the class needed snack). They didn't want our son going out of the classroom to use the drinking fountain... if even just for filling up his bottle.

Our son eventually just used the snack time as reading time. He didn't like the stigma of the "healthy" snacks we sent with him (peanut butter granola bars versus the chocolate cookies etc. that other parents were sending). Like those granola bars were that healthy anyways.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Can you please provide a source for this statement, with a direct quote that supports what you have said?



Could you read Appendix I and properly quote the relevant portions. You can't post a 50 page .pdf and tell people "Go read (x,y,z)" and argue points in the meantime.



So now we must read two appendices?



Source, page number, paragraph?



Source, page number, paragraph?

Dude, did you even open the pdf? Go to appendix II. It's fricking obvious where the info you're asking for is in the appendix, since, y'know, the whole appendix is a table comparing those numbers. Do you really need him to cite "The top of the table I told you to open up and look at, but apparently you didn't?"

 

[JasonRox]

It's generally in poor taste to ask a question to something I already answered, Jason.

Oh really.

 

[turbo]

There is a growing back-lash in Maine against Poland Spring/Nestle. Many of our towns, especially smaller towns with modest water demands, get municipal water from local aquifers, and Poland Spring has been trying to tap those aquifers to supply their bottling plants. Recently, a number of municipalities have put in place bans against commercial water-extraction in order to safeguard the water supplies for their citizens.

The water district that I grew up in (Moscow/Bingham) consistently ranks at or near the top for water-quality and taste when compared to other municipal systems across the state and nationally. There are quite a few really good aquifers in this state, which is why Poland Spring is cashing in on our ground-water.

 

[Cyrus]

Dude, did you even open the pdf? Go to appendix II. It's fricking obvious where the info you're asking for is in the appendix, since, y'know, the whole appendix is a table comparing those numbers. Do you really need him to cite "The top of the table I told you to open up and look at, but apparently you didn't?"

I just opened the .pdf to Appendix (I & II). In Appendix I, I have multiple pages of text. In Appendix II, I see a list of contaminants on the rows and government agencies standards on the columns. In the OPs post he said:

Read Appendix I. The GAO basically did a 3rd party investigation. It interviewed officials from both groups like EWG and IBWA as well as US government officials. So while the EWG probably did get the ball rolling on this issue, the GAO conducted its own investigation and came out with the report you read.

No where do I see any context of what the numbers on this table shows. In addition, this is a multi-page table and I am not going to try and read or make heads or tails of every page of this appendix.

If I ever tried to present an argument like this to a professor I would promptly get my paper handed back with a rewrite.

 

[JasonRox]

I just opened the .pdf to Appendix (I & II). In Appendix I, I have multiple pages of text. In Appendix II, I see a list of contaminants on the rows and government agencies standards on the columns. In the OPs post he said:



No where do I see any context of what the numbers on this table shows. In addition, this is a multi-page table and I am not going to try and read or make heads or tails of every page of this appendix.

If I ever tried to present an argument like this to a professor I would promptly get my paper handed back with a rewrite.

If you're not going to try and read anything, why are you even in this thread in the first place?

 

[JaredJames]

It has been said in many threads before, you should state the key points you are arguing from the source document in the OP and provide references to where they appear in said document. That way, we can quickly jump to where they are to see if they are correct or not. To post an 8 page .pdf, expect everyone to read it all and then some of the source document with nothing more than "what do you think?" in the OP is just plain ridiculous.

 

[Cyrus]

If you're not going to try and read anything, why are you even in this thread in the first place?

I opened the thread with the hopes of having information being presented to me in the proper manner and context. I did not enter into this thread for a reading assignment; however, I will read portions highlighted by the OP *if* they are properly sourced and referenced. I hope I have finally explained this clearly enough for you to understand, Jason.

 

[JasonRox]

I opened the thread with the hopes of having information being presented to me in the proper manner and context. I did not enter into this thread for a reading assignment; however, I will read portions highlighted by the OP *if* they are properly sourced and referenced. I hope I have finally explained this clearly enough for you to understand, Jason.

I hope you realize that PF is not a journal, Cyrus. And if you do not want a reading assignment, you do not have to participate in the thread, Cyrus.

It's pretty simple.



Anyways, for those who want to read.

Bottled water has an excellent safety record in Canada. At the present time, no waterborne disease outbreaks have been associated with drinking bottled water in Canada.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/faqs_bottle_water-eau_embouteillee-eng.php#a1

If no one is getting sick off of it, is their cause for concern?

Health Canada is currently reviewing the laws governing the production of bottled water, and said a proposal updating monitoring and testing guidelines will soon be made available.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061005/bottled_water_061005/20061006/

I wonder if anything has happened since.

Note: Dammit, I was just getting into reading more into the Canadian side of it. Going out now. Hopefully, I have time tomorrow.

 

[Cyrus]

I hope you realize that PF is not a journal, Cyrus.

Is that supposed to excuse anything? I fail to see why that means the quality of the thread/posts should be allowed to suffer because of it.

I think there needs to be a general guideline on how to make citations, because this is way beyond absurd. The first link was to an 8 page .pdf. Next was a link to an article from reuters. Then came a 50 page .pdf, which was used a source later on with the link somewhere at the top of the page, making it a chore just to find which link is being talked about in the post.

It's a tennis match back and fourth between sources where the links are on the first page. If you're going to post a quote, please do everyone a favor and provide the link to the source at the bottom of your post. I don't want to go on a fishing expedition to find where these quotes are coming from.

This is basic stuff they make you do when you take freshman English...amazing.

 

[JasonRox]

Is that supposed to excuse anything? I fail to see why that means the quality of the thread/posts should be allowed to suffer because of it.

You're right Cyrus. We should all walk around and talk as if it's going to be published in a journal.

That would be super.

 

[Cyrus]

You're right Cyrus. We should all walk around and talk as if it's going to be published in a journal.

That would be super.

I'm glad we are in agreement.

 

[Sorry!]

Cyrus: The only parts of this thread I see that is causing the quality to suffer are your posts.

Anywho.

I've always preferred bottled water. The tap water in my apartment tastes ... funny. :D

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's putting spin on it. The FDA devotes a laughable 2.6 FTE's for inspecting bottled water. The FDA almost never takes water samples. State inspectors are required to inspect the same way FDA inspectors do and they almost never take samples either. Bottlers are also not required to do their testing in certified labs like state water ways have to be tested against. Bottled water also isn't subject to the clean water act because it is treated like a food.

I started reading more thuroughly and have found where it states that the FDA does not test every year but often contracts state agencies to do testing in its stead. Here it does not state whether this means that the state agencies do not test every year either. Besides this bottled water manufacturers are required to use only state approved sources of water. I'd imagine that these sources are approved by testing yes? And many of the manufacturers use the municipal water sources which are already tested by the EPA and contracted agencies yes? So further testing by the manufacturer and the FDA are just added protection in most instances.
And what does it matter if the labs testing the water for the manufacturers are certified or not? Can you show that this makes any difference in their ability to preform the required function? Can you show any reason to believe that certified labs are any more trust worthy other than the fact that they possesses the designation "Certified".
I also found it curious to note that while the report goes to great lengths to expose this apparent lack of rigorous inspection by the FDA they make no mention at all of the level of rigor maintained by the EPA.

Since when isn't the IBWA a lobbyist group? They tried filing lawsuits to block a tax on bottled water in NY and tried pressing the USDA to get water put into the food pyramid:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/nyregion/20bottle.html
http://www.prweekus.com/pages/Login.aspx?retUrl=/Water-bottlers-lobby-to-get-onto-FDAs-food-pyramid/article/44087/&PageTypeId=28&ArticleId=44087&accessLevel=2 (not full article but remember reading about this in my college's newspaper back when I was an undergrad)

I didn't say they weren't lobbyists. I was referring to the manner in which you referred to them. Perhaps due to your choice in reading material and the sorts of documentaries you watch it does not register in your mind when you refer to agencies in a discrediting manner for no apparent reason?
And I don't see anything wrong with trying to stop a tax on bottled water or have water mentioned in the food pyramid. Obviously they have an interest in these matters, I am assuming that is why they involved themselves, but I see nothing nefarious about their involvement in either of these issues.

Did you not read the part where it said that state regulations on public water ways in many instances are even more strict than the FDA's? Like the MSN article said, for trihalomethanes the Federal limit (EPA) is 80 ppb while the state of CA requires it be under 10 ppb. The IBWA only makes it optional to be under 10 ppb. So yes, what you said in bold is true. Read Appendix II. It compares the standards of the FDA, EPA, and IBWA. In some cases the IBWA has higher standards than the EPA, while the EPA has higher standards than the IBWA in other cases. IBWA standards are a moot point in this issue for two reasons--one being the fact that bottlers aren't even required to submit to testing from certified labs and two the results of the tests don't even have to be disclosed to the FDA. What's the point of IBWA standards if the FDA can't even be sure it's being enforced?

BTW the EPA standards listed in appendix II are only the EPA's maximum allowable levels. They say nothing about what the EPA really recommends.

Yes I saw that state regulations are often more stringent than FDA standards. I also read where many states require that bottled water facilities abide the same regulations as the state. Do you still not see though that in the vast majority of cases bottled water is held to the same standard, if not a higher one, than public drinking water?
If you read again you will find that the bottled water companies are required to keep records of their tests and make them available to any inspectors. So yes the results are disclosed to the FDA. The only difference is that they do not have to send that information to the FDA if there appears to be a problem. According to the report you cite though they are required to submit such information to the relevant local agencies if a problem is found.

Again, this all has to do with regulation. If you want to say that bottled water is less safe please refer us to some material that actually shows bottled water is less safe than tap water. You know things like compared and contrasted safety test results or comparison of the number of safety violations found at bottled water sources versus public drinking water sources. Things that actually show a disparity in safety. That would be nice considering your thread title and all.

 

[GeorginaS]

In Canada - Aquafina is just bottled Vancouver tap water.

Yep, the bottle in my fridge reads, "originates from public water sources". Then it goes on to talk about a "rigorous 7 step purification process". It says it's "demineralised treated water" and further, "by reverse osmosis -- ozonized". I'm not even sure I want to know what all of that's about. The label says it has fluoride in it. I keep refilling it from my tap so I don't know when the contents were last "reversed" and whatnot.

Calluna, I buy those gallon jugs of tap water too for the jugs and for the convenience of having that quantity of stored water should the water go out. If it's local water, it has fluoride in it. Want me to send your sister some?

 

[Moonbear]

Yes, it seems the claim that tap water is safer than bottled water is a bit lacking in logic if so much bottled water IS tap water.

For the most part, it's run through a fancy version of a Brita filter just to remove any of the tastes people don't like, like those from the chlorination process, or iron that discolors the water, or calcium that makes it hard and leaves deposits on faucets. I did wonder if the process that removed these things would also remove any fluoride.

As I've been reading this thread, I'm also wondering if the calcium in hard water is in a form that can be absorbed by the body. It seems so many people are clamoring after calcium supplements to prevent osteoporosis, while at the same time trying to remove it from their water. Maybe it's better to drink the hard water if you're worried about osteoporosis.

 

[turbo]

Yes, it seems the claim that tap water is safer than bottled water is a bit lacking in logic if so much bottled water IS tap water.

The container itself may lead to such claims. My wife and I use Rubbermaid water bottles, not Nalgene or other hard plastics that can leach chemicals into the water. Since last year sometime, Nalgene phased out polycarbonates made with BPA, but there are many, many more producers still using it in other containers meant for food, water, and other liquids.

BPA is used in hundreds of everyday products. It is used to make reusable, hard plastic bottles more durable and to help prevent corrosion in canned goods such as soup and infant formula.

"If you heat those bottles, as is the case with baby bottles, we would expect the levels to be considerably higher," said Karin B. Michels, senior author of the report and associate professor at the School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School. "This would be of concern since infants may be particularly susceptible to BPA's endocrine-disrupting potential," she said.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/05/22/harvard_study_backs_bottle_concern/

We have a drilled well, and we freeze partially-full Rubbermaid water bottles with our tap water, then top them off with water to take to work or drink in the car etc. We had re-used Gatorade bottles for a time, but noticed that when you left your water in a hot car for a while, the water had a distinct chemical taste, so we stopped using them.

 

[B. Elliott]

There's also a concern with it comes to proper amounts of fluoride...

Fact Sheet on Questions About Bottled Water and Fluoride

Some consumers use bottled water as a beverage for various reasons, including as a convenient means of hydration during their activities or as a taste preference. Besides having a cost that is between one-to-five thousand times more expensive than tap water, bottled water may not have a sufficient amount of fluoride, which is important for good oral health. Some bottled waters contain fluoride, and some do not. Fluoride can occur naturally in source waters used for bottling or be added. Most bottled waters contain fluoride at levels that are less than optimal for oral health. This fact sheet covers common questions about bottled water and fluoride.

http://www.cdc.gov/FLUORIDATION/fact_sheets/bottled_water.htm