GAO: tap water pretty much safer than bottled water

[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

 

[physics girl phd]

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.

I wonder this also:

I had a roommate in college who got bladder stones -- suspected because the town our undergrad was located in had a lot of calcium in the water (calcium carbonate / limestone was prominent in the region). In fact, her doctor told her to STOP drinking so much tap water since she was having this problem. Taking too much calcium supplement can cause bladder or kidney stones too.

I feel like I should probably be taking supplements though. I probably only get 1-2 serving of dairy a day (via strong smelly cheeses I buy that no-one else eats... frequently the guys drink all the milk and eat all the yogurt before I get any! )