blog

How to Store Water

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:23:00 -0400

September is International Preparedness Month, and to celebrate, the IBWA has released a guide for safely storing water reserves. In the event of a natural disaster or other incident that makes access to safe drinking water difficult, the Department of Homeland Security suggests that households should keep on hand at least one gallon of water per person per day for basic needs such as drinking, cooking, and hygiene. This guide will help ensure that people store this water in the correct manner, so that it is usable in case of an emergency.

IBWA water storage tips

Store bottled water at a constant room temperature, or cooler if possible. Room temperature is defined by the US Pharmacopeia as being between 59-86 degrees Fahrenheit.

Store bottled water out of direct sunlight.

Keep the water containers (as you would any other food products) away from solvents and chemicals such as gasoline, paint thinners, household cleaners and dry cleaning chemicals. If consumers choose to store tap water in their own containers, select appropriate containers and disinfect them before use. Never use a container that once held toxic substances. Rinse the container with a diluted chlorine bleach solution (one part bleach to 10 parts water) before use.

The same bottled water storage recommendations (items 1-3) also apply to tap water stored in containers.

You should replace stored tap water every six months. The American Red Cross and the US Federal Emergency Management Agency offer tips for treating water at this link. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, which regulates bottled water as a packaged food product, there's no shelf life for properly stored and safety-sealed bottled water.

The International Bottled Water Association recognises that consumers must have access to safe, clean drinking water during emergency situations. Smart planning and preparations for one's water needs can make a big difference in a person's health and well-being, and their ability to recover from an emergency situation.

To read the full article, go here: http://www.foodbev.com/report/ibwas-words-on-bottled-water-before-the-storm

We encourage everyone to check out this article, and to store some water for yourself and your family. This simple and easy precaution could make a big difference in the event of an emergency, like a hurricane or an earthquake. Just make sure that you follow these guidelines so that your water remains safe to drink.

IBWA Releases New Video

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:28:00 -0400

The International Bottled Water Associationhas released a new video responding to misleading claims made by anti-bottled water activists, specifically the idea that the bottled water industry manufactures demand for bottled water. The new video gives viewers insight into the industry and explains why this idea of "manufactured demand" is not accurate. We encourage everyone to go visit the IBWA Youtube page and view The Real Story of Bottled Water.

BPA Studies Presented at Annual Endocrine Society of the United States Meeting

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:25:00 -0400

At the Endocrine Society of the United States annual meeting in San Diego, there were two studies presented that dealt with Bisphenol-A. The first was a study to determine whether BPA would have harmful effects on the cells of male rats.

In the testicular function study of male rats, Benson Akingbemi, Ph.D., found harmful effects of BPA at the cellular level, particularly in Leydig cells (the cells that secrete testosterone and are located in the male testis). Testosterone is a sex hormone that promotes male fertility.

The study found that testosterone secretion declined in male offspring of female rats that received BPA orally while pregnant and nursing. The researchers noted that effects were seen at a dose of 25 μg/kg body weight per day.

While this particular study found possible harmful effects of BPA, it is important to note (as the IBWA does) that similar studies have failed to find similar effects. This clearly shows why there is still much debate concerning the safety of BPA and its use in food containers.

The other study presented at the meeting concerned findings that showed elevated levels of BPA in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

The polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) study noted by the Endocrine Society found elevated levels on BPA in the circulation of women with PCOS. In addition, this study associated with BPA the higher levels of male hormones found in the blood of women with PCOS when compared with blood samples from healthy women. Evanthia Diamanti-Kandarakis, M.D., Ph.D., study co-author and professor at the University of Athens Medical School in Greece, noted that no research had yet proved that reducing BPA in PCOS would have beneficial effects.

Diana Wu, M.D., a clinical fellow in reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the Center for Reproductive Health, University of Cincinnati, stated that "[t]his is an association study." Dr. Wu cautioned, "You can't really determine cause-and-effect." Thus, this study may only indicate that these women metabolize BPA at a slower rate than women without the syndrome.

It is important to continue to perform studies of this nature to determine whether or not BPA has harmful health effects. However, many studies continue to show contradictory effects that seem to suggest, at the very least, that BPA is not a serious threat to our health. That's why regulatory agencies in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. have not seen fit to take action against BPA. Until they decide to, we see no reason to ban its use, as some groups would like to see.

IBWA Endorses Recycling Program

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:01:00 -0400

The International Bottled Water Association recently announced it will endorse a new recycling program aimed at managing waste in US communities by encouraging cooperation between consumer product companies and local governments.

On 11 June 2010, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) board of directors endorsed a framework for a ‘Material Recovery Program' that can serve as the blueprint for local communities to increase recycling through the support and participation of all stakeholders.

According to Joseph K Doss, IBWA president and CEO, "The Material Recovery Program framework will assist in developing new, comprehensive solutions to help manage solid waste in communities in the US by having all consumer product companies work together with state and local governments to improve recycling and waste collection efforts."

IBWA's Material Recovery Program framework supports state-authorised public/private corporations that:

Establish in each community specific recycling goals to increase recycling access and rates.

Generate revenue for grants from annual consumer product company producer responsibility fees and local/state government contributions.

Fund local government recycling infrastructure improvements and consumer education programmes.

Dissolve when local recycling goals have been met.

The IBWA is a strong supporter of recycling, which plays a critical role in reducing waste and reusing valuable packaging materials.

The company believes that increasing the recycling rates for all consumer products and packaging should be a top priority for all companies whose product or packaging is ultimately discarded.

Source: http://www.foodbev.com/news/bottled-water-industry-to-establish-recycling-initiative

Lets hope that the IBWA is successful in helping this program get up and running. Anything we can do to encourage recycling and protect the environment is well worth our time and effort, and it's good to see that the IBWA recognizes a great opportunity.

City of Thunder Bay Rejects Proposal to Ban Bottled Water

Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:44:00 -0400

We at CapSnap Equipment received an interesting email recently regarding a proposal to ban the sale of bottled water in the city of Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Please find attached a media report from Thunder Bay, and a letter CBWA sent to Mayor Peterson (and City Councilors) that was entered into record. John Challinor from Nestle Waters was able to attend and present to the City Council of Thunder City yesterday (Monday, June 7, 2010).

A special thank you to Rob and Andrew Dubinsky, Sasi Water, Thunder Bay for all their efforts locally and keeping CBWA informed of all activities on this matter , and to John Challinor, Nestle Waters for all his hard work, travel to Thunder Bay and presentation to the Mayor of Thunder and the City Councilors.

It is a victory for the citizens of Thunder Bay by their elected officials by continuing to allow individual freedom of choice.

As always, CBWA would be very interested in receiving information from each of its members regarding local activities (within their towns/city or region) relating to potential by-laws and/or legislation restricting access to bottled water. We monitor this type of activity, but often those within the town/city could have information prior to general public announcements.

The following is the letter sent by the CBWA to the city council of Thunder Bay:

Dear Mayor Peterson and Members of Council:

The reason for this letter is to clarify much of the confusion and misinformation that exists about bottled water and to offer the Canadian Bottled Water Association (CBWA) as a resource to provide you with factually based information. All statements contained within this document can be verified by independent, arms length third parties.

Recently, it has come to our attention that the City of Thunder Bay is considering a proposal to ban the sale of bottled water from all municipal buildings and facilities. One of the reasons often cited is that municipal tap water, which is safe and clean, is available so bottled water alternative is not necessary.

This argument might have some merit if customers were buying bottled water as an alternative to tap water. However, according to a study conducted in May of 2006 by Probe Research Inc., 70% of adults who purchase bottled water do so as an alternative to tap water. As well, CBWA members bottle spring (ground) water, which represents over 90% of bottled water sold. As a regulated food product, natural spring water cannot be modified from its natural state (cannot modify compounds, mineral content or add chemicals).

Some policy makers contend that too many plastic bottles end up in landfill. Policy makers should be reminded that water is not the only beverage product available in plastic bottles, in fact, a variety of beverages are available in this type of container. Plastic beverage containers, including bottled water packaging, account for 1/5 of 1 percent of the waste in stream.

This is further supported upon examination of recycling rates. According to provincial authorities such as Encorp Pacific, Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Corporation, Stewardship Ontario, Eco Enterprises Quebec, and Encorp Atlantic, national recycling rates for plastic beverage containers in 2009 was 66%. In fact, PET plastic trails only newspapers and aluminum in its value to recycling programs.

Polycarbonate and PET plastic bottles are 100% recyclable. The larger bottles, for use with water coolers, are typically reusable 40 to 60 times before the need to be recycled. Once recycled, these plastics are used to make everything from playground equipment, cell phones, clothing, to automobile parts.

The bottled water industry is certainly doing its part to reduce its impact on the environment. The trend among our industry has been to develop and use bottles that are thinner and lighter, using less plastic - the weight of the typical water bottles is about half that of other packaged beverages. The CBWA and its partners have been working with local governments to assist in public spaces recycling programs and to increase ALL consumer packaging recycling in order to decrease landfill as well as litter.

One must also question why bottled water is being singled out, given the fact that water is the healthiest beverage option available. If bottled water were the only beverage to be sold in plastic bottles, that choice would be obvious. However, at a time when health providers and policy makers are struggling with sharply increased rates of diabetes and obesity, to ban the sale of calorie-free, sugar-free, and fat-free water, while continuing to allow the sale of other beverages sold in plastic bottles that cannot make these statements, is odd public policy indeed.

Some of the bottled water industry's critics allege that bottled water is not regulated. In fact, bottled water is regulated as a food by Health Canada. Water bottling companies are inspected by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Permits to take water must be applied for and obtained from provincial environment ministries. Bottling companies continuously test their product to ensure its quality, and CBWA members must adhere to the Association's stringent Model Code, which includes unannounced third party audits, as a condition of membership.

Others contend that the industry is privatizing water, or taking undue amounts of water resources, to the detriment of others. In fact, permit data from provincial environment ministries shows, and confirmed by Environment Canada, that the bottled water industry in fact takes 0.02% of fresh water available for taking in Canada.

Finally, there is the issue of cost. Comparisons have been made between the costs of bottled water to the consumer versus the cost of tap water. Obviously, tap water is the cheaper of the two (approximately 1% of tap is used for human consumption). Independent market research firm A.C. Neilson has identified bottled water as costing 34 cents per litre (2010), or about 17 cents per 500 ml bottle, while municipalities correctly point out that tap water is available for a fraction of a penny per litre. Why, they ask, does anyone buy bottled water?
As stated above, consumers do not view bottled water as an alternative to tap water but rather as an alternative to other packaged beverages. Like other beverages, bottled water will always be cheaper when purchased by the case (i.e. 24 units) as opposed to purchasing one individual serving from a convenience store or vending machine.

While the decision to ban bottled water from municipal halls, community centres, and skating rinks is largely symbolic, there are some concrete and positive steps that policy makers can take in order to make a real difference. First, increase the number of recycling containers and receptacles in public spaces. History has demonstrated that the public will participate in recycling programs when they are available. Excellent examples are the public space recycling pilot projects in the City of Sarnia and the Province of Quebec. Implementing a public space recycling pilot project will yield similar positive results, allow your citizens choice of which beverages or municipal tap water to consume (when away from home), and increase recycling rates, not just for plastic water bottles, but for all consumer packaging used outside of the home.

Secondly, conduct enhanced public education campaigns about litter, whether that litter consists of a plastic bottle or a paper cup, so that littering becomes socially unacceptable.

Finally, the CBWA encourages municipalities to not only maintain their current high standards for tap water, but also to instill greater public confidence in their water infrastructure. Canadians should feel confident about their public services.

The CBWA would be interested in meeting with you in the near future to discuss in more detail the points briefly outlined in this letter, and other important matters regarding the bottled water industry. Please feel free to have your staff contact me direct through my office at (XXX) XXX-XXXX to discuss the bottled water industry further. We look forward to providing you with details on the bottled water industry and understanding the needs of the City of Thunder Bay.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Griswold
Executive Director

Many of the questions the CBWA addresses in their letter are common misconceptions that we have seen time and time again, yet continue to crop up. It's good to see the CBWA take the initiative to combat this sort of misguided proposal.

Redistribution of Water

Wed, 26 May 2010 08:26:00 -0400

Today we have an interesting article about Waters of Patagonia, a Chilean company that is looking to the future of the bottled water industry in a somewhat unusual manner. Rather than bottle small amounts of water for sale to consumers, Waters of Patagonia is viewing water as a commodity and looking to treat it in much the same way we distribute other natural resources.

"The notion that water should be free has to change," said JC. "It's a commodity and it won't be long before this is recognised. In time, redistribution of water will become a normal practice, just like with oil. But if an oil tanker leaks into the sea, you have a catastrophe on your hands. Not so with a floating aquifer filled with water."

So is Waters of Patagonia the first company to step forward with such a bold, potential solution? "We can't believe that in all the financial reporting and water research reports from Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and The Financial Times etc, no one has identified what we believe to be the mechanisms for the transformation of the water business; namely to create movable pipelines that could address so many issues, such as geographic distribution, dependability of supply and water quality, let alone the problems of staggering pollution, greenhouse gasses and inefficient energy use.

"It's been a long time since water has been truly innovative. Desalination, bottling purified water - all of these things were indeed innovative, but have only gone so far. We're talking about redistributing the world's water supply. That's a significant innovation."

Read the full article here: http://www.foodbev.com/article/waters-of-patagonia-transforming-the-worlds-water-supply

By transporting such large quantities of water, Waters of Patagonia is seeking to confront the water shortages that threaten the future of people around the world. The process is logistically complicated, but not as much as you might initially think:

It's integrating what it terms a ‘revolution' into its programme. Portable aquifers will aim to compete with local water sources worldwide, and in some cases help to recharge and replenish natural aquifers.

According to Raccoon, the aquifers can be pulled at neutral buoyancy by relatively small vessels, are completely spill-safe and can transport 300m litres per load. They can also provide optimal offshore storage when set at a vertical position in deep water for a long period.

The phrase "redistributing the world's water supply" makes the process sound potentially harmful to the environment, but that is not the case with regards to Waters of Patagonia.

They initially targeted the Northern Patagonia Ice Field, but soon realised that the Southern Ice Field was much larger and had clearer, higher quality streams running through it. Using such an untapped resource immediately throws up questions about altering the natural life of the glacier. The team is quick to point out that they do nothing at all to interfere with the cycle of the glaciers: "The ice is melting into giant rivers all year round. All we do is source some of this before it flows into the ocean.

"We hope to accomplish this without affecting our untouched environment," said Bear. "Quite the contrary. We hope it will contribute to its own conservation. By allowing the natural services of the area to do what they do best undisturbed, we're putting large swaths under protection to work in conjunction with our only neighbour: the largest national park in Chile (Parque Nacional O'Higgins). In doing so, we're not only ensuring the quality and supply of our water for future generations, [we're] also finding a way of translating the land's intrinsic value into something that's economically viable and self supporting."

Waters of Patagonia represents an intriguing new direction for the bottled water industry, and shows how bottled water can be used to combat the looming threat of water shortages in an environmentally conscious way. It will be interesting to see how this new process, and any others like it, develop in the coming years.

Bottled Water Market Share Holds Steady

Tue, 18 May 2010 08:59:00 -0400

Good news for the bottled water industry, as the IBWA and the Beverage Marketing Corporation announced yesterday that the bottled water category's overall share of the refreshment beverage market held steady at 29.2% in 2009. While the beverage industry as a whole declined, primarily due to the economic recession, bottled water managed to maintain its share of the market, despite all of the recent attacks on the industry.

“During these tough economic times, consumers have trimmed discretionary spending,” says Tom Lauria, vice president of communications for IBWA, “but bottled water sales decreased less than most other major categories. Subsequently, we now enjoy steady market share as consumers choose bottled water over other packaged beverages.”

Read the full article at http://www.foodbev.com/report/bottled-water-market-share-holds-steady-in-2009

It's good to see that the recent economic difficulties have not had a significant impact on the bottled water market. While several other beverage categories declined, bottled water was able to maintain its market share, and should be in a good position to make gains in the market as the economy begins to recover. Based on this information, it looks like 2010 should be an exciting year for bottled water!

Food Safety Bill Heads to Senate Next Week

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:37:00 -0400

Next week figures to be a huge week for the bottled water industry as the Food Safety Modernization Act heads to the Senate for consideration next week. There are several parts of the proposed bill that will impact water bottlers in the country, including the proposed BPA amendment that we have previously discussed.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) will be considered on the U.S. Senate floor early next week. For the first time in almost a century, significant updates could be made to the federal food safety laws. The legislation's provisions include requirements for food companies to develop and use food safety plans to mitigate risks for potential contamination and to verify the effectiveness of the plans. In addition, the bill authorizes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess fees for recalls and re-inspections of food facilities.

The bill does not include food facility registration fees, which are included in the U.S. House-passed measure HR 2749.

IBWA has been working with a large coalition of food industry organizations and consumer groups on food safety legislation and has expressed support for the current version of S. 510, which has strong bi-partisan support in the Senate.

BPA Amendment
While S. 510 is under consideration, amendments are expected. Two issues of interest to the bottled water industry include proposed amendments concerning the traceability of food products and bishpenol A (BPA).

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has drafted an amendment that would ban the use of BPA in food contact substances after January 1, 2012. IBWA is working with a coalition of interested organizations to oppose the amendment and has sent a Legislative Action Alert to IBWA bottlers and distributors in selected states urging them to contact their senators to express their opposition to the amendment.

All IBWA members can use the following website to contact their senators to urge them to oppose a ban on BPA: http://www.capwiz.com/ibwa/issues/alert/?alertid=14917871.

Rumors exist of a possible compromise on Sen. Feinstein’s amendment, but language or concepts of that compromise were not available as of this morning. IBWA, along with others in the coalition, support the current FDA process for reviewing the safety of BPA with food products and have urged Congress to support the FDA review of BPA.

Food Product Traceability
Changes to the traceability of food products are also being considered that would provide FDA faster access to records and product movement, thus assisting in the removing dangerous product from the market in a quicker time frame. Changes to the traceability provisions are being negotiated with the coalition and bi-partisan support in the Senate, unlike the BPA amendment. IBWA is working with the coalition to mitigate the potential administrative burden and costs of any new system.

Source: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/ibwa/issues/2010-04-15/index.html

As the article mentions, this will be the first large scale revision of federal food safety laws in almost a century, and it is shaping up to be an exciting time for the water industry. Hopefully, the proposed BPA amendment will get its fair share of debate, as it could have an enormous impact on many areas of the food industry, and it is important to consider all possible implications of a change regulation. Like the IBWA, we at CapSnap Equipment encourage you to contact your congressional representatives and express your concern regarding the BPA amendment.

FDA Prepares to Revise Good Manufacturing Processes

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:23:00 -0400

The FDA announced on Tuesday that it has entered the rule making phase of proposed revisions to its Good Manufacturing Processes. These rules would replace the current regulations and would apply to all food products, including bottled water.

In a speech to attendees at the 2010 Food Safety Summit on April 13, 2010 in Washington, D.C., Paul South, Ph.D. of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) announced that the Agency is in the rulemaking phase for revised regulations for current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs). The new rule would replace the current regulations at 21 CFR Part 110 and would apply to all foods, including bottled water. At this time, there are no new cGMP regulations in process specifically for bottled water.

IBWA is part of a coalition of more than 60 trade associations and companies that have provided comments to FDA during the past few years to assist the Agency in developing a sound, science-based revision to the current cGMP regulations.

Although FDA cannot discuss the contents of the draft proposed rule at this time, the cGMP coalition presented a response after FDA's presentation, outlining the coalition's recommendations submitted to FDA. The industry group, including IBWA, strongly favors inclusion of HACCP and food protection measures as an integral part of the cGMP revised rule. The coalition, which also supports Senate Bill S510, which covers food safety and protection from "farm to fork."

IBWA will inform members when the proposed rule is published.

Source: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/ibwa/issues/2010-04-15/2.html

It will be interesting to see what potential impact these regulations will have on the bottled water industry, and the U.S food industry as a whole.

The New Phenomenon of Water Stores

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:52:00 -0400

Today we present an article about a new trend that is starting to spread in several different areas of the world: water stores. A water store, just as you probably suspect, is a store that specializes in selling different brands and types of bottled water, similar to what a liquor store does with alcohol. While it might sound plain, more and more people are starting to appreciate the difference between types of water. Much like wine, bottled water has different recipes that result in different tastes and qualities. These stores are making it possible for everyone to have access to regional varieties that had only been distributed locally.

A water store owner explains how he got started:

In 1995, our company introduced Kingfisher Indian beer to New Zealand. At the time, the choice of beers in Indian restaurants was effectively limited to those from the two main breweries. Over the following decade, we extended the range to include beers from China, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam.

We sold the business in 2005. Almost immediately, we began receiving phone calls from restaurant customers wanting to know where they could buy Kingfisher.

We had approached off-trade liquor outlets to sell Kingfisher, but at the time the major liquor chains were effectively controlled by the breweries and had no interest. We therefore set up a mail order division, and later an online store - New Zealand's first online beer store.

So, how does this relate to water? Well, by 2005, the range of waters available from restaurants was less than the range of beers available in 1995, or even 1985. Italian restaurants were serving waters such as Ferrarelle or Surgiva, and French restaurants, Puits Saint Georges or Evian. But supermarkets only sold S.Pellegrino or local waters in PET, and there was nowhere to buy the waters we were enjoying in restaurants.

And so, with a number of brands in existence, but not available, the idea of a water shop was born.

We encourage you to read the full article here, and consider trying for yourself some of the higher end members of the bottled water market. Perhaps it will change your ideas about how you view and use bottled water.

School Water Systems Contaminated

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:36:00 -0400

A recent investigation has shown that water in schools in 27 different states is contaminated with lead and other toxic substances due to old pipes. This is particularly true of schools in large urban areas.

As the U.S. taste for bottled water grows, environmentalists have been trying to sell people on good old-fashioned-and free-tap water.

But tap water's place in schools is thorny, since some experts say children should actually be drinking more bottled water to head off two stubborn health threats: obesity due to sugary drinks and lead poisoning.

"If children go from sugary beverages to bottled water, you get a benefit to public health, but not so much the environment," said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

"If they go from sugar beverages to [clean] tap water, you get a public health home run and environmental home run."

Bottled water is a drain on the environment: The U.S. public goes through about 50 billion water bottles a year, and most of those plastic containers are not recycled, according to Elizabeth Royte's 2008 book Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It. Transporting the bottles and keeping them cold also burns fossil fuels, which give off greenhouse gases.

Groundwater pumping by bottled-water companies also draws heavily on underground aquifers and harms watersheds, according to the environmental nonprofit the Sierra Club. And a 2008 investigation by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found some bottled water is sullied with untested industrial chemicals, and may not necessarily be cleaner than tap water.

(Related: "Bottled Water Isn't Healthier Than Tap, Report Reveals.")

Lead Dangers

But switching to tap water could be a bad idea in some schools where the risk of lead contamination from old pipes-known to affect physical and mental development-is high, particularly in large urban areas such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.

For instance in September 2009, the Associated Press published a nationwide investigation showing that the drinking water in schools in 27 states is contaminated with lead and other toxic substances from lead-soldered pipes generally installed before 1985.

(Related: "Cocaine, Spices, Hormones Found in Drinking Water.")

Schools that rely on their own wells are subject to regular testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But the agency does not regulate drinking-water quality for the rest of the nation's schools, which get their water from local utilities.

Most school districts do not test their water because of the costs associated with lead remediation, said Marc Edwards, a civil engineer at Virginia Tech.

"Even when we offer to do the analysis for free, the majority of schools don't want to know," Edwards said.

But some solutions are much less costly than replacing a whole pipe system, he said. Those range from putting filters on taps to remove lead, to flushing water fountains after a period of stagnation.

Still, for some school districts, the most cost-effective measure may be providing kids with bottled water.

In 2007, Baltimore City public schools switched their entire system to bottled water after a study of 84 randomly selected water fountains found 10 with lead levels high than the EPA's cutoff of 20 parts per billion. The school district decided it would be cheaper to provide bottled water than testing and remediation efforts.

Edwards applauds Baltimore's decision.

"I'm a huge proponent of tap water, but if your child going to one of schools where pieces of lead are falling into the tap water on a random basis, that risk pales in comparison to the small cost of bottled water."

Sugar High

Margo Wootan, director of nutrition for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), added that environmental groups that have demonized bottled water should refocus their campaigns on all bottled beverages, including soda.

"Environmentalists place a higher burden on people who drink water instead of soda, and that isn't fair," Wootan said.

School beverages, particularly sugar-laden soda and sports drinks sold in vending machines, have come under increasing fire from nutrition-advocacy groups such as CSPI.

Obesity rates among children aged 6 to 11 have more than doubled in the past 20 years, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A 2006 study by Harvard nutritionists found sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is linked to higher body weight among adolescents.

"Soda in schools has been such a huge problem for the last couple of decades, and getting rid of sugar-sweetened beverages and shifting to bottled water should be a top priority," Wootan said.

The School Nutrition Association is also advocating for the elimination of all sugar-sweetened beverages from all schools when Congress takes up the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act in March 2010.

Low-fat milk, 100-percent juices, and bottled water are the new recommended beverages for school meal programs and vending machines.

But other health experts intend to keep fighting for tap water.

"There's more demand for bottled water now in schools, and the beverage industry says they have public health in mind," Yale's Brownell said. "But we're hoping to do a big campaign to encourage consumption of tap water instead."

Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100303-bottled-water-tap-schools/

This article presents many of the issues regarding the safety issues facing public water systems. We are often told that tap water is safe to drink, but then discover that schools across 27 states are using water that is contaminated with not only lead, but other dangerous chemicals. The parents of children that attend schools such as these would certainly not argue that bottled water is unnecessary, as many activists continue to suggest.

In the end, we need to have access to both tap water and bottled water. We need to ensure that water from our public systems is safe, but also give access to bottled water for those individuals who want or require a higher level of purification.

New Anti Bottled Water Film

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:59:00 -0400

From the Omaha World-Herald comes an article about "Tapped," a new documentary film that attacks the bottled water industry and claims it is unecessary and harmful to the environment. The film says tap water is safe to drink, and accuses the bottled water industry of attempting to privatize water and sell it back to consumers.

The article describes the feelings of the anit bottled water crowd, but also includes a response from the IBWA:

Tom Lauria, a spokesman for the International Bottled Water Association, said that claim and others in the movie are false or misleading. The bottled-water industry knows that nearly all U.S. consumers and industries rely on tap water, and it supports strong and adequately funded municipal water systems, Lauria said.

Bottled water is convenient and often used in emergencies such as hurricanes, floods and wildfires, Lauria said.

"We're very concerned about it," Lauria said of the movie. "It misrepresents many facts about bottled water."

Among other things, the film argues that bottled water, which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, does not face the same testing regimen that tap water undergoes under the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lauria defended the industry, saying the FDA monitors and inspects bottled water and the plants that process it.

The film also argues that only 20 percent of plastic water bottles are recycled and the rest end up in landfills or the oceans. The bottled-water industry puts the recycle rate at nearly 40 percent and calls bottled-water containers the nation's most-recycled plastic container.

"Some of the environmental problems we face are much greater than the bottled-water industry," Lauria said. "Bottled water accounts for one-third of 1 percent of the U.S. municipal waste stream."

Major bottled-water companies like Coca-Cola with Dasani and PepsiCo with Aquafina stress their water purification processes and lighter-weight, recyclable bottles. Coke officials said Dasani has launched a plastic bottle in the western U.S. that incorporates plant-based material, reducing its use of petroleum products.

Read the full article here: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100330/MONEY/703309929

This film and its spokespeople are rehashing the same arguments that have already been refuted and countered by the IBWA and others. Claiming that bottled water is unecessary when many people, including those suffering from illnesses and those living in disaster areas, depend on it for survival is irresponsible. Kudos to the reporter from the Omaha World-Herald for not just concentrating on the film, but also letting the IBWA and others have their say as well. The result is a fair article that shows both sides of the issue.

Purified Water vs. Spring Water

Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:08:00 -0400

Individuals who are concerned about the safety of the public water system and are interested in using bottled water may find themselves wondering what the difference is between spring water and purified water. Today, we present a linkto a blog post that explains some of the differences, and leaves little doubt that both are preferable to tap water.

While spring water and purified water can come from exactly the same underground sources, the treatment processes that are involved in the two varieties can vary rather greatly. In general, spring water must come from protected, pure underground sources to carry this moniker.

According to the IBWA, spring water that is bottled must come from an underground source that has natural water flow to the earth's surface. The water itself must be gathered from the spring or from a borehole that taps into an underground formation. To earn the title of spring water, the collected water itself must carry all the same properties prior to treatment that the spring contains.

----

To earn the name "purified," water must undergo one or more specialized treatment processes, according to the IBWA. The options include distillation, reverse osmosis, deionization, and so on. Purified water, in essence, is highly treated drinking water that does not contain the chemical compounds found in the public water supply. Chlorine aftertastes, for example, will not be found within purified water.

For the full article, go here.

After reading this information, it seems as though both spring and purified water are very safe and healthy alternatives to tap water from the public water system. We encourage those within the bottled water industry to continue to produce information such as this in order to keep the public informed with reliable information about the benefits of bottled water.

IBWA Fights Bottled Water Taxes in Florida, Washington

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:27:00 -0400

The IBWA is continuing opposition to separate bills in Florida and Washington that would implement a tax on bottled water in both states. Under the terms of these bills, bottled water would be subject to a 6% sales tax in Florida, and a whopping 9.7% tax in Washington. It is no mystery what influence this would have on the price and availability of bottled water.

News about the IBWA fight against these taxes can be found here and here.

These taxes are merely a continuation of the recent drive to tax bottled water. The attempts to label bottled water as something other than a food product so that it can be taxed appears to be a desperate attemp to squeeze more money out of consumers, and does not appear related to any actual concerns about health. Actually, the taxes would make bottled water more expensive and less available, meaning less people would have access to pure, clean drinking water. In any case, it is hard to envision a situation in which these tax proposals are beneficial to anyone other than the government.

IBWA Cautions Against BPA Ban

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:27:00 -0400

The International Bottled Water Association has co-signed a letter to two senators from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee cautioning against them enacting a ban on bisphenol-A (BPA). The proposed ban would be part of the Food Safety Modernization Act, and would ban the use of BPA in food products.

IBWA has co-signed a letter to Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Michael Enzi (R-WY), the chairman and ranking minority, respectively, of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urging them not to include a ban on bisphenol-A (BPA) in S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act. IBWA’s co-signers include the Grocery Manufacturers Association, American Chemistry Council, North American Metal Packaging Alliance, Society of the Plastic Industry, and other trade associations Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has drafted an amendment to ban BPA in food products and threatened to place a hold on food safety legislation if it is not included.

In the letter, the organizations state the following:

“To be clear, we strongly support S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act. At the same time, we are concerned that amendments to ban BPA would undermine the goals of food safety legislation and delay final passage. BPA has been used for over 30 years to improve the safety and quality of food and beverages, including by providing protective coatings for cans and the metal closures for glass jars. Because adequate alternatives are not currently available, bills such as S. 593 would adversely impact an exceptionally wide range of canned and other packaged food, from fruits and vegetables to soft drinks and beer…. We urge you to allow the FDA and NIH to complete their assessment of the safety of BPA and we urge you to oppose amendments to ban BPA and short-circuit the agency’s review process.”

The House passed food safety legislation (HR 2749) containing a provision by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) on BPA that requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to report to Congress on its evaluation of the safety of BPA by December 31, 2009, and what actions it will be taking on BPA.

IBWA will continue to oppose a BPA ban in the food safety legislation and will work with others to support the current process by FDA on evaluating food contact substances. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact IBWA’s Director of Government Relations Dan Felton at dfelton@bottledwater.org.

Source: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/ibwa/issues/2010-03-25/index.html

BPA is an important product that has been used as a protective coating for many years. While it is important to consider any possible health issues that might be related to BPA use, the existing evidence is not serious enough to call for an immediate ban which could have serious consequences on the food industry. It is important to explore both sides of the issue fully before any action is taken.

Majority of Americans Oppose Tax on Soft Drinks

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:27:00 -0400

A recent national poll by Rasmussen Reports has found that 56% of Americans oppose a tax on soft drinks. The study also found that an impressive 86% of Americans feel that it is not within the governments realm of responsibility to tell citizens what they can eat or drink.

A national poll by Rasmussen Reports shows that 56% of Americans oppose a tax on soft drinks, strongly believing that lawmakers are far more interested in raising money for government than in using tax revenue for public health.

The Rasmussen research underscores that Americans are weary of more taxes, highly sceptical that the revenues would go to anything other than bigger government, and not pleased about the government using the tax code to tell them what to eat or drink. Accordingly, the survey found that only 33% of respondents support an additional tax on soft drinks.

"This poll reinforces that people don't want one more penny in taxes, especially on their groceries," says Susan K Neely, president and CEO of the American Beverage Association. "In this troubled economy, it's the wrong time to raise taxes on hard-working families, particularly when the revenue would simply pay for more government."

The Rasmussen survey found that 73% of respondents believe that lawmakers who support a tax on soft drinks are more interested in raising additional funds for government. Only a meagre 17% believe that the same lawmakers are interested in improving public health.

"Americans are smart," says Neely. "They know a ‘money grab' when they see it. The public doesn't buy that a tax is going to solve a problem as complex as obesity. Taxes like these are highly regressive, hurting those who can least afford it. It's time for lawmakers to bury this ill-conceived tax once and for all."

Importantly, the Rasmussen survey found a staggering 86% of people say that it's not within the government's realm of responsibility to dictate what their constituencies eat or drink, which is a strong rebuke of a tax on soft drinks or other sugar-sweetened beverages.

The Rasmussen data is reinforced by real-world actions where soft drink taxes are being rejected. Last year, congress chose not to pursue a soda tax to pay for healthcare reform. In 2008, the state government in Maine imposed a tax on soft drinks and other beverages to pay for the state-run healthcare programme.

In a November ballot initiative, Maine voters rejected the tax by a two-to-one margin. In New York, the governor publicly scrapped his idea to levy a major tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in 2009 after New Yorkers strongly revolted. And after proposing it again this year, the governor is feeling the heat once again from constituents fed up with taxes and the nanny state.

Source: http://www.foodbev.com/report/national-poll-finds-americans-oppose-tax-on-soft-drinks

This study is important in the context of the disputebetween the IBWA and the states petitioning for an amendment to the SSUTA that would open bottled water to taxation. If the majority of citizens already feel that soda should not be taxed, how would they feel about a tax on simple water? Furthermore, 86% of Americans think the government should not tell citizens what to eat and drink, yet this amendment is effectively doing just that. Many people will not be able to afford the price increases that would almost certainly result from these taxes, and would be forced to consume other things. It is important for citizens such as those that participated in this poll to contact their government representatives and let them know that they are against this amendment.

IBWA Releases New Video

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:25:00 -0400

The IBWA has launched a video response to the the anti-bottled water video "The Story of Bottled Water," designed to counter some of its misleading claims and attacks on the bottled water industry.

ALEXANDRIA, VA— The International Bottled Water Association’s consumer website www.bottledwatermatters.com has released a new YouTube video that looks at actions taken by bottled water companies to protect the environment for future generations.

The Good Stewards of the Environment video highlights specific initiatives that bottled water companies have taken to protect natural resources. Areas covered include groundwater management, reusing packaging resources, reducing waste and giving back to communities by helping with tree planting and cleanups.

“All of these initiatives demonstrate efforts by bottled water companies to protect the environment,” said Tom Lauria, IBWA Vice-President Communications. “We decided to release this short video on World Water Day 2010 to set the facts straight that the bottled water companies are good stewards of the environment.”

In the video, bottled water executives from CG Roxanne, Nestle Waters North America, Mountain Valley Spring Water and Roaring Spring Bottling are interviewed by a young teenager regarding their environmental initiatives.

“These represent only a small slice of what the bottled water industry is doing. Each IBWA member has a good steward story to tell – we produced this video as just a small sampling of their initiatives,” said Mr. Lauria.

To view the video click here, or cut and paste this URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iExU-NT-RlA .

Along with the written rebuttal discussed previously, this video is an effective response to "The Story of Bottled Water." It is important to continue to defend bottled water from these activists and their outdated view of the industry by illustrating the many ways in which bottled water helps people while having a continuously shrinking impact on the environment. We thank the IBWA for taking on this responsibility.

IBWA Responds to Anti-Bottled Water Video

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:11:00 -0400

The IBWA recently responded to an anti-bottled water video entitled "The Story of Bottled Water." It turns out the video tried to use a few tricks to mislead viewers.

ALEXANDRIA, VA-Anti-bottled activists have produced a new YouTube video entitled "The Story of Bottled Water," which makes numerous false and misleading statements. Contrary to claims made in the video, bottled water is a safe, healthy, convenient product that consumers find refreshing and use to stay hydrated. In addition, bottled water companies are good stewards of the environment and continue to take action to reduce their environmental footprint.

Water - from the tap or bottle - is essential to life. And with diabetes, obesity and heart disease on the rise, any efforts to discourage consumers from drinking bottled water (such as "The Story of Bottled Water" video) are not in public interest. The degree to which anti-bottled water activists are misleading the public is evidenced by their alarming and completely false statement that drinking bottled water is equivalent to a pregnant woman smoking a cigarette.

Contrary to claims made in the video, bottled water is comprehensively regulated as a food product by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA.) In fact, federal law requires that FDA's bottled water regulations be as protective of the public health as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) standards for tap water. Moreover, on a gallon for gallon basis, bottled water is required by law to be tested for safety at least 30 times more often than tap water. IBWA and the bottled water industry support a strong and adequately funded municipal water infrastructure. Nearly all U.S. consumers and industries rely on tap water, and every taxpayer and every industry must help ensure that supplies of water from municipal systems are safe and plentiful in the years ahead.

Contrary to claims made in the video, bottled water is actually the nation's most recycled plastic container, with a 30.9% recycle rate. Bottled water containers, whether made of PET plastic, glass or aluminum, are 100% recyclable and IBWA actively encourages consumers to recycle. The bottled water industry supports and promotes many community and state-based single-stream curbside recycling programs because they effectively capture all recyclable material and not just beverage containers. According to the EPA, bottled water amounts to only one-third of one percent of the U.S. municipal waste stream. Based on that incredibly small figure, it is clear that any efforts to reduce the environmental impact of packaging must cover all products and not just target bottled water containers.

By using recycled materials, alternative packaging (PLA, biodegradable and compostable materials), and increasing the fuel efficiency in the transportation of their products to market, the bottled water industry is working hard to reduce its environmental footprint. By developing and using lighter-weight plastics for its containers, during the past eight years, the average weight of single-serve PET bottled water has decreased by over 32%. That's like removing one out of every three bottles from the waste stream. In 2010, a Life Cycle Inventory study of bottled water by an independent, third-party analyst confirmed that bottled water products have a very small environmental footprint.

To underscore the bottled water industry's commitment to responsible environmental policies and practices, IBWA has released a new YouTube video, titled "Good Stewards," [hyperlink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iExU-NT-RlA ] that shines a light on some of our members' successful sustainability practices.

There are numerous other factual errors in the video. While bottled water is available in a wide range of price points, activists find the highest single-unit retail price possible and incorrectly extrapolate that price to make an inflated comparison to tap water. Bottled water costs, on average, $1.20 a gallon (Beverage Marketing Corporation data). Consumers have embraced bottled water because it is safe, healthy, convenient product and it fits in with today's health-and-fitness consciousness, not because they are being manipulated by corporate marketing efforts.
The video completely ignores an important aspect of bottled water. In times of emergency, bottled water is always there when you need it. Floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, boil alerts and other events often compromise municipal water systems. IBWA members contribute millions of gallons of water each year to the affected victims. Lifesaving bottled water cannot be available in times of pressing need without a viable, functioning industry to produce it.

"‘The Story of Bottled Water' takes a very cynical view of the intelligence of consumers by depicting them as being dupes and victims of industry," said Tom Lauria, IBWA's vice president of communications. "But we totally disagree. We think the opposite; that consumers are really quite thoughtful in selecting and enjoying a safe, healthy, convenient, calorie-free beverage that's delicious, refreshing and a very smart drink choice. That's the real story of bottled water."

Some activists have been attacking the bottled water industry for a long time, and this rebuttal does a great job of exposing many of the tactics they use to attempt to mislead the public. Whether it's factually untrue statements, misleading statistics, or rediculous hyperbole (ie drinking bottled water is equivalent to a pregnant woman smoking a cigarette), these individuals will try anything to convince the public that bottled water is a scourge on the environment. Thankfully, the IBWA is always eager to respond to these false claims.

IBWA vs. SSUTA

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:37:00 -0400

As we detailed earlier, the IBWA is trying to organize opposition to a proposed amendment to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. The amendment would allow several states to tax bottled water without violating the guidelines of SSUTA, which prohibits the taxation of anything defined as "food." This means that bottled water would be placed in the same category as items like soda and candy. In response, the IBWA has released an issue paper that details its opposition to the amendment.

The key issues that the IBWA has with the amendment are as follows:

· Bottled water is not a luxury item - it is a highly-regulated packaged food product that many depend on for their dietary and hydration needs. If a state exempts packaged food products from its sales and uses taxes, bottled water deserves to continue to enjoy that same exemption. And food taxes are regressive, having the greatest impact on lower-income households who can least afford the burden.

· Bottled water is covered as a food item under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or Food Stamp) programs, and therefore should not be taxed.

· For some consumers - such as chemotherapy and transplant patient, elderly, infants or those with immune deficiencies, such as HIV and AIDS - bottled water is the only option for their daily water needs. It is unfair to single out and tax one of the most important ingredients to their diet.

· Tax policy is often used to encourage healthy behavior and discourage poor consumer choices such as cigarettes and alcohol. That is why many states are also considering taxes on drinks with high fructose corn syrup to fight obesity and diabetes. Placing bottled water on the same level as those drinks is using tax policy to discourage a healthy choice.

· Singling out bottled water from other food products for taxation will not provide a substantial or stable revenue source for government funding. It will harm the economic portfolios of both the bottled water industry and states in terms of lost jobs and revenue. The bottled water industry has solid economic impact data available to prove this.

· Bottled water is not only there when you want it, but there when you need it. It is sometimes the only water that is available for relief efforts during natural disasters and other events when public water systems have been compromised and clean, safe drinking water is critical. Taxing bottled water is an ironic disservice to and poor public policy for an industry that is called upon every year to provide crucial drinking water throughout the U.S. For bottled water to be available in emergency situations there must also be a viable commercial marketplace that supports its production. Reducing its commercial viability could seriously threaten its availability during emergency situations.

Source: http://images.magnetmail.net/images/clients/IBWA/attach/IBWA_SSUTA_Issue_Paper_031810.pdf

The IBWA's issue paper does a great job of showing the faulty logic behind the proposed amendment, as well as the serious consequences it could have on things like emergency response. We once again encourage anyone in the affected states (Washington, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee) to contact their government representative and voice your displeasure.

IBWA Continues Opposition to New Tax Proposal

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:58:00 -0400

The International Bottled Water Association is continuing its opposition to a proposed amendment to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. Under the proposed amendment, bottled water would no longer fit the definiton of a "food"product, and would instead be classified with other "non-food" consumables, such as soda and candy. This would allow sales tax to be applied to bottled water.

As previously reported in IBWA News Splash (CLICK HERE to read), IBWA has been working closely with in-state members, as well as the Association of Washington Businesses (AWB)—to which IBWA belongs—to build and maintain opposition to bottled water tax proposals in Washington State.

As previously reported, Senate Bill 6143 passed the full Senate on March 7, 2010, and included increasing the state’s overall sales tax rate by 0.3 percent and extending that tax to bottled water (9.7 percent in Seattle) through June 2013. SB 6143 passed the full House on March 9, 2010 with amendments that removed the language to increase the state’s overall sales tax rate by 0.3 percent, but still contained the bottled water sales tax language.

The House version of SB 6143—House Bill 3191 from Rep. Ross Hunter (D)—included many of the provisions of its original budget vehicle, but it did not include the same broad increases in the state sales tax as the Senate version. HB 3191 also repealed more sales tax exemptions (such as on candy).

As of late last week, the two chambers were reportedly making progress on bridging a nearly $210 million difference between their plans, but they were unable to reconcile all their differences before the Legislature was forced by the state’s Constitution to adjourn its 2010 regular session on March 11, 2010. However, Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) quickly called the legislators back to work with a special session that began on March 15, 2010, in order for them to continue their efforts to balance an approximately $2.8 billion budget shortfall. The governor has said she hopes lawmakers can finish up their work in seven days, but the special session is allowed to run up to 30 days.

IBWA is continuing to work closely with local counsel ensure legislators know that because Washington State is a participant in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), they technically cannot tax bottled water because it is a packaged food product (food products are exempt from taxation under the SSUTA).

On March 2, IBWA learned that Washington State is one of about a half-dozen states that recently submitted a petition to the SSUTA’s Governing Board to consider an amendment to the SSUTA that would remove bottled water from the definition of food under the SSUTA. The Governing Board will be discussing that petition and the related amendment when it meets on March 31, 2010. IBWA has joined the SSUTA’s Business Advisory Council (BAC) and is now working with members and industry allies on a strategy to encourage the SSUTA to reject the petition to remove bottled water from the definition of food.

The two CapWiz Action Alerts IBWA issued during the past three weeks has led to nearly 1,700 opposition letters being sent to Washington State legislators and Gov. Gregoire. It’s not too late for Washington legislators to hear from their constituents who are opposed to taxing bottled water, so please continue to spread the word by sharing the following link with your Washington State contacts:
http://capwiz.com/ibwa/issues/alert/?alertid=14709586

CapSnap Equipment fully supports the IBWA in its fight against the unfair taxation of bottled water, which would negatively impact the price and availability of a product that many people in this country depend on. We encourage those of you in Washington, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee to contact your government representatives and speak out against this proposed amendment.