Bottled Water vs. Tap Water

Bottled Water vs. Tap Water Is bottled water safe to drink? Is it environmentally responsible to buy bottled water? Is tap water a safe and sound alternative? What kind of filters are necessary when drinking tap water? There are a variety of answers available in the literature today for all of these questions. And due to the importance of water in terms of human health and nutrition, these questions are relevant and vital in today's changing world.

All sides and a diversity of opinion will be fully examined and reviewed in this paper. However, the bottom line for this research is that bottled water is, as a general rule, a wasteful use of resources. And whenever possible people should avoid buying plastic and instead use tap water (with proper filters) or use water filling stations using five-gallon reusable containers for fresh, safe water. LITERATURE REVIEW: The newsletter Environmental Nutrition reports that "more than half of all Americans now drink bottled water" (Welland, 2007).

The money spent on bottled water in one year in the U.S., according to Welland, is $4 billion. But where does the water come from that is in the plastic container? The first problem in researching the sources of bottled water, Welland writes, is that bottling plants are not required by law to reveal their sources of water. One of the more popular bottle water companies is Aquafina, which is "drawn from municipal water in Detroit and Fresno," Welland asserts.

In fact, the writer continues, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental organization, reports that about 40% of bottled water comes from city sources and is then treated so it tastes good. Indeed the NRDC tested 103 brands of bottled water (taking samples from over 1,000 plastic bottles of water); the results of that research showed that "one-third contained significant contamination." The study also shows that contaminants like lead, arsenic, radon and "perchlorate" (from fertilizers) show up most often in tap water research.

Also pathogens like "Cryptosporidia" have been found in tap water supplies, especially in smaller municipalities (big cities tend to have safer tap water). There are several kinds of purifiers that work well for your tap water system, according to Welland's research; activated carbon filters (removes parasites, pesticides, bad tastes, heavy metals like lead, copper and mercury, and "volatile organic chemicals"); cation exchange softener (softens hard water); reverse osmosis (removes "most contaminants," parasites, and heavy metals); and ultraviolet disinfection (removes parasites and bacteria).

Young women and girls who read CosmoGirl were recently provided "Myths" and "Truths" in an article about bottled water (Goldstein, 2006). The accuracy of a magazine dedicated to fashion and entertainment accuracy cannot absolutely assured, of course, but the importance of the health issues gave editors the idea to pursue the information in any case. Goldstein says that since "both" tap water and bottled water "are allowed to have trace amounts of contaminants, like lead or bacteria," neither one is "safer than the other." That is a questionable statement, for starters.

The writer states that "purified water (like Dasani) is basically filtered tap water," Evian is mineral water, and Poland Spring is spring water - and though they "taste different" they are "all safe." Goldstein also writes that plain water is better than flavored water simply because it is "calorie-free" and a 20-oz bottle of Glaceau VitaminWater has "more calories than a can of soda!" The writer presents "The Bottom Line" at the close of the article is plainly stated: "Bottled water and tap water are equally safe, so choose the one that tastes best to you." It seems that editors at CosmoGirl are not picky about the accuracy of the magazine's reports, because that last sentence is very challengeable on its reflection of contemporary science.

Meantime the Harvard College Health & Wellness Resource Center ("Tap Water or Bottled?") also features a section titled "The Bottom Line" - toward the conclusion of its piece. Choosing bottled water or tap water "is an individual choice" and "one is not necessarily better than the other," the article explains.

However, unlike the CosmoGirl article, the Harvard Health Commentaries' report warns that people "who may have a weakened immune system" - resulting from cancer or from having a bone marrow transplant or HIV / AIDS - should take the time to consult a physician or healthcare professional to discuss whether bottled water or tap water is the safest.

The article also suggests that individuals request a copy of the annual "water quality report" from the city or town they live in (by law all municipalities must provide an annual factual report on all bacteria and other materials and contaminants in drinking water). A citizen's rights brochure ("Making Sense of Your Right to Know Report") can be located at www.safedrinking-water.org/rtk.html, according to the report.

When purchasing a filter for one's tap water source, it is advisable to use a filter certified by the NSF (known previously as the national Sanitation Foundation). The Harvard College report also points out that there are "no standard requirements" to test bottled water for parasites like Cryptosporidium or Giardia, albeit there are standards for testing tap water for these parasites.

As a side note, the article explains that the Bush Administration recently proposed changes to the Clean Water Act; "These proposed changes favor industry...and threaten to increase pollution and potential contamination in city water supplies." The NRDC Web site provides a great deal of information on tap water, including the fact that "An estimated seven million people become sick from contaminated tap water" each year. That contamination occurs due to pollution, old pipes, and "outdated treatment facilities," the NRDC reports.

The environmental group urges consumers to purchase a good filter for the tap water they drink, but before making that purchase NRDC suggests reviewing your city's annual water quality report. In that report the consumer will find out exactly what contaminates are in the tap water, and hence, buying a filter that is advertised as being able to remove those specific contaminates makes good health sense.

What can a citizen do to protect the drinking water in his or her town? The NRDC suggests supporting measures that protect local watersheds; for example, an activist person would want to contact his or her representative at the local, state, and national level, and urge those elected officials to resist the Bush Administration's proposal to weaken the Clean Water Act.

A weaker Clean Water Act would allow potentially allow polluters to dump more waste and other toxic materials into the streams and rivers that flow into watersheds and estuaries, which in turn could allow dangerous bacteria into the source of city water. The Harvard Health Commentaries also reports that one of the reasons that bottled water became so popular in the early 2000s, was that the industry launched a massive direct-mail marketing campaign in 2002, "sending out millions of postcards" which championed the idea that bottled water had numerous benefits.

The claim on those postcards was that bottled water is "...one of the safest, most regulated food products on earth." By 2005, Americans were spending "almost 10 billion dollars" on bottled water. But was the claim made in 2002 an honest, forthright assertion? Not entirely. It has been reported in this paper that there are no requirements for bottled water companies to reveal what the ingredients are in their product. And moreover, bottled water is not regulated to the degree that the industry would have consumers believe.

The Harvard Health Commentaries journal also explains that the bottled water companies have banded together in a consortium called the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) that is a self-regulating group. The IBWA created a policy that it calls "The Model Bottled Water Regulation"; as a result of this policy the IBWA contends that the standards it set up make it more "aggressive" than the policies that govern the safety of tap water.

However, Harvard Health Commentaries insists that there are "No third-party investigations" to demonstrate that bottled water passes more health and safety tests prior to consumers purchasing it. Indeed, no standard requirements exist within the IBWA to assure that parasites are not floating around in the plastic bottle. In areas where the supply of tap water from public sources is contaminated or contains bacteria, bottled water is indeed a logical alternative, according to an article in Spectroscopy (Grosser, et al., 2007).

The writers of this article point out that there are three broad classifications of contaminants that researchers look for: Microbiological, organic, and inorganic. When researchers delve into the contaminants in bottled water they find some frightening evidence that bottled water is not as safe and pure as it is cracked up to be. For example, bottled water from Armenia was found to have "more than 50 times the Food and Drug Administration-regulated amount of arsenic" (Grosser 2007).

The article also points to the existence of traces of uranium in some bottled water from China, Brazil, the U.S. And Thailand.

A recent article in the journal Ecologist (September, 2007) alludes to the fact that people in the UK (and certainly also in the U.S.) buy bottled water "because we believe it is healthier." Those beliefs are based on the fact that "Many consumers are willing to swallow the sales hype" but in reality "there is little evidence that bottled waters are substantially healthier to drink than ordinary tap water." If one is truly thinking "green" about food and drink, there are more things to consider with regards to drinking water than the decision between tap water and bottled water.

For example, in the UK, by the time Fiji water arrives on supermarket shelves it has traveled 10,000 miles. How much fossil fuel was used in the transporting of that water? What was the impact on climate change? And Naya Spring water travels 3,000 miles to arrive in the UK.

How much greenhouse gas was released into the atmosphere so that Englanders could drink supposedly pure spring water from Canada? On the Web site Dream Beverages, where a number of bottled water companies have their product displayed, there is a photo of a very young girl drinking from a liter-sized plastic bottle of Naya Spring Water.

Under the photo the copy reads, "Naya water originates in the wilderness." People who live in crowded, noisy, polluted and crime-ridden big cities are likely going to be impressed by something as vital as water - in particular when it is coming from the wilderness.

The slick marketing continues, explaining that Naya comes from "...the foot of the Canadian mountains, under layers and layers of natural filters of silt, sand and rock which protect the spring water from harmful bacteria and pollutants." So, if a consumer believes that there can't possibly be any pollutants in Naya water because after all, deep underground in the Canadian wilderness things must be fresh and pure, another customer has been hyped.] The Ecologist narrative continues with a discussion of "the plastic problem." Some sources say there is not any evidence of the leaching of chemicals into the water from the plastic, but the Ecologist disagrees.

There may be some leaching during storage, the article asserts, but there is especially a risk of leaching when the plastic bottle has been refilled. And don't be fooled by the little arrows that assure consumers the plastic bottles are recycled; "...in reality we do not recycle plastic in the developed world," the article states.

Even if plastic bottles were recycled, "most plastics can only be usefully recycled once, after which time they are not good for anything other than landfill or incineration - both of which are environmental disasters," the Ecologist continues. The next subject the article touches on is one of the ramifications of the "bottled water culture." And that is the "insatiable marketplace" that consumers' thirst for bottled water has created.

Companies like Coca Cola and Nestle, the article explains, have identified water "as the new oil" and those corporations are "buying up water supplies throughout the world." What this means is that local people - who often are found "in very poor parts of the world" - may lose access to "vital water supplies just so we can feed our frankly stupid addiction to bottled water." Finally the article runs down the list of why tap water is a good alternative to bottled water.

One, it is "extremely cheap." Number two, since the regulations for tap water are far more strict than for bottled water, it is "highly likely" that the tap water from one's faucet at home is cleaner and safer than the water from a plastic bottle purchased at the supermarket. Thirdly, tap water is plentiful, the article explains. Finally, the writer of this piece states that "...there is no such thing as ethical, environmentally friendly bottled water," no matter the marketing hype to the contrary.

If the world's citizens continue to obsess over that next bottle of water, the planet may run out of "habitable land, natural resources, and water - sooner than you think." The article in BMC Infectious Diseases (Daeschlein, et al., 2007) is very technical and at times esoteric to the layperson. But there are portions of the narrative that can be clearly understood and reported.

To wit, the article asserts in the beginning "Worldwide, nosocomical waterborne pathogens play an important and underestimated role in infection." The authors use "nosocomical" (an infection that was acquired in a healthcare setting, typically a hospital) because they are suggesting that in some countries tap water used in hospitals may not be filtered properly. And it's not just the problem of consuming tap water through the mouth when there are pathogens.

it's transmission of water-related bacteria from "taking a shower, body washing, wound rinsing, washed hands, and the occurrence of water splashing in the hospital ward." The fact that water taps are the source for some infections has been verified through the use of "epidemiological and molecular methods," the authors explain. And so the thrust of this article is the value of filters. They recommend "point-of-use" filters (POU) with tubular ceramic filter surfaces (hollow fibre surfaces).

This filter system for tap water, the authors suggest, is better than "conventional single-use filters with flat fabric filter." The article goes into specific, painstakingly intricate detail about the laboratory science that goes into an empirical research project like this one; in the end, the research shows that the best filters for tap water systems are reusable tap water filters called "Germlyser.sup[R].sup" which are good for up to 8 weeks before needing replacing.

On the subject of safe tap water systems, an article in Space Daily explores the possibility that the use of Ultra Violet (UV) light could possibly help prevent the spread of infection through drinking water. Duke University's Pratt.