Should Bottled Water Be Banned? Environmental and Safety Case
This paper argues that bottled water sold in plastic containers should be banned, drawing on research from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Environmental Working Group, and university extension services. It begins by documenting contamination risks in municipal tap water — including lead, pathogens, and chlorine byproducts — to explain why consumers turn to bottled water. It then scrutinizes that alternative, revealing that bottled water is frequently no safer than tap water, is largely unregulated by the FDA, and carries serious environmental costs including plastic waste, ocean pollution, and fossil fuel consumption. Counter-arguments from the bottled water industry are addressed before the paper concludes that legislation banning plastic water bottles, while difficult, is both necessary and achievable.
- Introduction: Why Consumers Turn to Bottled Water: Tap water contamination drives bottled water demand
- Literature Review on Bottled Water: Bottled water costs, bacteria, and deceptive marketing
- Does the FDA Regulate Bottled Water?: FDA exempts most bottled water from safety standards
- Is Bottled Water as Pure as the Industry Claims?: NRDC testing finds widespread contamination in brands
- Bottled Water and the Plastic Waste Problem: Plastic bottles create massive environmental damage
- Cities and Universities Banning Plastic Water Bottles: Institutions and mayors move to phase out plastic bottles
- Counter-Arguments from the Bottled Water Industry: Industry defends consistency, recycling rates, and choice
- Conclusion: Ban is necessary despite legislative challenges ahead
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The introduction strategically acknowledges real problems with tap water before pivoting to the paper's central argument, giving the thesis credibility by engaging honestly with the opposing concern.
- The paper relies heavily on authoritative sources — NRDC, EPA, FDA, and peer-reviewed environmental research — lending weight to its policy recommendation.
- Counter-arguments are presented in a dedicated section and addressed directly, demonstrating intellectual fairness while reinforcing the overall thesis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper models the "concession-refutation" technique: it grants validity to consumer concerns about tap water safety before systematically dismantling the case for bottled water as the solution. By acknowledging that tap water has genuine risks, the author prevents the argument from appearing naive, then builds a stronger case that regulation reform and public infrastructure investment — not plastic bottles — are the correct responses.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classical argumentative structure: a problem-framing introduction with an explicit thesis, a literature review that marshals evidence, focused analytical sections on FDA regulation and product purity, an environmental impact section, real-world policy examples, a counter-argument section, and a synthesizing conclusion. This clear scaffolding makes the cumulative argument easy to follow across multiple distinct lines of evidence.
Introduction: Why Consumers Turn to Bottled Water
Why are Americans, Europeans, and other citizens around the globe buying bottled water in such enormous quantities? What is wrong with the water their communities provide? These questions are at the heart of the issues addressed in this paper, and they are the most important questions to answer in order to understand why billions of plastic bottles are filled with water and sold in supermarkets and elsewhere every year. If a family cannot be certain that the water they drink from the tap is truly safe, what is their alternative?
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of the most respected and visible conservation and environmental organizations, "pollution and deteriorating, out-of-date plumbing" are delivering water to homes that "might pose health risks" to families. The NRDC conducted a study of 19 cities and found that many of them rely on pipes and treatment technology that were designed and installed prior to World War I — nearly ninety years ago. The NRDC asserts that those old lead pipes are dangerous. In the water that the NRDC tested, the following contaminants were discovered:
Lead — corroded pipes and plumbing fixtures cause lead particles to enter drinking water, which can cause brain damage in children and infants. Pathogens — these germs cause illness, especially in children and the elderly; outdated treatment technologies cannot filter out many pathogens. Chlorine byproducts — trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids can cause cancer and reproductive problems. Arsenic — can cause birth defects, cancer, reproductive problems, and serious skin conditions. Radon — contains rocket fuel perchlorate and other carcinogens (NRDC).
Which of the 19 cities studied showed the least candor regarding updated information about their water systems? Atlanta, Boston, Fresno, Houston, Newark, Phoenix, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. offered "false, unqualified or misleading claims," the NRDC reports. Moreover, those cities tended to "bury crucial information about problems deep in their reports." New Orleans, Newark, and Phoenix provided "incorrect or misleading data." And "nearly all cities in the study failed to report on the health effects of most contaminants found in their water" (NRDC). Other cities also face serious problems with pollution and contaminants — including Albuquerque, where "groundwater is becoming seriously depleted," and Fresno, where the groundwater is "highly susceptible to contamination" (NRDC).
How safe is the chlorine added to tap water? Many people buy bottled water as an alternative to drinking the chlorine that cities add to their water supplies. There are stories about chlorine — some of them true to a degree, some fictional. An article responding to an environmental question in EarthTalk asserts that chlorine is a "highly efficient disinfectant" (West, 2009). However, there are serious concerns about its use. When chlorine mixes with water, it reacts with naturally occurring elements to form toxins called trihalomethanes (THMs). There are human health risks associated with THMs, including the possibility of developing asthma, eczema, bladder cancer, and heart disease, according to West. Reports also suggest that THMs can cause miscarriages and birth defects in pregnant women. Moreover, a report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) concluded that from 1996 through 2001, "more than 16 million Americans consumed dangerous amounts of contaminated tap water" (West, p. 1).
Jane Houlihan, Research Director for EWG, stated that "dirty water going into the treatment plant means water contaminated with chlorination byproducts coming out of your tap." She insisted that the solution is not to "bombard" water supplies with chlorine, but rather to "clean up our lakes, rivers and streams" (West, p. 1).
The research presented in this introduction provides background for understanding why so many people are buying bottled water. There are clearly risks associated with tap water. However, as the literature reviewed in this paper reflects, there are also risks associated with the use of bottled water.
Thesis: From the evidence available and the research conducted by credible environmental organizations, this paper takes the position that bottled water sold in plastic containers should be banned. It may take time for such legislation to be enacted — whether one year, ten years, or twenty years — but bottled water should be, and will be, outlawed within our lifetime.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.