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.
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one of the most respected and visible conservation and environmental organizations, "pollution and deteriorating, out-of-date plumbing" are delivering water to homes that "might pose health risks" to families.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 Pathogens — these germs cause illness, especially in children and the elderly; outdated treatment technologies cannot filter out many pathogens.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.
That having been stated, the reality is that banning bottled water will not happen any time soon. According to university extension research, sales of bottled water "have more than quadrupled in the last 10 years," notwithstanding the fact that "bottled water sold in the United States is not necessarily cleaner or safer than most tap water." The research references an Earth Policy Institute study asserting that bottled water costs "as much as 10,000 times as much as tap water — that's as much as $2.50 per liter ($10 per gallon) more than the price of gasoline." In fact, if a person drank ten cups of water daily from bottled water sources, it would amount to an annual cost of $1,764.
Because plastic bottles are a product of fossil fuels, more than 1.5 million barrels of oil are needed annually to produce the plastic bottles used by American consumers alone. The amount of oil required to produce a year's supply of plastic bottles in America would be enough to fuel approximately 100,000 automobiles for a year. More striking is the assertion that bottled water products "can contain 10 times the amount of bacteria as found in municipal tap water."
The NRDC reports that 25% or more of bottled water is simply tap water that sometimes receives further treatment but often does not receive any additional purification (NRDC). In their widely publicized Executive Report, the NRDC notes that the marketing of bottled water can be misleading and, at times, outright false. One brand of bottled water bearing a photo of a lake and pristine mountains actually draws its water from "a well in an industrial facility's parking lot, near a hazardous waste dump," the NRDC report explains. On occasion, this particular source was "contaminated with industrial chemicals" at levels well above FDA standards (NRDC).
On the subject of deception, the NRDC's investigation found a product with an attractive label named "Alsaika" — marketed as "Alaska Premium Glacier Drinking Water: Pure Glacier Water From the Last Unpolluted Frontier, Bacteria Free" — that apparently came from a public water supply. There are also false health claims made by some bottled water companies. The NRDC notes that the International Bottled Water Association has voluntary codes prohibiting health claims; nevertheless, one brand makes the following claim: "Known to Generations in France for its Purity and Agreeable Contribution to Health... Reputed to Help Restore Energy, Vitality, and Combat Fatigue."
Ostensibly, the FDA does have responsibility for monitoring the safety of bottled water — but there is a significant catch. The rules under which the FDA operates "completely exempt 60–70 percent of the bottled water sold in the United States from the agency's bottled water standards," the NRDC explains. The reason is straightforward: the FDA only monitors bottled water that is sold across state lines. Water packaged and sold within the same state does not fall under the FDA's purview. While approximately 40 states indicate that they do regulate bottled water, that leaves one in five states with no bottled water regulation at all.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for monitoring city tap water, and the NRDC provides a detailed comparison of EPA and FDA standards, showing that in every case, the testing and monitoring requirements for bottled water fall radically short of the stringent requirements applied to city tap water. Several of the most relevant comparisons include the following:
a) EPA guidelines prohibit even trace amounts of E. coli or fecal coliform bacteria; the FDA has no such prohibition. b) City water must be filtered and disinfected, but there are no federal filtration or disinfection requirements for bottled water. c) Large city tap water must be tested by federal law a hundred times or more per month for coliform bacteria; bottled water plants are required to test for coliform bacteria just once a week. d) Tap water must meet standards for cancer-causing chemicals like phthalate, a chemical that can "leach from plastic bottles," according to the NRDC; however, lobbyists for the bottled water industry "persuaded the FDA to exempt bottled water from regulations" that would restrict those chemicals. e) When tap water standards are violated, the EPA steps in to enforce the law; when bottled water products are found to be in violation, the label is simply changed to read "containing excessive chemicals" or "excessive bacteria." f) Employees who work with city water systems must be certified and trained to safely treat and deliver water, but no equivalent requirement exists for bottled water company employees (NRDC).
The NRDC hired three independent laboratories to test more than 1,000 plastic bottles — representing 103 different brands — and found that "about one third" of those brands contained "significant contamination," defined as levels of chemical or bacterial contaminants that exceed federal and state standards. After the independent labs completed their testing, the NRDC also hired an "independent data verification firm" to confirm the accuracy of the results.
The data showed that nearly one in four bottled waters tested — 23 of the 103 brands, or approximately 22 percent — "violated strict applicable state (California) limits for bottled water in at least one sample" (NRDC). The most commonly found contaminant was arsenic or other cancer-causing synthetic compounds. One in five bottles tested — 18 of 103, or 17 percent — contained "more bacteria than allowed under microbiological-purity guidelines" adopted by some states, the industry, and the European Union.
The NRDC data further shows that approximately 33 percent of the 103 waters violated some enforceable state standard, exceeded microbiological-purity guidelines, or both. About one-fifth of the 103 waters tested contained synthetic organic chemicals such as toluene or xylene (industrial solvents) or chemicals like phthalate, adipate, or styrene used in plastics manufacturing.
"Plastic bottles create massive environmental damage"
"Institutions and mayors move to phase out plastic bottles"
"Industry defends consistency, recycling rates, and choice"
Whether or not one accepts the claim that plastic bottles contribute only 0.2% of solid waste, as Huang contends, several facts remain clear: plastic contributes enormously to landfills; plastic is made with fossil fuels and keeps the United States dependent on foreign crude oil; tiny pieces of plastic are present in all the world's oceans in alarming quantities; most tap water in the U.S. is safe to drink; bottled water is outrageously expensive; corporations are buying up water supplies in order to control the world's drinking water — and they will market that water in plastic; and the FDA does not do an adequate job of monitoring the safety of bottled water.
For all of these reasons, the continued promotion of water in plastic bottles is a bad idea. Passing legislation to ban plastic water bottles will take time and significant effort, and it will require overcoming well-funded industry lobbying. But a goal as worthy as this one deserves nothing less than the best efforts of the sharpest, most committed minds.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.