Bottled Water: Safety, Regulation, and Environmental Impact
This paper investigates the growing debate over bottled water in the United States, questioning whether it is truly safer than tap water, adequately regulated, or environmentally responsible. Drawing on data from the Environmental Working Group's analysis of 173 bottled water products, consumer health research, and industry practices, the paper argues that bottled water is poorly labeled, inconsistently purified, and environmentally harmful due to plastic waste. It surveys proposed solutions ranging from outright bans — as advocated by Xanterra Parks and Resorts — to calls for stronger FDA oversight advanced by Sara Goodman. The paper concludes that meaningful regulation or a ban on petroleum-derived plastic bottles is necessary to protect both public health and the environment.
- Introduction: Overview of the bottled water debate in the U.S.
- The Problem with Bottled Water: Cost, plastic waste, and chemical contamination evidence
- EWG Study: Transparency and Brand Ratings: EWG grades 173 brands on disclosure and purity
- The Case for Banning Bottled Water: Corporate and expert arguments for an outright ban
- Counterproposal: Better Regulation Instead of a Ban: Goodman argues for stronger FDA oversight
- Conclusion: Weighing regulation versus ban as viable solutions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Balances multiple source types — an industry study, health articles, a corporate case study, and a regulatory counterargument — to present a well-rounded argument rather than a one-sided critique.
- Uses concrete statistics (price comparisons, chemical exceedance rates, EWG grades) to ground abstract claims about safety and regulation in verifiable data.
- Acknowledges a counterproposal (Goodman's regulatory approach) before restating the paper's own conclusion, demonstrating basic academic fairness.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the problem–solution essay structure: it first establishes that a problem exists using empirical evidence, then evaluates competing solutions (banning versus regulating), and closes by weighing them against each other. This scaffolding keeps the argument directed and prevents the evidence from becoming a disconnected list of facts.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing introduction that defines the scope of the debate. A problem section presents statistical and study-based evidence of harm. A dedicated section on the EWG study provides brand-by-brand grading data. A solutions section covers the Xanterra ban case and health-based arguments for consumer awareness. Goodman's regulatory counterproposal is treated in its own section before a brief conclusion synthesizes the competing positions.
Introduction
The questions of whether bottled water is safe, environmentally friendly, and well-regulated expose an important debate about something of a craze in the United States over the past few years. It seems that nearly everyone carries around a bottle of water, and instead of jugs of tap water at meetings — as was previously the norm — bottled water has become a constant companion in professional and everyday settings alike. While there are real benefits to having water readily available in such a portable form, and while staying hydrated is undeniably important, many have begun to question the actual process of bottling water, whether that process is environmentally safe, and whether it is safe for consumers.
As advertisements continue to apply increasing pressure to buy water in various specialty varieties — with electrolytes, extra purification, and so forth — more and more voices are joining the opposing camp, arguing that bottled water may be harming both people and the environment. In order to better understand this debate, this paper analyzes the relevant arguments and presents a position grounded in research and research-based articles.
The Problem with Bottled Water
In order to properly address the bottled water question, one must first examine whether it is, in fact, a genuine problem, and which side of the debate the evidence supports. To begin, it is important to ask whether bottled water is truly "better" for consumers, or whether it is simply the product of a clever and effective marketing campaign — as much a trend as the latest genre of music or fashion. One independent source notes that a large portion of the world desperately seeks safe, clean drinking water, yet the United States and other Western countries spend billions of dollars on bottled water and on marketing campaigns for it, when that money could instead be directed toward helping people in genuine need.
Furthermore, in spending so much money on bottled water — when perfectly clean tap water is readily available across the country — the United States also fills landfills with billions of pounds of oil-based plastics that take thousands of years to degrade. The environmental impact of plastic waste from single-use water bottles is therefore substantial and long-lasting.
Additional statistics on the pricing and utilization of bottled water present stark contrasts. Tap water costs approximately $0.0015 per gallon, whereas bottled water can reach $10.00 per gallon — making bottled water up to 10,000 times more expensive than tap water. Americans consume millions of gallons of bottled water annually, generating millions of dollars in industry revenue. What makes this especially troubling is that 22% of tested bottled water brands have been found to contain chemicals above approved legal levels, leading consumers to reasonably question whether bottled water is truly safe to drink.
Tap water, by contrast, is subject to considerably stricter regulation and chemical monitoring. The problem thus becomes not only that bottled water is poorly regulated and environmentally harmful, but that it can also be genuinely dangerous to health.
EWG Study: Transparency and Brand Ratings
A study conducted by the Environmental Working Group sought to determine whether bottled water companies thoroughly follow regulations related to labeling and disclosure. The Group analyzed 173 bottled water products and company websites to determine whether companies disclose information on where their water comes from, how or whether their water is treated, and whether the results of purity testing are made available to consumers. The study also evaluated how efficient each company's treatment methods truly were, and researchers contacted dozens of bottling companies directly to assess whether they responded appropriately to customer inquiries.
The findings were significant: more than half of the bottled water products examined did not pass a basic transparency test. Eighteen percent did not disclose where their water comes from, and 32% provided no information about how the water is purified. The only brands that received high marks were Gerber Pure Purified Water, Nestlé Pure Purified Water, and Penta Ultra-Purified Water. The lowest marks were awarded to Whole Foods Italian Still Mineral Water, Vintage Natural Spring Water, Sahara Premium Drinking Water, O Water Sport Electrolyte Enhanced Purified Drinking Water, Market Basket Natural Spring Water, and Cumby's Spring Water.
The study provided the following comparison chart for major brands:
1. Pure Life Purified Water (Nestlé) — EWG grade: B
2. Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water (Nestlé) — EWG grade: C
3. Aquafina Purified Drinking Water (Pepsi) — EWG grade: D
4. Dasani Purified Water (Coca-Cola) — EWG grade: D
5. Deer Park Natural Spring Water (Nestlé) — EWG grade: D
6. Ice Mountain Natural Spring Water (Nestlé) — EWG grade: D
7. Ozarka Natural Spring Water (Nestlé) — EWG grade: D
8. Poland Spring Natural Spring Water (Nestlé) — EWG grade: D
9. Zephyrhills Natural Spring Water (Nestlé) — EWG grade: D
10. Crystal Geyser Natural Alpine Spring Water (CG Roxane) — EWG grade: F
Conclusion
As this paper has shown, there are no simple solutions to the bottled water problem, but there are a number of potential paths forward that could help protect both human health and the environment. These include tightening the regulation of bottled water through improved FDA oversight and, if such regulation proves insufficient, pursuing outright bans on petroleum-derived plastic bottles. Only through meaningful action — whether regulatory reform or prohibition — can consumers be confident that the water they drink is truly safe, and that the environment is not being needlessly harmed by billions of discarded plastic bottles.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.