Water Bottling Companies Break Labeling Laws

by Tara Lohan · 2011-01-14 14:30:00 UTC

A recent report about the carcinogen chromium 6 in drinking water from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) garnered a lot of headlines and a lot of people wondering if they should be drinking bottled water instead. The answer to that question is usually no. Estimates are that around 40 to 50 percent of bottled water in the U.S. comes from the same source as tap water. Tap water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which requires way more testing than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for bottled water. Plus, bottled water creates a ton of waste, with the minority of the containers making it into the recycling bin.

Now, another report from the EWG paints an even grimmer picture of bottled water companies. Since 2009, bottled water sold in California is required to provide information on the label revealing the source of the water. Packages must also list two ways in which consumers can contact the water bottling company to get a report on the quality of the water.

Now, two years later, it seems that water bottlers are not being too compliant. EWG looked at 96 different kinds of bottled water in the state and found that only 24 percent were following the law. Let's let that sink in a minute — fewer than one-quarter of bottled water brands were compliant with state law. And, to throw a little salt in the wound, EWG also found that labels on bottles sold in California listed their source less often than those on bottles sold in other states.

California lawmakers wisely decided that consumers have the right to where their bottled water comes from (if only the rest of the country followed along!) and have the right to information that will let them know the quality of the water they are buying. Companies, however, are flat-out refusing to provide this information. It makes bottled water companies' claims of having the "purest" and "cleanest" water even more laughable. Only 41 percent of water companies in the EWG's study provided a water quality report — a dismal number to begin with — but only 21 percent had water quality reports that contained actual water quality testing results.

"Companies willing to ignore state law to keep information from their customers may have something to hide," the EWG report states. "Perhaps bottled water companies are banking on the state Attorney General's office turning a blind eye, focusing its limited resources on other issues. In the meantime, bottled water drinkers are left in the dark."

EWG has a full break down of which brands aren't compliant, but here's a taste: Pepsi's Aquafina, Fiji Water, Glaceau SmartWater, Kroger Purified Drinking Water, Walgreen's Drinking Water, Perrier Sparkling Natural Mineral Water, three different kinds of Trader Joe's water, and Voss Artesian Water, among many others.

Bottled water companies spend millions of dollars each year trying to convince consumers that their water is better, safer, and cleaner than tap water, but they won't submit to simple rules that would allow consumers to find out if that's actually true. It's time to end the charade. Tell California's Attorney General Kamala Harris to hold bottled water companies accountable and push them to follow the law.

GOT A TIP FOR US? Is there a story or campaign you think we should know about? E-mail us at foodtips@change.org. Please also follow Change.org's Sustainable Food page on Facebook and Twitter.

Photo credit: stevendepolo via Flickr

Tara Lohan is a senior editor at AlterNet.org where she heads up the environment, water, and food sections. Her work has appeared on the websites of The Nation, Mother Jones, the Huffington Post and in Yes! Magazine.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Jamie Oliver Fights Back Against Los Angeles School District
NEXT STORY:
Join the Social Media Day of Action to Rid Girl Scout Cookies of Forest-Destroying Palm Oil

COMMENTS (1)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.