Bottled
Water - Pure Drink or Pure Hype?
The
National Resources Defense Council
The information below
is the result of our four-year study of the bottled water industry, including
its bacterial and chemical contamination problems. The petition and report find
major gaps in bottled water regulation and conclude that bottled water is not
necessarily safer than tap water.
Chapter 1
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Americans increasingly
are turning to bottled water, making it a $4 billion-a-year business in the
United States. [1] Millions of us are willing to pay 240 to over 10,000 times
more per gallon for bottled water than we do for tap water -- though we probably
rarely think of it that way. [2] However, some bottled water contains bacterial
contaminants, and several brands of bottled water contain synthetic organic
chemicals (such as industrial solvents, chemicals from plastic, or
trihalomethanes -- the by-products of the chemical reaction between chlorine
and organic matter in water) or inorganic contaminants (such as arsenic, a
known carcinogen) in at least some bottles (see Chapter 3 and our accompanying
Technical Report [print report only]).[1a] Moreover, as Chapter 4 documents,
bottled water regulations have gaping holes, and both state and federal bottled
water regulatory programs are severely underfunded. In Chapter 5 we present
evidence that there is substantially misleading marketing of some bottled water,
and in Chapter 6 we argue that consumers should be informed about the
contaminants found in the water they purchase. NRDC's major findings and
recommendations are summarized below.
Findings
1. Most bottled water apparently is of good quality, but some contains
contamination; it should not automatically be assumed to be purer or safer than
most tap water.
Based on available data
and our testing, most bottled water is of good quality, and contamination
posing immediate risks to healthy people is rare (see Chapter 3 and the
Technical Report [print report only]). However, blanket reassurances from the
bottled water industry that bottled water is totally safe and pure are false.
No one should assume
that just because water comes from a bottle that it is necessarily any purer or
safer than most tap water. Testing commissioned by NRDC and studies by previous
investigators[3] show that bottled water is sometimes contaminated. NRDC
contracted with three leading independent laboratories to do "snapshot"
testing (testing one to three times for a subset of contaminants of concern) of
bottled water.
We found after testing
more than 1,000 bottles that about one fourth of the bottled water brands (23
of 103 waters, or 22 percent) were contaminated at levels violating strict
enforceable state (California) limits for the state in which they were
purchased, in at least one sample. We also found that almost one fifth of the
waters we tested (18 of 103, or 17 percent) exceeded unenforceable sanitary
guidelines for microbiological purity (heterotrophic-plate-count [HPC] bacteria
guidelines, adopted in some states, the European Union (EU), and recommended by
the bottled water industry) in at least one test. While HPC bacteria may be
harmless themselves, they may mask the presence of pathogens; some states, the
EU and the bottled water industry have adopted HPC guidelines to help ensure
sanitary source water, processing, and bottling practices. In all, at least one
sample of one third of the waters we tested (34 of 103, or 33 percent) exceeded
a state enforceable standard for bacterial or chemical contamination, a
nonenforceable microbiological-purity (HPC) guideline, or both.
The labs contracted by
NRDC detected contaminants of potential concern (either microbes or chemicals
regulated in tap or bottled water) in at least one sample of about half of the
bottled waters we tested, though in the majority of the waters no standards
were exceeded. While state or industry standards and guidelines were violated
in at least one test for about one fourth of the bottled waters, just four
waters (4 percent) exceeded the weak federal standards. Of these four waters,
two violated the FDA coliform-bacteria rule (coliforms are bacteria that can be
harmless themselves but may indicate the presence of fecal contamination and
disease-carrying organisms in the water) in one test. When we retested another
lot of the same waters for coliform bacteria, however, both of these waters
tested clean. In addition, two other waters violated the FDA standard for
fluoride in two sequential tests of samples from different lots of these two
waters.
While our testing is
the most comprehensive publicly available independent testing of U.S. bottled
water, it must be viewed as incomplete. Only about half of the drinking water
contaminants regulated by FDA and EPA were tested, due to cost constraints.
There are, conservatively, more than 700 brands selling bottled water in the
United States, yet we tested only 103 waters. Additionally, we generally tested
just one to three lots of each water, whereas often thousands or even millions
of bottles may be produced annually by a single bottler, with the potential for
periodic (and undetected) contamination problems. Testing by other
investigators generally has been consistent with our results. For example, as
is discussed in detail in the accompanying Technical Report (print report
only), a major survey of microbiological contamination of domestic and imported
bottled water sold in Canada published in 1998 yielded results very similar to
NRDC's. [4] We were not able to test for Cryptosporidium in bottled water (nor
did the Canadian investigators) because the current EPA method for
Cryptosporidium monitoring requires the filtration of many gallons of water and
analysis of the filter using a method feasible for bottlers prior to bottling
the water, but this was logistically and financially infeasible for us to use
on finished product sold at stores.
Bottled water recalls
and other contamination incidents -- whether bacterial, industrial-chemical,
algae, excessive-chlorine, or other contamination problems -- have sometimes
been quietly dealt with by bottlers, generally with little or no public
fanfare. In other cases, violations of bottled water standards have been
allowed to go on for months without a recall or formal enforcement action.
Although most of the bottled water on the market seems to be of good quality,
some of these products are not as absolutely pure and pristine as many of their
consumers may expect.
Comparing the data for
bottled water quality with those for tap water is not straightforward. Far more
monitoring data are publicly available for tap water than for bottled water.
EPA requires frequent monitoring of tap water and makes available on its Web
site national compliance data for all tap water systems. [5] Additionally,
numerous surveys of tap water quality (beyond simple compliance data) are
available for tap water quality, [6] whereas no such comprehensive data are
available for bottled water. Thus, direct comparison of tap water quality
versus bottled water quality is not possible based on comparable databases.
However, EPA recently reported that in 1996, almost 10 percent of community tap
water systems (serving 14 percent of the U.S. population) violated federal EPA
tap water treatment or contaminant standards, and 28 percent of these tap water
systems violated significant water quality monitoring or reporting
requirements. [7] While these tap water system compliance data are plagued by
underreporting and likely understate the extent of the problem somewhat, [8]
without question they are based on a far larger database than is publicly
available for bottled water. Moreover, according to available data, nearly half
of the U.S. population served by tap water systems gets legally allowable but
from a health standpoint potentially significant levels of contaminants such as
cancer-causing trihalomethanes, radon, and/or arsenic in their tap water. [9]
Thus, while there definitely are problems with a substantial minority of the
nation's tap water systems, based on the limited data available there is little
basis to conclude that just because water is purchased in a bottle it is
necessarily any better than most tap water.
2. Bottled water contamination with
microbes may raise public health issues, particularly for people who are
immunocompromised.
Millions of Americans
use bottled water as their primary source of drinking water. Some of these
people are immunocompromised (such as people undergoing cancer chemotherapy,
organ-transplant recipients, the chronically ill elderly, some infants whose
immune systems are not fully developed, and people with AIDS) and use bottled
water at the recommendation of public health officials or health care
providers, who suggest that tap water use may be too risky.[1b] In some cases,
officials also may urge the general public to use bottled water during a tap
water contamination crisis.
As discussed in Chapter
3 and our attached Technical Report (print report only), NRDC's testing and
other published and unpublished data indicate that while most bottled water
apparently is of high quality in terms of microbiological purity, a substantial
minority of it may not be. As noted there, a small percentage of the bottled
water we tested (about 3 percent) sometimes contained coliform bacteria -- a
possible indicator of contamination with pathogenic bacteria -- and nearly one
fifth of the waters we tested contained heterotrophic-plate-count (HPC)
bacteria at levels exceeding state and industry guidelines in at least one
test. Some bottled waters contain bacteria (sometimes naturally occurring),
including species of Pseudomonas and others, some of which may be a health
concern for immunocompromised people. [10]
In cases where there is
known tap water microbial contamination, or where an individual suffers from
specific health problems such as a compromised immune system, tap water can be
boiled for one minute to kill all microbes. In the alternative, certain types
of bottled water may be a temporary solution. To be cautious, however, an
immunocompromised person should buy bottled water only if it is from a
protected source, and is subjected to EPA-CDC-recommended treatment to kill
Cryptosporidium, the intestinal parasite that sickened over 400,000 people and
killed over 100 in a 1993 Milwaukee tap water incident. [11] For example, to
remove or kill Cryptosporidium, water must be treated with "absolute one
micron" membrane filtration or reverse osmosis, adequately high levels of
ozone disinfection, or distillation, at a minimum.
Thus, NRDC recommends
that seriously immunocompromised people boil their tap water for one minute
before using it for consumption or washing food. If they choose to buy bottled
water, they should consider purchasing only certified "sterile"
bottled water. Most bottled water has not been independently certified to meet
either the EPA-CDC standards for killing Cryptosporidium or the definition of
"sterile" water, so vulnerable people must be especially careful in
selecting a drinking water supply.
3. Government bottled water
regulations and programs have serious deficiencies.
Chapter 4 outlines in
detail the gaping holes in federal regulatory controls for bottled water, and
the trivial FDA resources dedicated to protecting bottled water. FDA estimates
that one half of a full-time FDA staff person is dedicated to bottled water
regulation, and fewer than one FDA staff-person equivalent is spent on assuring
compliance with FDA bottled water rules. [12] An estimated 60 to 70 percent of
the bottled water sold in the United States, according to FDA interpretations,
is exempted from FDA's contamination limits and specific bottled water
standards because it is bottled and sold in the same state.
Thus, under FDA's
interpretation, the regulation of most bottled water is left to ill-equipped
and understaffed state governments. Yet 43 of 50 states have the equivalent of
fewer than a single staff person dedicated to regulating bottled water,
according to our 1998 state survey. Four states have adopted no regulations at
all for bottled water, and the majority of states have simply republished FDA's
deficient rules. About 40 states say they regulate "intrastate"
waters, but most have dedicated virtually no resources to doing so.
FDA's rules also exempt
many forms of what most of us would consider "bottled water" from all
of its specific water-testing and contamination standards. If the product is
declared on the ingredient label simply as "water," "carbonated
water," "disinfected water," "filtered water,"
"seltzer water," "sparkling water," or "soda
water," it is not considered "bottled water" by FDA, [13] nor,
as noted in Chapter 4, do most states regulate this water as bottled water. For
these products, the specific FDA contamination standards and water quality
testing requirements for bottled water are not applicable. No contamination
monitoring is required, and only a vague narrative legal standard applies,
stating that the water cannot be "adulterated" -- a term not
specifically defined and, to date, apparently never enforced against any of
these products by FDA. Therefore, the generalized FDA "good manufacturing
practice" requirements applicable to these waters[14] set no specific
contamination standards. The same is true with most state regulations.
Even what FDA defines
to be "bottled water" is exempt from many of the standards and
testing requirements that apply to tap water. This appears to directly
contradict the letter and the spirit of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), which requires -- under a provision strengthened in 1996 -- that
FDA's bottled water standards must be at least as stringent as tap water
standards. [15] For example, EPA's rules clearly prohibit tap water from
containing any confirmed E. coli or fecal coliform bacteria (bacteria that are
indicators of possible fecal matter contamination often associated with
waterborne disease). [16] FDA has no such prohibition for bottled water;
instead, any type of coliform bacteria is allowed up to a certain level. [17]
(See Table 1 for a comparison of EPA and FDA rules.)
Similarly, a big city
has to test its tap water 100 times or more each month for coliform bacteria --
many times a day, on average -- yet bottled water (even at an enormous bottling
plant) must be tested for coliform bacteria only once a week under FDA rules.
Moreover, while high overall levels of bacteria (known as
heterotrophic-plate-count [HPC] bacteria) can be counted toward bacteria
violations for city tap water (in the absence of adequate disinfection), as
described in Chapter 4, FDA bowed to bottled water industry arguments and
decided to apply no standards for HPC bacteria in bottled water. HPC bacteria
are commonly found in bottled water.
EPA's "information
collection rule" generally requires big cities that use surface water
(such as rivers or lakes) for tap water to test for common parasites such as
viruses, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium. Under FDA rules, water bottlers are never
required to do so. In the same vein, cities using surface water generally must
disinfect their water and filter it to remove bacteria and certain
parasites.[1d] Yet there are no FDA standards requiring bottled water to be
disinfected or treated in any way to remove bacteria or parasites.
Additionally, the FDA requirement that bottled water be derived from an
"approved source" is no substitute for source water protection,
filtration, or disinfection. This rule has been aptly characterized as a
"regulatory mirage," since what is "approved" is left to
state discretion with no meaningful federal requirements or oversight.
For chemical
contaminants, the regulations for bottled water are also weak in many ways.
While a city generally must test its tap water for scores of organic chemicals
(such as industrial chemicals, some pesticides, and trihalomethanes) at least
quarterly,[1e] bottlers generally need only test once a year under FDA's rules.
These infrequent annual tests could miss serious problems, because levels of these
contaminants sometimes vary substantially depending on when they are tested.
Also, phthalate[1f] --
a toxic chemical produced in plastic-making that tests show can leach from
plastic into water under common conditions -- is regulated by EPA in tap water
but FDA does not regulate it in bottled water. After some water bottlers and
plastics manufacturers argued that phthalate controls would be inappropriate
and burdensome for bottled water, FDA decided not to regulate it in bottled
water, where it is sometimes found, particularly after long storage.
Furthermore, FDA
currently has no enforceable standard or treatment requirement for three other
contaminants regulated by EPA in tap water -- acrylamide, asbestos, and
epichlorohydrin. Thus, while city water systems generally must test for all of
these contaminants and must meet EPA standards for them, presently water
bottlers need not.
EPA also requires city
tap water suppliers to test for more than a dozen "unregulated"
contaminants -- chemicals that are not currently subject to EPA standards but
which, if present, may pose a health concern, such as a risk of cancer. Under
EPA rules, states are to consider adding 15 additional named unregulated
contaminants to this list for mandatory water system monitoring, if they are
believed to be a potential problem in local tap water. [18] Bottlers face no
monitoring requirements for any unregulated contaminants.
Even if bottled water
is more contaminated than FDA's standards would otherwise allow, FDA rules
explicitly allow the water to be sold, as long as it says on the label
"contains excessive chemical substances" or "contains excessive
bacteria" or includes a similar statement on the label. FDA says it may
enforce against such labeled contaminated water if it finds that it is
"adulterated" and "injurious to health." However, there is
no requirement that water bottlers report such problems to FDA, and apparently
there are no cases of FDA having taken any enforcement action against any such
bottlers.
FDA has stated that
bottled water regulation carries a low priority. [19] Because of this, water
bottlers can expect to be FDA-inspected only about every four to five years, on
average. [20] This is far too infrequent to detect certain possible problems,
such as periodic contamination caused by occasional substandard plant
operations or maintenance, bacteria from sewage overflows or leaks, pest
infestations, or occasional spikes of pollution due to short-lived phenomena.
In addition, bottlers are not required to keep records of their operations and
testing for more than two years, making effective inspections difficult or
impossible, since evidence of periodic or past problems can simply be discarded
before it is ever reviewed by inspectors.
It also should be noted
than in many cases FDA's rules are weaker than international standards. The
European Union's (EU's) bottled water standards, for example, set limits for
total bacteria count, [21] which, as noted above, FDA does not. Moreover, the
EU's bottled mineral water rules ban all parasites and pathogenic
microorganisms, E. coli or other coliform bacteria, fecal streptococci (e.g.,
Streptococcus faecalis, recently renamed Enterococcus faecalis), Pseudomonas
aeruginosa, or sporulated sulphite-reducing anaerobes, whereas FDA's rules
include no such bans. [22] Additionally, unlike the FDA rules, EU rules require
natural mineral water's labels to state the waters' "analytical
composition, giving its characteristic constituents" and the specific
water source and name, and information on certain treatments used. [23] The EU
mineral water rules further forbid use of more than one brand label per source
of water[24] and generally prohibit labels from making any claims about the
prevention, treatment or cure of human illness. [25] No such provisions are
included in FDA rules. Similarly, the EU’s new general standards for all
bottled water generally are far stricter than FDA’s rules, and FDA's standards
for certain chemicals (such as arsenic) are weaker than World Health
Organization (WHO) guidelines for drinking water.
4. Voluntary bottled water industry
controls are commendable, but an inadequate substitute for strong government
rules and programs.
The bottled water industry's
trade association, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), has
sometimes been a progressive force in seeking to improve certain FDA controls
(petitioning for stronger FDA rules in some areas, for example). Moreover, IBWA
has adopted a voluntary state bottled water code -- somewhat stricter than the
FDA rules -- which has been adopted in whole or in part by 16 states. However,
IBWA sometimes has vigorously fought against tough FDA rules, such as possible
controls on Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria, rules for heterotrophic bacteria,
and right-to-know requirements for bottled water. The fight against
right-to-know for bottled water is interesting in light of the bottled water
industry's frequent references to tap water contamination problems. It also
starkly contrasts with IBWA's admission that bottled water sales may have
increased due to the requirement that diet soda labels disclose all
ingredients, which IBWA said may have driven consumers concerned about diet
soda's contents to use bottled water. [27]
IBWA has adopted a
much-ballyhooed voluntary industry code and inspection program for its members.
The association claims its members produce 85 percent of the bottled water sold
in the United States. [28] But these voluntary IBWA standards are just that --
voluntary -- in the 34 states that have not adopted them, and there is no
published reporting about compliance. Additionally, IBWA does not disclose the
results of its inspections and testing to the public, so it is impossible to
verify independently the effectiveness of these voluntary programs. Moreover,
even by IBWA's count, many bottlers are not IBWA members and have never
volunteered to comply with the association's standards. In fact, some of the
problems with some bottled waters discussed in this report have occurred with
IBWA members, suggesting the IBWA program is not foolproof. Finally, it should
be noted that, as with FDA rules, IBWA standards do not apply to seltzer, soda
water, carbonated water, or the many other waters exempt from FDA's bottled
water rules.
5. Bottled water marketing can be
misleading.
Chapter 5 shows that
despite recent FDA rules intended to reduce misleading marketing, some bottled
water comes from sources that are vastly different from what the labels might
lead consumers to believe. One brand of water discussed in this report was sold
as "spring water" and its label showed a lake and mountains in the
background -- with FDA's explicit blessing. But until recently the water
actually came from a periodically contaminated well in an industrial facility's
parking lot, near a waste dump (a state whistleblower informed the local media
after years of internal struggles, finally putting an end to the use of this
source).[30] Another brand of water sold with a label stating it is "pure
glacier water" actually came from a public water supply, according to
state records.[31] While FDA recently adopted rules intended to curb such
practices, those rules include many weak spots and loopholes (including those
that allowed the water taken from an industrial-park well to be sold as spring
water with a label picturing mountains), and there are very few resources to
enforce them.
Water with one brand
name can come from numerous different sources, depending upon the time of year,
location of sale, or other market factors. Moreover, water from one source
(such as the industrial-parking-lot well noted above) can be used and labeled
for a half-dozen or more different labels and brands. In addition, according to
government and industry estimates, about one fourth or more of the bottled
water sold in the United States [32] (and by some accounts 40 percent[33]) is
taken from public water systems -- tap water, essentially. Sometimes this tap
water is bottled after additional treatment (such as carbon filtration or
ozonation), and sometimes it is bottled with little or no additional treatment.
6. The long-term solution to drinking
water problems is to fix tap water -- not to switch to bottled water.
Many people may choose
to use bottled water because they prefer its taste and smell, or because it is
convenient. Bottled water, in some cases, also may be needed as a stopgap
measure when tap water is contaminated, rendering the water nonpotable (as in
the case of a boil-water alert). In the long run, however, it is far better
from an economic, environmental, and public health point of view to improve
public drinking water supplies than it is to have a massive societal shift from
consumer use of tap water to use of bottled water. We cannot give up on tap
water safety. The reasons we have reached this conclusion include:
· Public health concerns. Bottled water sometimes poses
its own potential health risks due to contamination. Furthermore, even if
bottled water is completely pure, use of it can only somewhat reduce public
exposure to contaminants in tap water; some people will continue to use tap
water. Even if no one were to drink tap water, virtually everyone would
continue to be exposed to some common contaminants (especially those that are
volatile or can penetrate the skin) when showering, bathing, washing dishes,
and cooking.
Thus, in NRDC's view, although bottled water may be a convenience
or needed as a short-term solution to tap water contamination problems in some
communities or for highly vulnerable subpopulations, it should generally be
viewed only as a temporary fix. Our study leads us to make the following
recommendations:
Recommendations
· 1. Fix tap water
quality -- don't give up and just rely on bottled water.
For the reasons just noted, it would generally be better to upgrade and improve
tap water quality than to have a part of society shift to bottled water. Those
who dislike the taste and smell of their tap water may want to consider placing
tap water in a glass or ceramic pitcher in their refrigerator, with the top
loose to allow the chlorine to dissipate overnight. This also will allow
volatile disinfection by-products to evaporate (though less volatile
disinfection by-products may stay in the water). Overnight refrigeration in a
loosely capped container eliminates the objectionable chlorine taste and odor,
and the chilled water can be put in reusable sports bottles as desired to make
it convenient to carry ice-cold water to the office, on trips, or when
exercising. It also saves money and has environmental and other benefits, as
previously noted.
· 2. Establish the public's right
to know for bottled water as now required for tap water.
Bottled water labels should be required to list any contaminants found in the
water (as well as health goals and standards), the water's fluoride and sodium
content, the health effects of the contaminants found, the bottler's compliance
with applicable standards, the source of the water, and any treatment used.
Labels also should indicate whether the water meets the EPA-CDC criteria for
Cryptosporidium safety. The date of bottling and information on how to get
further information also should be placed on labels. We fail to understand why,
if bottled water is as pure as the bottlers say, they are so afraid of a
right-to-know requirement. However, FDA has the authority to require such
information on bottled water labels, has been required by the Safe Drinking
Water Act to evaluate the feasibility of doing so, and therefore should move
forward with rules requiring such disclosure for bottled water.
· 3. FDA should create a Web site
and a phone-accessible information system on bottled water.
FDA should add to its Web site and should make available, through a hot line, a
user-friendly array of information on bottled water brands, including all of
the basic information noted in recommendation 2, for each bottler. This bottled
water information should build upon and expand the EPA hotline and web site
that gives specific information on individual tap water systems and drinking
water generally. The FDA hot line and Web site should make available the
results of all government, industry, or other bottled water testing by
certified labs for all brands. It also should include information on all
inspections and recalls, and any other relevant consumer information on
particular brands of bottled water.
· 4. Overhaul FDA rules for
bottled water.
The FDA rules for bottled water are weak and should be strengthened. If
necessary, FDA should request additional legislative authority to adopt these
changes. FDA should:
o Establish standards and
monitoring requirements for bottled water no less stringent than EPA's rules
for tap water in major cities, including standards for all microbiological and
chemical contaminants, specific and defined water treatment (including
filtration and disinfection or strict source-protection requirements),
operator-certification requirements, and unregulated-contaminant monitoring
rules.
o Set strict, up-to-date standards
for contaminants potentially found in bottled water. These standards should be
at least as protective of public health as the strictest regulations adopted by
other authorities. Thus, the standards should be as stringent as possible for
the bottled water industry and certainly should be no less stringent than the
following: arsenic less than 5 parts per billion (ppb)(California Proposition
65); heterotrophic-plate-count bacteria less than 100 colony-forming units per
milliliter at bottling (EU standard), 200 cfu/ml 5 days after bottling in 90
percent of samples (industry recommendation), and a maximum at all times of 500
cfu/ml; no parasites, pathogens, fecal streptococci (e.g., the recently renamed
Enterococcus faecalis), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, sporulated sulphite-reducing
anaerobes (EU natural mineral water rules); trihalomethanes less than 10 ppb
(California law and industry model code); phthalate less than 6 ppb (EPA tap
water); individual synthetic organic and inorganic chemicals (e.g.,
bromodichloromethane) equal to California's Proposition 65 levels. For other
contaminants more strictly controlled under bottled water industry code than
under current FDA rules or with EPA Health Advisories, FDA should adopt the
industry or EPA recommendation.
o Immediately finalize its 1993
proposed ban on coliform bacteria in bottled water.
o Establish clearly defined
criteria and protections for an "approved source" of bottled water
under FDA rules, and require annual state reevaluation of compliance with these
new "approved source" rules, including review of potential
contamination problems.
o Require bottlers to retain
microbial test results for 5 years, and chemical tests for 10 years, as EPA
requires for tap water.
o Mandate a bottling date and
"refrigerate after opening" statement on labels, in order to inform
consumers who seek to minimize the chances of potentially excessive microbial
growth and contamination in bottled water.
o Require labs used for bottled
water analysis to be certified by EPA or FDA.
o Direct that water be tested
daily at the plant for microbes, quarterly for chemicals during bottling, and
quarterly in bottles after extended storage, especially for chemicals that can
leach from bottles and for microbes that can multiply during storage.
o Require quarterly reporting of
test results to states and FDA, and reporting of acute violations within 24
hours to state and FDA officials.
o Prohibit all sales of water
contaminated at levels above FDA standards.
o Apply FDA's standards to all
intrastate bottled water sales.
o Mandate that water bottlers be
trained and certified.
o Require state bottled water
programs to be reviewed and approved by FDA, and FDA should oversee their
effectiveness.
o Establish clear mandatory recall
authority for FDA through administrative order or a civil action.
o Maintain an inventory, and
register all water bottlers.
o Cover all water sold in a bottle
that is likely to be ingested by people, including "purified,"
"disinfected," "seltzer," etc., under the FDA bottled water
standards -- as under California and other states' laws.
o Conduct routine FDA monitoring
of bottled water quality for waters sold across the country, as has been done
in Canada for many years, and release the results, including brand names, to
the public in published reports and on its website.
· 5. Annual inspections should be
required.
FDA should conduct annual inspections (or fund annual state inspections) of all
bottling facilities and of their water sources.
· 6. Institute a
"penny-per-bottle" fee to assure bottled water safety.
We recommend that a fee of one cent per bottle of bottled water sold should be
instituted, to be placed in a trust fund for use without further appropriation
by FDA to pay for a stringent bottled water regulatory program. The fee, which
we estimate would raise more than $30 million dollars a year, should fund
improved FDA implementation, random testing, a public Web site, state and federal
inspections, and funding and oversight of state programs and bottlers.
· 7. Set a deadline for
transferring the bottled water program to EPA if FDA lacks the resources or
will to implement it effectively.
FDA has made it clear that bottled water protection is a low priority. If FDA
concludes that making bottled water comply with the same requirements as tap
water is unduly burdensome, or that the preceding recommendations to achieve
that goal are not of sufficient priority to claim FDA resources, the program
should be transferred to EPA, which already regulates tap water. FDA should be
given no more than 18 months to demonstrate, by overhauling its rules and
program, whether it wishes to retain the program. If such an overhaul does not
occur, the program should be automatically transferred to EPA. EPA should be
given six months to apply the rules applicable to big city water systems to
bottled water; of course, the rules should be modified where they would be
inapplicable to bottled water (as where EPA rules require monitoring at the
tap). EPA also should be provided the revenue from a penny-per-bottle fee on
bottled water to carry out the program. We make this recommendation for
transfer with some uneasiness, since EPA's tap water regulatory program suffers
from its own serious deficiencies and resource constraints. However, on balance
we believe that if FDA continues to lack the will and resources to address
bottled water issues as the sales skyrocket, even an inadequate EPA bottled
water regulatory program could hardly be worse than FDA's current effort.
· 8. Establish "certified
safe" bottled water.
In light of the poor government regulatory performance, an independent
third-party organization such as Green Seal or Underwriters Labs should
establish a "certified safe" bottled water program. Criteria for
inclusion would be that the water always meets the strictest of all standards,
including FDA, IBWA, international (e.g., EU and WHO) and state rules,
recommendations, and guidelines, meets all EPA health goals, health advisories,
and national primary drinking water regulations, is tested at least daily for
microbial contaminants and quarterly for chemicals (monthly if using surface
water or other water subject to frequent water quality changes), meets
source-water protection criteria, is protected from Cryptosporidium in
accordance with EPA-CDC guidelines, is disinfected, and is surprise inspected
twice a year by independent third-party inspectors. The certifying organization
should establish an open-docket release of its inspection, testing, and
compliance evaluation results. While the current NSF and IBWA seals are
intended to provide such a stamp of approval, we believe a more independent and
open body imposing stricter standards and making all testing, inspection, and
other collected information readily available to consumers (including on the
Web), would provide greater consumer confidence in the certification.
Thus, we believe the long-term national solution is to
fix the nation's tap water supplies. Until the recommended regulatory changes
are adopted, those who
wish to use bottled water for reasons of taste or otherwise cannot be confident
that they are necessarily getting what they pay for -- a pure, well-regulated
product. Unless such reforms are adopted, bottled water consumers should
observe the ancient rule of caveat emptor -- "buyer beware.")
|
|
|
|
Products / Puretek Franchise / Barter / E-zines / Mexico / Central America / Colombia / The Caribbean / The Balkans |
Bridge Trade, Inc., 3128 Lake Washington Rd # 202, Melbourne FL 32934, USA, Is Puretek Regional Franchisee for, C. America, The Caribbean and The Balkans toll free & fax 877-611-3951 |