COMMENTS: 33
Is Your City Going to Be Bottled Water-Free?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Water headlines via email.
"Cities are sending the wrong message about the quality of public water when we spend taxpayer dollars on water in disposable containers from a private corporation," said Newsom. "Our public water systems are among the best in the world and demand significant and ongoing investment."
The resolution was spurred by not just Newsom, but the more than 60 other mayors who have been canceling bottled water contracts to help their cities save money and protect the environment. The most recent to join the tide were San Jose, Miami and Orlando. But the resolution is supported by other major cities like Philadelphia, New York, Chicago and Boston.
Corporate Accountability International, a leading national pressure group, reported:
Over the past year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors explored the economic and environmental impact of bottled water. Research conducted by conference staff has found that bottled water is being sold for as much as 4,000 times the cost of tap water delivery even though up to 40 percent of bottled water comes from the same source.
Cities are also spending more than $70 million a year to dispose of plastic water bottles. San Francisco and other large cities were also spending more than $500,000 a year on annual contracts."It's just plain common sense for cities to stop padding the bottled water industry's bottom line at taxpayer expense," said Gigi Kellett, national director of CAI's Think Outside the Bottle campaign. "This resolution will send the strong message that opting for tap over bottled water is what's best for our environment, our pocketbooks and our long-term, equitable access to our most essential resource."
The bottled water industry has grown into an $11.5 billion empire in recent years that went virtually unchallenged until last year, when a massive backlash began, ignited mostly by an increasing environmental awareness about bottled water. For one, Food and Water Watch reported that it takes 17.6 million barrels of oil each year to make all the plastic bottles we need in the United States -- the equivalent of one than 1 million vehicles on the roads -- not to mention all the fuel it takes to ship the bottles to stores and to dispose of them. More than 80 percent of the bottles end up in landfills or tossed onto the street, making their way into our waterways; some even end up in the giant plastic whirlpool circling in the Pacific Ocean that is poisoning marine life and birds.
Of course, the concept of paying for bottled water for city employees with taxpayer money when 99 percent of Americans have access to safe water is another reason mayors are beginning to rethink their water contracts. The website Tappening has included a list of a few other good reasons to make the switch:
- Water systems that provide tap water have to test for water pathogens that can cause intestinal problems; bottled water companies don't do this.
- City tap water can have no confirmed E. coli or fecal coliform bacteria. FDA bottled water rules include no such prohibition (a certain amount of any type of coliform bacteria is allowed in bottled water).
- City tap water, from surface water, must be filtered and disinfected. In contrast, there are no federal filtration or disinfection requirements for bottled water.
- In one publicized taste test in New York City, conducted by Showtime television, researchers found that 75 percent of participants actually preferred the taste of tap water to bottled water.
- City tap water must meet standards for certain important toxic or cancer-causing chemicals, such as phthalate (a chemical that can leach from plastic, including plastic bottles); some in the industry persuaded the FDA to exempt bottled water from the regulations regarding these chemicals.
- City water systems must issue annual "right to know" reports, telling consumers what is in their water. Bottlers successfully killed a "right to know" requirement for bottled water.
As Newsom summed up: "The fact is, our tap water is more highly regulated than what's in the bottle. Years of misleading bottled water marketing have led residents to believe otherwise. Years of misleading marketing have also led the city to spend taxpayer dollars on lucrative bottled water contracts -- even when the city itself provides water that is every bit, if not more, safe, reliable and thirst-quenching."
While tap water may be safer than most bottled water, we need increasing vigilance to protect funding to keep it that way and to ensure continued federal funding for our public water infrastructure. It is estimated that cities need $22 billion each year to keep up their public water systems, and the Conference of Mayors resolution is one way to help increase support for public water.
"The bottled water bucks stop here," said Newsom. "We should not be consumed with the disposal of billions of pounds of plastic water bottles each year. Instead, we should be providing city employees and residents access to quality drinking water, regardless of their means."
Stay up to date with the latest Water headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kiel on Jun 25, 2008 5:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's so...
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
» RE: biggest rip-off around
Posted by: pete1029
» RE: biggest rip-off around
Posted by: madamswalt
» RE: biggest rip-off around
Posted by: madamswalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maddogmarley on Jun 25, 2008 5:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rllewis on Jun 25, 2008 5:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Knowmad on Jun 25, 2008 5:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cycling at the mellow rate of 5 miles per hour, you'll burn about 175 calories in an hour. Compare to that to your car, which releases about 23 pounds of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas burned.
Can someone please tell me how you get 23 pounds of co2 from a gallon of gas which weighs about 10 pounds? Is it the decimal placement maybe; like it's really 2.3 pounds, or even .23.
Thanks. And oh yeah, don't use bottled water!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The source
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
» RE: Kind of on topic...
Posted by: dp1228
» RE: Kind of on topic...
Posted by: Knowmad
» carbon combines with oxygen in the air....
Posted by: rafaeltoral
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Jun 25, 2008 6:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By all means let's cut back on using plastic bottles, some of which contain harmful chemicals themselves. But rushing to drink city water without a thorough evaluation of that water would be even more foolish. Besides, city water usually tastes like crap.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Don't be naive; city water is often a "cancer cocktail"
Posted by: pete1029
» thats why you filter it...
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» Before you drink your Evian ... notice how it's spelt backwards
Posted by: harryf200
» Good point, but I still prefer Evian to Eniru
Posted by: Moonray
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 25, 2008 6:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drdanj on Jun 25, 2008 6:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay up to 4,000 times more for something that has no standards and is destroying the environment? Nope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socialpsych on Jun 25, 2008 6:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The local government in my rural Pennsylvania community purchases large bottles of water for a cooler in the municipal building. The chair of the board of supervisors (an elected official) used to own the company that sells that water (Divine Spring Water) and continues to have a vague "interest" in that company which he refuses to publicly disclose. I called attention to this conflict of interest in a letter to the local paper. No effect.
The joke is that the tap water in the municipal building comes from the same aquifer from which Nestle Waters North America withdraws millions of gallons per week and bottles as Deer Park Spring Water. It's very high quality water.
So there is absolutely no reason, other than blatant corruption, that my local government should buy bottled water from the guy who is running that government, is there?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Amphetameme on Jun 25, 2008 7:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is a referencing URL or list of the 40% of the bottled water companies currently tested as using tap water anyway? If you don't mention or provide reference to who they are, this article is nothing more than fear mongering.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pharmaceuticals in the water?
Posted by: dp1228
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jun 25, 2008 7:18 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No need to draw attention to the fact that scores of other products come in the same PET packaging or that beer, soda and every other packaged beverage on the market takes more water to manufacture than bottled water. Those pesky facts will only weaken her laser-like focus on big bad bottled water.
2/3's of the article is spent rehashing her same old arguments she presents in every other article she writes. Every single article she writes just bashes a single sector of a much larger beverage industry and ignores the larger issues of commercial water use and package recycling.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DeaconJ on Jun 25, 2008 8:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Putting it into the water supplies is a different story. 98% of Europe has banned this practice due to safety concerns. Sodium Fluoride was put into the water of Nazi & Soviet concentration camps...and it is a powerful carcinigin, no wonder the US has one of the highest cancer rates in the world.....the promotors of fluoride in the water in the US are no better than the Nazi Concentration camp doctors....the US should have its own medical Nuremburg and put all of these water fluoridation promotors on trial.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Great now if we could just get rid of the Fluoride
Posted by: nfamous
» RE: Great now if we could just get rid of the Fluoride
Posted by: BigElectricCat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nismx on Jun 25, 2008 11:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget all that !! Let's just be good Americans and drink their poison so they won't have to dispose of it as Toxic Waste. The Aluminum Co's and the Fertilizer Co's of America thank you. Beside a little poison is good for you just look at Chemo Therapy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sirios on Jun 25, 2008 12:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jun 25, 2008 4:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is that bottled water can be better or worse than tap water depending on the individual company used-- what are their water sources and kind of filtering, etc. To blanket say that tap water is better is purely false.
Another problem with tap water is that despite all the self-created accolades about its purity, tap water nowadays is not filtered enough for many more modern pathogens such as pesticides, gasoline by products run off, triathalomines, microscopic bacteria/parasites such as cryptosporidium and e-coli, hormones and antibiotics from agricultural run-off, radon, barium, asbestos, nitrates, (many of those I listed were right off from my water company report)and many other disgusting, health harming pathogens. Publicly provided tap water filtering standards, in terms of what is supposed to be filtered out, are seriously archaic and have not been raised much since the late 1970's or early '80's. Just look at the statement your water company provides you periodically on contaminants. They'll claim the levels are acceptable, meeting state standards, but you can see there are parts per billion of all sorts of things that anyone paying any attention knows is polluting the local water source, such as pesticides, agricultural run-off, radiation from tail mines, sewage from various sources and other pollutants that really aren't filtered out enough for public safety. Then there's the lead and copper from your own pipes.
I use an inexpensive brand name water filter on my tap water that's supposed to filter out 95% of that stuff.
Nowhere do I see any of these any of these anti bottled water crusaders advocating putting water filters on the faucets for the workers' safety or home use.
To claim tap water is safe and better than bottled water is a travesty, and that some environmentalists are buying into this is a scandal.
And by the way, Newsom was trying to save money-- I could say that twelve times. If I was a city office worker, I'd be po'd he targeted the perk of my office bottled water, and that he may have started a trend that corporations might go for too.
What a giant, deceptive crock. The only good that come out of this is if tap water standards are re-scrutinized and brought into the 21st century. Which they won't, because no one wants to go there-- that would mean scrutiny of the polluters who give campaign contributions, potentially costing them money if they have to reduce their pollution, and too much money to spend to bring tap water filtering technology up to better new standards. That isn't going to happen, and instead we have this asinine anti-bottled water campaign, a diversionary hoax.
The environmentally damaging plastic in the water bottles is a valid issue, the water in the plastic is not being addressed correctly here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jun 25, 2008 4:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will criticize tappening.com's website for not having an about page-- there's nothing there about who they are, which makes it look like astroturf.
If you google about tappening.com you'll find out that:
"They personally financed an inventory of reusable water bottles that were available for purchase on the site. DiMassimo and Yaverbaum expected these 39,000 bottles to sell throughout the first year of their new project and self finance their marketing message. Their initial inventory sold within 36 hours." --from brand noise website.
I'm going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and assume their intent was environmental, and not to make a fortune exploiting environmentalism.
The article goes on to mention that:
"The answers aren’t simple. This opens up a whole new set of issues. You’ll start to see filtration products on the horizon. Imagine a bottle with a built-in filter that you can refill, say 10 times. Each time the filter adds a functional aspect like electrolytes that you desire to your water.
Along those lines, Pur Water Filter known for its in-home filtration has been offering its Exstream portable bottle purification system to the outdoor sporting community. But no one has bought 39,000 units of it in 36 hours."
I will say that if such products become readily available, my objection to the anti bottled water campaign is reduced. I do believe people should have the choice to drink bottled water, but in recyclable plastic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: realmuzik on Jun 25, 2008 5:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mtnrunner on Jun 27, 2008 11:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kiel on Jun 25, 2008 5:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's so...
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
» RE: biggest rip-off around
Posted by: pete1029
» RE: biggest rip-off around
Posted by: madamswalt
» RE: biggest rip-off around
Posted by: madamswalt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maddogmarley on Jun 25, 2008 5:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rllewis on Jun 25, 2008 5:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Knowmad on Jun 25, 2008 5:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cycling at the mellow rate of 5 miles per hour, you'll burn about 175 calories in an hour. Compare to that to your car, which releases about 23 pounds of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide for every gallon of gas burned.
Can someone please tell me how you get 23 pounds of co2 from a gallon of gas which weighs about 10 pounds? Is it the decimal placement maybe; like it's really 2.3 pounds, or even .23.
Thanks. And oh yeah, don't use bottled water!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The source
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
» RE: Kind of on topic...
Posted by: dp1228
» RE: Kind of on topic...
Posted by: Knowmad
» carbon combines with oxygen in the air....
Posted by: rafaeltoral
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Jun 25, 2008 6:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By all means let's cut back on using plastic bottles, some of which contain harmful chemicals themselves. But rushing to drink city water without a thorough evaluation of that water would be even more foolish. Besides, city water usually tastes like crap.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Don't be naive; city water is often a "cancer cocktail"
Posted by: pete1029
» thats why you filter it...
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» Before you drink your Evian ... notice how it's spelt backwards
Posted by: harryf200
» Good point, but I still prefer Evian to Eniru
Posted by: Moonray
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 25, 2008 6:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drdanj on Jun 25, 2008 6:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay up to 4,000 times more for something that has no standards and is destroying the environment? Nope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socialpsych on Jun 25, 2008 6:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The local government in my rural Pennsylvania community purchases large bottles of water for a cooler in the municipal building. The chair of the board of supervisors (an elected official) used to own the company that sells that water (Divine Spring Water) and continues to have a vague "interest" in that company which he refuses to publicly disclose. I called attention to this conflict of interest in a letter to the local paper. No effect.
The joke is that the tap water in the municipal building comes from the same aquifer from which Nestle Waters North America withdraws millions of gallons per week and bottles as Deer Park Spring Water. It's very high quality water.
So there is absolutely no reason, other than blatant corruption, that my local government should buy bottled water from the guy who is running that government, is there?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Amphetameme on Jun 25, 2008 7:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is a referencing URL or list of the 40% of the bottled water companies currently tested as using tap water anyway? If you don't mention or provide reference to who they are, this article is nothing more than fear mongering.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pharmaceuticals in the water?
Posted by: dp1228
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jun 25, 2008 7:18 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No need to draw attention to the fact that scores of other products come in the same PET packaging or that beer, soda and every other packaged beverage on the market takes more water to manufacture than bottled water. Those pesky facts will only weaken her laser-like focus on big bad bottled water.
2/3's of the article is spent rehashing her same old arguments she presents in every other article she writes. Every single article she writes just bashes a single sector of a much larger beverage industry and ignores the larger issues of commercial water use and package recycling.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DeaconJ on Jun 25, 2008 8:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Putting it into the water supplies is a different story. 98% of Europe has banned this practice due to safety concerns. Sodium Fluoride was put into the water of Nazi & Soviet concentration camps...and it is a powerful carcinigin, no wonder the US has one of the highest cancer rates in the world.....the promotors of fluoride in the water in the US are no better than the Nazi Concentration camp doctors....the US should have its own medical Nuremburg and put all of these water fluoridation promotors on trial.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Great now if we could just get rid of the Fluoride
Posted by: nfamous
» RE: Great now if we could just get rid of the Fluoride
Posted by: BigElectricCat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nismx on Jun 25, 2008 11:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget all that !! Let's just be good Americans and drink their poison so they won't have to dispose of it as Toxic Waste. The Aluminum Co's and the Fertilizer Co's of America thank you. Beside a little poison is good for you just look at Chemo Therapy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sirios on Jun 25, 2008 12:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jun 25, 2008 4:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is that bottled water can be better or worse than tap water depending on the individual company used-- what are their water sources and kind of filtering, etc. To blanket say that tap water is better is purely false.
Another problem with tap water is that despite all the self-created accolades about its purity, tap water nowadays is not filtered enough for many more modern pathogens such as pesticides, gasoline by products run off, triathalomines, microscopic bacteria/parasites such as cryptosporidium and e-coli, hormones and antibiotics from agricultural run-off, radon, barium, asbestos, nitrates, (many of those I listed were right off from my water company report)and many other disgusting, health harming pathogens. Publicly provided tap water filtering standards, in terms of what is supposed to be filtered out, are seriously archaic and have not been raised much since the late 1970's or early '80's. Just look at the statement your water company provides you periodically on contaminants. They'll claim the levels are acceptable, meeting state standards, but you can see there are parts per billion of all sorts of things that anyone paying any attention knows is polluting the local water source, such as pesticides, agricultural run-off, radiation from tail mines, sewage from various sources and other pollutants that really aren't filtered out enough for public safety. Then there's the lead and copper from your own pipes.
I use an inexpensive brand name water filter on my tap water that's supposed to filter out 95% of that stuff.
Nowhere do I see any of these any of these anti bottled water crusaders advocating putting water filters on the faucets for the workers' safety or home use.
To claim tap water is safe and better than bottled water is a travesty, and that some environmentalists are buying into this is a scandal.
And by the way, Newsom was trying to save money-- I could say that twelve times. If I was a city office worker, I'd be po'd he targeted the perk of my office bottled water, and that he may have started a trend that corporations might go for too.
What a giant, deceptive crock. The only good that come out of this is if tap water standards are re-scrutinized and brought into the 21st century. Which they won't, because no one wants to go there-- that would mean scrutiny of the polluters who give campaign contributions, potentially costing them money if they have to reduce their pollution, and too much money to spend to bring tap water filtering technology up to better new standards. That isn't going to happen, and instead we have this asinine anti-bottled water campaign, a diversionary hoax.
The environmentally damaging plastic in the water bottles is a valid issue, the water in the plastic is not being addressed correctly here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jun 25, 2008 4:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will criticize tappening.com's website for not having an about page-- there's nothing there about who they are, which makes it look like astroturf.
If you google about tappening.com you'll find out that:
"They personally financed an inventory of reusable water bottles that were available for purchase on the site. DiMassimo and Yaverbaum expected these 39,000 bottles to sell throughout the first year of their new project and self finance their marketing message. Their initial inventory sold within 36 hours." --from brand noise website.
I'm going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and assume their intent was environmental, and not to make a fortune exploiting environmentalism.
The article goes on to mention that:
"The answers aren’t simple. This opens up a whole new set of issues. You’ll start to see filtration products on the horizon. Imagine a bottle with a built-in filter that you can refill, say 10 times. Each time the filter adds a functional aspect like electrolytes that you desire to your water.
Along those lines, Pur Water Filter known for its in-home filtration has been offering its Exstream portable bottle purification system to the outdoor sporting community. But no one has bought 39,000 units of it in 36 hours."
I will say that if such products become readily available, my objection to the anti bottled water campaign is reduced. I do believe people should have the choice to drink bottled water, but in recyclable plastic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: realmuzik on Jun 25, 2008 5:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mtnrunner on Jun 27, 2008 11:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Water Heist: Corporations Are Targeting Cash-Strapped Cities for Control of Their Public Water
Is Schwarzenegger's Big Drought Over?
Is New York's Budget Deficit Leading it to Adopt Natural Gas Drilling Practices That Threaten Drinking Water?




