PennWell Dental Community
Concord first U.S. city to ban bottled water
In Massachusetts, Concord becomes the first city in the U.S. to ban bottled water. This is not only a huge green initiative, eliminating thousands of plastic bottles from landfills, it will also cut into the $10 billion industry with a message Concordians hope will make a difference. The cost of bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water.
"We obviously don't think highly of the vote in Concord," said Joe Doss, president of the International Bottled Water Association, a trade association that represents bottler, suppliers and distributors. Of course he speaks to the "safety" and "convenience" of bottled water.
The article on treehugger.com argues that bottled water is not safe, that no regulations exist for bottled water as they do for tap water, and water stored in plastic bottles for 10 weeks showed signs of phthalate-leaching. Phthalates block testosterone and other hormones.
Though this article did not mention it, bottled water versus fluoridated tap water is another issue. Bottled water has never contained the fluoride that many people swear is beneficial for teeth. Recent research suggests that teeth benefit from fluoride throughout life, not just when teeth are developing. Forty-three of the 50 largest U.S. cities add fluoride to their public water supplies to help reduce tooth decay.
What are your feelings about the Concord initiative? As a dental professional, would you support eliminating bottled water in your city?
Click here to read the story.
Views: 83
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ted Anibal on -
Since bottled water is not a health hazard in most cases, I would not support a government ban on it. However, in the U.S., bottled water offers no fundamental benefits over tap water except that it's usually chlorine-free. Many people don't like the taste or smell of tap water, and evidence exists that chlorinated water can accelerate the formation of arterial plaque.
Most bottled water brands start with municipal tap water, then it is filtered with activated carbon. This removes chlorine and odors, but not fluoride. Then the water is usually "ozonated," which keeps the water from acting as a medium for bacterial colonization. The ozone is a less chemically active substitute for chlorine, with no adverse physiological effects.
Other brands are processed with reverse osmosis, which removes all contaminants and minerals, including fluoride. To repair the "flat" taste which results from that process, the bottler adds certain minerals to improve flavor, but excludes fluoride. The fine print on the label reveals which type of filtration process was used. If consumers are concerned about fluoride retention, they should not buy bottled water that is processed with reverse osmosis. They should opt for the carbon-filtered brands.
There is an increasing awareness among water bottlers concerning plastics that leach phthalates into the product. The industry has indicated it will phase out the use of those plastics, and some have already switched to other materials that remain chemically stable. Further, while phthalates can leach out over time, the amount is minuscule compared to other phthalate exposures, such as heating foods in plastic containers that are not specifically designed to be heated. Doing so can release a massive dose of phthalates. Therefore, the phthalate issue for water bottles is essentially moot.
However, there are better alternatives for bottled water. For decades, home water filtration devices of various types have been commercially available that produce high-quality drinking water for pennies per gallon. Combined with readily available phthalate-free containers, people can take get their fresh, better-than-bottled drinking water "to go" at home.
A virtually free alternative is to allow tap water to sit overnight in a clean, phthalate-free pitcher (such as glass) in the refrigerator. The water will "off-gas" chlorine, hydrogen sulfide, and most other noticeably offensive gasses. Such water tastes good if nothing in the refrigerator imparts its own odor, such as chopped onions, for example, and should be consumed within 24 hours to prevent bacterial colonization.
In conclusion, the best reason for a bottled water ban is because of environmental/landfill issues. Any other reason is not supported by the known facts, and an unnecessary government intrusion on free enterprise and personal choice.
-
Permalink Reply by Meg Kaiser on -
Thank you, Ted, for that insightful reply. I was not aware of the different methods of bottling water, though I had heard briefly of a recent controversy surrounding a brand that did little or nothing to the tap water before bottling it. I need to do a little research on that to see if it's true.
But I'm glad to know that fluoride stays in much of the bottled water. I'm a firm believer in the benefits of fluoride, despite the controversy.
You're correct in stating that the best reason for a ban would be for environmental/landfill issues. If recycling were mandatory in all big cities, something I wish Tulsa would do, that would help with some of the problems. But I don't see many other cities taking this step. I don't think the ensuing battles would be worth it for most.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe on -
Since bottled water is not a health hazard in most cases, I would not support a government ban on it. However, in the U.S., bottled water offers no fundamental benefits over tap water except that it's usually chlorine-free. Many people don't like the taste or smell of tap water, and evidence exists that chlorinated water can accelerate the formation of arterial plaque.
Oh, that's interesting. I've heard some similar story at writing service column, but...
-
Permalink Reply by Ted Anibal on
-
Hi Joe, I didn't know where to look on that site. The reason chlorine plays a part in arterial plaque formation is because as a powerful oxidizer, it can kill the first layer of cells that line the arterial lumen, or inner lining, of the artery. While that is not a huge problem in and of itself, the dead cells can became rough and either hang on or slough off into the bloodstream. When the lining is rough, fatty plaques have a greater chance of attaching to it and building up. A smooth lining does not allow for attachment in most cases.
Since the only reason chorine is used is to kill water-borne diseases such as cholera, it makes sense to remove the chemical before drinking the disinfected water. Think of chlorine in water as a bread wrapper on bread. You remove the wrapper before eating the bread. Once again, home-based, point-of-use filtration offers the most efficient and economical means to take the "wrapper" off your drinking water.
Back on topic, the City of Concord could also impose a deposit on water bottles -- and every other plastic container -- which consumers could redeem when they turn them in for recycling. It's not a new idea, and has been helping Boy Scout (and Girl Scout) troops raise money for decades.
-
Permalink Reply by Ted Anibal on
-
I forgot to add that if water bottles are an environmental problem, then so is everything else that is made of plastic -- mountains of pop bottles, storage containers, plastic-coated milk cartons, bread wrappers, etc., etc. But that's the whole reason recycling was invented. Surely, Concord's leaders have heard of it and have made it available to their citizens. I think there is another agenda afoot.
-
Permalink Reply by Meg Kaiser on
-
I like the deposit idea, Ted. And I bet you're right. I would love to hear what the "other agenda" is in Concord. It will be interesting to see if the ban on water bottles lasts very long. Since the article I've been very conscious of my family's water bottle use. We do fill up our recycle box quickly. But that's why we have the box. And I admit it. The bottles encourage the kids to drink more water, so I'd hate to see them banned in my city. However, I'm aware of other options, so sometimes these things can turn out to be a good change.
Also, thank you for your insight on chlorine and point-of-use filtration. I often wonder why people don't take advantage of some very advantageous options. Lazy? Lack of education? I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons.
-
Permalink Reply by Vicki Cheeseman on -
Recycling is becoming easier and more encouraged. With that option available...and safety issues not a huge concern...I'd say that banning bottled water is a bit intrusive on people's freedom of choice. Ted's comment that there are numerous other plastics in food packaging is a reminder that water bottles are not the only "evil." Personally, I like the reusable water bottles that are now widely available. They make it easier to save money and take advantage of the fluoride in tap water.
-
Permalink Reply by Allen L. Williams on -
Bottled water is one of the biggest if not the biggest scam ever perpetuated on the American people. Something that was clean, safe, fluoridated and virtually free was converted into a billion dollar industry. I enjoy poking fun at my staff by offering them faucet water out of my fridge pitcher. They like all the other millions have been brainwashed into thinking tap water is inferior.
On a side note the county stopped adding fluoride to our tap water December 31, 2011
-
Permalink Reply by Meg Kaiser on
-
Then I guess you know that Evian (water) is Naive spelled backwards. That made me laugh. I don't drink bottled water, I use a Brita pitcher. But I support the industry because my family drinks bottled water. And we recycle. But I realize that the water in some cities is not very pleasant, therefore I understand the attraction of bottled water.
Wonder how it's going in Concord?
-
Permalink Reply by Allen L. Williams on
-
Videos
Badge
© 2012 Created by Admin.
