The industry fires back.

Don't be drawn into the bottled water versus tap water debate as presented in E's article "Message In A Bottle:' The few carefully edited quotes from the bottled water industry included in the rather slanted article did not accurately represent the facts. Consumers are not uniformly replacing tap with bottled water; rather, they are choosing bottled water over other drinks, which are often loaded with calories, caffeine, coloring, sweeteners and alcohol. Or should we all tote our canteen into the gas station bathroom to fill up at the sink?

Bottled water is comprehensively regulated as a packaged food product. Howard's article heavily relies on a 1999 publication [NRDC's "Bottled Water, Pure Drink or Pure Hype"] that was soundly refuted in a science-based technical analysis prepared by the Drinking Water Research Foundation (DWRF).

Also, when it comes to environmental stewardship and container safety, the bottled water industry is part of the solution. We partner with other players to encourage curbside recycling. Further, home and office delivery of bottled water could be considered one of the original recyclers, since containers are reused, then recycled. Bottled water is but one product to come in plastic. So to single it out is to ignore the fact that today's society demands and relies upon such packaging.

And about the claim that bottled water companies are allegedly depleting America's aquifers, has E reviewed any data? Or is this just an uneducated guess? 3rod what of other businesses that use much more groundwater? The IBWA believes water management policy must be science-based and treat all users equitably.

The same critics of bottled water may one day set their sights on the paper industry, which often uses more water than a typical bottling plant. Critics could also address the fuel and oil consumed and pollution caused by trucks delivering publications to market. The economic reality is that electronic media likely do not sell as much advertising.

Stephen R. Kay

VP Communications

International Bottled Water Association 

Alexandria, VA

Brian Howard Responds:

It isn't surprising that the $35 billion-a-year bottled water industry doesn't want the public to be "drawn into the bottled water versus tap water debate;' since tap water is held to greater regulatory oversight but costs up to 1,000 times less. When Kay says consumers are choosing bottled water over other alternatives such as sodas, he sounds like a tobacco executive asking if it would be better if people smoked crack cocaine instead of cigarettes--it's beside the point. And what's wrong with using canteens?

I strongly disagree with Kay that the DWRF successfully discredited the NRDC report. Although the DWRF claims to be an "independent not-for-profit foundation," it shares the same address and phone number as the IBWA (which is also the group's largest donor). The majority of the DWRF's trustees and benefactors hail from bottled water and related companies. Many of the DWRF's conclusions do not hold up to scrutiny (see details on our website).

Although Kay argues that water bottlers haven't depleted America's aquifers (note that there is evidence of this happening internationally), my article discussed the potential for damage. Let's not wait for irreversible ruin before putting some common sense regulations in place. Also, I find it ironic that Kay advocates for water users to be treated equitably. The fact that the Mecosta County, Michigan bottled water plant paid only around $150 in fees for its operations--and received enormous tax benefits--doesn't sound like someone paving equitably for water.

Also, Kay fails to realize that, in fact, environmentalists have targeted the paper industry for years. To learn more about recycled and alternative paper, see our upcoming cover story later this year.

Visit E's website, www.emagazine.com, to see more of the many letters we received on bottled water.