#bluewashing

BACKGROUND

Today, more people are drinking bottled water than any other type of beverage, including tap water (Gleick 12). This is apparent by just looking around. Everywhere we look, it seems that people are drinking bottled water. In schools, on the streets, at offices, people are carrying around plastic water bottles that they lug around for the 10-30 minutes it takes to drink, which they then throw away once they are done. So how did the water bottle becomes so prevalent in our lives and why are we paying so much money for bottled water when we can easily get a commodity that is more environmentally friendly and economically sound—tap water?

The bottle water industry prevails all over the world because they have taken advantage of our fear of the public water system, whether these fears are legitimate or not. By exploiting the weak and vague regulations in our legislation, they have lulled us into a false sense of security through their excessive and increasingly fabricated advertising while further encouraging our fears of our public water systems (Gleick 176). However, the water bottle industries monopoly of our drinking water intake is slowly coming to an end. Recently, consumers are becoming more educated, as well as shocked and incensed about the true health and environmental impacts of these bottle waters and are fighting back. 

As an aside, when talking about fighting the bottled water industry, it is important to note that we are only talking about consumers in developed nations. For the bottle water industry, there are two markets: developed nations and developing nations. For both markets, the bottled water industry has taken advantage of our fears of the public water infrastructures. In developed nations, these fears are not necessarily legitimate and we have an easy alternative (tap water) to fall back on. However, consumers within developing nations often choose bottled water because their fears are . They have no alternative to fall back on because their public water system is either nonexistent or extremely contaminated and in need of major repair and maintenance. Thus, when speaking of the anti-bottled water movement, this paper will mostly speak of strategies undertaken within developed nations.

THE IMPACTS OF BOTTLED WATER

In some areas of the US, tap water isn’t as safe due to increasing disinvestments in the maintenance and improvement of water systems (Gleick 30). However, is bottled water the safer, better alternative? As we look further into bottled water, we can see that the answer is no.

The three biggest selling points of bottled water is the taste of the water, the pureness, and the convenience. However, these three supposed benefits fall short of consumer expectations and are not as reliable as consumers originally expect. One of the biggest reasons people are reluctant to switch from bottled water to tap water is because they believe that the bottled water tastes better than tap water. This seems to be a hard advantage to overcome, as it is a matter of personal opinion. However, there have been several blind tasting tests that showed that people not only failed to tell the difference between tap water and bottled water, but also some people preferred tap water over bottled water (Gleick 81). This influence of our perceived tastes shows the effectiveness of the bottled-water advertising and marketing strategies (Gleick 82). Without marketing to change our perceived opinions on the taste of water, many people will not only be satisfied, but will prefer the taste of tap water over bottled water.

Another reason many people choose bottled water over tap is because they believe that it is safer, free of contaminants, and more regulated than tap water. However in terms of pureness, many studies have shown that bottled water is actually less regulated than tap water. While tap water is checked 40 times a day, the FDA regulation and testing standards for bottled water is so minimal and vague that it is almost as if bottled water is not being tested at all (Gleick 38). For example, what would happen if a toxin were found in the water? In the tap water system, there would be a public notice by the end of the day. In the bottle water industry, the “FDA is not authorized under law to order the recall of contaminated bottled water and expects companies to take full responsibility for product recalls” (Gleick 43), and thus, this contaminated batch may be still be bought and consumed for a couple of months before word gets out about the contamination. This is a huge health hazard for consumers and a disappointment for consumers looking for a safer and purer water source. Another loophole is that the FDA only regulates interstate water bottle products, which is a glaring problem because 60-70% of all bottled water consumed is bottled within the state (Gleick 36). And what about the pureness of the mineral, spring, or glacier waters that the consumers are supposedly buying? Well that is another disappointment for consumers because there is no concrete proof of where the water actually comes from.

In terms of convenience, it is true that the water bottle is the ultimate representation of on- the-go convenience, but at what price? Not only is the plastic itself detrimental to the individuals health but it also heavily pollutes our environment. Though the bottle water industry has recently switched from PVC (which leaches phthalates and dioxin, a carcinogenic), to PET and polycarbonate (PC) which is supposed to have less chances of leaching, it is still a risk because “long term storage and abrasive conditions have been found to release BPA, a potentially serious health hazard. In addition, plastic bottles exposed to heat and light will encourage bacterial growth” (Gleick 90-91). In other words, despite the reductions of leaching in PC and PET plastic bottles, the fact that leaching is present still harms consumers’ health. In terms of our environment, the popularity and prevalent use of this single-use product has created an enormous garbage problem. Though water bottles are able to be recycled, only 50% of all bottled water in the world, and 20% of bottled water in the US is actually recycled (Tapped). The rest (an estimated 30 million per day) are tossed into landfills, the environment and the oceans, which upsets the ecosystems.

One of the biggest example of how plastic water bottles are effecting our environment is the so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch (North Pacific Subtropical Gyre), which is essentially a huge soup of plastic that has been accumulating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean from Asia and the Western Coast of North America. To picture how much plastic is in the water, in 2008, researchers have found 46 times more plastic than plankton in the water. In other words, there is 46 times more plastic than food. How does this affect us you may ask? These small pieces of plastics act like a sponge for various toxins and as fish eat them, every successive level of fish eating the smaller fish leads to a multiplication of toxins in the plastic. When the fish lands on our table, it is us who are ultimately being poisoned (Tapped). There is no denying that plastic water bottles are extremely convenient. However, now that people are realizing the detrimental impacts of the plastic packaging, the convenience factor shows itself as a destructive and detrimental factor.

These three supposed benefits of water bottles have been invalidated, and it is clear that tap water is not only the safer choice, but also the best choice in benefiting our health and our environment.

THE BOTTLED WATER INDUSTRY FIGHTS BACK – BLUEWASHING

The increasingly public information about the negatives effects of bottled water has influenced consumers to become more educated about their water and what they have learned has turned many consumers away from bottled water. In lieu of the decreasing sales, the water bottle industry has changed tactics and is trying to improve their image and reputation. Currently, the water bottle industry is undergoing green and supposedly environmentally friendly changes within the recycling, processing, and packaging of water bottles, as well as rebranding themselves as representing a healthier lifestyle. However, the majority of these changes are only adaptive measures that show that these industries have not learned from the backlash they are currently facing. Instead they are striving to cover the true cost and impacts of their actions and products through implementing “bluewashing,” strategies, or in other words, tactics that “obscure an industries affect on the worlds water and the detrimental effects of the product” (Bluewashing).

Since water bottles advertising pureness and exclusivity have taken a beat down due to recent knowledge about the true origins of the water, the bottled water industry has changed their marketing strategy and are instead focusing on water as a key factor to a healthier lifestyle. One of the best examples of how successful this strategy is is Nestlé’s Pure Life brand. Though the Pure Life brand not only admits but willingly label the fact that they are bottling the municipal tap water, it has still seen an increase in bottle water sales, defying the general in profits throughout the water bottle industry (Hanging on for Pure Life). This increase in sales due to the low price (using tap water instead of pumping up ground and aquifer water) and “its message about the health benefits of bottled water, especially compared to sugary soft drinks, which improves the image of its product and helps its appeal to parents and teachers who are concerned about their children’s health” (Hanging on for Pure Life). Though the advertising that “drinking water is better than drinking soda” is true, the way that they have advertised this message leads drinkers to infer that the Pure Life brand is better. This is an example of Bluewashing because it does not address the problem of restoring the public water system and continues to take advantage of and subtly encourage consumers’ fear of tap water. By repeatedly making a point to drink bottled water for a healthier lifestyle, there is a subconscious effect that leads people to overlook the other alternatives out there, including the tap water system.

Another strategy to seem more environmentally friendly to consumers is the changing of the packaging to either use less plastic and less fuel to create the bottle itself. However these tactics are only diverting our attention away from the fact that their industry is till using millions of galleons of fossil fuels and generating even more plastic trash of which 50-80% will end up in the ocean and in our environment. In terms of using less plastic, many of the industry are turning to “lightweighting.” But, “in the end, there are structural limits to how thin and light a PET water bottle can be made and it does nothing to increase recycling rates or reduce the actual volume and numbers of bottles ending up in landfills” (Gleick 103). In striving to use less fuel to create the bottle, Coca-Cola’s Plant Bottle will contain up to 30% of plant-based PET plastic material. Other advantages include a 25% reduction in carbon emissions as well as being able to be “processed through existing manufacturing and recycling facilities without contaminating traditional PET” (Sustainable is Good). However, this is an example of bluewashing because though there is a slight decrease and benefit in the processing and recycling of the product, the problem remains. There will still be a huge amount of plastic waste going into landfills and the oceans, and there is still a sizeable amount of fuel being using to create the bottles. Both examples show that though the bottled water industry have taken steps to solve a few complaints that the consumer has stated, it is still not tackling the problem at its root. They are taking the minimal amount of actions to satisfy consumers looking for change.

Other moves include opening up the world’s largest PET bottle-to-bottle recycling plant in Feb 2009 (Gleick 164-165), which is a much-needed resource, and going “water neutral.” Water neutrality is defined as “measuring the water footprint, taking steps to reduce it, and making up for the water it uses in one location by sponsoring water improvements elsewhere” (Bluewashing). In other words, the water bottle industries are attempting to become more environmentally aware and lower their impact to nature as well as make up for their impacts by implementing improvements elsewhere. However, this tactic is just a smokescreen, a distraction to what is truly happening. Though the industries are making up for their impacts, the point is that there is still a huge impact in the first place and making up for it in another location still means that there is a loss of that water in the original location. There is no steps or processes being done to reduce their environmental impacts, and instead, they are just trying to makeup for their impacts.

It is clear that through their attempts to re-image themselves and start anew, the bottle water industries have not learned from their mistakes. They still value high profits over the environment and consumer health.

ANTI-BOTTLED WATER STRATEGIES

Due to growing publicity of the pitfalls of bottled water, consumers have started to fight back against the trickery of the bottled water industry. The anti bottle movement has organized itself to tackle the bottle water industry by educating the commons, banning bottled water, finding and repairing alternatives to bottled water, and supporting legislation to help reduce plastic in the environment and create stricter regulation of bottled water.

In their anger and passion, some consumers have come together to boycott bottled water all together. Numerous restaurants in the Bay Area, colleges around the country, federal agencies and offices, and even a town wide ban in Bundanoon, Australia has seen a ban of bottled water in their respective territory (Stern). On the opposing side, one of the biggest complaints that should be taken under consideration is that these groups have taken away consumer choice (Challinor). This is something to consider more in colleges than in restaurants because restaurant patrons are consumers for a short period of time while college students have campus contact everyday. This makes it important to give students the opportunity to make their own decisions. While we hope to persuade more people to choose tap water over bottled water, there will still be those who will still choose to drink bottled water. And if this choice is taken away, there is a chance that instead of drinking tap water, they will choose a sugary drink (Theen) or buy bottled water elsewhere. Thus, the ban of bottled water in high density and high contact areas such as college campuses and even towns is risky because the majority opinion does not reflect the opinions of everybody within. These unsatisfied people will go to other venues or drink unhealthy beverages to avoid tap water.

Apart from bottle water bans, the other anti-bottled water strategies are well thought out and successful in convincing consumers to turn away from bottled water and back to the tap. Advocates are aware that to reduce bottled water use, there needs to be alternatives that consumers can turn to which will provide the same convenience and wide accessibility that bottled water has endorsed. To start, many consumers have turned to reusable bottles to meet the consumer’s on-the-go lifestyle. And of the water itself, many people have started looking into the past and are restoring water fountains throughout the urban city and within the buildings as well. Some new renditions of these water fountains are water refill stations that are attached to the interior walls of buildings, which feature a touch-less sensor that can identify when bottles are within refilling distance. This sensor tackles the sanitation complaints that many people have with water fountains. These water refill stations and traditional water fountains are fundamental in the fight against bottled water because one of the main reasons people buy bottled water is the lack of access to city provided water in the urban area and the lack of trust in the cleanliness and sanitation of current water fountains. To discourage bottled water, there needs to be clean and safe venues from which consumers can quench their thirsts. And the anti bottled water movement has met or has started to meet this need.

For the consumers who continue to prefer bottled water, there has been start up bottled water businesses that focus on “ethical water” (Gleick 166). These water bottle companies will give a percentage of their sales profit to developing nations to help them repair or implement their public water infrastructure. However good it sounds, people have criticized that though the companies “advertises the 5 cents per bottle it donates to a water fund for every bottle of Ethos Water it sells for $1.80, they do not mention the $360 million it would take in by the time it reaches its goal of raising $10 million for water projects (Bluewashing).” Though the critics are correct in their assessment of how much money these companies are raking in, the fact remains that money is money. The money these companies are raising for developing nations is more than many donations given by other organizations and essentially, any amount of money will help developing nations rebuild their poor public water infrastructure. Another benefit is that ethical water will be able to meet the demands of consumers who prefer bottled water, while helping developing nations at the same time.

Though the movement aims to reduce the amount of bottled water usage, there is still a matter of the sheer volume of empty plastic bottles our country has accumulated. As mentioned before, plastic water bottles can be recycled, however only 20% of all water bottles in America are actually being recycled. This huge gap in recycling rates is explained by what bottled-water represents: on-the-go convenience. Instead of properly disposing of this ‘convenient’ product, consumers choose to ‘conveniently’ throw it out the moment they are finished drinking— whether it be a recycling bin or a trash bin (Tapped). To solve this problem, advocates are recommending wider implementation of bottle bills, or rather small deposits that consumers pay for each bottle and get back when they recycle the bottle. This feeling of a financial incentive motivates consumers to be more aware of where they are throwing away their bottles. Currently, only 11 states in the US use bottle bills, and only 6 out of these 11 include water bottles (Tapped). But for these states, bottle bills prove to be extremely effective in encouraging consumers to recycle the bottle, for example, for those that get 10 cents back, there was a 90% increase in those who recycled the bottle (Tapped). Though this strategy has seen success in the US and throughout Europe, only a small number of states have undergone this process due to the bottled water industries reluctance at having to fund such a heavy-cost program. However, consumers should not be deterred and must continue fighting back and spreading the word about the recycling effectiveness and successfulness of this proposal.

The numerous and successful comprehensive strategies of the anti-bottled water are an example of how other consumers may begin to tackle not only the bottled water industries but also other industries. 

EXPANDING OUR SCOPE

While many people are no longer falling for the bottled water industries tricks and becoming more educated about the water bottle system, this experience with the bottled water industry should be an example of how little is known about the other products we use and consume on a daily basis. Instead of allowing other industries to continue smoke screening the environmental and health impacts of their products, consumers need to put their fight against bottled water into perspective. Ironically it is a bottled water representative that brings up an important question: why should we only stop at bottled water when many other beverages are also housed and transported in plastic, and cause similar health and environmental impacts (Reyes)? And better yet, why are we focusing on just beverages? Why not all products as “bottled water is one of thousands of food, medicinal, beauty and cleaning products packaged in plastic. Any efforts to reduce the environmental impact of consumer packaging must focus comprehensively all product containers and not single out any one product (Reyes).” The anti- bottled water movement has exemplified the strength of consumers and created many venues to influence and educate other people about the actions of multi-billion industries. Instead of letting the movement become a passionate one-time event, the anti-bottled water movement needs to expand its scope and identify what are truly sustainable consumer products and processing methods for not only our environment but our health as well. “We cannot pin the bottled water with a scarlet letter” (Michael Talent). By this, Talent means that consumers cannot blindly rush into this fight against bottled water with only a goal of eliminating bottled water in its entirety. There needs to be discussion and conversations about what true sustainability means.