Bottled water: can consumers count on quality? | Downtown News Magazine
August 20, 2019
More than seven out of 10 Americans – 72 percent – say bottled water is their most preferred non-alcoholic beverage, followed by coffee, 61 percent, and then soft drinks, 59 percent, according to a recent Harris Poll conducted on behalf of the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA). And that preference for bottled water is rising.
“The results of this poll are consistent with recent consumption figures that show, for a third year in a row, bottled water is the number one packaged beverage in the United States,” said Jill Cullora, vice president of communications for the water association.
What’s more, those who had negative views of bottled water are decreasing, from about 14 percent in 2017 to 10 percent in 2018. However, not everyone is on board the bottled water train.
“The issues of whether bottled water is generally safer than tap water, whether consumers are provided sufficient information about the quality of their bottled water, and whether the federal and state resources being expended are sufficient to ensure the safety and quality of bottled water, are just as relevant nearly a decade later, especially since bottled water consumption has doubled,” Natural Resources Defense Council Attorney Mae Wu testified to a Senate committee in 2009, referencing a report on bottled water written by the council a decade prior. “In addition, over the past few years, awareness and concern has grown over the environmental and health implications of the enormous consumption of bottled water, including the contribution of solid waste to landfills from the bottles, the effect on water scarcity in some source areas, and the large amount of oil expended in the production and transport of bottled water across the country and around the world, including its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.”
The testimony, now more than a decade old, remains relevant, as little has changed in ways of federal or state regulation of bottled water. Unlike municipal tap water, which must undergo quality testing that is required to be shared with the public annually, information about the source and quality of bottled water is largely lacking. And, while Michigan is now addressing PFAS and lead contamination in tap water, recent issues around the country indicate bottled products aren’t immune from contamination issues.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health in July issued a bottled water consumption advisory stating that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were found in certain bottled water products containing spring water from the Spring Hill Farm Dairy, in Haverhill, Massachusetts. The chemicals were found at levels that the health department recommends not be consumed by people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, or by bottle-fed infants. The advisory follows a similar one in New Hampshire, where a spokesman for that state’s environmental services department recommended the water not be used by anyone in the public. The bottled water products in that state tested between 61.6 parts per trillion and 68.6 parts per trillion, below the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) limit of 70 parts per trillion.
PFAS are chemicals used extensively in industrial and consumer products to provide a non-stick surface resistant to water, grease or stains. They have also been used in some firefighting foams and cookware. In Michigan, PFAS has been found in more than 10,000 sites. Exposure has been linked to various health issues, including cancer, liver, thyroid and pancreas problems, hormone disruption and other concerns.
Spring Hill Farm Dairy initially announced it would install new equipment that would filter out PFAS chemicals. However, the company, which provides water in Massachusetts to Whole Foods, CVS and other locations, has since announced it will cease all water bottling operations.
In response to the contamination, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) urged the FDA to set a drinking water standard for PFAS in bottled water.
“Given the widespread persistence of PFAS in our environment and drinking water, many people have turned to bottled water to avoid adding toxins to their bodies,” Blumenthal said in his letter. “In light of this, it’s especially concerning that bottled water may contain PFAS in unsafe concentrations. My constituents, as well as many other Americans, continue to be exposed to these toxic substances. I urge the FDA to act expeditiously to tackle this national crisis in consultation with other federal agencies.”
A federal limit on PFAS doesn’t exist. While the EPA recommends drinking water to not have more than 70 ppt of PFAS, there’s no specific requirement. Blumenthal asked the FDA to require products it oversees to have a level of no more than 70 ppt and limit to specific forms of PFAS to under 15 ppt.
The PFAS contamination issue followed high levels of arsenic discovered in June in bottled water brands owned by Whole Foods and Keurig Dr. Pepper.
In June, independent testing commissioned by the California-based Center for Environmental Health announced it found high levels of toxic arsenic in bottled water brands Starkey, owned by Whole Foods, and Penafiel, owned by Keurig Dr. Pepper and imported from Mexico.
The findings followed similar tests conducted in April by Consumer Reports, which found one of the products had arsenic levels nearly double that of the federal limit of 10 parts per billion. Consumer Reports said its scientists identified 11 brands that had detectable levels of arsenic, with six at levels of three parts per billion or more.
“Consumers are being needlessly exposed to arsenic without their knowledge or consent,” said Michael Green, CEO and founder of the California-based Center for Environmental Health (CEH). “Customers typically purchase bottled water at exorbitantly high costs with the assumption that it is safer and healthier to drink than tap water, unaware that they are ingesting an extremely toxic metal linked to birth defects and cancer.”
Despite knowledge of the presence of arsenic, the FDA didn’t issue a recall for Penafiel’s Unflavored Mineral Spring Water until June 21, 2019.
In terms of arsenic levels, Consumer Reports has recommended the FDA adopt a lower level limit of three ppb, opposed to the current 10 ppb.
Green, with the CEH, echoed concerns of scientists with Consumer Reports who are pushing for a lower arsenic level limit in bottled water. He said such reform is necessary, particularly in locations like Michigan where residents are especially concerned, and in some cases dependent on bottled water, notably following the crisis in Flint.
“It’s a really relevant problem, considering the travesty in Flint, and it isn’t the only place where that has happened. It’s a real thing,” he said. “The majority of people in this country have safe water to drink. The fact that very large companies which have sales going down for sugary drinks have decided that they’ll increase market share on a product that the majority of people can get for free, then charge them and package it in a plastic bottle – it’s not to benefit people. It’s to increase their sales.
“It’s the responsibility of our society, and that lands with government, to get people the information they need to know their water is safe so they don’t have to go to the store and buy it in a plastic bottle and wonder if there is arsenic in it. We are too affluent a country on a whole to have people wonder if the water they are drinking is safe, whether from the bottle or the tap.”
Other contaminants have led to recalls among bottled water in the past. In 2015, Pennsylvania-based Niagara Bottling, which at the time bottled for more than a dozen brands, issued a voluntary recall of products after one of its spring sources was found to be contaminated with E. coli. The company said E. coli contamination wasn’t detected in the finished product or spring water delivered to the bottling facility.
A spokesman for the FDA said while bottlers are required to perform various tests on a scheduled basis, bottlers aren’t required to share the findings of those tests directly with the public. Rather, that information must be kept by the companies for a minimum of two years and be made available to the FDA or its designee.
“The FDA does have oversight of bottling, and bottlers have a number of regulations they are responsible for meeting, including tests for pathogens, and that information is made available to the FDA,” a spokesman for the FDA said.
The FDA said source water containing E. coli isn’t permitted, and that any findings would preclude a bottler from selling that product. Bottlers are required to test for bacteria contamination every three months.
“The FDA has the ability to evaluate records and make sure they are in compliance with regulations,” an FDA spokesman said. “In Michigan, the state has a contract to do that on behalf of the FDA.”
Despite tests being conducted, the FDA doesn’t require that information be submitted for review, nor for it to be shared directly to the public. Rather, water sampling and testing data must only be available for review during FDA inspections, or by another agency working on behalf of the FDA. And, although many bottlers do provide water analysis data, the information is often hard to find and lacks a comprehensive analysis, as there is no single source that makes all water quality reports available.
Further, a 2017 audit of bottle water regulations under the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, found MDARD didn’t fully comply with its own policy to conduct routine inspections of water bottlers on a timely basis. Nor did the department actively pursue the identification and enforcement of unregistered bottled water products sold in Michigan to ensure fee payment and compliance with regulatory requirements.
Under the state’s agreement with the FDA, MDARD is responsible for registering and periodically inspecting water bottlers and water dispensing machines in Michigan. The DEQ’s approval of the water source is needed to produce and sell bottled water in Michigan. As of April 2016, 52 in-state bottlers, 115 out-of-state bottlers and 28-out-of-country bottlers were registered with MDARD, according to an Auditor General’s Report issued in January 2017.
Inspection work related to bottled water is mostly done as part of broader establishment visits made to ensure overall food safety at processing plants, warehouses and retail stores. When a food establishment is licensed, it is placed on an inspection frequency based on the level of risk of the food operations. For example, large beverage processing plants may be considered high risk and inspected every six months, whereas a small grocery store may be low risk and inspected every 18 months. Bottled water, as a stand-alone item, would typically be considered low risk and scheduled for an 18-month inspection frequency, according to MDARD.
Auditors found MDARD didn’t always conduct timely inspections of water bottlers and establishments with water dispensing machines. For instance, for the 2,643 inspections conducted by MDARD during the audit period, 587 (22 percent) were one or more routine inspections overdue.
The audit also found MDARD didn’t pursue identification and enforcement of unregistered bottled water products sold in the state. For instance, auditors conducted visits to 71 establishments with bottled water products offered for sale and identified 20 unregistered bottled water products.
Auditors also looked at water samples and found one of 90 samples examined tested positive for coliforms, but E. coli wasn’t found. One bottled water sample contained detectable levels of lead, but were below the federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the heavy metal. Thirteen bottled water samples showed levels of nitrate, but those were also below the federal MCL. Two samples tested positive for nitrite, but were also below the MCL.
A spokesperson for MDARD said she wasn’t sure of the role MDARD plays in the bottled water process. The department failed to return a follow-up to questions prior to publication of this article.
Erik Olson, senior director of health and food at the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council, said while most bottled water is of good quality, some contain contamination, so it shouldn’t automatically be assumed that bottled water is purer or safer than most tap water.
“The main differences is the monitoring and disclosure requirements – there are none for bottled water, which we find very problematic,” Olsen said. “If you’re drinking tap water, they have to release an annual report. That’s supposed to be provided to every customer every year. There’s no such requirement for bottled water. We tried to get one, and that was killed.
“The bottled water industry often puts a link or phone number on bottles. If you look at the reports they post, they aren’t particularly informative. They usually include the total dissolved solids, but not always the contaminants that one might be worried about, and they don’t use (samples) from each and every source, they use an average of each source. We find it problematic, especially because you’re often spending thousands of times more for bottled water than tap water.”
Olson, who was the principal author of the NRDC’s 1999 study “Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?” said the main issue with federal regulation of drinking water is a lack of overall resources available to regulators. He said the issue is worse for bottled water.
“At the state level, few states have any kind of program,” Olson said. “Most bottled water tracking is wrapped into the whole food program and is very low priority. Our survey was from 20 years ago, and most hasn’t changed. Most have no program.”We’ve seen Consumer Reports stories in the past year that show even when they stumble onto a problem of contamination, it’s hit or miss if anything is done about it.”
The NRDC report also looked at potential contamination due to plastic bottles. In general, Olson said most bottles don’t contain harmful phthalates, but those that do may leach into water over long periods of time. Further, he said consumers should steer clear of bottles that have been stored in high heat or the sun.
“When looking at local gas station and they have cases of water stacked outside in the sun for weeks or months – that’s not water I would want to buy,” he said. “And any bacteria there could reproduce more easily.”
While Olson conceded that most bottled water is probably high quality, the problem is that consumers have no real way of knowing.
“There’s no guarantee that it’s any safer or purer than tap water. Although most water is high quality when we tested over 100 brands 20 years ago, there are a few that have had carcinogenic contamination, but generally, consumers have no way of knowing,” he said. “It’s almost impossible for a consumer to know if it’s any better than tap water. We are pretty much relying on companies, and some are very responsible with investment in treatment, but just because it’s in a bottle and costs hundreds of times more than tap water doesn’t mean its any better.”
Under FDA regulations for bottled water, a bottling plant must meet specific construction and design, sanitary facilities and quality requirements for water before and after it’s bottled. Water used in the bottling process, or “product water,” must be from an approved source properly located, protected and operated. Approved source is any source – whether it’s from a spring, artesian well, drilled well, municipal water supply or any other source – that has been inspected and the water sampled, analyzed and found to be of a safe and sanitary quality according to applicable laws and regulations.
Further, bottled water falls into one of several categories, each of which determine label requirements. Two of the most widely sold bottled water includes “purified” water and “spring” water. Other labels include “artesian” water, “mineral” water, “ground” water, “sparkling” and “well” water. In each case, the term refers to the source of the water and whether and how it is treated.
Under federal rules regulating bottled water, each classification of water is as follows:
- Artesian water is water from a well tapping a confined aquifer in which the water level stands at some height above the top of the aquifer. Artesian water, which is typically under natural pressure, may be collected with the assistance of an external force to enhance the natural underground pressure.
- Ground water is water from a subsurface saturated zone that is under a pressure equal to or greater than atmospheric pressure. Ground water can’t be under the direct influence of surface water, under federal code.
- Mineral water is that containing not less than 250 parts per million (ppm) of total dissolved solids (TDS), coming from a source tapped at one or more bore holes or springs, originating from a geologically and physically protected underground water source. Mineral water is distinguished from other types of water by its constant level and relative proportions of minerals and trace elements at the point of emergence from the source. No minerals may be added to this water. Water with total dissolved solids less than 500 ppm can be considered “low mineral content,” while those above 1,500 ppm may be sold as “high mineral content” water.
- Purified water is water that has been produced by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis or other processes that meet the definition of purified water. Water that comes from a municipal source may be labeled as purified water if it undergoes any further purification processes. Water that comes from a community water system otherwise must note on the label that it comes “from a community water supply” or “from a municipal source.” That notification must be displayed on the display panel and must immediately and conspicuously precede or follow the name of the food without obstructing written, printed or graphic material.
- Sparkling water is water that, after treatment and possible replacement of carbon dioxide, contains the same amount of carbon dioxide from the source that it had at emergence from the source.
- Spring water applies to water taken from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth. Spring water may be collected only at the spring or through a bore hole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring. There must be a natural force causing the water to flow to the surface through a natural orifice. The location of the spring must be identified, and water collected with the use of an external force shall be from the same underground stratum and quality of the spring. The removal of water through an external force also mustn’t inhibit the natural flow of water to the surface.
Under the FDA regulations, the source of water used must be sampled and analyzed by the plant at least once each year for chemical contaminants, and once every four years for radiological contaminants. Additionally, source water coming from a source other than a public water system must be sampled and analyzed for microbiological contaminants at least once a week. Exceptions exist for bottlers using a public water system as their source of drinking water, with the sampling done by the municipal or public system to substitute for its own testing.
Under FDA regulations, all treatment of water through distillation, ion-exchanging, filtration, ultraviolet treatment, reverse osmosis carbonation, mineral addition or any other process must meet FDA standards set out in the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. As such, a record of the type and date of physical inspections of equipment is required to include the condition and performance, with water samples taken after processing and prior to bottling by the plant.
Product water, or the final treated water that goes into bottles, is also required to be analyzed for bacteriological purposes, chemical and radiological purposes.
For bacteriological purposes, plants must take and analyze at least once a week a sample from a batch of continuous production run for each type of bottled drinking water produced during a day’s production.
For chemical and radiological testing, plants are required to take and analyze samples at least annually, using a representative sample from a batch produced during a day’s production.
The plant must maintain sampling records for no less than two years. Plants should also retain, on file in the plant, current certificates or notifications of approval issued by the government agency or agencies approving the plant’s source supply of product water and operations. While the records aren’t required to be available to the public, all required documents must be available for official review.
Despite testing requirements, it’s essentially up to consumers to seek out and find water quality information — a task that can be difficult.
A relatively quick search for water quality information reports by Downtown of the most commonly sold brands in Michigan found most bottlers provided information about the product, but not all.
For instance, water quality reports for Desani, Aquafina, Evian, Crystal Geyser, Ice Mountain, Poland Springs, Fiji, Perrier and VOSS water were available and relatively easy to locate on each company’s website. Each report tended to include sample results for residual disinfectants and their byproducts, radionuclides, inorganic compounds and metals, microbiological contaminants, physical qualities, VOCs and semi-VOCs.
However, other brands are harder to find or were unavailable. For example, a water quality report by Michigan-based Absopure wasn’t located after an extensive search of the site, although a 2017 report was found by Consumer Reports, nor was information found about Deja Blue, which is owned by Dr. Pepper Snapple.
With limited information available on each brand’s label, a company website (or informational phone number) listed on a bottle is often the only source of information available to consumers. Additionally, the International Water Bottlers Association maintains a list of member companies with links to water quality reports; however, not all companies provide water quality reports, and the list includes some non-functional links. Further, not all bottlers are members of the association. The list can be found at bottledwater.org/bottled-water-brands. Consumer Reports also maintains a list of about 120 water quality reports at consumerreports.org/water-quality/find-out-whats-in-your-bottled-water-water-quality-reports/.
With the popularity of bottled water continuing to grow, many consumers no doubt have a preference for one brand over another. While differences in taste are often subtle, depending on personal preference, the source, purification method and other factors all determine a flavor profile.
“Selling bottled water is more about marketing,” said Francis Chapelle, a hydrologist with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and author of “Wellsprings: A Natural History of Bottled Spring Waters.”
In general, Chapelle said Americans prefer bottled water with very low levels of dissolved solids, while Europeans tend to favor brands with higher levels of dissolved solids.
“Dissolved solids are positively or negatively charged, and they have to balance,” he said. “So, for a positive, like carbon, you have to add bicarbonate to go with it, so it’s a combination. It can be bicarbonate or sulfate, or something else. They all taste a little different.”
Chapelle pointed to the classic Coca-Cola vs Pepsi battle that now continues with bottled water. Both Aquafina (Pepsi) and Desani (Coca-Cola) start with municipal-sourced water, then use reverse osmosis and other filtration processes to strip out contaminants and dissolved solids.
“Coke is all about secret formulas, and they put in a proprietary set of dissolved solids,” Chapelle said. “I don’t know what it is, but I could find out by analyzing it. But my daughter likes Desani – she doesn’t like Aquafina, which is just water that undergoes reverse osmosis.”
In terms of filtration and purification, Olson with the NRDC said carbon filtration removes most pharmaceutical contaminants, while it may leave some inorganic compounds. Carbon will also strip water of most PFAS, and virtually all pesticides, gasoline components and other contaminants. Those filters, he said, may be purchased for home use, as well.
Chapelle said geological variations provide significant differences in spring water. For instance, Poland Springs has historically had low dissolved solids, where Perrier has higher dissolved solids.
“It’s in a glacial terrain with glacial sand and water percolates down to granite, and eventually to a spring,” he said of Poland Springs. “It was done as medicine, originally, and the water got picked up by New England whale boat captains. They realized, for whatever reasons, that it didn’t go sour in barrels like other water. That’s because the pH is hovering around four, and it’s basically rain water. That’s how they started to have big business, and it was big business in the late 1800s.”
Conversely, he said Perrier comes from a deep volcanic source rich in carbon dioxide, which provides a naturally carbonated sparkling water with higher levels of dissolved solids.
“I don’t personally consume bottled water,” Chapelle said. “I was interested when writing the book in answering why, in America, people have an unlimited quantity of safe drinking water, why go through the expense?
“Going through this, I realized from a historical point of view that people are very particular about what they consume. The perception that drinking certain waters that are from unique places, and people have an almost historical memory, that their water comes from a unique kind of spring and associated it with health. It appeals to people.”
From a historical perspective, mineral water had medicinal properties and was prescribed to treat certain ailments. For instance, Saratoga Springs was an early bottler in the United States that had naturally occurring iodine that was prescribed to treat goiters. Water that was high in iron was prescribed for anemia. As such, bottled water was a popular beverage up until 1913 when municipal engineers in Philadelphia learned how to add chlorine to the public drinking water, eradicating typhoid, cholera and other public health epidemics.
“People thought it was great, and the bottled water industry crashed, and it stayed crashed through the 1930s and ’40s, and devolved into water coolers in factories,” Chapelle said. “Then in the 1960’s, along comes Perrier with a radio campaign, spending about $5 million. They marketed to the affluent as an expression of good taste, and it caught on.”
Poland Springs then followed suit and did its own radio campaign, asking “Why do you have to buy your water from France?”
It wasn’t until the mid-1970s, that Chapelle, originally a native of northern Michigan, said he noticed bottled water as it was handed out during the Baltimore Marathon.
“That’s was the first time I actually noticed it,” he said, “‘Now I’ve seen everything.'”
By the 1990s, the bottled water industry reached $5 billion a year, and is now near $12 billion. However, outside of safety aspects, much of the preference of bottled water may be associated with perception of the quality of water and the expectation of the consumer.
“You have objective criteria that the EPA and FDA use, and then you have subjective criteria of what people are expecting and what pleases them. If you’re dying of thirst in a desert, you’re going to have much different expectations.”Tags: arsenic, bottled-water, edc, epa, fda-reproductive-harm-cancer, pfas