[Senate Hearing 110-1264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1264
QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF BOTTLED WATER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SAFETY,
INFRUSTRUCTURE SECURITY, AND WATER QUALITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
88-908 WASHINGTON : 2015
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and
Water Quality
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
OPENING STATEMENTS
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 1
Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma........ 16
WITNESSES
Lloyd, Emily, Commissioner, New York City Department of
Environmental Protection....................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Wu, Mae, J.D., MPhil, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 34
Hauter, Wenonah, Executive Director, Food and Water Watch........ 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 43
Edberg, Stephen C., PhD., A.B.M.M., Professor, Laboratory
Medicine, Internal Medicine, Chemical Engineering, Yale
University School of Medicine, and Director, Clinical
Microbiology Laboratory, Yale-New Haven Hospital............... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Doss, Joseph K., President and CEO, International Bottled Water
Association.................................................... 77
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 132
QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF BOTTLED WATER
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure
Security, and Water Quality,
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Frank Lautenberg (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, Inhofe
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee will
come to order. We expect other Senators to join us, but I
caution the witnesses, don't think that a quiet room up here is
anything other than a reflection of other things to do, and not
lack of interest in this hearing, because there is a lot of
interest, as we all know, in this hearing.
I would invite our witnesses to take the stand, please. We
thank all of you for being here with us. There is a lot of
mythology attached to drinking water, and what its value is. We
know one thing, we know what its prices are. So as I call the
hearing to order, I welcome everyone to today's hearing as we
look into the quality of the bottled water that Americans are
drinking and the impact that bottled water has on our
environment.
Bottled water has become so popular, so much a part of our
culture, that more than half of all Americans drink it. About a
third drink it with regularity. People keep bottled water
everywhere. It is in their cars, their gym bags, in their
homes. By the way, this Senator is also a participant in the
consumption of bottled water. I look around my children's
houses, they all have bottled water, and I hope they are
listening today.
Americans spend more than $8 billion a year on bottled
water, and that amount is only expected, based on history, to
grow. With people spending that much money, they have a right
to expect that their water is safe and clean. That is what they
expect what they turn on the faucet at home, as well. That is
what they should expect when they turn the cap on a bottle of
water.
I want to be clear. Bottled water serves some important
purposes. But in this case, we can't say what you don't know
won't hurt you. What you don't know deserves close review. The
need for clean bottled water is magnified during an emergency,
such as Hurricane Gustav, which just passed through the Gulf
Coast, when people are evacuated from their homes or in their
homes but without basic utilities. It certainly is healthier to
purchase water from a vending machine rather than soda.
But what many Americans don't know is that almost 40
percent of bottled water on the market is actually tap water,
fresh from the tap. They don't say that, but we know that
that's the case. Some bottlers use additional treatments to
clean it, with others it is merely tap water in a fancy
container. In addition, water bottles that are discarded in the
trash have a lasting effect on our environment and the
Country's continuing energy crisis. Americans use 2.7 million
tons of plastic each year for water bottles. The amount of oil
that it takes to produce those water bottles would power more
than 1 million cars and trucks for a year. And only 14 percent
of plastic bottles are recycled, according to one study. The
rest languish in our landfills, and the plastic is not
biodegradable.
One solution is to encourage Americans to drink more tap
water, either right from the tap or with a filter. American tap
water is the cleanest in the world, and by drinking it, people
can save money and save a growing environmental problem at the
same time. Earlier this year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors
passed a resolution to encourage the use of tap water in their
cities. New York City, which we will hear from today, and
cities in New Jersey across the Country played an important
part in that resolution.
But knowing that Americans are still going to drink bottled
water, we can also act to give American consumers the facts
about what they are drinking. That is why I am going to soon be
introduced the Bottled Water Right to Know Act, which will
provide consumers information about where their bottled water
comes from and the quality of the water that they are drinking.
We should never be in a situation where we don't have access to
clean, safe water. And bottled water plays a role in that
safety net.
But Americans deserve to know what it is that they are
consuming and the full effects of their decision. So I thank
the witnesses at the table and look forward to hearing from all
of you. I would welcome each one. Emily Lloyd, Commissioner
with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection.
New York City has been working on a new program to reduce
bottled water use. I look forward to learning about their
efforts.
Mae Wu, an attorney with the Health and Environment
Program, at the NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council.
They have focused on bottled water issues for more than a
decade.
Wenonah Hauter, the Executive Director of Food and Water
Watch, a think tank that has focused on bottled water.
Dr. Stephen Edberg, a professor from Yale University School
of Medicine, a well-respected microbiologist with expertise on
health and quality of water.
Mr. Joseph Doss, the President and CEO of the International
Bottled Water Association, which is the industry association
that represents bottled water producers.
I want to thank all of you for coming today and for lending
your expertise to this hearing. Your full statement will be
included in the record, so I ask you to present a 5-minute
summary of your testimony.
Ms. Lloyd, if you will, please begin.
STATEMENT OF EMILY LLOYD, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Ms. Lloyd. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Lautenberg.
I am Emily Lloyd, Commissioner of the New York City Department
of Environmental Protection. I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to testify on drinking water.
As you may know, one of New York City DEP's most important
responsibilities is to manage the surface water system that
provides potable water to approximately 9 million people, or
half of the population of New York State, including of course
New York City. Thanks to the foresight of my predecessors, the
surface water system we operate today continues to provide
extremely high quality water at very moderate costs, which
unfortunately are increasing rapidly, due to unfunded mandates
and rising construction costs.
There are two simple reasons for the historically low cost
of our drinking water. First, until the Surface Water Treatment
Rule was promulgated in 1989, New York City's water required no
treatment beyond chlorination and at times of high turbidity,
the addition of alum. Second, it flows downhill from reservoirs
in the mountains, down to New York City, throughout the city,
with one or two exceptions, and all the way to the sixth floor
in city buildings purely by gravity. That means no energy costs
and no greenhouse gases from mountaintop to tap.
Without sounding boastful, I hope, I think I can say safely
that the quality and taste of New York City's drinking water is
widely admired by both water quality professionals and by
average New Yorkers and our guests. Most recently, at this
year's New York State Fair, New York City's water emerged
victorious in a tasting competition sponsored by the State
Department of Health in the New York section of the American
Water Works Association. The event raised awareness of the
importance of clean, high quality drinking water and also of
the massive investment it takes to maintain our system and keep
our watershed clean.
Our Federal regulators have also acknowledged the quality
of our drinking water. We are especially proud that last year
we were granted a 10-year renewal of EPA's filtration avoidance
determination for 90 percent of our water supply, double the
length of time of all previous exemptions. New York is one of
only five large cities in the Nation that is not required to
filter its drinking water.
The 10-year filtration avoidance determination demonstrates
how investment in watershed protection assures the continued
delivery of safe, clean drinking water. Watershed protection is
one of the highest priorities in Mayor Michael Bloomberg's
PlaNYC 2030, the blueprint for making New York City an even
more sustainable city. Nineteen initiatives in the plan address
water quality and the maintenance and upgrade of our water
network.
Of course, supplying 9 million people with high quality
drinking water comes at an ever-increasing cost. Aging
infrastructure and evolving regulations are requiring a huge
reinvestment in our water system. From 1972 until 1986, Federal
programs supplied some support. But for many years now,
municipalities have been on their own financially. We hope that
the growing awareness of the high quality of our drinking water
and the importance of tap water as a natural resource will
encourage renewed Federal interest in water infrastructure.
Returning to the subject of your bill, Senator Lautenberg,
establishing standards for bottled water at least as protective
as drinking water, I believe it highlights the differences
between tap and bottled water. In June, Mayor Bloomberg signed
on to a resolution of the U.S. Conference of Mayors that you
referred to, supporting municipal water systems. The resolution
draws some striking contrasts between tap water and bottled
water. Bottled water can costs a thousand to ten thousand times
what tap water costs the consumer. Tap water is subject to more
stringent testing requirements and still costs a fraction of
bottled water. Plastic water bottles are an ever-growing
component of municipal waste, and their production and
distribution consume tremendous amounts of energy.
The resolution recognizes that there are going to be
circumstances where municipalities, New York City included,
will not have alternatives to bottled water, particularly in
emergency situations. But we hope the resolution will erode the
misperception that public water supplies are somehow less
desirable than commercial bottled water. In fact, public water
supplies are one of society's greatest assets, and tap water is
superior to the quality of bottled water at a fraction of the
cost, both direct and indirect. Aggressively promoting tap
water raises citizens' awareness of the importance and quality
of this resource.
I know the Subcommittee is interested in efforts taken by
New York City to promote tap water consumption. Last year, DEP,
in conjunction with the New York City Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene, conducted a public awareness campaign on the
benefits of drinking tap water. The multimedia campaign
included posters on public transit, I brought an example here,
radio spots in Spanish and English and the distribution of more
than 50,000 reusable water bottles. Again, I brought one of
those for people to see.
One of the goals of the campaign was to address the myth
that tap water is somehow not as safe or desirable as bottled
water or sweetened beverages. Part of our challenge is that for
many of our foreign-born residents and visitors, it is not a
myth. The reality is that finding a safe and reliable source of
potable water is a problem in many areas of the world. Recent
immigrants and their children may needlessly spend money on
bottled water or opt for a cheaper can of sugary soda if they
don't know that tap water is the cheaper, healthier
alternative.
Working again with sister agencies, we are now preparing a
renewed campaign to expand awareness of the benefits of New
York City tap water. Making the healthier choice, we believe,
should be everyone's right. Making the choices, personal and
governmental, that support the environment and public drinking
water infrastructure we think is everyone's responsibility.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lloyd follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Ms. Lloyd. I don't want
anybody to think that I am prejudiced to New York City's side
of the issue. We will try to allow others fairness in watching
the clock.
Ms. Wu, we thank you for being here with us.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, while I am the
Ranking Member of the whole Committee, Senator Vitter from
Louisiana is the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee. He has an
amendment on the floor, so I told him I would sit in at the
beginning.
Senator Lautenberg. Please forgive me. I would ask Senator
Inhofe, please, Ms. Wu, to make his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
First of all, thank you for having this hearing. I think we
in the United States are privy to the very best quality of both
tap water and bottled water. It is something that does deserve
attention at this time.
Due to Senator Vitter's absence, he wanted me to say to the
bottled water industry how much he appreciates the help that
you have been all during the disasters that they have had to
incur down in Louisiana. He said you have really come in and
done an excellent job.
Recently certain NGO's, non-governmental organizations,
have argued that bottled water poses health risks to humans and
is extremely harmful to the environment, spurring some public
concern and spurring this hearing, I might add. These issues,
however, are not new. They have been studied for quite some
time and needless public concern should be taken into
consideration.
The safety of bottled water is comprehensively regulated at
the Federal, State and the local industry levels. In fact, both
the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Centers for
Disease Control note that illness from bottled water has only
been a result of rare, isolated instances, which suggests that
the current framework works and further regulation may not be
necessary. The bottled water industry, in recognition of
environmental concern and shifting consumer preferences, has
led industry efforts to significantly enhance their
sustainability efforts to minimize environmental impact.
The production of bottled water, however, does share many
of the same environmental impacts as other consumer goods. How
many of my colleagues have walked down the supermarket aisles
lately to find that many products are now packaged as a
disposable good. Society has driven the market to produce more
disposable goods, putting extreme pressures on municipal waste
sites. It is important to note that the proliferation of
bottled water and other consumer goods is a consequence of
shifting consumer lifestyles.
As a former mayor, I sympathize with the concerns of
increased pressures on the holding capacity of our counties'
municipal waste facilities. We as a Country need to become more
conscious of what we buy and toss into our garbage cans.
We will hear testimony today from our distinguished
witnesses. We will also hear testimony on both sides of this
issue. I hope this issue will provide clarity to the status of
bottled water, which is already comprehensively regulated at
the Federal, State and local level. I thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for holding this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today on
the quality and environmental impacts of bottled water. I'm
sure you would agree that Americans are privy to the best
drinking water and bottled water available in the world. There
is undoubtedly growing popularity of bottled water and
consumers and the general public are justified to ask whether
bottled water in America is safe and sustainable. I believe the
answer to both of those questions is yes, as we will hear in
testimony today.
Due to Senator Vitter's absence, I would first like to
mention how grateful we all are for the bottled water
industry's service to our country in recent catastrophes. The
State of Louisiana I'm sure is grateful for the continued
assistance. America's recovery efforts would be severely
hindered if it weren't for their generosity.
Recently, certain Non-Governmental Organizations or NGO's
have argued that bottled water poses health risks to humans and
is extremely harmful to the environment, spurring some public
concern and this hearing. These issues, however, are not new
but have been studied for quite some time. Nevertheless, public
concern should not be discounted.
The safety of bottled water is comprehensively regulated at
the Federal, State, Local and Industry levels. In fact, both
the Natural Resource Defense Counsel and the Center for Disease
Control note that illness from bottled water has only been the
result of rare and isolated incidents, which suggests that the
current framework works and further regulation is unnecessary.
The bottled water industry in recognition of environmental
concern and shifting consumer preferences have led industry
efforts to significantly enhance their sustainability efforts
to minimize environmental impact. The production of bottled
water, however, does share many of the same environmental
impacts as other consumer goods. How many of my colleagues have
walked down the supermarket isles lately to find that many
products are now packaged as a disposable good. Society has
driven the market to produce more disposable goods, putting
extreme pressures on municipal waste sites. It is important to
note that the proliferation of bottled water and other consumer
goods is a consequence of shifting consumer lifestyles. As a
former mayor, I sympathize with the concerns of increased
pressures on the holding capacity of our countries municipal
waste facilities and we as a country need to become more
conscious on what we buy and toss into our garbage can.
We will hear testimony today from Dr. Stephen Edberg,
Professor Laboratory Medicine and Director of Microbiology at
Yale University, whose extensive research is focused on
bacteria that are found in the environment that may cause
infection in human beings. He will explain to the Committee
that concerns over the potential harm to human health are
unwarranted and that U.S. bottled water is indeed safe for
human consumption.
We will also hear testimony today from Joseph Doss,
President and CEO of the International Bottled Water
Association, here to discuss industry efforts to ensure
consumers receive a safe and sustainable product. He will
discuss how they have addressed contamination, mislabeling and
waste stream concerns by going above and beyond the
requirements imposed under current law through their Model
Code, which applies to the overwhelming majority of bottled
water sold in the United States.
I hope this hearing provides clarity to the status of
bottled water, which is already comprehensively regulated at
the Federal, State, Local and Industry levels in order to
ensure its safety and sustainability.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
Now, Ms. Wu, we will hear from you.
STATEMENT OF MAE WU, J.D., MPHIL, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Wu. Good afternoon, Senator Lautenberg and members of
the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
quality and environmental impacts of bottled water.
I am Mae Wu, a staff attorney in the health and environment
program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. My testimony
today will highlight a few of the important differences between
EPA's and FDA's regulation of tap water and bottled water, and
the environmental issues associated with the production and
transport of bottled water.
As the members of this Committee are probably aware,
bottled water consumption in the United States is growing at a
tremendous pace, quadrupling since 1990. Ironically, even
though we have one of the best and safest public drinking water
systems in the entire world, the U.S. consumes the largest
volume of bottled water in the world.
One of the driving forces behind this thirst for bottled
water is the belief that it is safer than tap water.
Unfortunately, this belief is largely unfounded. The public
should not assume that water purchased in a bottle is better
regulated, more pure or safer than most tap water.
Tap water and bottled water are regulated separately in the
U.S. EPA regulates tap water under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and it establishes health-based standards limiting the amount
of certain contaminants that can be present in tap water. EPA
requires water utilities to regularly test their water for
contaminants and to report the results to the EPA. These
results are also available to the public.
FDA regulates bottled water under the Food, Drug and
Cosmetics Act. By law, FDA is required to set health standards
of quality for bottled water at least as protective as health
standards set by EPA. However, FDA has not adopted some of
EPA's standards. Two of the most significant for public health
are e-coli and DEHP.
EPA requires that no e-coli can be confirmed in any tap
water sample. However, while FDA does regulate a broader
category of bacteria which includes e-coli, it has no
corresponding prohibition on e-coli, as EPA has. A 1993
proposal by FDA to prohibit e-coli in bottled water languished
at the agency until 2004 when it was withdrawn altogether from
further consideration.
The chemical DEHP is a potent hormone disrupter which
interferes with the production of testosterone and is
associated with birth defects of the genitals, testicular
cancer and poor sperm quality. It has been widely used as a
sealant in bottled water and other packaged foods. EPA limits
the amount of DEHP in tap water, but FDA does not for bottled
water.
In 1996, FDA proposed setting a standard equal to EPA's but
has deferred final action on a DEHP standard for the past 12
years. Over that time, the scientific evidence about the
potential health risks of DEHP has grown significantly.
There are other important differences besides standards for
specific contaminants. FDA's testing and reporting requirements
for bottled water are weaker than FDA's, and FDA has many fewer
resources dedicated to regulating bottled water than EPA.
Perhaps the greatest discrepancy is that the public does not
have access to the same information about bottled water that it
does about tap water.
EPA requires water utilities to report to customers
annually about the quality of their tap water over the past
year. But FDA has no such reporting or labeling requirement for
bottled water. FDA's minimal oversight over the industry,
combined with a lack of publicly available information, makes
it much less likely that if a problem exists it will be
identified.
Furthermore, FDA's regulations exclude water bottled and
sold within the same State, which constitutes a significant
amount of bottled water, as well as several types of bottled
water, including sparkling water and tonic water. Regulation of
these waters is left to the States who are also under serious
resource constraints and are under no legal obligation to adopt
the FDA standards or any standards at all.
There are also significant environmental issues connected
to the production and distribution of bottled water.
Consumption of bottled water produces billions of plastic
bottles each year, most of which are not recycled. As a result,
tens of billions of plastic bottles are sent to landfills that
are already overburdened.
In addition, in contrast to tap water, bottled water gets
to us on ships and trains and trucks that all use oil and come
in bottles made from oil. A Swiss study found that bottled
mineral water is responsible for more than 175 times more
primary energy consumption, almost 170 times more crude oil use
and over 200 times more greenhouse gas emissions than tap
water. There is also growing concern that bottling water can
produce scarcity problems in certain areas, which is becoming a
more common problem in the U.S.
In short, a significant amount of resources are used and
pollution and waste is created in the production and
distribution of bottled water which could be avoided by a
greater use of tap water. In conclusion, NRDC offers the
following recommendations. Congress should enact bottled water
labeling legislation like what Senator Lautenberg has
introduced that ensures the public's right to know about the
quality, treatment and source of bottled water. FDA should
adopt EPA's health standard for DEHP, prohibit the presence of
e-coli and increase monitoring and reporting requirements. To
the extent that FDA does not have or does not believe it has
authority to undertake these actions, Congress should clarify
that it does. Congress should further clarify that all bottled
water sold in the United States is federally regulated.
To maintain improved protection for the Nation's drinking
water, Congress should increase funding for water
infrastructure and establish strong, health-protective
standards for contaminants of concern. The long-term solution
to drinking water problems is to fix tap water, not to switch
to bottled water. Most of the time, plain old tap water is just
as good for you as bottled. It costs a lot less and it does not
consume as much energy to produce or leave as much waste.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify before you
today. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wu follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Ms. Wu.
We now have a different standard than we started with. We
are now engaged in a 6-minute standard, and that is made
possible by the lack of the presence of others here. So Ms.
Hauter, here you go, and you have 6 minutes, not seconds over,
but 6 minutes, to present your testimony, and we invite you to
do so at this point.
STATEMENT OF WENONAH HAUTER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, FOOD AND WATER WATCH
Ms. Hauter. Good afternoon, Chairman Lautenberg. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Wenonah Hauter. I am Executive Director of Food
and Water Watch, a consumer organization in Washington, DC. We
are very concerned that consumers have been misled about the
benefits of bottled water, because it is a product that is very
poorly regulated by the FDA. In fact, the FDA has less than one
full-time employee devoted to bottled water oversight. The
rules that the FDA has for bottled water apply only to bottled
water packaged and sold across State lines, which leaves out
about 60 to 70 percent of bottled water that is sold within a
single State.
Also, one out of five States do not have bottled water
laws, and some State regulations mirror FDA's standards. Some
are more stringent and some fall far short of ensuring consumer
safety. For the 30 to 40 percent of bottled water that the FDA
does regulate, the companies do not have to test the water
after bottling or storage. The agency requires that companies
test four empty bottles every 3 months for bacterial
contamination. They must test a sample of water after
filtration and before bottling for bacteria once a week. And
when it comes to physical, chemical and radiological
contaminants, a sample of water must be checked only once a
year. And the FDA does not monitor industry records to make
sure that there is compliance.
Meanwhile, tap water is regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA requires
that water systems serving more than one million people test
300 water samples per month, while utilities serving three
million people or more must collect and test 480 samples
monthly. Unlike the bottled water industry, that does not have
to inform consumers of testing results, utilities are required
to make their testing results available to consumers.
Yet, because of the aggressive advertising of the bottled
water industry, consumers believe that they are getting a
better product when they purchase bottled water. And with the
downturn in the economy, many consumers are spending their
hard-earned money on a product that is inferior or no better
than tap water. A person who buys the equivalent of one gallon
of water in 20 ounce bottles will likely pay anywhere from $8
to $10 compared to the going rate of almost $4 a gallon for
gasoline.
And it is not just consumers who are paying too high a
price for bottled water. So is the environment. Here are just a
few of the statistics. More than 26 billion plastic water
bottles are sold each year in the U.S. Eighty-six percent of
the empty plastic water bottles end up in landfills or are
incinerated. More than 17 million barrels of oil, not including
fuel for transportation, are used in bottled water production.
Producing the bottles themselves creates about 2.5 million tons
of carbon dioxide, and it uses, to create a 20 ounce bottle of
water uses 60 ounces of water.
Another environmental cost of bottled water is the loss of
groundwater. And there are communities all over the Country who
are fighting the bottled water industry because of water mining
that affects their springs, wetlands, streams and rivers. We
think that there should be some kind of reporting of the impact
on localities and regions.
Another recommendation is, we believe that every society
should offer its citizens safe and affordable water.
Unfortunately, we have new generations of young people who have
had bottled water and believe that tap water isn't good to
drink. We are concerned about the continuing commitment to fund
infrastructure in the future for drinking water and for sewage.
We would like to see Congress pass a clean water trust fund
that would help close the $22 billion gap for clean
infrastructure.
We are also very enthusiastic about the Bottled Water Right
to Know Act, and we intend to help work to pass that. We hope
that it is a stepping stone to require the bottled water
industry to actually label the bottled water product with the
source of the water, how and whether it was treated, the
presence of regulated and unregulated contaminants. We think
that testing results should be public.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hauter follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
And now we will hear from Dr. Edberg. Thank you, Ms.
Hauter, you beat the time clock.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. That is not a requirement, but
noteworthy.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN C. EDBERG, PHD., A.B.M.M., PROFESSOR,
LABORATORY MEDICINE, INTERNAL MEDICINE, CHEMICAL ENGINEERING,
YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, AND DIRECTOR, CLINICAL
MICROBIOLOGY LABORATORY, YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL
Mr. Edberg. Thank you very much for inviting me. It is a
distinct honor to be here.
This year I won the lifetime achievement award in medical
microbiology and the title of my talk was From PF70: the Bronx
to Yale. Now I can say I have testified in front of Senator
Frank Lautenberg. I have many relatives in New Jersey and we
know you as a person of great respect.
I am here representing Yale University School of Medicine.
I have been involved in drinking water research for
approximately 25 years. I have been a consultant to virtually
every drinking water organization there is, including the
Groundwater Association, the World Health Organization,
American Water Works Association, EPA and IBWA.
I have at least 75 papers and peer-reviewed journals
concerning health issues related to drinking water. It turns
out that actually I invented this standard drinking water test
used throughout the world and in 45 of the 50 States for
bacteria, which are total coliforms and e-coli. That has been
the standard throughout the world since 1992.
So that is what I am bringing to the table today.
The purpose of my talk, which is outlined, is to basically
review the essential differences between tap water and bottled
water from an objective point of view. Quite simply, bottled
water is a sealed food product. Once you put the water in the
bottle and you seal it, that is it, nothing else happens. It
may seem fairly obvious, but it is essential to actually
compare that with municipal water.
One of the reasons is, municipal water has a terrific
challenge. Municipal water, first of all, can't choose its own
source and has to deal with where it is. As a result, all sorts
of different treatment parameters have to take effect or have
to be used. The major difference is, of course, that in bottled
water, it is sealed, that is it, nothing else happens. Tap
water has to pass through a distribution system. I think it is
fair to say that the EPA and many of the public health people
now view the distribution system as injecting potential great
variability into the process.
The average American city loses 18 to 44 percent of its
drinking water actually through leaks in the pipes. And leaks
are going both ways, the leaks go in and the leaks out. As a
result, there can be intrusion of soil and often drinking water
pipes are in the same trench as sewage pipes. So it is a great
challenge. I would like to echo what Commissioner Lloyd said. I
think that certainly I would very strongly support, as probably
one of the major public health agendas in this Country,
financing for particularly distribution system upgrades and
maintenance. I think that is absolutely essential.
As I mentioned, bottled water is a sealed food product. One
of the other differences is, bottled water is actually highly
regulated, meaning there are a lot of regulations that apply to
bottled water. Now, because it is a very low-risk item, there
is a not a lot of individuals at FDA necessarily spending their
time on it. The regulations of bottled water by FDA, I think it
should be clear, mirror that of EPA. We have already heard
that. In fact, there is a hammer provisions. If EPA passes a
new regulation, FDA has a certain period of time to apply that
to bottled water, otherwise it automatically applies to bottled
water.
Now, some things that are regulated in municipal water
don't apply to bottled water, things related to distribution
system or storage, for example. But if they apply, FDA has to
do it. It is as regulated as EPA is.
The third major differences are treatment parameters.
Basically, bottled water gets to choose its sources. Regardless
of whether it is municipal water, as you mentioned, or
protected aquifers or what have you, virtually or if I am not
mistaken all bottles then undergo further treatment. There is a
principle in engineering, and I originally had an engineering
background, called the multiple barrier concept. What that
means is that there are barriers established horizontally along
the treatment train. Filtration is one such barrier. Ozonation
is a barrier. Reverse osmosis is a barrier.
So bottled water companies have the ability to choose and
mix what they need for that particular water source. Municipal
water can do the same. But certainly bottled water adds
additional multiple barriers to the process.
Essentially, from the medical point of view, and the CDC
agrees with this, it is on their website, in a bottle of water,
you can call the company up and find out what is in it. There
is almost invariably an 800 number, and you should be able to
do that. If you can't, I wouldn't use that bottled water. It is
free choice. Municipal water, again, goes through a
distribution system, and that individual glass can or can't
have something in it. Municipal water, as you heard, is
actually tested fairly infrequently, for a million people, 300
tests a month or so is, considering the size, not that much.
New Haven has a square mile of about 30 by 20, and we are only
mandated to perform 400 water tests a month.
So in summary, I don't want to go over, there are
differences. It is to me, as the CDC says, an individual choice
of whether you want to pay or not pay for a product which you
can call up and identify. It is that simple to me.
So I would be happy to take any questions, and you have my
e-mail address.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edberg follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doss, you are in quite a position here, representing
the industry. I want to say, before your testimony, the purpose
of this hearing is not intended to criticize or vilify bottled
water. That is a choice people make. We hope they make it with
some forethought, but knowledge is important in this case. That
is what we are looking for. We welcome your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH K. DOSS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERNATIONAL
BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Doss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman
Lautenberg. My name is Joe Doss. I am President and CEO of the
International Bottled Water Association. I appreciate this
opportunity to discuss the quality and environmental impact of
bottled water.
Bottled water, whether in retail size packages or in the
larger containers used in home and office water coolers, is a
safe, healthy, convenient beverage product. It is
comprehensively regulated as a packaged food product at both
the Federal and State level. At the Federal level, bottled
water must meet FDA's general food and beverage regulations in
addition to standards of identity, standard of quality, good
manufacturing practices and labeling requirements specifically
promulgated for bottled water.
In 1996, Congress enacted legislation that requires FDA
bottled water regulations to be as protective of public health
as the EPA standards for public drinking water systems, which
we have heard a couple of the witnesses refer to previously.
Contrary to the statements made earlier, it is also
important to note that the courts have held that FDA's
jurisdiction over foods and beverages, which includes bottled
water, extends not only to those products that move in
interState commerce, but to those products sold within a single
State if they use packaging materials that have moved in
interState commerce, such as the bottle, the caps, or the
labels. And that is the case for almost every bottled water and
every food product sold in the United States. In fact, FDA
amended the law in 1997 that provides a presumption that all
foods move in interState commerce.
IBWA supports a consumer's right to clear, accurate and
comprehensive information about the bottled water products they
purchase. All packaged food and beverages, including bottled
water, are subject to extensive FDA labeling regulations that
provide consumers with a great deal of product quality
information. In addition, virtually all bottled water products
include a phone number on the label that consumers can use to
contact the company.
IBWA believes that the most feasible mechanism for
consumers to obtain information not already on the label is
through a request to the bottler. In addition, consumers can go
to the IBWA website to access contact information or water
quality information for all IBWA member brands.
Consumers have many options when deciding which bottled
water brand to drink. If a bottled water company does not
provide the information that a consumer requests, he or she can
choose another brand. And that is the fundamental issue:
consumer choice. Unfortunately, many people want to make this a
bottled water versus tap water issue. But we just don't see it
that way. If people are drinking water, whether it is tap water
or whether it is bottled water, that is a good thing and
consumers should be free to make that choice. In fact, 75
percent of consumers who drink bottled water also choose to
drink tap water.
Furthermore, IBWA agrees with the others on this panel and
supports investments to improve the U.S. public drinking water
system in order to maintain the highest quality water quality
for all citizens. The bottled water industry strongly supports
comprehensive environmental conservation and stewardship
policies. Bottled water companies have been taking actions to
reduce their environmental footprint. For example, the bottled
water industry is using much lighter weight plastics for its
containers, utilizing more fuel-efficient means of
transportation, and developing new technologies and product
packaging, such as the use of recycled content.
All bottled water containers are 100 percent recyclable.
While the recycling rate for beverages, including bottled
water, is better than other foods and consumer products, we
know that more needs to be done, and we have taken steps in
that direction. IBWA supports comprehensive curbside recycling
programs and is working with the National Recycling Partnership
to increase consumer awareness about the importance of
recycling and to find new and innovative ways to increase
recycling rates.
While the bottled water industry supports effective
environmental conservation policies, we strongly believe that
any efforts to reduce the environmental impact of packaging
must focus on all consumer goods and not just target any one
industry. Because bottled water containers make up just one-
third of 1 percent of the entire waste stream in the United
States, any proposed solutions must cover all consumer goods or
they will be ineffective in dealing with the environmental
issue.
Throughout the years, bottled water companies have
immediately responded to the need for clean, safe drinking
water after natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the
earthquakes and forest fires in the west, and in other
emergency situations, such as terrorist attacks at the Pentagon
and World Trade Center. Most recently, our companies provided
bottled water to those in need after the spring flooding in the
Midwest and in just the past few weeks, to the victims of
Hurricanes Gustav and Hanna. With Hurricane Ike fast
approaching the Texas coast, our members have already begun
preparations to provide bottled water if needed.
Bottled water is always there when it is needed; however,
the bottled water industry cannot exist only for disaster
response. Bottled water companies in the United States are
primarily family owned and operated small businesses that
depend on a viable commercial market to provide the resources
necessary to respond in emergency situations. Over 60 percent
of IBWA members have annual gross sales of less than $1
million. And 90 percent have annual gross sales of less than
$10 million.
In summary, bottled water is a safe, healthy, convenient
food and beverage product. The bottled water industry, while a
very small part of the overall waste stream, is working hard to
reduce its environmental footprint. With the increase in
diabetes, obesity and heart disease rates in the United States,
any actions that would discourage consumers from drinking this
safe, healthy beverage are not in the public interest.
Thank you for considering our views. IBWA stands ready to
assist the Subcommittee as it considers this very important
issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doss follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to turn to some questions. I would ask
Commissioner Lloyd, why did New York City spend nearly a
million dollars to reduce bottled water use? Are there reasons
other than the environmental impact of the accumulation of
waste material that caused the city to begin this initiative?
Ms. Lloyd. Yes. It was a dual project that we undertook
with our New York City Department of Health, as I mentioned.
Our real goal was to encourage drinking water. The Department
of Health was very focused on diabetes, obesity, high blood
pressure, those problems, and particularly getting young people
to drink water.
One of our concerns was that we have a very significant
immigrant population in New York City. We were concerned that
those people might feel that they had to purchase bottled water
in order to drink water, and that would be a financial barrier.
So we really wanted to make it clear that tap water was a
healthy alternative that was available.
Senator Lautenberg. Has bottled water use decreased in New
York City since the marketing plan began?
Ms. Lloyd. We don't have any numbers that would indicate
that. But I would be surprised if that were the case, because
of course, it continues to be extremely popular. But we have
seen a couple of things that we think are really encouraging.
First of all, there was a tremendous interest in our bottles.
We are going to do another generation of those and continue to
distribute them. Also, there has been very visible increase in
the sale of reusable water bottles in lots of places where,
grocery stores and that sort of thing, as well as sports
stores.
The other thing is that many restaurants in New York City
now are encouraging the use of the drinking of tap water, even
though it is more profitable for them to sell high value
bottled water. So we really appreciate that.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Wu, the statistics show that
plastic bottles are usually not recycled and typically then
wind up in landfills. While plastic bottles still make up a
relatively small percentage of landfills, as was noted by Mr.
Doss, does their increasing use pose a more significant
environmental threat?
Ms. Wu. Yes, it does. As you mentioned, we have landfills
that are overburdened right now and sending plastic bottles
into these overburdened landfills is definitely an
environmental problem, as well as the fact----
Senator Lautenberg. Does that small percentage suggest that
doesn't really matter?
Ms. Wu. Well, there are other problems, too, which is that
sometimes they don't go to landfills, they are incinerated.
There are a lot of toxic chemicals that are released into the
atmosphere from the incineration of plastic. That is a problem.
As I mentioned, we have some concerns about chemicals that
are used in the plastic bottles leaching into the water and the
effect that might have on the quality of the water.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there any dissolution of plastic
bottles? Do they ultimately survive forever?
Ms. Wu. Generally, we think it will probably take thousands
of years for them to degrade once they get in that landfill.
Senator Lautenberg. So it continues, in your view, to be a
threat that lasts a long time?
Ms. Wu. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. I will ask Mr. Doss a question, and
that is, would it help, and this is personal experience, would
it help to make recycling a more attractive part of the
process, glass bottles with deposit? Does that get any
response? Or just the note that says, this product should be
recycled for the well-being of future generations, or
something? That is probably not the best wording. Because
honestly, you have to hunt, I am not sure whether a particular
product is recyclable or not, I don't know whether milk cartons
are or they are not, plastic bottles. I don't see anything that
really calls attention to the fact that recycling is a good
idea, as opposed to just throwing it in the trash.
Mr. Doss. You make a very excellent point, Chairman. I
think we do need to make it more attractive. And the bottled
water industry has worked hard, two things. First of all, I
think we need to educate consumers about the importance of
recycling. We have been part of the National Recycling
Partnership to do just that. So I think that is an important
part of it.
I think we need to look at it, though, as I was sort of
mentioning, and a more comprehensive approach is needed. When
you go to your kitchen cabinet or when you go to open up your
refrigerator door, you see so many different products that are
made out of plastic containers. As I mentioned, the bottled
water industry is only .3 percent of all waste in the United
States.
Now, we want to do our part, and we are working hard to try
to reduce our environmental footprint. But to your point, with
regard to the National Recycling Partnership, we are involved
in a pilot program right now in Hartford, Connecticut. Part of
that effort in Hartford, Connecticut is to try some new and
innovative ways to get consumers to recycle. One of those is to
perhaps provide a bit of an incentive to do so. There is
something called the Recycle Bank up there that they are
trying. Basically consumers will be putting the recyclables in
a single stream, and that is important to your point of making
sure that is easy for consumers, to your point. You don't know
if this or that. In this pilot program, a single stream,
everybody, you can throw your cardboard, you can throw your
newspapers, you can throw everything into one bin and it is
taken away and recycled, at curbside. That is very important.
You don't have to separate it, you don't have to worry, well,
does this go here, is this recyclable. So I think that is very
important.
And the incentive there is that if consumers, the more they
recycle, they are able to get a financial incentive, I think up
to $400 per year on a debit card that they can go spend at
local shops around that area in Hartford. So I think that all
of these things need to be looked at, but I think we need to
take a comprehensive approach to it, to make it attractive, to
give incentives.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you think the industry does, well,
that is not a fair question, enough? Because even though it is
only .3 percent, you put it all in containers, that is a lot of
containers, that is a lot of space. A lot of the trash that is
picked up burns without too difficult an effect or too serious
an effect. But apparently, plastic bottles give off toxic
emissions or what have you. So I think there is little solace,
really, in the fact that it is only a small percentage. When
you think about it, how many items in landfills are more than
.3 percent? I don't think there are a lot. Old bed parts and
things like that may consume a lot more space, but ultimately--
--
Mr. Doss. I didn't mean to diminish that. I think we
obviously think it is very important for all industries, and we
are doing what we can. But if it is to be effective, it has to
be a more comprehensive approach.
By the way, on your point, I think a lot of bottled waters
do now, and a lot of other products that are made out of
plastic, do try to put on their label, please recycle, some
message to try to encourage consumers to recycle.
Senator Lautenberg. It would be good if they could use
large type.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Hauter, many people are surprised,
maybe even shocked, when they learn that 40 percent of bottled
water is actually tap water. Does the marketing of water
bottles tend to mislead, do you think?
Ms. Hauter. Yes, we think it is very misleading. Our
concern is for consumers, especially today with the downturn in
the economy, people have only so many dollars to spend at the
grocery store. If they are spending that money on bottled water
instead of perhaps a fruit or vegetable for their family, then
we think that is probably not the best decision. In most
places, more than 90 percent of public water systems met the
requirements last year, the EPA requirements. So generally, tap
water is very safe and affordable.
Senator Lautenberg. Only 60 percent met?
Ms. Hauter. More than 90 percent.
Senator Lautenberg. More than 90. It is a hard statistic to
come by. By you are satisfied that is reliable?
Ms. Hauter. Yes, that is from the Environmental Protection
Agency. And utilities are required to post their results for
testing, and to do a water quality report once a year. So most
consumers can go onto their local utilities' website, or if it
is a small utility, they can call and get the testing results.
Utilities also mail out the testing results.
If there is a problem with the drinking water, then the
most efficient and safest way to deal with the problem is to
match a filtration system with the contaminant. Then they can
be certain. Even in a bottle, a sealed bottle, there is very
little scientific research being done on the plastic leaching
and the chemicals leaching into the water after it has been on
the shelf for a long time. That is one of the reasons we think
the bottled water industry should use some of the new testing
that is available and make that information available.
If the product is good, then there shouldn't be a problem
with more testing and more transparency.
Senator Lautenberg. One of the things that obviously my
legislation is intended to do is to get some kind of a uniform
standard out there that things can be measured by. I would ask
you, Mr. Doss, when there is a picture of a mountaintop, frosty
at the top, and snow, is that designed to imply that is the
derivation of the water that is in that bottle?
Mr. Doss. I would say that is something that has to be
dealt with on an individual by individual case. Obviously, I
don't know which exactly you are referring to. I think you
would have to look at it. But obviously, I think that is a
matter for State law, Federal law, if there is misleading
advertising going on, misleading marketing going on, then
obviously that product should be held accountable.
We are not here to defend companies that might be making
misrepresentations on the label, either in words or in
pictures. That would have to be dealt with, I think, on a sort
of individual case.
Senator Lautenberg. Because it won't say that this water
comes from an altitude above 6,000 feet, just the awful pretty
mountaintop, and you think of purity. Again, I think there is a
place for bottled water. Those communities where aquifers,
which we typically in New Jersey use, dry up or turn brackish
or what have you, there is not always supplies available. And I
am not suggesting that the only value to bottled water is
emergency.
But I can see situations where bottled water is perhaps not
only a good substitute but an essential one. But that case has
to be made by, I think, the industry and in fairness, once
again, to the consuming public, we have to make sure that they
understand when things are as tight as they are, budgets are
difficult, people can't afford things, it is suggested that
bottled water, a gallon of water can cost more than a gallon of
gas.
But if people will sooner give up the bottled water than
the gallon of gas, it doesn't have dual purpose. You can't
drink it, thank goodness. But the fact of the matter is that
budgeting is very difficult for working families today. So that
is a test that obviously the industry has to look at as well.
Mr. Doss. Certainly. Again, I guess it comes down to
choice, and consumers do have a choice, whether they want to
purchase it or not. I will address the issue of advertising,
since it has been brought up.
Senator Lautenberg. That, recycling and I think it is an
industry with significant economic power. A lot of the product
is produced by very large, reliable companies. But I still
think that the test has to be passed as to whether or not
alternating with public water supply is essential. People are
now, I believe, for the most part, saying, oh, don't drink the
public water. I know that New York City has been very
successful in creating good tasting water, and people feel good
about it. But that can't be said in every place. So we have the
consumer choices.
I would ask the panel your views, do you believe that
bottled water manufacturers should be giving, it is almost
rhetorical, the public the detailed information, source of
water, level of contaminants and so forth? How much more
information do you think might be given that puts the public at
ease with knowing that the water that they buy is strictly a
choice between good water from the tap or good water in a
bottle? What do you think the industry ought to do? By the way,
they are not necessarily going to listen.
Mr. Edberg. Could I make a brief comment?
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Edberg.
Mr. Edberg. I am a practicing medical microbiologist, I am
head of medical microbiology at Yale. We have a very large
cancer program, we have a very large HIV program. I am asked
that question all the time by people who are taking all sorts
of immunosuppressives.
One of the common therapies for rheumatoid arthritis is an
immunosuppressive. And at least in New Haven, all the water
that is sold has an 800 number on it. You can call them up and
say, where does the water come from, how are you treating it
and exactly what is in it. That is my answer to the question. I
have done that myself, by the way.
Senator Lautenberg. But do you think the average person is
sophisticated enough to know that----
Mr. Edberg. I think the average person is more
sophisticated to call an 800 number than if you list the amount
of boron in the water, in the natural water. Even in the
medical field, we don't necessarily even report out individual
numbers to the doctors. We report out things like susceptible
intermediate resistance for antibiotics.
So I think it is more important to have somebody on the
phone to explain actually what is in the bottle than to have a
number that very few people are actually going to be able to
interpret. That has been my personal experience, because I get
those phone calls.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you disagree?
Ms. Hauter. I disagree. What we are saying is that very few
bottles have the information necessary for a consumer to
actually call and get a live person. You can go down to Giant
and get their local brand. Very little information.
The big water bottlers, Nestle being the largest, with
many, many different brands, the 800 numbers, if it is on the
package simply says that they are basically meeting standards.
It is very difficult to get any real information. And that
would be voluntary information, probably provided by somebody
with a $7 an hour paycheck. Much better to have the industry
required to provide that to the public. And if it is not a
problem, I am not sure why the bottled water industry opposes
it so much.
The same with recycling. When we have been involved in
battles at the State level over recycling, the beverage
industry is usually the biggest opponent of having recycling
laws. So I think we need to have some accountability and we
need to have consumers provided the information easily so that
they can make the choice for their household, not having to
call an 800 number and be basically dependent on the goodwill
of a company.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Edberg, do you think that someone
might make the call and get an answer, oh, we fill these
bottles from a water tap in Bedford, New York, or Bayonne, New
Jersey or wherever, and say that this is where we get our water
supply, but it is good water, we check that out first? Would
you think, Mr. Doss, do you think that----
Mr. Edberg. It has been my experience, and the experience
of my patients, that when they call an 800 number and they ask
to speak to the plant manager or somebody, they get all that
information. And my family is from Bayonne, and the water is
perfectly fine. And I have no idea if they bottle water in
Bayonne.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edberg. But it has been my experience that information
is available, the source of it. Bottled water is a packaged
food product, so it has a lot number on it. It says when it is
made, where it is made, you can trace it back. If it turns
purple, you can call up and say, why is the water purple. I
haven't seen that, but the fact is, it has a trail of
accountability. And I have never been disappointed in following
that trail back, neither have my colleagues who are actively
involved in the clinical treatment of patients.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Doss, what do you think about an
information requirement? You have already said that numbers do
not necessarily reflect knowledge that is consumable by the
persons who might make the phone call. What else? Is there
anything you would recommend to the industry that would clarify
this dilemma that we are reviewing here now, that is whether we
go into legislation and say, OK, there is a right to know, that
is a favorite view of mine, all kinds of things, people have a
right to know what is stored chemically, people have a right to
know about safe products, et cetera.
Mr. Doss. I don't think we disagree that consumers have a
right to know what is in their water. I think the real question
comes down to how we best can effect that. I think for us, as I
have said before, we think the best way to achieve that, the
most feasible way to achieve that, is for consumers to be able
to contact the company. There is information on the label right
now where they can contact the company and get information that
they need. If they don't get it, they should choose another
bottled water.
There is scarce label space right now for the information
that is already required. FDA several years ago did a
feasibility study on whether or not the consumer confidence
reports required for the EPA tap water would be feasible for
bottled water. Their recommendation is that there is just too
much information, obviously, on a consumer confidence report to
be able to get it on a bottle label. You just can't do it. So
the question then is, and so much of that information might
change from source to source, might cause that product to be
mislabeled and misbranded because of changes in terms of what
source you might use. So there are some problems that FDA
identified with doing that.
Senator Lautenberg. But you wouldn't obviate the rules
because there might be, it might be misunderstood by a water
bottler? The rule says this is what the bacterial content might
be, or the things that you folks are aware of that might be a
health threat.
I understand that there was, and I saw an attempt at this
being done, and that is, there was a system shown to me that
said, through light beams, purify the water after it was
bottled. And I have known there have been several attempts to
do that. Has there ever been a system devised that would
further cleanse water after it has been packed and bottled?
Mr. Doss. I am not familiar with that technology, no.
Senator Lautenberg. By the way, the company went bankrupt.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Wu, do you have a view?
Ms. Wu. Not on that technology, but I wanted to go back to
the labeling question that you had asked, and how Mr. Doss had
talked about how it wasn't feasible. From our perspective, we
think that there needs to be, on the label, information about
the contaminants that were detected, what the potential health
effects are, what the real, precise source of the water is,
whatever treatment happens to it. And the reality is that
information could be put on a label. We have done a really kind
of rough mock-up of what that would look like. Something like
this would have all the information that we think could go on a
label. It would inform a consumer right away as they are
looking at the bottle, rather than expecting them to call up.
Senator Lautenberg. So you would use that numerical
equivalence or things of that nature, a broad statement that
nothing in this water can injure your health or something like
that?
Ms. Wu. It would be basic information about what the
maximum allowed limits are, whether the water has violated that
number or not. And it could be something as simple as just
saying, an annual label that has to be changed, so it doesn't
have to be changed every time they do testing.
Senator Lautenberg. So a dated label might do?
Ms. Wu. Yes, exactly. There are many ways to make it
feasible.
Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Lloyd.
Ms. Lloyd. I am just thinking two things. One is, we do
send out a very complete report every year on all the
cumulative findings of all the testing that we do. We test
thousands of locations a week in New York City, and
distribution. I think it is right that the water does have to
be monitored closely in distribution.
But it is very interesting, because we also do get people
who call up 311, which is the general information number in New
York City, and ask to be sent that information. So there
certainly is some interest about that. I think having it
readily available over the phone would be a real plus to
people. I was also just thinking, I noticed on a package of
chewing gum the other day that there was a very long bit of
information about what the contents were, including that there
was a content that people who took a certain medication might
be sensitive to. So I really think that, I find it hard to
believe that packaging couldn't be devised that would give some
basic information that would be helpful to people about, and I
think in particular of how difficult it can be to maneuver the
telephone and 800 numbers for some people, and that it would be
much easier just to be able to get it off the label.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, if you judge it by airline
response, there wouldn't be any room for other telephone calls.
But I have some other questions.
I would ask this of you, that it is obvious that we need to
increase funding for water infrastructure, to continue to
provide safe and healthy tap water to our communities. Mr.
Doss, does the increased use of bottled water call for some
infrastructure funding in the rest of our system to say, OK,
there is more consumption, thus, we can see more consumption of
bottled water and so forth? Is bottled water gaining market
share in your organization's view?
Mr. Doss. Are we gaining market share against tap water?
Senator Lautenberg. Of usable water, yes.
Mr. Doss. I don't believe we are gaining market share over
tap water. I think if anything we are gaining market share over
the other carbonated soft drinks, fruit juices, teas, on the
marketplace. I think consumers are more health conscious these
days. They are trying to eat and drink more healthfully. So I
don't think we are taking anything away from the tap water. As
a matter of fact, as I understand it, there is about 1 percent
of tap water in the United States that is consumed, only 1
percent.
So we don't consider ourselves to be in competition. As I
say, it is not a tap water versus bottled water issue. Our
competition in the marketplace is the fruit juices, the
carbonated soft drinks, and the teas. So we are not trying to
gain market share over tap water. And to the advertising point,
this industry only spends $52 million to advertise during the
course of a year. That is Beverage Marketing Corporation's
statistics. If you look at carbonated soft drinks, that figure
is about $600 million. If you look at beer, that is about $1
billion. If you look at milk, it is about----
Senator Lautenberg. So that says that your industry doesn't
have to, that people just run to it.
Mr. Doss. It is market-driven, it is a consumer-driven
growth, and we are not advertising against tap water. We are
basically trying to provide a healthy product for consumers
when they want to drink it.
Senator Lautenberg. So I come to the conclusion from your
commentary, not to put words in your mouth, that there wouldn't
be any objection to having a standard established that could be
easily understood by the public that says, OK, this bottle has
some of these and none of these, or whatever, that has to be
reported in order to protect health. Would that be OK with you?
One standard for the whole industry?
Mr. Doss. I think the fundamental difference here is that
we are trying to, in this discussion, compare bottled water to
tap water and compare bottled water labeling, which is a food
product, to tap water consumer confidence reports. There is a
big difference there.
Senator Lautenberg. I was thinking of more specifically, we
have tap water standards that have to be met. And even there we
don't have enough inspections being done. We are short of
people and short of motivation from some of the agencies.
But I just wondered whether a uniform standard by which,
and it allows for advertising, but would be a good idea to give
the public some confidence that what they think they are
getting is what they are getting. Is that of value? Would you
say source of water is of value?
Mr. Doss. We think the information that is currently
required is sufficient on the label. FDA has made
determinations, for instance, about source labeling, that it is
not a material fact. Some manufacturers put it on the label.
Some do not. And again, I think we are getting into a situation
where we are trying to compare a food product with consumer
confidence reports. There is a big difference.
The difference is this. With regard to the consumer
confidence reports, consumers have no choice about what tap
water is piped into their homes. Consumers do have a choice
about what bottled water they drink.
Senator Lautenberg. Is there frequent enough inspection of
bottled water quality, do you think, to properly guard the
public at this point?
Mr. Doss. I think so.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you think so, Ms. Hauter?
Ms. Hauter. We are concerned, because just look at the
study that NRDC did a few years ago that looked at 1,000
bottles of bottled water. They basically found that a quarter
of the brands had bacterial contamination, a fifth of the
bottles had some kind of man-made chemicals. So there is an
issue out there, and we shouldn't have public interest groups
having to do this research. We know that the FDA is under-
staffed and under-resourced. They are not even able to inspect
the food that they are responsible for. So they view bottled
water as low risk.
But there is a chemical load that people have. So even if
there is just a very small percentage of chemicals in a brand
that somebody is drinking on a regular basis, that has an
effect on a person's chemical load. So we think there should be
testing, and if there is testing going on as the bottled water
industry says, even though the FDA doesn't have the staff to
check the results, then they should be willing to make that
public and transparent.
And I will tell you, these 1,000 bottles, the problems that
those brands had, they weren't giving the public that
information when they called the 800 number.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
We are going to close. Ms. Wu.
Ms. Wu. The other thing I wanted to say is that studies
show that people are buying bottled water because they think
that it is better regulated and better tested and more pure
than tap water. So the fact is that consumers shouldn't assume
that is the case, but they need the information to be able to
make the choices, and the right choices.
Senator Lautenberg. I am going to close with a note here. I
used Bayonne as an example. There is no suggestion that
Bayonne, Bayonne happens to be, I have roots in Bayonne.
Bayonne is a terrific city, very well managed. By the way,
growing in attraction.
Mr. Edberg. Chuck Lefter was a personal hero of mine.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Barney Frank comes from Bayonne.
Mr. Edberg. That is right.
Senator Lautenberg. I thank all of you. I am sorry I have
kept you so long, but the fact is that without colleagues here,
it was so nice----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, I mean, what an accident----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you all for being here.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]