Bottled water More than just a story about sales growth; Stringen.docx

Bottled water: More than just a story about sales growth;
Stringent federal, state and industry standards help ensure
safety, quality and good taste. (2007, April 9). PR Newswire.
Retrieved October 8, 2009, from ProQuest Newsstand.
(Document ID: 1251895191).
Abstract
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) is the
authoritative source of information about all types of bottled
waters. Founded in 1958, IBWA's membership includes U.S.
and international bottlers, distributors and suppliers. IBWA is
committed to working with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), which regulates bottled water as a
packaged food product, and state governments to set stringent
standards for safe, high quality bottled water products.
Additionally, IBWA requires member bottlers to adhere to the
IBWA Bottled Water Code of Practice, which mandates
additional standards and practices, that in some cases, are more
stringent than federal and state regulations. A key feature of the
IBWA Model Code is an annual unannounced plant inspection
by an independent, third party organization. For more
information about IBWA, bottled water and a list of member's
brands, please contact IBWA Manager of Communications Tom
Gardner at 703-647-4607 or [email protected]
Full Text
·
ALEXANDRIA, Va., April 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The
InternationalBottled Water Association (IBWA), in conjunction
with Beverage MarketingCorporation (BMC), today released
bottled water statistics for the year 2006,compiled by BMC.
These numbers show that U.S. bottled water sales
andconsumption continue to rise, as consumers increasingly
choose bottled waterover other beverages.
The latest upward trend was reflected in 2006 when total bottled

water volume exceeded 8.25 billion gallons, a 9.5 percent
increase over 2005, and the 2006 bottled water per capita
consumption level of 27.6 gallons increased by over two
gallons, from 25.4 gallons per capita the previous year.
Additionally, the wholesale dollar sales for bottled water
exceeded $10.8 billion in 2006, an 8.5 percent increase over the
$10 billion in 2005. These statistics demonstrate continued
consumer demand and appreciation for the convenience and
good taste of bottled water brands consumed on-the-go, during
exercise, at restaurants or meetings, and at home or the office.
However, consumers should also know that bottled water safety
and quality result from multiple layers of regulation and
standards at the federal, state and industry levels.
Bottled water is comprehensively regulated by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) as a packaged food product,
and has issued stringent standards for safety, quality,
production, labeling, and identity. Along with the FDA's Good
Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), which are required of all
foods, bottled water must comply with several other applicable
regulations, including Standards of Identity, Standards of
Quality and additional, specific bottled water GMPs. Being a
packaged food product, bottled water is also bound by the
Nutrition Labeling Education Act (NLEA) and the full range of
FDA protective measures designed to enforce product safety and
protect consumers. States also regulate bottled water
inspections, sampling, analyzing and approving bottled water
sources. Testing laboratory certification is another area where
states may regulate bottled water. As part of the IBWA Bottled
Water Code of Practice, IBWA members voluntarily utilize the
principles of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) for a science-based approach to bottled water
production and safety. FDA recognizes HACCP as a key
component of food safety and consumer protection.
"While all beverages have their role in a marketplace with an
abundance of drink choices," says Stephen R. Kay, IBWA Vice
President of Communications, "consumers are choosing bottled

water as a refreshing, hydrating beverage and as an alternative
to others that may contain calories, caffeine, sugar, artificial
colors, alcohol or other ingredients, which they wish to
moderate or avoid. For instance, during 2006, individual
servings of bottled water in sizes of 1.5 liters and smaller
accounted for 57.1% of the volume of bottled water sold,
indicating that consumers are choosing bottled water in lieu of
other bottled drinks."
For an overview of bottled water regulations and standards and
other bottled water information, visit the IBWA web site at
http://www.bottledwater.org.
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) is the
authoritative source of information about all types of bottled
waters. Founded in 1958, IBWA's membership includes U.S.
and international bottlers, distributors and suppliers. IBWA is
committed to working with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), which regulates bottled water as a
packaged food product, and state governments to set stringent
standards for safe, high quality bottled water products.
Additionally, IBWA requires member bottlers to adhere to the
IBWA Bottled Water Code of Practice, which mandates
additional standards and practices, that in some cases, are more
stringent than federal and state regulations. A key feature of the
IBWA Model Code is an annual unannounced plant inspection
by an independent, third party organization. For more
information about IBWA, bottled water and a list of member's
brands, please contact IBWA Manager of Communications Tom
Gardner at 703-647-4607 or [email protected]
Lisa Turner. (2001, December). Toxins on tap? Better Nutrition,
63(12), 48-50. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from Research
Library. (Document ID: 90062665).
Abstract
Whether it is for health reasons, drinking those requisite eight
glasses a day, or to avoid chemicals and pollutants from the
public water supply, bottled water has come into its own as the

beverage of choice. Although tap water quality and taste may be
acceptable, its questionable variables make bottled and home-
purified water look better.
Full text
·
Headnote
earthwatch
Headnote
Why bottles and purifiers really hold water
Enlarge this image.
There was a time when we scoffed at the idea of bottled water.
After all, why buy water when you can get it from the tap,
seemingly for free? Times have changed, however. Today's
health-conscious consumers, even kids, are toting bottles of
water. Whether it's for health reasons, drinking those requisite
eight glasses a day, or to avoid chemicals and pollutants from
the public water supply, water has come into its own as the
beverage of choice.
And it's not only just plain ol' spring water, either. The past few
years have given us myriad waters to choose from-glacial,
artesian, oxygen-enriched, purified and even functional water
that's been fortified with vitamins, minerals or herbs. Bottled is
certainly popular-it's a $5 billion dollar business in the U.S.,
alone.
In fact, its popularity is growing so rapidly that it's poised, in
this decade, to become the second largest beverage segment
after soft drinks says Jonathan Hall, publisher of "The Hall
Water Report." But is bottled water really better?
WATER BUGS
Americans are definitely turning off the tap, partly in response
to the quality-inconsistency of municipal water supplies. In
1993, a water-borne outbreak of Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee,
Wisc., caused an estimated 400,000 residents to become ill with
flulike symptoms, leading to several deaths among those who
were immune-impaired. Cryptosporidium, a waterborne parasite
that thrives in animals and is transferred through animal waste,

has been found in rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs and in other
types of surface water.
That's not all. An August 29, 2001 report put out by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Developing Strategy
for Waterborne Microbial Disease," says that the "consequences
of microbial [bacterial and parasitic] contamination are severe."
WHAT'S IN YOUR WATER?
Adequate chlorination kills much of the harmful bacteria in
water, but this chemical process can produce trihalomethanes
(THMs), which are cancer-causing compounds formed when
chlorine interacts with organic matter. Meanwhile, toxic waste,
agricultural pesticides and heavy metals continue to cloud our
water supply. Even if your municipal water supply is safe, home
water delivery systems are suspect: Water pipes can contain
harmful amounts of lead, copper, radon and other contaminants
that can leach into your water supply.
One such contaminant called Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
(MTBE), is a chemical compound that is created through the
chemical reaction of methanol and isobutylene and has been
mainly used as a fuel additive oxygenate that raises the oxygen
content of gasoline.
Unfortunately, the EPA has found that "a growing number of
studies have detected MTBE in ground water throughout the
country, and above 40 parts per billion (ppb) may cause cancer
or other unknown adverse health effects."
A CLEAR CHOICE
Is bottled better than what's on tap in our faucets? According to
an August 2000 study by the water-industry Internet portal,
Bottled Water Web, Consumer Focus, "Sixty-one percent of
Americans believe bottled water to be healthier than tap water,
and out of that 61 percent, 53 percent believe that tap water has
some contamination or chemicals that are not present in bottled
water."
Aside from consumer perception, the truth is that bottled water
is strictly regulated at the federal level by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), as well as at the state level. Tap

water is also regulated as a utility by the EPA, while bottled
water is regulated by the FDA as a pure food product and must
satisfy all applicable food-packaging regulations.
The bottled-water industry is self-regulated. In fact, members of
the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) -which
oversees the production of about 85 percent of the bottled water
sold in the U.S.-must meet strict IBWA standards more
stringent than the FDA's own regulations.
Therefore, most bottled-water companies use one or more the
following practices and technologies:
1) Source protection and monitoring
2) Reverse osmosis
3) Distillation
4) Ozone treatment, known as ozonation
5) Disinfection, such as chlorination
Although tap water quality and taste may be acceptable, its
questionable variables make bottled and home-purified water
look better. In fact, while 75 percent of all bottled water comes
from protected sources such as springs, tap water comes
primarily from rivers and lakes, sources of unpredictable purity.
THE BOTTOM LINE?
Hydration. No matter what type of water you choose, or what
source you get it from, be certain to drink at least eight glasses
of water each day.
A recent study that was commissioned by the Nutrition
Information Center at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical
Center in New York City, found that only 20 percent of
respondents meet the important "eight a day" recommendation.
Barbara Levine, Ph.D., R.D., director of the Center, says, "The
net result is that most Americans are probably only getting
about a third of the valuable hydration benefits they need.
In fact, babies, toddlers and pregnant women are at a special
risk for dehydration. Parents should monitor the fluid intake of
infants and toddlers since they're unable to express thirst.
Even older children will often not stop to take a drink and need
to be reminded to take "water breaks" on a regular basis.

Pregnant women need to accommodate the fluid needs of their
developing babies; nursing mothers need to replace lost fluids,
too.
The vast majority of Americans are not drinking enough water
to begin with and, to make matters worse, many of them don't
realize that beverages containing alcohol and caffeine rob the
body of water."
Levine adds, "The consumption of water and other hydrating
beverages is crucial for proper retention and use of the body's
water in complex and intricate biochemical processes." In other
words, hydrate, hydrate, hydrate!
Brown, J. (2008, May). Water pressure. Vegetarian Times,(358),
29-31,6. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from Research Library.
(Document ID: 1466274691).
Abstract
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates bottled
water, whereas the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
along with state and local governments, oversees tap water
quality. "There are specific food-manufacturing processes and
standards required of bottled water plants," says Adam Bloom,
general manager of the Beverage Quality Program for NSF
International, an independent not-for-profit company that
develops standards and certifies food, water, and dietary
supplements. Ling Li analyzed the environmental impact of the
rise in bottled water consumption as a research fellow with
Worldwatch Institute, an independent research organization
dedicated to creating a sustainable and socially just society.
Full text
·
Headnote
Bottled water choices have never been so varied-or so elite. But
is the fancy stuff any better for you than H2O from the tap?
It's a clever business move: Commodify something essential and
market it as a symbol of health and status. In the past 30 years,
that has happened with water. Americans spent over $10.8

billion on bottled water in 2000, as tap water's reputation
suffers and nonbiodegradable bottles clog landfills. So while
water is a healthy choice, is bottled water better for us and the
environment?
Enlarge this image.
Q:
Before we get down to the nifty-gritty, what are the differences
between the various types of bottled water?
A:
There are many different water varieties, generally labeled
based on their source or mineral content. Here's a cheat sheet
for what those labels mean:
Artesian (e.g., Fiji, Voss): Thought to be purer than other water
sources, artesian water comes from a confined aquifer (i.e., a
solid layer of clay, rock, ice, or other natural element), which
pressurizes the water to the point that it rises to the surface
naturally.
Mineral (e.g., Calistoga, Evian): To be classified as mineral
water, this variety contains at least 250 parts per million total
dissolved solids originating from a geologically and physically
protected underground water source. There must be constant
levels and relative proportions of minerals and trace elements at
the source. No minerals may be added.
Spring (e.g., Arrowhead, Crystal Geyser, Volvic): Spring water
derives from an underground formation from which water flows
naturally to the earths surface at a specific location.
Purified (e.g., Aquafina, Dasani): This is generally water from
the "municipal supply" (aka tap water) that has been purified by
one of a variety of techniques: distillation, deionization, reverse
osmosis, or other suitable process.
Q:
Is bottled water safer than tap water?
A:
Not necessarily. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulates bottled water, whereas the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), along with state and local governments,

oversees tap water quality. In theory, this setup makes sense:
The FDA already monitors food safety at manufacturing plants.
"There are specific food-manufacturing processes and standards
required of bottled water plants," says Adam Bloom, general
manager of the Beverage Quality Program for NSF
International, an independent not-for-profit company that
develops standards and certifies food, water, and dietary
supplements. As far as the chemical composition of safe
drinking water goes, the FDA simply adopts most of its
requirements directly from EPA tap water standards.
Does that raise your impression of tap water? In reality, it
should lower your appreciation of botded water. According to
an exhaustive 1999 study conducted by the National Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), botded water sold in the United
States was not necessarily safer or cleaner than tap water. The
NRDC tested more than 1,000 botdes of 103 brands and found
that, while much of the botded water was within safe guidelines
for contaminants, about a quarter of brands in one sample
"violated strict applicable state [California] limits for botded
water." Furthermore, while a recent investigation by the
Associated Press found traces of pharmaceuticals in tap water in
24 metropolitan areas, the fact remains that many bottled waters
contain filtered tap water, and the filtering process hasn't
necessarily removed the drugs.
Q:
What accounts for the quality gap?
A:
The problem is multilayered, and, according to consumer
advocacy group Food & Water Watch, it comes down to
regulation. Whereas the hierarchy of regulatory groups ensures
that tap water undergoes what Food & Water Watch calls
"rigorous testing," including 100 or more tests per month for
certain types of bacteria, most bottling plants are considered
low risk and are inspected less than once a year. Furthermore,
tap water is required by law to be filtered and disinfected, but
no such laws apply to bottled water on the federal level. Lastly,

the FDA regulates only bottled water sold across state lines, but
since up to 70 percent of bottled water is produced in the same
state in which its sold, it is exempt from regulation.
This is not to say, however, that bottled water is particularly
unsafe. In fact, about 200 bottled water manufacturers around
the globe signed up for NSF's independent certification
program, which fills many of the holes in the PDA's regulatory
process. "The process involves a thorough review of food safety
procedures and practices as well as the equipment used. Food
safely professionals and quality assurance people conduct these
audits-from the source all the way to the point where it's
bottled, and then into the warehouse," says Bloom. "The water
itself goes through exhaustive tests for everything from heavy
metals to pesticides to other minerals." Companies that meet the
NSF's standards feature the NSF logo on their packaging, so
look for that in grocery store aisles or go to nsf.org to find a list
of approved brands.
Q:
What about the environmental impact of drinking bottled water?
A:
Bottom line: Bottled water isn't doing the environment any
favors. There are three angles to consider.
The landfill effect: Ling Li analyzed the environmental impact
of the rise in bottled water consumption as a research fellow
with Worldwatch Institute, an independent research
organization dedicated to creating a sustainable and socially
just society. According to Li, although bottlers are now making
bottles with polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a plastic that
recycles cleaner and requires less energy to recycle or
remanufacture than glass or aluminum, most of those bottles
don't get recycled. In fact, recycling practices are declining,
with only 23 percent of all bottles being recycled. About 2
million tons of PET bottles are dumped in landfills annually.
Greenhouse gases: "The production of bottled water, the
bottling, and the packaging all require energy, so basically they
use gas and oil," says Li. "And then when you ship bottled

water, you consume a lot of gas and create carbon dioxide
emissions." Drinking locally sourced water is better, and tap is
as local as you can get.
Overtaxed natural aquifers: "Excessive withdrawal of natural
mineral water or spring water to produce bottled water has
threatened local streams and groundwater aquifers," writes Li.
In some instances, the water is taken from areas whose residents
need it. This scenario threatens to have the worst outcome in
developing countries, where residents can't afford bottled water
and could lose their own local water sources.
Q:
But what if I don't like the taste of tap water?
A:
Simple-filter it. The NSF also certifies filters of all types, so
look for its logo on the box, and do a little research. The EPA
requires public water suppliers to send out an annual consumer
confidence report. This report offers information on the source
and quality of and potential contaminants in the water that
comes out of your tap. The contaminants will be within legal
limits, but a filter can remove impurities found in your water.
Be sure to maintain the filter as directed by the manufacturer.
While no one will argue with the wisdom of grabbing a bottle of
water at the airport or keeping a supply on hand in case of
emergencies, it's clear that what's best for the environment-and
fine for your health-is to drink filtered tap water. Need one last
push? The NRDC estimates that drinking bottled water costs
between 240 and 10,000 times as much as tap. Think about that
the next time you feel thirsty.
Krogstad, A. (2009, January). Purifying the business of selling
water. E : the Environmental Magazine, 20(1), 10-11. Retrieved
October 8, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID:
1626604811).
Abstract
The point is to alleviate the environmental burden of bottled
water, while placing control of fresh water sources into the

hands of consumers.
Full Text
·
Headnote
INNOVATION
In 2004, Jonathan Ritchey and Rick Howard joined forces to
address the loss of one of the world's most precious resources:
water. The majority of the planet is covered with water (326
million cubic miles), yet only 3% is fresh water and even less is
accessible to humans. Element Four is Ritchey and Howard's
answer - a company devoted to easing the global fresh-water
shortage. Their product, the WaterMill, converts air into potable
water through condensation followed by antimicrobial
processes. The water then travels to various "points-of-use
systems" such as home faucets and refrigerators. Ideally, the
WaterMill will produce 3.2 gallons of water per day - enough to
meet the needs of a family of six. And at an average operating
cost of 35 cents per day, it far surpasses in cost-effectiveness
the price of bottled water. The point is to alleviate the
environmental burden of bottled water, while placing control of
fresh water sources into the hands of consumers.
The WaterMill is at the intersection of technology,
environmentalism and philanthropy. Though the company's
target demographic will initially consist of suburbanites,
Howard and Ritchey envision adapting the product for
worldwide use. "With a minimum relative humidity, die
WaterMill can be of benefit to any consumer in almost any
environment, and this is where Element Four can have a global
impact on the water crisis," says Howard.
Available in February, it is die first in an upcoming line of
products that will include a solar-powered version of the
WaterMill as well as the WaterWall, a large-scale adaptation for
use on an industrial scale.
Knopper, M. (2008, May). Bottled water backlash. E : the

Environmental Magazine, 19(3), 36-39. Retrieved October 8,
2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1475949361).
Abstract
[...] after big client meetings, she Jl collected all the empty mm
plastic water bottles, took them home and added them to her
own curbside recycling bin. High school activists are raising
questions about why their school board members are locking
them into a contract with Coke or Pepsi (makers of Aquafina
and Dasani bottled water) when they have access to drinking
fountains for free. Now that more people are trying get out of
the bottled water habit, groups like Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) and EWG wonder if this new awareness will
translate into more support for public water supplies, and for
water conservation in general.
Full Text
·
Jennifer Phillips always felt guilty that her large Nashville law
firm didn't recycle. So after big client meetings, she Jl collected
all the empty mm plastic water bottles, took them home and
added them to her own curbside recycling bin. Now, she is
proud to report that her firm, Bass, Berry & Sims, serves an icy
pitcher of tap water during meetings. "We even have glasses
with the company logo on them," she says. Phillips estimates
switching to tap keeps 3,000 plastic water bottles per week out
of the landfill.
It's a trend that is taking hold in the s U.S., Europe and Canada:
more people are switching from bottled water to tap. Call it
reverse snob appeal. Bottled water once carried a certain
European mystique. But these days, it's the tap water
enthusiasts, concerned about the environment, who get to act
self-righteous. Just like it has become cool to bring your own
cloth bags to the grocery store and your own mug to the coffee
shop, the reusable water bottle is the hip, new eco accessory.
It's because people like Phillips and David WiIk, a Connecticut
book publisher and tap water activist, have started to connect
the dots. For WiIk, it happened on the soccer field. After his

sons finished their games, he noticed the grass was littered with
bottled water and Gatorade empties. Pretty soon, WiIk started
showing up with a huge container of tap water. Now all the kids
bring their own bottles and fill up when thirsty.
"We have such a consumption mentality, which leads to our
throw-away society," says WiIk, who started the website
Turntotap.com to build more support for public water supplies
and to cut down on the amount of plastic going into landfills. "I
think the cost of our behavior should be built into the.
products," WiIk says.
A Gathering Revolt
In Canada, the bottled water issue has become, as WiIk says, an
"uprising." College students are staging protests-declaring
"bottled water-free zones" on campus. High school activists are
raising questions about why their school board members are
locking them into a contract with Coke or Pepsi (makers of
Aquafina and Dasani bottled water) when they have access to
drinking fountains for free. Some students have jokingly started
to sell bottled air for $1.
In an even bolder move, the United Church of Canada asked its
three million members to consider banning bottled water during
meetings and events. "We just had a lot of concerns about
governance and accountability," says Julie Graham, who leads
the anti-bottled water campaign for a Toronto ecumenical
activist group called Kairos. "Why is it people in Canada are
willing to pay twice as much for bottled water as for gasoline?
We started challenging that and raising questions about billions
of empty bottles going into landfills."
Others, like Richard Girard, a corporate researcher for the
Ottowa-based Polaris Institute, don't like the hypocrisy I they
perceive in the bottled water marketing. "This movement is
gaining momentum because the general public is starting to
figure out bottled water is a scam," says Girard. More than half
of all bottled water is simply filtered tap anyway, he argues.
And some of it is actually worse in quality because bottled
water companies aren't subject to the same strict oversight as

public water supplies.
"We want the bottled water corporations to be held accountable
for their actions," Girard says. "These companies are essentially
commodifying water. We hope we can force them to change and
be more environmentally responsible."
The trend away from bottled water also ties in with the Slow
Food movement-as the restaurant industry tries to support local
agriculture and cut down on extravagant energy used to ship
imported foods from around the world. At Berkeley's Chez
Panisse, general manager Mike Kossa-Rienzi had his "a-ha"
moment when he sat down and calculated how far the 25,000
bottles of sparkling Italian spring water he ordered had to travel
through the air. "It really does not make sense to ship from all
around the world when you have such good water in your
backyard," he says. "You have to think about the carbon imprint
you're making there."
Another big push for the bottled water backlash came during
World Water Day 2007, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom declared a ban on bottled water contracts for all city
departments. Instead of bottled water vending machines, he
installed large dispensers in city buildings that poured out pure
tap water from the Sierra mountains. Other cities, from Chicago
to Salt Lake, followed suit.
Just think about a bottled water brand like Fiji, says WiIk. On
the company's website, it says, "When it comes to drinking
water, remote is very, very good." If you think about it, WiIk
says, it's pretty arrogant to ask that Fiji water be flown 8,000
miles across the world just so North American yuppies can
enjoy a slightly better taste.
Responding to rising criticism, the company launched the "Fiji
Green" campaign. It partnered with Conservation International
to go carbon negative, reduced packaging, committed to 100
percent recycled materials and has pledged money to protect the
Sovi Basin rainforest in Fiji. A cynic would say the company is
doing this because it can afford to-marketing Fiji water is an
enormously profitable enterprise.

Bottled Waste
It takes 15 million barrels of oil per year to make all of the
plastic water bottles in America, according to the Container
Recycling Institute. Sending those bottles by air and truck uses
even more fossil fuel.
Once people drain the bottles, they rarely recycle them because
they're often purchased at big concert venues or airports with no
recycling bins. CRI says eight out of 10 water bottles end up in
the landfill. The bottles that drift from landfills and litter
streams are washing out to sea to form a huge raft of plastic
debris in the center of the Pacfic that is twice the size of Texas.
It takes 1,000 years for plastic bottles to break down, CRI
estimates. But when they do, they disintegrate into tiny bits.
The green and blue bottles, especially, look like tasty food to
fish and shorebirds. Scientists are finding these dead animals on
the beach, with bellies full of plastic pellets.
If more states added deposits on bottled water bottles, it might
spur recycling. Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has even
proposed a national beverage bottle bill. But PET water bottles
(short for polyethylene terephthalate) can only be recycled a
few times. What about going back to refillable glass bordes?
For one thing, they are heavy to ship. And Zero Waste expert
Neil Seldman of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance doesn't
imagine anyone could persuade the beverage industry to go that
route.
"They have always lobbied against it," Seldman says. "The
industry does not want to deal with it after people buy their
productthey want to wash their hands of the containers." That's
why it makes the most sense to avoid creating the waste in the
first place by drinking tap from your own container, Seldman
says.
Meanwhile, as drought spreads to North Carolina and Atlanta,
residents are casting a suspicious eye on beverage companies
like Coca Cola, which tap into local aquifers to rill their bottles.
Nestle has been seeking environmental approval for what would
be the largest water bottling plant in the U.S.- one million

square feet in McCloud, California-against community protests.
The company has had to significantly increase the amount it's
paying for the water (from $26 an acre-foot to $183) and limit
its draw to 520 million gallons annually. It's still battling
opposition from residents concerned about the mega-plant's
effects on quality of life and outdoor recreation.
Bottled water industry groups, such as the International Bottled
Water Association, say they are being unfairly targeted. They
argue bottled water is a healthy alternative to sugary soda. And
it can also be a lifesaver when disasters, such as Hurricane
Katrina, strike. "It's not really a bottled water vs. tap water
world," says IBWA spokesman Steven Kay. "Most people drink
both. We think bottled water provides a good healthy choice."
But industry marketing firms have had to do an about-face.
"What's interesting about the backlash," says CRI Executive
Director Betty McLaughlin, "is that the companies say 'drink
our water, not tap water.' Now people are going back to tap and
they've got to reposition themselves." Companies are trying
every angle, from claims of superior filtration to adding
antioxidants (Snapple) and fruity flavors (Dasani and others).
Don't Refill that Bottle!
The IBWA argues that bottled water companies are responding
to environmental concerns by making lighter bottles that require
less plastic in the manufacturing process. Kay says the industry
does invest significant money to improve access to recycling at
large public venues, such as airports and concert halls.
Companies like Nalgene, Sigg and Brita are aggressively
marketing their refillable bottles and home filters as a more
responsible option.
When it comes to reusable bottles, however, consumers still
need to do their homework. Research shows that clear bottles
made of polycarbonate plastic (such as the original 32-ounce
Nalgene) can leach bisphenol-A (BPA). This is an endocrine-
disrupting chemical that acts like estrogen in the body. BPA
essentially tricks your body into thinking it's estrogen, says
Washington State University Researcher Patricia Hunt. She

discovered the dangers of BPA when some of her polycarbonate
mouse cages started to leach BPA, causing infertility in female
mice.
Since BPA has been linked to low sperm counts and an
increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, scientists like
vomSaal and Hunt suggest avoiding reusable bottles made from
plastic. They also raise serious concerns about the potential for
other plastic chemicals to leach out of typical PET water
bottles-especially if they sit in the hot sun.
Hunt uses a stainless bottle brand called Klean Kantene, and
Wilk's website sells stainless guaranteed-not-to-leach SIGG
bottles made in Switzerland. The trend away from bottled water
may also boost sales of home filters. Water-quality experts say
most tap water is fine to drink straight from the faucet-
especially in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, New York City
and Denver, where water comes from pristine mountain
reservoirs. But in places that draw drinking water from lakes
and rivers with sewer outfalls, it might make sense to install a
filter. Sometimes rusty pipes or naturally occurring iron can
also affect the taste.
It makes sense for anyone turning back to tap to become
educated about the local public water supply. And since the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires frequent water
quality reports, the data is easy to find. The Environmental
Working Group (EWG) makes it easy with its Tap Water
Database. You can plug in your zip code and find out whether
your local water system is up to par.
Now that more people are trying get out of the bottled water
habit, groups like Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
and EWG wonder if this new awareness will translate into more
support for public water supplies, and for water conservation in
general.
Once you kick the bottle, they say, the next step is to get
educated and get involved-find out what your water system
needs and start pushing your elected officials to bring more
funds to bear on the problem. According to NRDC, the EPA has

asked for billions of dollars for a public water supply needs
assessment. But the Bush Administration has allocated only a
small portion of that request, says NRDC attorney Mae Wu.
"People are very concerned about what's in their water because
we drink so much of it," says Jane Houlihan, EWG's vice
president for research. "We're advocating for more protection
for the waters that are the source of what comes out of kitchen
faucets."
Deactivated
Ryan Mcclure
2 posts
Re:Topic 8 DQ 2
"Significance is defined as the quality of being important. In
medicine, we distinguish between statistical significance and
clinical importance.
Statistical Significance. Medical studies are carried out on
selected samples of people, but the goal is to apply the findings
to another population (e.g., your patients). Naturally, a concern
is that the sample used in the study could provide misleading
results. Perhaps it was a very small sample; perhaps it was a
biased sample that is not equivalent to the people you are
treating; perhaps the sample was large enough, but by chance or
bad luck it contained people who gave wacky results. Statistical
significance considers the first and third of these concerns. The
middle one, bias, cannot be detected by mathematical deductive
logic: it needs detailed information on the way the sample was
chosen." (Significance VS. Importance, n.d.).
"Statistical significance in hypothesis testing is expressed in
terms of a probability (hence that little letter "p"). By
convention this is set at 5%, or p < 0.05: there is only a 5%
chance that a difference of the size found in your study, or a
greater difference, would occur by chance, if there was actually

no difference in the whole population. (In other words, you
have drawn a false positive conclusion over the new therapy).
The 5% value is arbitrary and is not chosen in terms of the
actual magnitude of the effect seen in the study. Results are said
to be "statistically significant" if the probability that the result
is compatible with the null hypothesis is very small. Crucial
Point: testing statistical significance is all about the likelihood
of a chance finding that will not hold up in future replications.
Significance does not tell us directly how big the difference
was." (Significance VS. Importance, n.d.).
We learned about this concept in our Statistics class and I must
say this was a hard concept for me to understand and truthfully
I am not sure that I truly understand this completely. We used a
program that made these calculations for us so I was depending
on the data I was inputing for the results to be accurate so there
is definetly room for human error here.
"Clinical significance, or clinical importance: Is the difference
between new and old therapy found in the study large enough
for you to alter your practice? Because there is always a leap of
faith in applying the results of a study to your patients (who,
after all, were not in the study), perhaps a small improvement in
the new therapy is not sufficient to cause you to alter your
clinical approach. Note that you would almost
certainly not alter your approach if the study results were not
statistically significant (i.e. could well have been due to
chance). But when is the difference between two therapies large
enough for you to alter your practice? Statistics cannot fully
answer this question. It is one of clinical judgment, considering
the magnitude of benefit of each treatment, the respective
profiles of side effects of the two treatments, their relative
costs, your comfort with prescribing a new therapy, the patient's
preferences, and so on. But we can provide different ways of
illustrating the benefit of treatments, in terms of the Number
Needed to Treat. Yet another example of science offering only
partial guidance to the art of medicine. A partial way out of this
uncertainty is to express study results using confidence

intervals instead of significance levels. Confidence intervals
show the likely range of results within which the true value is
likely to lie. An example: a study showed a statistically
significant impact (p < 0.03) of Transcendental Meditation on
reducing systolic BP compared to controls. The mean reduction
was 7 mm Hg (95% CI 4, 10). Instead of significance testing
telling us that this study result could have occurred 3% of the
time by chance alone, confidence intervals tell us what our best
guess is for the size of the population effect, 95% of the time.
This seems more informative for the clinician." (Significance
VS. Importance, n.d.).
In the end there is always a chance that your research can
produce null results or be considered clinically and or
statistically insignificant. This is why we do these tests to show
the public that the research has been tested and is valid or
possibly invalid.
I know I would be very discouraged if after researching
something and working on a project for many many
hours/days/weeks etc. and it was shown to be insigificant. That
would be a hard blow but neccessary to prove or disprove a
practice change and this is what makes EBP so important and
credible in the healthcare industry. It is backed by facts and
tested for validity.
References
University of Ottawa. (n.d.). Significance vs. Importance.
Retrieved from
https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Statistical_significance_i
mportance_e.htm
Deactivated
Erin Dieguez
2 posts
Re:Topic 8 DQ 2
Significance is noted to be the importance of something or

possessing the important quality. The statistical significance of
something means that it did not happen just by chance, but
because it was true. “Significant, in terms of statistics, is
defined as “probably caused by something other than mere
chance.” Researchers proclaim a study finding to be
“statistically significant” or not, depending on whether their
research result is less than the a priori alpha level set before the
study commenced.” (Thompson, 2017)
“Clinical significance, or clinical importance: Is the difference
between new and old therapy found in the study large enough
for you to alter your practice? Because there is always a leap of
faith in applying the results of a study to your patients (who,
after all, were not in the study), perhaps a small improvement in
the new therapy is not sufficient to cause you to alter your
clinical approach. Note that you would almost certainly not
alter your approach if the study results were not statistically
significant (i.e. could well have been due to chance).”
(Significance vs. Importance, n.d.)
This is such a hard concept for me to understand honestly. What
does make sense to me is that statistics and statistical evidence
are actual facts and what makes sense to me is that the
significance is based on actual factors and not just a random
result. The clinical significance is necessarily just by chance
but you are taking a little more of a “leap of faith”, as they
stated, in applying their results to the actual practice. They are
not sure if this result is for sure the answer to treatments and if
it will work on every single person but there is a strong
possibility based on research that this will work for most of the
population.
References
Significance vs. Importance. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Statistical_significance_i
mportance_e.htm
Thompson, C. (2017, April 11). What’s the Difference Between
Statistical Significance and Clinical Significance? Retrieved

from https://nursingeducationexpert.com/difference-statistical-
significance-clinical-significance/
Deactivated
Wendy Santos
1 posts
Re:Topic 8 DQ 2
Clinical significance is defined as a conclusion that an
intervention has an effect of practical meaning, and can be
graphically represented by showing pretreatment or post
treatment means (Busch, Wagener, Gregor, Ring, Borrelli,
2011). Clinical significance is subjective interpretations of
research results, which could affect behaviors, when statistical
significance is more about proving research is true (Shelly,
2011). Clinical significance could have meaning from the
results, to the nurse and the patient. Clinical significance that
would support positive outcomes in my project could be a
change in lifestyle habits, after receiving culturally appropriate
prevention strategies (Skelly, 2011). A change in behavior, that
helps with lifestyle choices,, is viewed as important which is
then classified as clinically significant, and could be great
enough to alter the way you do practice (Busch et al, 2011).
Confidence intervals can be used to help determine clinical
significance by intervals in range of percentages (Busch et al,
2011).
Statistically significant is defined as the probability that the
research results are true (UCCS, 1999). In order to know if your
data is statistically significant one must test the hypothesis to
provide a p-value with 5% or lower considered to be
statistically significant (UCCS, 1999). Statistical significance is
a function of the sample size, reliability of the effect and
measurement instrument, along with magnitude of the effect
(UCCS, 1999). When the sample size is very large almost
anything can be found to be statistically significant, but when
the sample size is small then random errors can occur (UCCS,

1999). Even if an intervention is found to have a statistically
significant effect, it does not mean the intervention will be
clinically significant (Busch et al, 2011).
Clinical significance is important to healthcare workers,
because the risk or benefit of an intervention would indicate
how effective the results would be in real life, and help with
your decision making process (Skelly, 2011). By conducting a
base line assessment at the start of your EBP and comparing
changes at an later assessment, and grouping participants who
experienced an issue against those that do not, you can then get
clinical significant results to support your project (Busch et al,
2011).
Busch, A. M., Wagener, T. L., Gregor, K. L., Ring, K. T., &
Borrelli, B. (2011). Utilizing reliable and clinically significant
change criteria to assess for the development of depression
during smoking cessation treatment: The importance of tracking
idiographic change. Addictive Behaviors, 36(12), 1228–1232.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.07.031
Skelly, A. C. (2011). Probability, proof, and clinical
significance. Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal, 2(4), 9–11.
http://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1274751
University of Colorado Colorado Springs [UCCS]. (1999).
Statistical and Clinical Significance. Retrieved from
https://www.uccs.edu/lbecker/clinsig.html

Bottled water More than just a story about sales growth; Stringen.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Bottled water More than just a story about sales growth; Stringen.docx

Similar to Bottled water More than just a story about sales growth; Stringen.docx (20)

More from AASTHA76

More from AASTHA76 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Bottled water More than just a story about sales growth; Stringen.docx