It's been more than a year since bottled water and corporate America collided at Grand Canyon National Park, and the push continues to get more national parks to phase out packaged water in favor of fresh tap water and refillable bottles.
Next week National Park Service officials at Yosemite and Mount Rainier national parks, Independence Hall National Historical Park, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area will be presented with over-sized postcards urging them to phase out disposable water bottles.
At Corporate Accountability International, a non-profit that works to encourage cleaner environmental habits, officials intend to make March 27 a "national day of action ... in a heated battle between those who are fighting to get billions of plastic bottles out of our waste stream, and Coca-Cola (owner of Dasani), who is throwing hurdles in the way of those parks that want to become bottled water free."
Coca-Cola rose to the limelight back in November 2011 when an email trail seemed to indicate the beverage maker was pressuring the National Park Foundation to urge the Park Service not to ban disposable water bottles at Grand Canyon National Park. At the time, Park Service officials said they weren't bowing to corporate pressure but simply conducting due diligence on the impacts of such a ban. For instance, they said at the time, how might the safety of visitors to Southwestern parks such as the Grand Canyon, Arches, and Canyonlands be impacted by a ban?
Ultimately, Grand Canyon officials, who had installed water filling stations early in 2011, were able to phase-out bottled water and put to use filling stations they had installed
Kristin Urquiza, who oversees the "Outside the Bottle and Public Works Compaign" for Corporate Accountability International, says more parks need to follow Zion, Hawaii Volcanoes, and Grand Canyon national parks in phasing out the sale of disposable water bottles.
At the same time, she was critical of an extensive memorandum (attached below) Park Service Director Jon Jarvis sent out to his superintendents in the wake of the Grand Canyon uproar that directed the steps they would need to take to phase-out bottled water. That memo called for superintendents to, among other things, review the amount of waste that could be eliminated from their park; consider the costs of installing and maintaining water filling stations for visitors; review the resulting impact on concessionaire and cooperative association revenues, and; consult with the Park Service's Public Health Office.
Then, too, they must consider "contractual implications" to concessionaires, the cost and availability of BPA-free reusable containers, and signage so visitors can find water filling stations. Also, they need to take into consideration safety considerations for visitors who might resort to drinking water "from surface water sources with potential exposure to disease" or who neglect to carry enough water with them on hikes.
"That is a clear indication of how Coke, stepping in, really is putting pressure on the Park Service to make it much more difficult for additional parks to follow suit," maintained Ms. Urquiza during a phone conservation. "Coke and the other bottlers, Nestle and Pepsi, there were several conference calls that were organized with Park Service employees and representatives from the big bottlers, asking them to put a hiatus on additional bans, and really working to stop this from happening in additional places."
To get more parks to phase-out bottled water, the non-profit has been working with stakeholders in and out of national parks, including concessionaires, "to help give Park Service (superintendents) the support they need to really move forward on implementing a 'bottled-water-free' policy in their parks," she said.
While none of the four parks has given "firm commitments" to moving forward with a ban, said Ms. Urquiza, talks have been ongoing to examine the feasibility of such a ban.
"The real exciting feedback that we've been getting is that water in the parks is an incredibly important issue for superintendents," she said. "They want to figure out how to minimize the amount of waste, to promote public water."
The organization plans to organize efforts this fall in Washington, D.C., to lobby the Park Service to hold firm to its original plan of having refillable water stations in 75 percent of park visitor centers by 2016, while encouraging parks to discontinue the sale of disposable bottled water.
On March 27, next Wednesday, the non-profit hopes superintendents at Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Independence Hall, and Golden Gate will commit to moving forward with a ban of disposable water bottles. "Our hope is that the superintendents can make a public commitment to implementing bottled-water-free policies," Ms. Urquiza said. "We're really hopeful, and see this as a win-win for parks.
"... At the end of the day, it's really sending the wrong message for our national parks to be promoting bottled water," she added.
At least one reusable bottlemaker, Vapur, has been talking with national parks about installing water-filling stations for visitors. Company officials, however, have declined to discuss what progress they're making.
Comments
Justin, the difference is you have a vendor (the concessionaire) willing- even desiring - to sell the bottle water because the economics work. Sure, the visitor can't buy a car, but that is an economic decision of the vendor, not an arbitrary ban by a third party.
In the case of bottled water, you have a willing seller and a willing buyer and a ban would indeed interfer with that opportunity.
If the vendor sold a lot of other things, I'm sure the economics would also work for the vendor. I imagine you have plenty of vendors willing--even desiring--to open car dealerships, McDonald's franchises, etc. in the parks. But a ban interferes with those. If you want to argue that the parks are denying me these opportunities, go for it.
Doubt seriously that anyone would want to open a car dealership. As to McDonald's franchises - don't we basically already have that - they are just called something different.
EC – Since the question of whether bottled water is a "scam" has come up, the answer is sometimes clearly "yes" – at other times, it's another example of the gullibility of American consumers. Keeping the scam out of the bottled water business is also a good example of the value of the government regulations you despise so heartily.
Before the FDA began regulating bottled water, it wasn't uncommon for bottled water sellers to misrepresent their product; they simply bottled water right from the municipal tap and sold it under a whole variety of terms, suggesting it was something along the lines of "pure spring water." I'd say that qualifies as a scam.
In 2004, Coca-cola was forced to admit that the UK version of Dasani brand bottled water came from the London city water supply. Unless clearly labeled as such, I'd say that's a scam, too. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0304-04.htm
Under current regulations, If a bottler calls water “glacial” it has to come from a glacier. “Artesian” water has to flow above the water table ....I'd say that's a good example of progress thanks to government regulation.
One source notes, " Other terms, however, have no clear definitions and can be misleading to the consumer. For example, terms like pure, purest, pristine, premium, mountain water, and clean are advertising descriptors with no official meaning. These terms do not accurately describe the source or purity of the water, nor do they certify that the water is safe. Images on bottled water can also contribute to confusion and misunderstanding about contents. Aquafina (a Pepsi product), like many other bottled waters, puts images of mountains and snow on the label, despite the fact that Aquafina is bottled using processed municipal water."
Is that a scam? Probably not by your standards.
Now, thanks to government regulations, if their water comes from the city tap, bottlers have to at least show that on the label – albeit in a pretty small font at times. Even today, about 25% of the bottled water sold in the U.S. comes from municipal sources, although sellers have done an outstanding job in convincing consumers their product is "safer." Is that really true? If it's not true, is that a scam?
Ironically, FDA regulations for the health and safety of bottled water aren't nearly as stringent as EPA standards for municipal drinking water. Due to budget limitations, the FDA rarely inspects or tests bottled water, and relies on voluntary self-testing by the bottlers.
When contamination of bottled water occurs—as it has—the FDA relies almost exclusively on voluntary action by bottlers to initiate recalls. "FDA rules include no provision obligating a bottler to notify FDA or a state of test results, contamination problems, or violations, even in the case of contamination that could pose a serious health threat.”
So, is promoting bottled water as safer and healthier than tap water a scam? In the U.S., probably so.
There's plenty of similar information readily available. For just two examples, see this link and this one.
Jim, I have no problem with government regulations preventing any vendor from making a false claim about their product. But the fact that one vendor may at one time made a false claim doesn't make the entire industry a scam.
Nor do I view your Dasani UK example as a scam if the facts are as you describe. If it was London tap water and they claimed it wasn't or if they claimed it came from some other source, then that is fraud. If they made no claim as to its source, where is the fraud?
[edit] BTW - This is what is says on the water I give my clients when I am driving them around to look at real estate (you think they want a resuable bottle?)
"Purified drinking water. Quality guarantee. Processed by advanced filtration, osone and reverse osmosis technologies"
Is that a "scam". Only if it isn't true, which I highly doubt.
I've decided I agree with a suggestion made earlier in this thread. Rather than try to reason with ec, the best solution is simply to avoid being baited into an endless debate.
Civil discussion based on differing points of view is a positive aspect of the Traveler, and a factual error posted by anyone - me included - deserves a response if someone else has the correct information. That's useful for the entire readership.
However, some folks just enjoy a verbal ping pong match, so when it comes to ec, I plan to put down the paddles. For my part, don't assume that following one of ec's posts, "Silence gives consent." In some cases, George Bernard Shaw had the right idea when he said, "Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn."
ecbuck, I am sure your clients will be best served by you with the complimentary water bottle and not a reuseable bottle.Who could argue that. But I feel the example set by NPS for being enviromentally concious should be important. Whether it is reduce, recycle or eliminate. Even when I go to the qwik shop, they urge you to bring back your cup for a refill by giving you a reduced price next time. Now while I may not be the best at bringing back my cup. I understand it is an economic consideration on their part, but I also know it is an enviromental consideration on my part.
Sorry, I just don't see the environmental threat.