topics

Water, Water Everywhere....
by Melissa Buckley (Melissa BEE) May 2002
Melissa BEE: http://hunnybee.com
Copyright May 2002

Australian consumers could be subjected to misleading marketing claims by water bottlers, if laws governing labelling standards are overturned in a Ministerial Council meeting this month.

International Bottled Water Association, spokesperson Zail Dugal said consumers were being mislead, particularly by misleading and inaccurate labels on bottled water.

Australia has the best tap water on the planet, yet are suckered into paying big bucks for bottled water.

Dorothy Senior, editor of 'The Technology of Bottled Water', said Australians drank over 400 million litres of bottled water in 1999, worth $1.5 billion.

Ms Senior said that water is sensitive to chemical, physical and microbiological contamination and is one of the most difficult products to produce to a consistently high standard.

"It is an interesting observation of the human condition that water in a bottle is perceived to be of higher quality, than out of a tap."

"All of it is a con trick. Have you ever seen spring water? They say it's spring water, but they don't tanker it from anywhere." Tony Hartigan, CEO of Brisbane's "Just Water" said.

In Australia, bottled water (and ice) are strictly regulated by the Australian New Zealand Food Authority, (ANZFA) Food Standards Code. "Packaged water & Packaged Ice," "Non-alcoholic Beverages & Brewed Soft Drinks." Bottlers must comply with code requirements including "Labelling and Other Information Requirements," and food safety regulations.

The ANZFA was restructured with a package of reforms in the food regulatory system in Australia, expected to be completed by July, 2002. Assessment of labelling content claims have undergone review.

This means the word "health" and references to curing conditions or diseases are possible under the new standards. The assessment report was released after the annual Ministerial Council meeting in mid May.

The ANZFA announced on May 28 that a proposal for a watchdog to control and enforce the Code was seriously being looked into.

In April, sensing a time-limited window of opportunity, Dr Russell Beckett launched "Unique Water" and CocaCola Amatil promoted sports water, demonstrating the effect deregulation could have on a vulnerable and gullible public and media.

Paul Sheehan's article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, April 6, featured claims by Sheehan that he was cured after drinking "magic water" discovered by Beckett.

He supported his claim with tales by the converted, including fellow SMH journalist Peter Bowers and wife Yvonne.

Beckett's water has US and Australian patents "for slowing the aging process in humans and increasing the length of life in humans," A US patent prohibits anyone but the owner from making, using or selling the invention.

Beckett insists "Unique Water" complies with Australian food standards not needing toxicity trials, quoting his patent trials as proof.

Beckett did not claim finding the fountain of youth. He supplied water to 40 friends, colleagues, selective researchers and media, all under the control of their own physicians. 40 became 100.

Sheehan's support in the SMH started a media frenzy, the supplier ran dry by Tuesday, and the world's press ran with it.

"He prefers that his name stand alone, uncluttered by academic glitter that marks the impressive span of his qualifications," Bowers said of Beckett. Sheehan describes him more accurately as a crackpot.

"It has been given the name Unique Water, but nobody calls it that." Sheehan said. The label clearly says "Unique Water," "Water Uniquely Designed to Save Lives."

Beckett's website promotes "Unique Water" heavily underscored with "Too Good to be true." But nobody took any notice of his warning.

Irish water bottling company, "Unique Water" owned by Sullivan & Keyes Ltd. and "The Unique Water Company" a US environmental water protection group, may have issues with Beckett over their intellectual property and naming rights.

Sheehan claimed Beckett's fellow researcher, Jim Watts worked with Beckett on the water since 1992. In Sheehan's interview, Watts said after hearing about the water for years, he and his wife, Sally, only began taking it in January (2002). Watts seemed surprised by Beckett's claim.

With the media's help, Beckett and business partners, Dennis & Arthur Shelley of Bert's Soft Drinks, sold 60,000 cases of "Unique Water" for $1.8 million in the space of one week.

Beckett said his priorities were to secure his patents and perfect the manufacturing process.

"Don't expect to be able to check this out by buying some Unique Water at your local store any time soon. That's not in the plan. Russell Beckett and the Shelleys have only three priorities: produce enough water to meet demand at the factory door without restrictions; meet the backlog of outstanding orders, and produce water for clinical medical trials," Sheehan reported in the SMH on April 15.

Sheehan on April 15, said the magnesium solution needed was mixed by Beckett in his kitchen. Anyone who consumed the water needed to mix up batches using Beckett's solution, which was complicated. Perfecting the manufacturing process had taken two years, but then water could be made in industrial quantities.

Other journalists reported Beckett's water was a natural mix, but could not agree on which Australian state the "magical spring" was in.

After the first rush of orders, Darren Shelley, son of the factory owner offered some insight.

"Our truck is flat out running back and forth between here and Mangrove Mountain [where the water is taken from in NSW]," Darren said.

When Beckett needed a manufacturer, he decided the Shelley family's "Bert's Soft Drinks," based in Taren Point in southern Sydney was the one.

Beckett's choice was no coincidence. ANZFA Non-Alcoholic Beverages and Brewed Soft Drinks guidelines would not restrict water marketing. There was an opportunity, just ripe for picking.

The Shelleys are Beckett's commercial backer, investing time, resources and equipment. Last month, after the manufacturing process was perfected, the water became available at the factory door. Sheehan's article in the SMH followed.

The Shelley family have made soft drink since 1893 and was a household name in Sydney 40 years ago. The Shelley's brand was sold to British Tobacco which later became Coca-Cola Amatil (CCA) in 1964.

CCA - a food, beverage and tobacco company - are promoting their brand of bottled "sports" water Powerade® claiming it is "wetter than water." CCA created Powerade® based on the formula of Gatorade, a patented drink whose commercial success depended upon effective marketing of scientific facts available to all. The CocaCola Company, faced no patent barriers introducing Powerade® in Australia in 1994.

Alex Wagstaff, a spokesman for Coca-Cola, spoke to Matthew Thompson of the SMH on April 10, said that the sales bonanza of "Unique Water" is a sign of things to come.

Chris Forbes Ewan wrote, in a new thread, on 7/7/2003:

Over the past year or so, there has been a lot of discussion on this list about how much water should be consumed to maintain adequate hydration status.

One issue we haven't discussed is the value of commercially-available bottled water compared to tap water. The article below suggests that, at least in the US (and I strongly suspect that the same applies in Australia) tap water may be better quality that most bottled water.

Source:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000007F0-6DBD-1ED9-8E1C809EC588EF21&catID=2

June 09, 2003

Bottled Twaddle

Is bottled water tapped out?

By Michael Shermer

In 1979 I started drinking bottled water. My bottles, however, contained tap water and were nestled in small cages on the frame of my racing bicycle.

Tap water was good enough then because we did not know how much healthier and tastier bottled water is. It must be, because Americans today spend more than $7 billion a year on it, paying 120 to 7,500 times as much per gallon for bottled water as for tap. Bottled prices range from 75 cents to $6 a gallon, versus tap prices that vary from about 80 cents to $6.40 per 1,000 gallons. We wouldn't invest that for nothing, would we?

Apparently we would. In March 1999 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published the results of a four-year study in which they tested more than 1,000 samples of 103 brands of bottled water, finding that "an estimated 25 percent or more of bottled water is really just tap water in a bottle-sometimes further treated, sometimes not." If the label says "from a municipal source" or "from a community water system," it's tap water.

Even more disturbing, the NRDC found that 18 of the 103 brands tested had, in at least one sample, "more bacteria than allowed under microbiological-purity guidelines." About one fifth of the waters "contained synthetic organic chemicals-such as industrial chemicals (e.g., toluene or xylene) or chemicals used in manufacturing plastic (e.g., phthalate, adipate, or styrene)," but these were "generally at levels below state and federal standards." The International Bottled Water Association issued a response to the NRDC study in which it states, "Close scrutiny of the water quality standards for chemical contaminants reveals that [the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's] bottled water quality standards are the same as [the Environmental Protection Agency's] tap water standards." Well, that's a relief, but in paying exceptional prices one might hope for exceptional quality.

One problem is that bottled water is subject to less rigorous purity standards and less frequent tests for bacteria and chemical contaminants than those required of tap water. For example, bottled-water plants must test for coliform bacteria once a week; city tap water must be tested 100 or more times a month.

If bottled water is not safer (a 2001 World Wildlife Fund study corroborated the general findings of the NRDC), then surely it tastes better? It does ... as long as you believe in your brand. Enter the water-wars hype. Pepsi introduced Aquafina, so Coke countered with Dasani, a brand that included a "Wellness Team" (meet Susie, Jonny and Ellie, the "stress relief facilitator," "fitness trainer" and "lifestyle counselor," respectively) on its Web site. Both companies charge more for their plain water than for their sugar water.

Some bottled water is really just tap water in a bottle.

When the test is blind, however, the hype falls on deaf taste buds. In May 2001 ABC's Good Morning America found viewers' preferences to be Evian (12 percent), O-2 (19 percent), Poland Spring (24 percent) and good old New York City tap (45 percent). In July 2001 the Cincinnati Enquirer discovered that on a 1-to-10 scale, that city's tap water rated an 8.2, compared with Dannon's 8.3 and Evian's 7.2. In 2001 the Yorkshire, England, water company found that 60 percent of 2,800 people surveyed could not tell the difference between the local tap water and the U.K.'s bottled waters.

The most telling taste test was conducted by the Showtime television series Penn & Teller: Bullshit! The hosts began with a blind comparison in which 75 percent of New Yorkers preferred city tap to bottled waters. They then went to the Left Coast and set up a hidden camera at a trendy southern California restaurant that featured a water sommelier who dispensed elegant water menus to the patrons. All bottles were filled out of the same hose in the back of the restaurant; nevertheless, Angelenos were willing to plunk down nearly $7 a bottle for L'eau Du Robinet (French for "faucet water"), Agua de Culo (Spanish for "ass water") and Amazone ("filtered through the Brazilian rain forest's natural filtration system"), declaring them all to be far superior to tap water. There's no accounting for taste.

Bottled water does have one advantage over tap: you can take it with you wherever you go. So why not buy one bottle of each desirable size and refill it with your city's finest unnaturally filtered yet salubriously delicious tap water?

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com) and author of Why People Believe Weird Things.

We just top up our plastic bottles from the tap each evening and put them in the fridge - no complaints.

Re perception and reality (and the placebo effect) - Sci Am, quoted below, also did a study on cocaine (For those who want a reference, please look in their index)

- Some regular users of cocaine experienced a cocaine like hit after being told they were sniffing coke, when it was sugar. The reverse was also true - no response to cocaine when told it was sugar

Sydney Water had a survey of bottled water some years ago, comparing it to its own product, but I cannot locate it. The conclusions were that both from the chemical and biological point of view, bottled water is inferior to the capital city reticulated stuff.

The commercial Current Affairs TV programs used to have the comparison as one of their standby pieces, but there has been nothing recently that I remember... as I mostly don't watch them I suppose that is not surprising.

I have sent an email to the Australia Water Association wondering if anyone can produce some data showing conclusively that bottled water is crap compared to the reticulated stuff.

I will deal with advice that Zero has received in a separate email, because it is slightly different.

<< home < Articles

Bottled Water