Into the Drink

California may require labels on bottled water, EPA strengthens lead-in-water regulations

Posted at 5:08 PM on 27 Sep 2007

Bottled-water companies would have to disclose the source of their H2O under a bill that has passed through the California legislature and awaits the pen of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill would require companies to list the minerals, chemicals, and bacteria present in bottled water, as well as whether it came originally from a well, aquifer, spring, or plain ol' municipal reservoir. In other water news, the U.S. EPA has issued revised national regulations that strengthen requirements for testing tap water for lead and require utilities to notify customers immediately if water supplies are found to be contaminated with high levels of the heavy metal. The new rules will "help get the lead out and keep it out of our drinking water," says EPA water guy Benjamin Grumbles, whose way with a cliché is nearly on par with his delightful name.

sources: Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post
see also, in Grist: Hatin' on plastic water bottles is all the rage, Restaurants and schools tap into local water supplies

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

about time, sorta

Let's call it organic water while we're at it.
I can't help but notice the lip service to the quality issues of tap and the lead in water/toys scare. If it makes the propaganda machine then tell me how much you care. Then do little or nothing to give me a better product.

Simple labeling is want I want though. Now if I could read a label that told me if this product was genetically modified I'd be even happier.
:)

by Vikingsson at 7:07 PM on 27 Sep 2007

getting the mud out

Well, there are three issues here, two of which we should indeed Grumble about, the third I am not so sure:

One would have thought that a basic, top-priority task of the EPA was to be vigilant over the quality of the country's public water supplies. So now we are told that adequate regulations are not even in place? Gewalt. This is part of what Thomas Friedman was writing about yesterday, when he said that the US is no longer the world's Gold Standard regarding even simple infrastructure. He said that when he flew recently out of a European airport home to a US airport, it was like leaving the world of the Jetsons and entering the world of the Flintstones.
As for the proposed legislation in California, yes indeed, certain basic information should be printed on bottled water: the nature of the water source, where it is and who owns it.
But I am not sure we need to have very detailed information about "minerals, chemicals and bacteria." Some unusual substances characteristic of a particular source would need to be noted, as well as anomalously high quantities of some more ordinary substances; the water-quality experts could figure that out. But it would seem to be impractical and unnecessary to try to be exhaustive. (So to speak: that is a pun that all those latinists out there will get.)

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 11:04 PM on 30 Sep 2007

potential step forward?

The way things stand currently bottled water must be on par with tap or better (in terms of quality). All things considered (e.g., the horrible abuse we've inflicted on nature), the quality of our water supply is very good. I think we'd be better off to focus on reducing the amount of plastic and educating the public on the current over use and confidence in bottled water.

foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com

Cory

by cmbryant1 at 10:10 AM on 02 Oct 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?