Three decades ago, the bottled-water industry barely existed in the United States. Although imports such as sparkling Perrier had snob appeal, most Americans saw water as a public utility that flowed from a tap. However, in response to both successful advertising and consumers’ health concerns, sales of bottled water soared in the 1990s, and brands like Evian and Poland Spring emerged as fashion accessories and markers of personal taste and social status. In 2011, Americans bought 9 billion gallons of bottled water; every year, the $22 billion industry grows by over 5 percent.
This growth has its benefits. In a country that favors soft drinks and struggles with obesity, the popularity of a healthy, convenient, calorie-free alternative to sugary soda is a good thing. However, critics of bottled water have become increasingly vocal, citing the environmental effects of manufacturing and disposing of billions of plastic containers. They also point to the expense of bottled water compared to its low-cost alternative from the tap and argue that the bottled-water industry’s aggressive marketing obscures the fact that tap water is generally held to higher health and safety standards than its bottled counterpart. As a result, numerous U.S. colleges, including Washington University and the University of Vermont, now ban the sale of plastic bottles of water on their campuses. Of course, the bottled-water industry has responded with its own campaign, which seeks to correct (in the words of the International Bottled Water Association) “misinformation” and the “highly emotional and incorrect” claims of critics.
The two essays in this debate have different perspectives on the question of whether or not to ban bottled water on campus. The staff of Harvard University’s newspaper, the Crimson , urges the student body to vote “yes” on the initiative to ban bottled water, arguing that the alternatives (water fountains and refill stations) will “take less time, cost … less money, and help the environment.” Although investigative journalist
THE CRIMSON STAFF VOTE YES ON THE BOTTLED WATER BAN It’s mid-morning, and you have a few minutes between classes. You’re thirsty, and being health conscious, you make your way to the Science Center and purchase a bottle of water. You chug the water, throw out the bottle, and book it back to your classes. In the process, you’ve dropped $1.25 and used up some finite resources—not as productive as you’d hoped your morning would be.1
On Nov. 18, Harvard students will vote to make their mid-morning water breaks more environmentally friendly—as well as more convenient. If the Environmental Action Committee’s referendum passes, the Undergraduate Council will urge administration to end the sale of single-use plastic water bottles on campus while installing water fountains and refill stations in all academic and residential buildings. We at the Crimson suggest that you vote for this measure.2
Single-use plastic water bottles represent one of the most easily obviated threats currently plaguing the environment. As the EAC notes on its homepage, the production of bottled water releases millions of tons of harmful chemicals—such as CO2 —into the environment. After the water’s consumption, those very same bottles often end up in overflowing landfills or swirling, oceanic garbage heaps. Ending the sale of bottled water on campus would constitute a step toward addressing this problem and advancing President Faust’s explicitly stated goal of mitigating the University’s environmental impact.3
The referendum’s measures would also improve students’ daily lives. Since the measure also calls for more water fountains placed throughout campus, students would have access to cheaper, cleaner, and more convenient water. Here in Massachusetts, we benefit from some of the strictest water supply regulations in the country, and there is no reason to avoid water fountains or tap water for fear of water quality. Bottled water is not held to the same exacting standards—it simply isn’t cleaner than tap water.4
5
In her letter opposing fossil-fuel divestment, President Faust said that “we need to strengthen … our approach to sustainable investment,” and the coming referendum provides us with just that opportunity. This is a common-sense measure that will help the environment and improve our daily lives. We hope you vote “yes” on the bottled water ban, and that Harvard quickly enacts it.6
READING ARGUMENTS
In paragraph 4, the writers mention the strict water supply regulations in Massachusetts. How is this point important to their argument?
The writers describe the bottled-water ban as a “common-sense measure” (para. 6). Is this point as self-evident as the writers seem to think it is? Explain.
The writers do not address arguments against their position. Would this editorial be stronger if they had summarized and refuted opposing arguments? Why or why not?
In what sense is this a cause-and-effect argument? In what respects is it a proposal argument?
CHARLES FISHMAN BOTTLED WATER IS SILLY—BUT SO IS BANNING IT I remember the moment when the silliness of bottled water became vividly clear to me. I was standing in the factory in San Pellegrino, Italy, at the foot of the Italian Alps, where San Pellegrino water is sealed in those shapely green bottles.1
Leave aside that the glass bottles weigh more than the water they contain, or the journey those bottles of water have to make, by truck and ship and truck again, to land on a grocery shelf or café table in Manhattan or St. Louis.2
3
Of course they do.4
But then the silliness took a leap. Where, I asked, do the bubbles in Pellegrino come from? The plant manager’s eyes lit up. Pellegrino water comes out of the ground uncarbonated, in fact. Pellegrino has another spring to the south in central Italy that is naturally carbonated. The company harvests the carbon dioxide from that spring, purifies it, compresses it, trucks it north to Pellegrino, and injects it into the water as part of the bottling process.5
No matter how far your Pellegrino water has traveled to get to you, the dancing Italian bubbles that make it so delightful have traveled just a little farther.6
San Pellegrino, which is now owned by the conglomerate Nestlé, has a storied history—as a town, as a spring, as a water—but let’s be clear: It’s a product no one needs. It’s refreshing, it’s appealing, but it is a pure indulgence. Whether you live in Milan, just down the road, or Mexico City, where Pellegrino is on the shelves at Wal-Mart. And I say that as someone whose wife and 13-year-old son both love San Pellegrino.7
In fact, unless you’re struggling in the aftermath of a natural disaster, unless you live in a developing world nation without safe tap water, all bottled water really falls into that category: luxury, indulgence, convenience.8
That’s okay, of course, lots of things I like are indulgences: Oreos, The Good Wife , Italian Merlot, even the ice cubes I all-but-require in the glass of water that sits on my desk through the work day.9
There is a fresh burst of controversy about bottled water on college campuses, specifically, around whether bottled water should be sold in the dining halls of U.S. and Canadian universities. Last week, the University of Vermont became the latest of 15 campuses in the U.S. and Canada to ban the sale of bottled water, according to figures from the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE).10
Dozens more campuses have active campaigns to discourage bottled water purchases—including giving out free reusable water bottles to students, and providing elegant, easy-to-use bottle filling stations. (Try to fill a water bottle from a water fountain sometime—you’ll be lucky to get halfway full.)11
Over the weekend, NPR’s food blog had a story about college students squaring off against the bottled water industry which drew more than 100 comments. Columbia University’s Water Center posted an essay last week asking, “Should Universities Ban Bottled Water?” which is getting a little Twitter attention.12
The essay doesn’t answer the question, but I will: Of course bottled water shouldn’t be banned.13
14
But I don’t understand how campuses can ban sale of bottled water while continuing to sell Coke, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Vitamin Water, and Red Bull.15
What do the fired-up campus environmentalists think Coke is, anyway? Regular Coke is about 95 percent water; Diet Coke is 99 percent water.16
The reasoning runs something like this: Water is available on campus— from taps, from spigots, from filtered water-filling stations. Students and staff don’t need it delivered in plastic bottles. Coke and Red Bull aren’t available the same way. (Although sodas, of course, are often delivered on tap in dining halls.)17
The environmental contrail from bottled water (which I wrote about in a magazine story that took me to both Fiji and Poland Spring, Maine) is astonishing. It takes a fleet equivalent to 40,000 18-wheelers just to deliver the bottled water Americans buy every week.18
But how is the fleet of trucks delivering water in bottles any different than the fleets delivering caramel-colored, caffeinated water in bottles? It takes2.5 liters of water to produce every liter of Coke products.19
I can understand cities banning the purchase of bottled water with city funds for city offices—as San Francisco, Seattle, and New York have done. That’s about both money and symbolism. Those cities run tap water systems—why would their employees need bottled water paid for by taxpayers?20
I can understand vigorous on-campus awareness efforts to create a culture where carrying a bottle of Evian or Deer Park or SmartWater into class causes raised eyebrows. (No college student appears to be able to make it through a class these days without a drink of some kind—coffee, soda, water—as if scholarship had become seriously dehydrating. Not so long ago, students wouldn’t have thought of stepping into a lecture hall with a cup of coffee or a can of soda.)21
Indeed, you can start with the fact that buying water in a bottle makes absolutely no economic sense. The water in a half-liter bottle typically costs 3,000 times what the same amount of water from a spigot costs. Buy a single bottle of Poland Spring for $1.29 at the college store, and you can refill the bottle every day for 8 years—college plus medical school!—before the tap water costs what the original Poland Spring cost.22
The very university food service systems that proudly announce bottled water bans offer products with at least as much environmental impact that also have all kinds of dietary impact. Froot Loops at breakfast? Chocolate chip cookies at dinner? Frozen yogurt on tap 16 hours a day?23
Bottled water bans are not just oddly hypocritical—taking bottled water out of campus vending machines while leaving soda in those machines—they 24
I love seeing college students leading an imaginative revival of the drinking fountain—and it would be great if the revival spilled beyond campuses into cities. Why do people buy bottled water? Because cities don’t have public water fountains that are easy to use, clean, and safe.25
The bottled water debate is a great way of waking people up to the big water issues almost every community faces—scarcity, purity, reuse, sustainability. But the conversation has to move on from bottled water to the water supply itself.26
Banning bottled water doesn’t really teach anyone anything.27
READING ARGUMENTS
Fishman spends the first six paragraphs narrating and describing his experience visiting the San Pellegrino bottling factory. How do these paragraphs support his position on the issue? How else might he have introduced his argument?
In what sense is this essay a Rogerian argument ? Identify specific elements of this argumentation strategy.
Fishman thinks that the logic of bottled-water-ban proponents is flawed. From Fishman’s point of view, what seems illogical about their argument?
In paragraph 20, Fishman says that when it comes to water, there is a difference between cities and college campuses. What differences does he identify? According to Fishman, why might a bottled-water ban make sense for cities?
In what way is this essay an evaluation argument? In what way is it a proposal argument?
Dozens of schools across America are curbing, banning, or otherwise restricting the sale and use of bottled water in plastic containers. Would you support such restrictions on your campus? Why or why not? Write an essay in which you take a stand on this issue.
SHOULD BOTTLED WATER BE BANNED ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES?