Don't Bottle It Up
Op Ed • Writing for Sustainability • Winter 2015
In 1996, a wealthy Canadian hotel owner named David Gilmour made a new investment—Natural Waters of Viti Ldt, the company responsible for producing and exporting the currently widespread Fiji Water. The company’s mission is to take water from Fiji’s sources, bottle it up and export it throughout the world while advertising it as an environmentally friendly and healthy water source.
This exotic water commodity—among other bottled water sources—appeals to many Americans and consumers world wide, as its labels symbolize freshness, purity and health. Yet the implications of these water imports have large impacts on the environment and local populations. Research done by the University of Vermont explains that Fiji Water adds thyroids and parasites to its main aquifer source, and pollutes the water sources of the Fiji locals without giving them any compensation.
The Pacific Institute, an organization working to find solutions to environmental problems, estimates that bottling water accounted for over 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2006 alone, and used the same amount of energy necessary to power 190,000 homes. These CO2 emissions and excessive energy use come from manufacturing, transporting, and shipping bottles. Almost all of these bottles eventually end up in our landfills—currently overflowing with 2 million tons of plastic water bottles.
Consumers are interested in bottled water due to the widespread belief and that it is of high quality. Bottled water companies often advertise their water as a cleaner and healthier alternative than that produced by local sources. Yet, this is often not the case. A recent study compared Fiji Water to Cleveland’s public tap water and found that Cleveland’s water source contains fewer chemicals than the bottled brand. Some brands of bottled water, such as Aquafina, actually come from tap water sources, not the mountaintops that are so highly acclaimed on its labels.
According to Charles Fishman, author of “The Big Thirst,” Americans spent $15 billion on plastic water bottles this year alone, a sum larger than iPods and movie tickets combined. It is estimated that drinking the recommended eight glasses a day of tap water costs approximately 48 cents a year while drinking the same amount of bottled water can cost up to $1,400.
Campaigns such as “Ban the Bottle” are beginning to appear, as San Francisco recently became the first large city to ban its sale of plastic water bottles on public property. Concord, Massachusetts, a few universities and a various national parks, such as the Grand Canyon, also implemented the plastic water bottle ban. Although these improvements are refreshing, bigger initiatives must come into play to further get the ball rolling.
We must motivate consumers to reduce their use of plastic water bottles. A high tax should be placed on plastic water bottles to disincentivize their use. As this tax deters consumers, water bottles will be made too expensive and less convenient, leaving consumers to find more environmentally friendly ways to hydrate. The lower demand of plastic bottles can decrease production and disadvantage the big corporate producers.
This tax must be carefully paired with methods that promote sustainable ways to drink water. Reusable bottle refill stations must be made accessible throughout the country; home filters—such as Brita filters—should be subsidized by the government and made readily available to consumers.
Government action is also needed to keep local water safe. Some toxic processes, such as fracking and factory farming, send chemicals into our groundwater sources. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency tests the waters that may be at risk. Yet, the 2005 Energy Policy Act held fracking exempt form these federal environmental legislations; oil and gas companies can inject methane and other toxic chemicals into nearby groundwater. An establishment of stricter criteria when it comes to testing drinking water is necessary to provide safe local water and preventing plastic water bottle use.
The increasing worldwide demand for water does not imply we need to take water from faraway, and often more vulnerable, sources. We need to meet increasing demands locally. The government must step in to protect our local clean water sources and discourage plastic water bottle use. This way, we can prevent companies like Fiji from making profits off of distant and “cleaner” water sources. Let’s change our wasteful habits, ditch plastic, and fill up our reusable bottles from the tap.
This exotic water commodity—among other bottled water sources—appeals to many Americans and consumers world wide, as its labels symbolize freshness, purity and health. Yet the implications of these water imports have large impacts on the environment and local populations. Research done by the University of Vermont explains that Fiji Water adds thyroids and parasites to its main aquifer source, and pollutes the water sources of the Fiji locals without giving them any compensation.
The Pacific Institute, an organization working to find solutions to environmental problems, estimates that bottling water accounted for over 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2006 alone, and used the same amount of energy necessary to power 190,000 homes. These CO2 emissions and excessive energy use come from manufacturing, transporting, and shipping bottles. Almost all of these bottles eventually end up in our landfills—currently overflowing with 2 million tons of plastic water bottles.
Consumers are interested in bottled water due to the widespread belief and that it is of high quality. Bottled water companies often advertise their water as a cleaner and healthier alternative than that produced by local sources. Yet, this is often not the case. A recent study compared Fiji Water to Cleveland’s public tap water and found that Cleveland’s water source contains fewer chemicals than the bottled brand. Some brands of bottled water, such as Aquafina, actually come from tap water sources, not the mountaintops that are so highly acclaimed on its labels.
According to Charles Fishman, author of “The Big Thirst,” Americans spent $15 billion on plastic water bottles this year alone, a sum larger than iPods and movie tickets combined. It is estimated that drinking the recommended eight glasses a day of tap water costs approximately 48 cents a year while drinking the same amount of bottled water can cost up to $1,400.
Campaigns such as “Ban the Bottle” are beginning to appear, as San Francisco recently became the first large city to ban its sale of plastic water bottles on public property. Concord, Massachusetts, a few universities and a various national parks, such as the Grand Canyon, also implemented the plastic water bottle ban. Although these improvements are refreshing, bigger initiatives must come into play to further get the ball rolling.
We must motivate consumers to reduce their use of plastic water bottles. A high tax should be placed on plastic water bottles to disincentivize their use. As this tax deters consumers, water bottles will be made too expensive and less convenient, leaving consumers to find more environmentally friendly ways to hydrate. The lower demand of plastic bottles can decrease production and disadvantage the big corporate producers.
This tax must be carefully paired with methods that promote sustainable ways to drink water. Reusable bottle refill stations must be made accessible throughout the country; home filters—such as Brita filters—should be subsidized by the government and made readily available to consumers.
Government action is also needed to keep local water safe. Some toxic processes, such as fracking and factory farming, send chemicals into our groundwater sources. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency tests the waters that may be at risk. Yet, the 2005 Energy Policy Act held fracking exempt form these federal environmental legislations; oil and gas companies can inject methane and other toxic chemicals into nearby groundwater. An establishment of stricter criteria when it comes to testing drinking water is necessary to provide safe local water and preventing plastic water bottle use.
The increasing worldwide demand for water does not imply we need to take water from faraway, and often more vulnerable, sources. We need to meet increasing demands locally. The government must step in to protect our local clean water sources and discourage plastic water bottle use. This way, we can prevent companies like Fiji from making profits off of distant and “cleaner” water sources. Let’s change our wasteful habits, ditch plastic, and fill up our reusable bottles from the tap.
Food for Thought
Op-Ed • Writing for Public Discourse • Spring 2015
While living in Santa Barbara for the past ten years, I have noticed the health and environmental consciousness present in many of the city’s inhabitants. Sunny most of the 365 days of the year, the city portrays a haven of constantly active and health minded citizens.
As an Environmental Studies student at UCSB, I began to pay more attention to the healthy and environmentally friendly choices that a consumer could make in the city when it comes to food; anything from farmers markets to Whole Foods and Lazy Acres are present to meet the ever-growing demand for healthy food made by much of the Santa Barbara population.
Yet, many inhabitants of Santa Barbara do not reap the health benefits brought fourth by such stores and markets, as the county exhibits some of the highest rates of food insecurity in California, and even the United States. According to the 2010 Santa Barbara County Nutrition and Food Insecurity Profile put out by the California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA), a large 12% of the county’s population is in poverty and almost 40% of adults are living in food insecure households, meaning that they lack enough nutritious food for a healthy and active lifestyle.
The CFPA states that 14% of the population is eligible for the Food Stamp Program, or the CalFresh or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which gives consumers additional income for their food budget—$6.46 a day on average. Numbero, a database providing current information about the living conditions of many cities worldwide, calculated that the daily recommended minimum amount of money for food per person in Santa Barbara is $10.80. This sum is comprised of strictly basic and inexpensive food items and does not consider healthier alternatives, such as organic food. Erik Talkin, the CEO of the Santa Barbara Food Bank, has experimented with living with the budget allocated by food stamps, only to find that it must be supplemented with another source of income in order to prevent malnutrition.
The government’s efforts to alleviate these burdens on children also fall a bit short. According to the Santa Barbara Food Bank, 60% of children are eligible for Free or Reduced Meals. These students are chosen after a lengthy application process, which considers their family income and household size. A family of four, for instance, is eligible for reduced-price lunch for their children if the family makes less than $44,123 a year. The National School Lunch Program is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and administered by the Nutrition Services Division of the California Department of Education (CDE). This one-size-fits all, government funded approach can be problematic as it does not consider the significant price of living in Santa Barbara county compared to other places in the United States and can be a great disadvantage to families making just above the cut-off income but are still in need of assistance.
Problems with the School Lunch Program also arise when school is not in session. While the Summer Nutrition Program exists, it does not have enough funds to provide the many children eligible for the Free or Reduced Meals with food during summer.
Fortunately, programs and organizations that help the less privileged community members deal with food injustice are increasingly appearing. The FLOWER (Fresh, Local, Organic, Within Everyone’s Reach) program was put in motion by the Isla Vista Co-Op to widen the access to Co-Ops foods, while the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County distributes food to areas that need it.
Yet, although these initiatives are a great start, we need bigger solutions to this widespread issue. In South Central Los Angeles, Ron Finley has started a gardening revolution in which he takes vacant lots and converts them into community gardens. What the city of Santa Barbara needs is a community garden available for all, and especially for those who can’t afford expensive produce. Other food items can come from local farmers at a discounted price for those that cannot afford expensive Farmer’s Markets. This structure gets the people involved in the food system like never before and helps them regain control of something so essential. As consumers, we need to keep issues of food injustice in mind as we shop, and support local farmers and businesses that keep money circulating in our Santa Barbara community and reaching the ones that need it most.
As an Environmental Studies student at UCSB, I began to pay more attention to the healthy and environmentally friendly choices that a consumer could make in the city when it comes to food; anything from farmers markets to Whole Foods and Lazy Acres are present to meet the ever-growing demand for healthy food made by much of the Santa Barbara population.
Yet, many inhabitants of Santa Barbara do not reap the health benefits brought fourth by such stores and markets, as the county exhibits some of the highest rates of food insecurity in California, and even the United States. According to the 2010 Santa Barbara County Nutrition and Food Insecurity Profile put out by the California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA), a large 12% of the county’s population is in poverty and almost 40% of adults are living in food insecure households, meaning that they lack enough nutritious food for a healthy and active lifestyle.
The CFPA states that 14% of the population is eligible for the Food Stamp Program, or the CalFresh or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which gives consumers additional income for their food budget—$6.46 a day on average. Numbero, a database providing current information about the living conditions of many cities worldwide, calculated that the daily recommended minimum amount of money for food per person in Santa Barbara is $10.80. This sum is comprised of strictly basic and inexpensive food items and does not consider healthier alternatives, such as organic food. Erik Talkin, the CEO of the Santa Barbara Food Bank, has experimented with living with the budget allocated by food stamps, only to find that it must be supplemented with another source of income in order to prevent malnutrition.
The government’s efforts to alleviate these burdens on children also fall a bit short. According to the Santa Barbara Food Bank, 60% of children are eligible for Free or Reduced Meals. These students are chosen after a lengthy application process, which considers their family income and household size. A family of four, for instance, is eligible for reduced-price lunch for their children if the family makes less than $44,123 a year. The National School Lunch Program is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and administered by the Nutrition Services Division of the California Department of Education (CDE). This one-size-fits all, government funded approach can be problematic as it does not consider the significant price of living in Santa Barbara county compared to other places in the United States and can be a great disadvantage to families making just above the cut-off income but are still in need of assistance.
Problems with the School Lunch Program also arise when school is not in session. While the Summer Nutrition Program exists, it does not have enough funds to provide the many children eligible for the Free or Reduced Meals with food during summer.
Fortunately, programs and organizations that help the less privileged community members deal with food injustice are increasingly appearing. The FLOWER (Fresh, Local, Organic, Within Everyone’s Reach) program was put in motion by the Isla Vista Co-Op to widen the access to Co-Ops foods, while the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County distributes food to areas that need it.
Yet, although these initiatives are a great start, we need bigger solutions to this widespread issue. In South Central Los Angeles, Ron Finley has started a gardening revolution in which he takes vacant lots and converts them into community gardens. What the city of Santa Barbara needs is a community garden available for all, and especially for those who can’t afford expensive produce. Other food items can come from local farmers at a discounted price for those that cannot afford expensive Farmer’s Markets. This structure gets the people involved in the food system like never before and helps them regain control of something so essential. As consumers, we need to keep issues of food injustice in mind as we shop, and support local farmers and businesses that keep money circulating in our Santa Barbara community and reaching the ones that need it most.