Recent studies show that people of color are spending more of their household income on bottled water than white Americans. In a study from the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, “minority children were exclusively given bottled water 3 times more often than non-Latino white children.” So why are groups that are largely less wealthy than white people carving out a chunk of a perhaps tight budget for a good that is so unnecessary and expensive?

Some experts point to increased bottled water ad campaigns targeting minorities as the cause of this phenomenon. Coca Cola and Nestle, owners of Dasani and Poland Spring respectively, are structuring their advertising campaigns to specifically focus on African American and Latino mothers who commonly control household spending. It’s working.

Forbes Magazine reports that a significant portion of people of color are convinced that bottled water is healthier, cleaner and safer than the virtually free stuff that comes from the tap. But Forbes notes the evidence pointing toward the contrary: “A National Resources Defense Council investigation discovered that 17% of bottled waters contained unsafe levels of bacterial loads, and 22% were contaminated with chemicals, including arsenic.”

Chilli, former member of the music group TLC, and son push Dasani

Bottled water campaigns use the healthy angle to tout water as the smart choice for mothers who want the best for their families. In a way, that’s true. Research suggests that substituting water for sugary drinks “could result in up to 235 fewer extra calories per day being taken in by children and adolescents.” But mothers can encourage an increase in water consumption without doling out gobs of money for bottled water.

Despite the arguments against consuming bottled water, namely the personal financial and environmental costs, I think some people of color still avoiding tap water as a result of these carefully placed ad campaigns. A corporation using fear mongering to rake in customers—in this case by intimating that not buying their brand means putting your children at risk of drinking dirty water—is nothing new, but I think it’s unfortunate that this marketing ploy is contributing to the financial burden on low-income communities. Read more here.

There hasn’t been this much drama on an island since the season finale of Survivor. Fiji Water, the bottled water brand seen in the hands of many a celebrity and anyone who can afford to pay 3 bucks for a few ounces of water, has become a major economic presence in Fiji since the company first started tapping an aquifer there twenty years ago. For decades, the owners, super rich L.A couple Lynda and Stewart Resnick, paid only one-third of a cent/liter in water extraction taxes. But last week the unstable Fijian government suddenly demanded a 15 cent/liter tax thus causing Fiji Water to shut down operations and fire hundreds of employees. Turns out it was a false alarm as just one day later the company re-opened, agreeing to pay the tax and continue business as usual.

Why is this important and should we be happy that this bottled water giant is up and running again?

As with every good drama, there are two sides to this story.

From an environmental perspective, the concept of bottled water is absurd. Especially in this case where Westerners do not drink their own perfectly healthy free water and instead pay gobs of money to have water shipped from around the world in a plastic bottle.  Transporting water from the middle of Melanesia to the rest of the world unnecessarily causes pollution and the plastic used often goes un-recycled. Fiji Water’s mass extraction of ground water is an unsustainable business model because this water is an almost non-renewable resource. (I say almost because while groundwater is theoretically replaceable it would take centuries to replenish the supply.) And whose problem will it be once the fresh water is inevitably depleted? The rich will have gotten richer by that point and, as usual, it will be the poor who suffer.

Also, what are two millionaires from L.A doing bottling up all the potable water in a country where only 53% of the people have access to clean safe drinking water? Ironically, Americans who have never been to Fiji and probably couldn’t even point to it on a map have no trouble at all accessing Fiji’s water- all we have to do is walk into a grocery store. ISN’T SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Ok, the proven environmental damage that the bottled water industry causes sounds bad. But how does firing 400 workers in one day and shutting down the industry that accounts for the country’s largest export sound? From a business point of view, the Fiji Water company creates jobs and jobs are good for the economy- you can’t argue with that. So while the ecological environment might suffer as a result of the bottled water industry, the people of Fiji seem to benefit, at least monetarily. For that reason, Fiji Water can also be a positive presence on the island in that it keeps people employed in the short term.

The drama in Fiji—a sinister concoction of environmental damage, an unstable government, and a powerful corporation– is nothing new; but knowing both sides helps us to make more informed decisions about the products we buy.

I found this on Huffington Post and think it’s a great break down of all the reasons to stop buying bottled water. Whoever thought this up points out an interesting vicious cycle that goes a little bit like this: Tap water tastes bad and is sometimes of questionable quality partially because the government lacks funds and power to fix aging municipal water systems–> People drink the tap water and decide it tastes bad so they (the affluent in particular) begin to buy bottled water regularly–>In consuming bottled water, they no longer need to deal with bad-tasting water and do not take action to pass bills which would improve water quality–>water continues to taste bad because no one cares enough to address the problem.

Via: Term Life Insurance