If Aesop ever wrote a fable about water, he would surely write a story about the Tampa Bay on the Gulf of Mexico and its continuing struggle to resolve its water crisis.

The metro Tampa Bay area, which includes the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater, among others, continues growing at an accelerating pace. Estimates say 4 million residents will be living in the area within the next 20 years.  Today, 2.8 million straws in the area continue consuming precious water, water that seems to be running out.

Throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, the regional water authorities in the area prepared for just this ominous scenario by buying new well fields in neighboring counties.  Little did they know that this would instigate what is now popularly known as the ‘Tampa Water Wars.’

During these water clashes, lawsuits were more common than the Florida sunshine.   The water management officials, elected leaders, and even ordinary citizens filed suit against each other after the new wells in Pasco and Hillsborough County caused serious problems.  Aquifers began running desperately low.   Wetlands disappeared.  Lakes dried up.  So bad were the circumstances that even the earth retaliated, opening up sinkholes that sucked down entire homes.

Finally, in 1998, after years of litigation, it seemed the worst was over.  Six local commissions decided to establish a new Tampa water authority that would coordinate the area’s water efforts.

Could the magical creatures in Aesop’s story ever relay what happened next to Tampa Bay Water, the freshly minted authority that would provide for the water aspirations of millions?   Well, soon enough, these new water officials were visited by strange but not uncommon creatures too, beings from private industries who touted a novel idea that would save Tampa Bay: ocean desalination.
 
In its first major decision, Tampa Bay Water decided in 1999 to allow several private firms to build, own and operate a 25-million-gallon-per-day plant that would supply up to 15% of the area’s water needs.   So far, it has been a disastrous venture.

The plant went online in 2008 – six years later than scheduled and $40 million over budget.  It has rarely run at full capacity to this day.  In fact, Tampa Bay took ownership of the plant after two of the firms in charge of completing the plant went bankrupt.  In March of 2009, the desalination plant, now operated by a subsidiary of the German multinational RWE, had to be shut down again after yet another malfunction.

But that isn’t all.

Tampa Bay area residents, in the midst of a major five-year drought, recently found out that Tampa Bay Water’s other major project, the four year old C.W. Bill Young Reservoir – designed specifically to safeguard for droughts – has major cracks that may take two years to fix and cost over $125 million to repair.

Avoid a remedy that is worse than the disease, Aesop once wrote.   Citizens all over Florida should be looking at the wasted money, time, and effort that the Tampa area has invested and press local officials to seek well-thought-out solutions that will serve the public good. 

Aggressive conservation measures like those proposed by the state’s Water Conservation Initiative or Tampa Bay’s proposed water reclamation project would be a step in the right direction.   But ill-conceived measures like the proposed five-county “bigger-is-better” desalination plant off the Atlantic coast should be reconsidered before it's too late.

– Jorge Aguilar

As if lifted directly from the lines of Bob Dylan’s Maggie’s Farm, in November of 2007 Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue and a gathering of Georgia citizens woke up in the morning, folded their hands, and in fact, prayed for rain. The calling on God to perform a miracle came in the midst of Georgia’s 20 month long drought. Rainfall that was 16 inches below average had brought low levels to Georgia’s lakes and rivers. In fact, the water level at the popular Lake Lanier became so low during this time that its bottom was revealed. At one point 74 of Georgia’s counties were labeled under extreme drought status and Georgia’s agricultural industry, which includes cotton, peanuts, corn, and hay, lost a staggering 787.2 million dollars.

But nowhere has the water crisis been as distressing as in metro Atlanta, home to over 5 million residents who depend on the rains and the rivers that feed the Lake Lanier reservoir. Atlanta has been ground zero in Georgia’s battle against the water Gods. And no, I do not mean the higher powers above us that have been known to incite the downpour of the basic droplets we need to exist.

A few years ago, Atlanta’s initial prayers were answered by the water Gods of corporate interest and privatization. But the prophets they had hoped for were actually run-of-the-mill profiteers. Atlanta’s stint in water privatization with a subsidiary of the Parisian multinational named Suez ended in January of 2003 after five miserable years. The city decided to terminate the contract after a series of incidents involving brown water running from faucets, major delays in fixing water main lines, and an overall mismanagement of billing services that cost the city millions.  Atlanta is again publicly operating their water system but still facing major water challenges.

As Atlanta continues to increase in size and population, its gargantuan and often wasteful water needs require sound water management policies. Early this decade, a coalition of over 160 different organizations formed the Georgia Water Coalition and demanded that their elected officials think of a more proactive approach to water management. The state drafted several ways of trying to conserve their precious and dwindling supply of water and in May 2009, released Georgia’s Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP), all 179 pages of it. By addressing issues with irrigation, energy generation, and even golf courses, Georgia is attempting to tackle their water shortage head on.

Meanwhile, Atlanta is also in the middle of a $4 billion project, started by Mayor Shirley Franklin, that aims to reduce the sewage overflows that have been spilling into water bodies and neighborhoods around the city. To their credit, the city has reducing inefficiencies such as leaky pipes and sources of pollution like combined sewer overflows. A report by American Rivers has found that these efforts in Atlanta have reduced its water loss rates from 20% to 14% since 2003, saving 7 million gallons per day. Both projects are requiring massive amounts of funding in a time when Atlanta, like cities around the country, is facing severe budget deficits. Just last year, Mayor Franklin went to Congress to ask for more federal funding to help fund projects such as Atlanta’s.

Georgia has looked to the heavens, the corporate water Gods, and even the halls of Washington seeking help for their water problems. But despite the fact that Perdue had called upon God “to meet their need” for water in Georgia and made strides in areas of water conservation, on June 10th the Environmental Protection Department of Georgia decided that a little rain was enough to abandon water restrictions. I guess two steps forward and one step back is still forward progress and therefore better than no progress at all. Ultimately, the residents of the state must continue pressing their officials to employ aggressive conservation measures over the long haul and not just quick fix solutions. Amen.

Now, it’s E. coli contamination of all things Toll-House cookie dough.  According to the Centers for Disease Control, 65 people in 29 states have become ill from either eating raw cookie dough or consuming another food item that became contaminated from coming into contact with raw cookie dough. Eating raw cookie dough is never a smart thing to do because there is always a chance that the dough is contaminated with a food-borne pathogen, but the usual culprit is salmonella from unpasteurized eggs – not E. coli which is more commonly associated with beef products.

Again, as was the case with the recent food-borne illness outbreaks associated with peanuts, peanut butter, spinach, and alfalfa sprouts, the Food and Drug Administration did not know there was a problem with the cookie dough until people started to get sick. We found out with the Peanut Corporation of America outbreak that FDA inspectors had not been in the Georgia plant that was the center of the outbreak for eight years. Had inspectors been there on a regular basis, they would have seen that the plant was manufacturing food under unsanitary conditions.  Information on the last FDA inspection of the Nestle’s plant involved in the cookie dough outbreak still has not been released, but we would not be surprised to learn if FDA has not been in there for years.

That is why we were dismayed to hear of comments attributed to the new FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg last week who stated that more frequent inspections of food establishments are not the answer to preventing food-borne illness, but more “smart” inspections were.  We have heard that line before from past FDA commissioners and that thinking has gotten us to where we are today. “Smart” inspections has been code in the past to fewer inspections, not more. It seems that she is being advised by some of the same people who have fought for decades transforming the FDA into an inspection agency. This is very troubling.

 
FDA publicly says that it wants to prevent food-borne illnesses. But it seems that the agency still wants to rely on the honor system and let industry police itself. You need “cops-on-the-beat” to prevent problems from happening. Otherwise, FDA will continue to be the fire department that puts out the fire after people have already been injured. The recent food-borne illness outbreaks prove that a paradigm shift is needed at FDA, but as long as there is resistance by key leaders within that agency to commit to a rigorous food inspection program, more consumers will get sick and even die.

Food & Water Watch is diving into #waterwednesday on Twitter by hosting a summer-long series of tweet chats.

Join us there @foodandwater every Wednesday from 2:00pm to 3:00pm EDT for a dynamic conversation on the current water crisis and what you can do about it.

Our first #waterwednesday chat is June 24 with guest water campaign organizer Renee Vogelsang.

On July 8, our special guest host will be Food and Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter.

Please suggest topics you would like covered either in the comments below or by writing to @foodandwater on Twitter. Here’s our schedule so far:

6/24     Bottled Water: “Taking Back the Tap” (Hosted by Renee)

7/1       Everyone’s Right to Water: An International Perspective (Hosted by Darcey)

*7/8    Discussion on Water Privatization w/ Executive Director Wenonah Hauter

7/15      Desalination is Not the Answer (Hosted by Adam)

7/22      A Water System You Can Count On  (Hosted by Mitch)

Here’s how to participate in the chat:

• If you’re not on Twitter, you can just follow the conversation without an account by going here. 

• If you have a Twitter account, put #fww in your page’s search bar and hit enter. Then type your question or comment in your update box and add the #waterwednesday #fww tag. The tweet will then stay on this thread. (Don’t forget to introduce yourself when you first join the conversation.)

We look forward to chatting with you!

We’ve got some disturbing news. Researchers have reported that triclosan was found in the blood of bottlenose dolphins.  This goes to show that the consequences of overusing a pesticide like triclosan are incredibly far-reaching and dangerous.

It is well known that marine mammals, forced to swim in polluted waters, become contaminated with persistent organic pollutants. Triclosan, commonly used in personal care products including hand soaps and dish detergent, has made its way down drain and into dolphins living in US coastal waters.  The study, which appears in this month’s Environmental Pollution, examined dolphins from rivers, an estuary, a harbor and a lagoon in South Carolina and Florida. Blood samples from wild bottlenose dolphins found within an estuary in Charleston, South Carolina and in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida in 2005 were analyzed for triclosan. Triclosan was detected in 31 and 23 percent of the animals from the two sites.

As we wash our hands (or dishes, or clothing, etc.) with soaps containing triclosan, it eventually enters wastewater. While most harmful residue is removed during the treatment process, triclosan persists in waterways and is one of the most commonly found contaminants in river and estuary sediment downstream of treated water outfalls.

Next time you’re shopping, keep in mind the possible effects your choices have on the world. If we continue on the same irresponsible path, who knows what the effects of triclosan in our environment will be 10 or 20 years from now? And take a minute to educate your friends and family about this issue. Take the triclosan pledge and help protect dolphins and the rest of the planet!

Several months ago, in response to our inquiry about social networking sites,
you recommended online communities that we should join. We've taken your advice
and created fledgling pages on Facebook, Twitter, Care2, Change.org, and Gather.

We want to thank you for the warm welcome we've received. We are touched by the enthusiasm and deeply inspired by the stories of political activism and personal actions. We are so excited to connect with you in this way!

Our exponentially growing online movement with so many committed activists, like yourself, is becoming a political force to reckon with and is going to have an incredible impact on our collective efforts to create a better world.

With your help, we are working to engage individual activists, the blogosphere, the media, and policymakers on our essential issues with a cutting-edge, fearless, independent voice.

Together we can become a dynamic, well-informed and highly effective community
that supports the human right to clean, safe, affordable food and water and takes back our commons from the corporate profiteers.

Thank you for the privilege of engaging with you. I look forward to enjoying your
comments, your advice, and your wisdom as we communicate online, and, most of all, working together to create a better world.

It seems like year after year the same ol’ battle wages on about whether or not the U.S. should keep a ban on importing chicken from China.  And the same players are behind the effort this year (who else but Big Ag?), working hard to pressure the Obama administration and Congress to lift the ban.

While visiting Chinese facilities a few years ago, U.S. inspectors found defective equipment, lack of employee hygiene, unsanitary conditions, and an absence of regulations requiring pre-shipment testing for Salmonella, E. coli and other contaminants. And don’t forget about the hundreds of other products from China, ranging from seafood to cosmetics, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration blocked at the border in recent years because they contained dangerous substances or violated other rules. 

At least we have U.S. chicken to fall back on, right?  But there’s still work to be done in this country to make sure we have safe chicken to eat.   A new report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention cites poultry as the most commonly identified source of food poisoning in the U.S. in 2006. And that’s with a food safety net.

So, why would we bring in product from somewhere like China, where food safety problems are widespread and even the government admits it doesn’t have control?  The truth behind the push to “ban the ban” is coming from the meat industry because they want to get China to open its markets to U.S. beef and pork.  

Later this week, the House appropriations committee will decide whether or not to keep a provision in the USDA budget that prohibits the agency from allowing processed poultry products from China to enter the United States. 

We’ll keep you posted on what they decide. But in the meantime, what do you think? Should we keep the ban on Chinese chicken or “ban the ban”?

LEED, an initiative from the U.S. Green Building’s Council, has recently certified a Nestlé bottled water factory for excellence in sustainability. 

Certification by LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - is gained by, among other things, employing green building principles such as water efficiency and  smart energy use. Too bad the designation is applicable to the building itself, not the practices of the business that occupies it.

So, what’s the harm in a prominent enviro organization handing out gold, - no wait, green – stars to bottled water companies? 

Though perhaps it is always better that a product, whatever it is, is made in an environmentally friendly building than in one that is not, this particular example sounds to us like an attempt by Nestlé to divert public attention from the negatives of their products.  Bottled water is the antithesis of good water and energy usage, and if the factory managers are so well-versed in environmentalism, why are they working for Nestlé - a company that ruthlessly mines and depletes natural water sources and is responsible for 8 billion+ plastic water bottles landing in U.S. landfills every year. 

We think despite this recent effort to “greenwash” their image, Nestlé’s products have a much greater impact than the buildings they come from, and tap water will always take the lead over bottled water in the environment and energy categories.

If LEED certification is going to keep its credit, it should not be handing it out to the likes of companies such as Nestlé. 

Ever since I learned about the dangers of triclosan, I’ve started looking, really looking, before I buy. Triclosan is a pesticide that’s often used in personal care products like toothpaste, face-wash, hand and dish soap and laundry detergent.  Manufacturers add triclosan to these products in order to make the claim that their product is antibacterial and protects against disease.

But the reality is that triclosan is no more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness. In 2000, the American Medical Association (AMA) said “there is little evidence to support the use of antimicrobials in consumer products.” Similarly, in 2005, an FDA panel of experts voted 11 to 1 that antibacterial soaps were no more effective than regular soap and water in fighting infections. So really, the manufacturers of these products are just fear mongering and trying to convince consumers that bacteria are enemy number one.

As a pesticide, triclosan can kill both good and bad bacteria. The good bacteria that live on our skin keep us healthy. So not only does triclosan remove good bacteria, it may allow for the strongest bad bacteria to survive. Research suggests that the overuse of antimicrobial products could lead to antibiotic resistance.

Triclosan has been linked to even more human health effects like endocrine and thyroid disruption. Triclosan also builds up in our bodies over time. Researchers have found triclosan in urine, breast milk and blood samples. 

Why would we continue to use products that are not effective and may in fact be doing more harm than good? I encourage you to start looking at ingredient labels. Really look.  Let us know where you find triclosan lurking in your house! 

Use our new triclosan tool to report where you spy triclosan. We’ll post your entries. Then, send the link to your friends and family too. Maybe you’re ready to take the anti-triclosan pledge!

I’ve never been much of a milk drinker. Born with extremely picky taste buds, I would only pour it into my cereal or use it in some pancake mix. Taste wasn’t too much of an issue for me, so frankly, the amount of fat was all I considered when purchasing milk. Of course everything is way more complicated than that, and growing up I learned about organic milk, but I’ve found even that discussion has its problems. As a new Food & Water Watch (FWW) intern, I’ve learned that there are a large number of factors to bear in mind when buying milk. It’s not only about personal health but also treatment of cattle and environmental impact.

So what are my options? It can get incredibly confusing for consumers, as seen in a recent Baltimore Sun article that quotes our very own FWW assistant director, Patty Lovera. Patty was kind enough to break it down for me. So here’s a list of “milk hierarchy” you can use when trying to decide what to put in your fridge:

1) Buy from a local organic farmer. The more local the milk and the smaller the farm, the better! This enables transparency so you know the source and that the farmer has organically-produced milk, not to mention happier cows that are grazing in fields rather than vying for room to breathe in large-scale factories. To find local markets and farms near you, go to eatwellguide.org.

2) If you must rely on labels at the supermarket, look for the green and white USDA organic label. That says a lot by itself. Organic milk implies that the dairy cows were not given hormones, antibiotics, or feed that wasn’t organically raised. This label does not, however, reveal the living environment of the cattle. Claims of "access to pasture" remain vaguely defined. For more information on organic milk, check out The Milk Tip.

3) If you can’t afford to go all-organic, the next level down is rBGH-free milk. It doesn’t have the organic label (which automatically means it’s rBGH-free), but there might be a rBGH-free or rBST-free label on the container. Unfortunately, due to some shenanigans by agribusiness, some companies that are actually rBGH-free are hesitant to label their products as such. Read an earlier press statement and blog post that can shed more light on this ongoing battle. Please also check out our Artificial Hormone-free Dairy Guide to see what rBGH-free dairy products are sold in your area.

Beyond these two labels, you’re kind of on your own. Some other milk comes from non-organic factory farms, where cows are lined up side-by-side and pumped with hormones to produce more milk. Other milk might come from family farms that are doing it right but don’t have a way to differentiate themselves in the market because their milk is pooled with other farms. All milk is labeled in some manner but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything significant. Decoding Food Labels can help you sort through the information you see in the meat and dairy cases.

Learning so much about milk after not being much of a fan has changed my perspective completely. I can feel my palate expanding already, and it’s ironic how I’ve now become the milk expert for my friends and family. When you know how your food reaches your lips, your appreciation can grow immensely. I recommend learning where your food comes from and getting involved to improve our milk options!

“The way we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000.”
…Narrates Michael Pollan at the beginning of a new movie entitled Food, Inc., hitting select theaters this Friday.

Joining the ranks of food documentaries – there are so many recently, there should be a new genre of film, foodiementaries anyone?  - Food, Inc. goes behind the scenes of our nation’s supermarkets and behind the machines of agribusiness. Many of the issues they tackle are right up our alley, including the numerous problems that put consumer safety, the livelihood of the American farmers, and the health of our environment at risk.

Food, Inc. also mentions one of our key issues, rBGH aka recombinant bovine growth hormone. There’s just one part in the script, however, that needs some clarification. The film states that Wal-Mart’s decision to go rBGH-free “put the nail in the coffin of rBGH.”  Too bad this is wishful thinking. While Wal-Mart did begin to sell rBGH-free milk for its generic brand, it does not label the product as such. Why? During the last past two years, state-by-state labeling battles popped up around the country that threatened to limit hormone-free milk labels. For example, Ohio’s labeling rule requires the prohibitive use of a misleading disclaimer that states "no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows”, and bans accurate claims such as “rBGH-free” and “artificial growth hormone-free.” Wal-Mart decided not to label their milk pending the outcome of the state-by-state battles.

While we're glad that big retailers like Wal-Mart are bowing to consumer pressure and turning away from artificial hormones, we know that Big Ag will continue to look for new markets for rBGH milk.  That's why we're working to have Congress allow schools to purchase milk produced without artificial hormones. You can sign our School Milk Campaign petition and even see a nifty web application on Food, Inc.’s website that mentions our campaign ---Just click on the milk carton!
And, make sure you make your way to the theater this weekend to see Food, Inc. and snack on some rBGH-free candy.

When facing institutions such as the World Bank and the other development banks, which insist -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- that the ‘free market’ is the best mechanism for ensuring efficient use of the world’s water, it can only help to have a strongly united network of organizations from both the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’ world that can, with complete authority, prove them wrong.

That's why an important part of Food & Water Watch’s international work is its role in la Red de Vigilancia Interamericana para la Defensa y Derecho al Agua (the Inter-American Network for the Defense of the Right to Water), or Red VIDA in its Spanish acronym. Formed 6 years ago when 54 organizations from 16 countries gathered in El Salvador to build a hemispheric campaign to defend water as a human right and a common good, the network has grown steadily in size, scope and influence. It is now composed of grassroots groups, trade unions, community water operators, environmental organizations, and other non-governmental groups from North, Central, and South America, all working in support of the human right to water. (To read interviews with Red VIDA members, see our recently published booklet, Changing the Flow.)

FWW Plays Key Role in Colombia Gathering

The Red VIDA holds a strategy and planning meeting every two years, and this May, as in the past, Food & Water Watch played a key role in organizing and attending the Red VIDA Assembly held in Cali, Colombia. Of the many exciting advances made in the Red VIDA over the years, a notable one is that the network is making a strong move from acting as a coalition that simply supports its member groups, to acting as a unified force that takes on campaigns and projects in its own right.

Decision-making in the Red VIDA is done in a way that is, to the extent possible, transparent (meaning everyone knows what’s being decided, and by whom), horizontal (meaning no one person or faction has power over the others), and democratic (meaning, essentially, one person, one vote). Food & Water Watch, besides helping to support the network economically and through public advocacy, is a member, and participates in decision making along these lines.

Critical Support Given to Colombian Water Movement

It is typical of movements in Latin America that, at the end of any gathering or assembly, a declaration is drafted, agreed to, and shared with the greater world. We’ve just rendered the most recent declaration in English; the language is quite formal, but we think it might be interesting to share with you a few snippets:

"At the Third Hemispheric Assembly of Red VIDA that took place at the Instituto Mayor Campesino in the municipality of Guadalajara de Buga, Colombia, from the 17th to 19th of May 2009, the Network ratified its principles and approved its plan of action for the coming two years.

"Through a wide array of struggles in the Americas for the defense of public water management, in resistance to the privatization of this common good and the social fragmentation and appropriation by the corporate model of development, and consequently, for the defense of territory, our organizations and social movements are advancing alternative models of social and public water management, with participation and social control, within the framework of defense of the common good and the fundamental human right to water.

"Currently, the Red VIDA supports the struggles of Colombians in building a water movement and in defense of public utilities and forms of community management. The National Committee for the Defense of Water and Life in Colombia is right now promoting a constitutional referendum in the defense of water, with the backing of more than 2 million people, establishing an historic milestone in the world struggle for the defense of water.

Why Did We Choose to Meet in Colombia?

Now, if you want to know what this last bit refers to, we mentioned the Colombian constitutional referendum in last fall’s issue of Defend the Global Commons. But there are some exciting recent developments, which we’ll share with you very soon in an upcoming blog!

Are you really passionate about food and water issues? Are you already active online? You can combine your interests and existing online habits by contributing to Food & Water Watch campaign outreach.

There are many ways you can help:

• comment on blogs about our issues

• write about FWW issues on your own blog
  

• share our alerts, reports, and news on social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

If you are interested, please join our Special Blog Outreach Unit!

– Food & Water Watch

This week in the Huffington Post, Governors Paterson, Schwarzenegger and Rendell called for more public-private partnerships to help improve our crumbling roads, water systems, schools and other public works projects.

Public-private partnership – What’s that? Basically, it’s when the public pays a high price for a corporation to do something that local governments should be doing. 

For example, if your city needs a new water treatment plant, it could contract with a corporation to design, build and run the plant. Governors Paterson, Schwarzenegger and Rendell want cities and towns to cut more of these deals and make the private partner finance the project.

Sound good? Local governments are struggling because of the economic meltdown, and they need assistance to build important improvement projects and protect public health. These Governors think they’ve found a simple solution: privatization.

But not so fast. It’s not free and easy money. These private players are businesses, and like any business, their ultimate goal is to make money for their owners. They’re not going to donate any money. In fact, they’re going to charge the public a steep premium for it. In many ways, these public-private partnerships are expensive loans that you will have to pay back through user fees like water bills.  

Public operation is a much better deal for taxpayers. It’s cheaper and easier. And it doesn’t require you to give a private entity control over one of your valuable public resources. 

It’s true that many government coffers have gone empty in the fallout of the housing bust, but a better solution is a Clean Water Trust Fund, which would help local governments pay for needed water projects and provide safe, clean and affordable water.

Act now and tell Congress that we need a Clean Water Trust Fund.

More information about how privatization can cost you money, see Food & Water Watch’s report Money Down the Drain: How Private Control of Water Wastes Public Resources.

A Hawaiian water bottle company recently announced it is hitting the mainland at – where else – health food stores. Hawaiian Springs LLC Bottles will be available on the shelves of Whole Foods, Mother’s Market and other grocery stores frequented by health-conscious consumers. 

But just hear these guys.  They tout that their water is both “young” and “naturally healthy”.  As if any water has an age other than “always been here”.  Or maybe, some water is healthy unnaturally? 

Good thing they’ve been recognized by Dr. Michael Mascha, a so-called “water sommelier” and author of Fine Waters, A Connoisseur’s Guide to the World’s Most Distinctive Bottled Water.  We wonder what does he clear his palate with?
The truth is that ‘luxury water’ is just another sales gimmick.  Companies like Hawaiian Springs capitalize off healthy lifestyle trends while their product does nothing for your health that water from the tap can’t do.

So don’t be fooled by the lovely hibiscus-sporting bottles – does this remind you of Fiji water?  Not to mention that single-use water bottles are expensive, waste huge amounts of fuel and create trash that will end up in landfills, potentially seeping into aquifers in – guess where – not Hawaii.

When it comes to water, skip the trip to the store.  Your wallet and the environment will thank you.  

The Obama Administration is considering nominating Dr. Michael Doyle, a proponent of food irradiation, for Under Secretary of Food Safety. If this sounds familiar, it's because the Administration was recently forced to stop the consideration of another irradiation supporter, Michael Osterholm, for the same position after thousands of folks like you spoke up.

What's so bad about irradiation?  Some research suggests that irradiated food promotes tumor growth and may cause genetic damage. It's also ineffective, as it fails to kill all bacteria and may undermine food safety efforts by masking filthy conditions in slaughterhouses.  On top of all this, the technology is expensive, meaning we will all pay more to treat our food with something that may harm our health.

Dr. Doyle has been a zealot in promoting this technology as the panacea to contaminated food. He has been quoted in the media numerous times supporting irradiation as a quick fix to our food safety problems.  What's more, Dr. Doyle would also bring serious conflicts of interest to the position. He's served as a consultant for big agriculture for companies like ConAgra and the American Peanut Council.  He has also raised funds from Cargill, Coca-Cola, Hormel, and McDonald's as part of his job as Director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia.  What are the chances that Dr. Doyle could effectively regulate the same companies that so recently funded his work at the University of Georgia?

We've already had a a food irradiation advocate who cared more about corporate interests than public safety as Undersecretary for Food Safety - under President Bush.  Help stop us from going down that road again.

This past week marked two major victories in the fight against bottled water – one for the entire state of New York and the other for the city of Chicago. In the case of New York, Governor David Patterson recently signed an executive order banning the purchase of bottled water by state agencies – making it the second state to have done so (the first being Illinois). In addition, New York City is ending purchases for bottled water at city office and city-sponsored events – an example we hope other metropolitan areas follow. 

Chicago has taken a different approach, and one we hope they expand upon. The City Council voted on Wednesday to ban the sale of baby bottles and sippy cups that are made with bisphenol-A, or BPA, plastic. The reason? Concern over the fact that BPA may, over time, leach into the contents of plastic containers – the same concern that prompted Nalgene, the makers of the well-known plastic reusable water bottles – to stop using the chemical a year ago. Non-reusable plastic water bottles have a similar problem, in this case with the polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, used to make them.

Let’s keep the momentum going…

- Sofía Baliño

Recent water main breaks all over the country (including one that shut down the train I ride to work) remind us that under our feet are miles and miles of decaying pipes. The main reason?  Lack of funding. Federal funding for drinking water infrastructure has decreased by 50% since 1997; while federal funding accounted for 78% of overall wastewater infrastructure spending in 1978, it accounts for only 3% today.

President Obama has introduced a budget that would begin to restore funding for water infrastructure, but it isn’t enough.  As long as water infrastructure funding is decided year-by-year, it remains at risk of being reduced in the face of other congressional priorities. That’s why we need a Clean Water Trust Fund.

This summer Congress will be considering a bill to create Trust Fund.  A Trust Fund will set up a way to protect our water infrastructure funding from the whims of Congress and the change of administrations.

To learn more about why we need a Clean Water Trust fund, read our report. 

In an economic catastrophe like the one the world is undergoing, the news that a federal government would spend millions of taxpayer dollars on bottled water may come as a bit of a shock. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening in Canada, despite the various efforts by multiple cities to ban the sales of bottled water in municipal-run buildings. Specifically, the federal government has spent more than $10 million in the last three years, and over $15 million in the last five years. All while First Nations and other areas in Canada do not receive appropriate funding for tap water treatment.

The situation Canada faces is not unlike the bottled water problem in the United States. Both nations have flawed water infrastructure and spend millions of taxpayer dollars on bottled water instead – which is an exorbitantly expensive, and unnecessary, solution. The misconception that bottled water is, by default, safer than tap water, seems to justify paying such absurd prices. The money could be far better spent improving our crumbling water infrastructure – such as through a Clean Water Trust Fund, or its Canadian equivalent in the case of our neighbor – than by funneling that money into bottled water companies.

- Sofía Baliño