The consumption of bottled water has continuously risen worldwide. The United States is the leader in this, consuming over thirty billion bottles per year— and just in 2016, bottled water popularity surpassed the popularity of soft drinks. While bottled water certainly is healthier than its carbonated competitor, there are multiple health and environmental concerns being raised about its usage. In the debate over tap water versus bottled water— many would prefer the latter. There are various reasons for this— including the water’s taste, the user’s economic status (one study reports that bottled water may cost 300+ times the cost of tap water), or mere convenience. However, perhaps the greatest marker for higher bottled water consumption is one’s perception of the microbial purity of their tap water (Hu, 2011). Bottled water is objectively safer in many cases— however, many have speculated that tap water is often just as safe as bottled water, and in some instances is even more so. In fact, a study conducted by the Natural Resource Defence Council found that “there is no assurance that bottled water is cleaner than tap. In fact, an estimated 25 percent or more of bottled water is really just tap water in a bottle—sometimes further treated, sometimes not” (Postman, 2017). This issue cannot always be attributed to the water’s source. Oftentimes, safety matters concerning bottled water often arise from its storage, or the sanitary conditions of the bottling facility in of itself (Bartram, 2003). One study reports that bacterial growth in bottled water was notably higher than tap water after storage, especially at higher temperatures. Another study found that in spring water, bacteria within bottled water continued to grow for up to three weeks, as the microorganisms utilized the nutrients within the bottles. One possible reason for this arises in the fact that —in the United States— the Federal Drug Administration regulates most bottled water, while the Environmental Protection Agency regulates tap water. While some opponents claim that bottled water contamination occurs in some cases as the FDA holds no authority over bottled water sold in only one state, this is untrue; Congress has upheld that the law presumes all food and drink to be involved in interstate commerce. What is true, however, is that despite rules stating that the FDA’s regulations should be held to the same standards as the EPA’s, due to the FDA’s financial and staffing shortcomings, bottled water facilities are often low priority for sanitary inspection (Hu, 2011). Also, apart from bottled water retrieved from municipal sources, there is no requirement to test for various microbes—such as viruses, or the parasites Cryptosporidium and Giardia (Gesumaria, 2011). In fact, E. coli testing was not heavily monitored until as late as 2009, in part due to campaigning by the National Resources Defence Council. This is especially relevant in the U.S., as bottled water was recalled due to an E. coli scare as recently as 2015. The FDA is also generally not required to alert the public of any contamination (Gesumaria, 2011). The problem is increasingly relevant today, especially in impoverished areas of the world. While the municipal tap water in these areas may also be unsafe to drink, one review found that bottled water from these low income countries was 4.6 to 13.6 times more likely to contain fecal indicator bacteria and total coliforms (Williams, 2015). Fecal indicator bacteria is bacteria used to detect feces within drinking water— and while some related bacteria may be harmless, fecal bacteria is often related to disease, including E. coli and Salmonella infections, both of which can lead to death. It is believed that 2.4 billion people do not have access to adequate sanitary conditions (facilities that allow the separation of waste from human contact), and around 780 million people do not have access to adequate water sources or sanitation (Center for Disease Control Prevention, n.d.). Oftentimes, pollution of water sources may translate over to inadequate sanitation in even bottled sources, thus contributing to this statistic. One type of bottled water, natural mineral water, is also increasingly popular in part due to its perceived purity and health benefits. Natural mineral water comes from an underground source, is characterized by its mineral contents, and is generally left untreated. In the United States, it is defined as “bottled water containing not less than 250 parts per million total dissolved solids” by the International Bottled Water Association, and in the European Union it needs to meet several requirements: it may only introduce or take out carbon dioxide, it may use filtration or other treatment methods to remove possibly harmful elements, but it may not undergo disinfectant or contain bacteriostatic agents. It also generally does not account for the possibility of viruses in the water (Blanco, 2016). In 2016, the European Federation for Bottled Waters reported that natural mineral water was the European Union’s favored water, with 83% of consumers preferring it. It is often seen as entirely healthy and pure, and is praised for its mineral qualities. However, this does not always equate to absolute microbiological purity.
One study concluded that in the brands of mineral waters tested, they found several opportunistic pathogens (such as P. stutzeri, P. mendocina and M. gordonae) that are especially capable of causing infection in the immunocompromised or otherwise vulnerable populations. The study also observed bacterial resistance to 17 different antibiotics— one bacteria that was resistant to a variety of antibiotics being the gram negative Ralstonia pickettii, a pathogen frequently involved in infections in cystic fibrosis patients (Loy, 2005). Another study found that after bottling, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, another highly resistant gram negative bacteria known to cause gastrointestinal infection, also grew quickly in the bottles surveyed in one study, especially in the absence of competing flora. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is also opportunistic, and is associated with causing pneumonia in cystic fibrosis patients (Tamagnini, 1997). A study conducted in 2012 using Portuguese and French brands confirmed that antibiotic resistant bacteria in bottled mineral water is an issue, and that these pathogens have the possibility to transfer to humans. Of the three brands tested, bacteria resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics were present in all batches (Falcone-Dias, 2012). Some of this bacteria may be present in the waters’ source, and the bacteria are able to multiply due to the lack of bacteriostatic agents— “after bottling, the number of viable counts increases rapidly, attaining 104 –105 cfu/ml within 3–7 days” before leveling off (Leclerc, 2002). In Brazil, 76.6% of mineral water samples collected were contaminated with either a pathogenic bacteria or indicator bacterium, compared to 36.4% of tap water samples being contaminated (Silva, 2006).
The earliest writings relating to water treatment date back to 2000 BC— despite the fact that they did not fully understand the concepts of bacterial or chemical contaminants, peoples in both ancient India and Greece practiced methods such as boiling water, sand filtration, and straining. In 1676, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek first discovered microbes in water via his invention of the microscope. In the later 1700s, water filters began to be used domestically— although their usage was not extremely widespread (Enzler, n.d.). Around 1854, a cholera epidemic was discovered to be waterborne in London, in an area known as Soho that had particularly poor sanitation as well as communal wells. It seemed as if areas with sand filters were installed were less affected by the outbreak, and scientist John Snow was able to trace the infections from a water well contamination (Tuthill, 2003). He was able to utilize chlorination in order to disinfect the water. Sand filters and chlorination are still utilized today to disinfect bottled water, but due to the perceived negative effects of chlorine it is typically ran through other types of filtration. Chlorination was directly responsible for lowering the rates of illnesses such as cholera and typhoid fever throughout the world. Ozone and a combination of calcium hypochlorite and ferric chloride were also utilized as water disinfectants. Standards for drinking water in public traffic were first implemented in 1914 (based upon coliform growth), but these standards did not apply to municipal water sources until the 1940s (Enzler, n.d.).
The first major act in the United States involving water pollution was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, passed in 1948, but with its amendments implemented in 1972, it became widely known as the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water act set standards for wastewater and pollutant discharge into surface waters. The Safe Drinking Water Act, passed in 1974, was the first act setting strict laws for public drinking water (tap water) in the United States. Thus, the EPA was given oversight over all public drinking water and the right to ensure its safety, and FD&C Act followed, asserting that the FDA was to maintain that its regulation of bottled water met similar or comparable safety standards to the EPA’s standards for tap water. As the EPA releases a standard for tap water, the FDA either adopts it or, after analyzation, decides that the standard is not needed in relation to bottled water. There are several ways that bottled water is treated. Distillation is extremely common— after water is transformed into vapor, it is then returned to its liquid state without the minerals it previously held (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d.). Reverse osmosis removes minerals from water by using pressure to force it through a membrane. Ozonation is a modern replacement to chlorination, and it allows for the destruction of bacteria. Some bottled water brands utilize the Absolute Filter—technology said to rid the water of all particles 0.1 micron or larger (Gesumaria, 2011). Ultraviolet radiation is also used in certain cases. Ultraviolet radiation treatment involves exposing water to a specific wavelength of light as to which it acts as a mild bactericide- by piercing a cell’s membrane and disrupting its DNA reproductive mechanism. It is relatively effective against vegetative and sporus bacteria.