Bottled water meets the needs of some of our most vulnerable individuals, those with compromised health. In fact, bottled water is often recommended for people whose immunity may be compromised by chemotherapy, transplant operations, or diseases such as AIDS. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests bottled water as one important alternative for HIV patients because tap water offers a less reliable quality. Specifically, the CDC notes:

“Because you cannot be sure if your tap water is safe, you may wish to avoid tap water, including water or ice from a refrigerator ice-maker, which is made with tap water. Always check with the local health department and water utility to see if they have issued any special notices for people with HIV about tap water.

You may also wish to boil or filter your water, or to drink bottled water. Processed carbonated (bubbly) drinks in cans or bottles should be safe, but drinks made at a fountain might not be because they are made with tap water. If you choose to boil or filter your water or to drink only bottled water, do this all the time, not just at home.”

Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), like CDC, recommends bottled water as a good option for individuals with compromised immune systems, even at times when tap water quality is satisfactory for everyone else.  Other options include boiling tap water. Apparently, the EPA does not consider tap and bottled water to be the same quality or it would have suggested boiling both.

There are occasions where tap water is insufficient for more than a short period of time and bottled water becomes an important solution. For example, a recent article in The New York Times points out that the New York-Presbyterian/Columbia Hospital uses bottled water because their tap water has proven dangerous to patients. For three years, the hospital has kept signs posted over sinks that read: “Do not drink the water. Use bottled water for drinking, brushing teeth, or taking medication.” The hospital has not permitted anyone to drink the tap water since 2005 after two patients died from Legionnaire’s disease. This disease comes from a common bacterium that grows rapidly in industrial-sized water systems. The concern about this bacterium remains. “Until that is resolved, we will not be serving tap water,” a hospital spokesperson told The Times.

The consistent quality and portability of bottled water means it has become a solution during emergency situations. In fact, tap water periodically experiences quality control problems that lead public officials to issue alerts calling on individuals to boil water before using it or use only bottled water for drinking, cooking, and brushing teeth. Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionboth recommen bottled water for such emergency uses. Other options include boiling tap water.

In a weather-related or other emergency, an easily accessible supply of bottled water is essential. Because water treatment facilities can be affected during a power outage, tap water quality can become compromised. In that case, officials issue an alert calling people to boil their water or drink bottled water.  A CDC paper offering public health tips for individuals in this situation suggests the use of bottled water for anyone using infant formula that requires the addition water:

“If using ready-to-feed formula is not possible, it is best to use bottled water to prepare powdered or concentrated formula. If bottled water is not available, use boiled water. Use treated water to prepare formula only if you do not have bottled or boiled water.”

The September 11, 2001 disaster serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a robust bottled water industry. The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) reports that after the attacks, bottled water companies donated more than two million bottles of water to rescue workers at all locations. Similarly, the bottled water and beverage industry, in general, provided millions of bottles of water, other supplies, and financial donations to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Such donations are common.

Also consider the fact that many times when we do have emergencies, ranging from major events to shorter-term boil water alerts, retail outlets often run low on, or completely out of, bottled water because of increased demand. What will if we had much smaller supplies because many shops accepted the line that it is too wasteful to carry, as some shops have already done? The prospect of fewer people having adequate access to an emergency water supply could have serious, adverse impacts.

Even with existing resources, getting bottled water to residents in time of need can be a challenge. After Hurricane Rita in September 2005, the Texas Rural Water Association (TRWA) realized the importance of planning and keeping bottled water on hand. They formed the Rural Water Emergency Assistance Cooperative (RWEAC) to address such issues. The Texas Rural Water Association Director Tom Duck explained: “RWEAC was created in recognition of the fact that rural utilities are often the last to receive vital state and federal assistance in times and circumstances of an emergency as demonstrated during Hurricane Rita this past September.”

People choose bottled water for a variety of reasons. One among them is that it is often an alternative to beverages that include calories that some consumers seek to avoid. Clearly, there is a public health benefit associated with allowing people to drink a product that provides hydration without extra calories.

The fact that governments should tax, ban or spend taxpayer dollars to engage in a campaign against a product that people otherwise freely choose to purchase is unfortunate to say the least. There have been a few voices of reason on this topic, some of which are worth highlighting here. The editor-at large of MacLean’s magazine put it very well in a letter to the editor in a local Canadian paper about bans of bottled water in schools. He noted:

“My issue with bottled water is why a school board (or the United Church, for that matter) thinks it should have the power to deny children a popular and convenient source of water. A few years ago my sons’ school demanded that every child have a bottle of water on their desk. Now it’s forbidden? School boards are notoriously changeable and lacking in common sense, but this is ridiculous. … If Westminster United Church or the school board trustees don’t like bottled water, they don’t have to buy it. But who gave them the right to decide what everyone else gets to drink?” (See: Peter Taylor, “Water Policy Reversed,” Waterloo Region Record, May 16, 2008, A12.)

James R. Amoroso, Food Sector Analyst, Equity Research, Helvea notes:

“A ban solves nothing, tries to solve the wrong problem, helps reverse a healthy consumer trend, is anti-competitive, creates a legislative nightmare and strikes at the heart of consumer freedom. … Dissuading anyone from drinking pure, calorie-free water is total insanity and a retrograde step. Health and wellness is one of the key drivers of consumption, not ‘chic’.” (See: James R Amoroso, Letter of the Week/Bottled Water Ban: Sheer Nonsense, Grocer, August 4, 2007, 20.)

One mayor stood up for reason, calling the Conference of Mayors’ anti-bottled water resolution “over the top.” Ohio’s Cuyahoga Falls Mayor Don Robart offered his own resolution as an alternative, which read that government bottled water bans “simply eliminate a healthy beverage option” and “bottled water does not in any way burden the public water infrastructure.” Jim Carney, “Robart Opposes Bottled Water Ban:,’” Akron Beacon Journal, June 21, 2008.)