Chicagoist: Bottled-Water Tax Story Even Bigger Sham Than Bottled Water

takebackthetap

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:47:24 -0600

Great points, Scott and spook; bottled water is definitely one of the biggest corporate money grabs yet. Chicago has some of the best tap water on the planet- it's regulated by the EPA, which requires testing multiple times a day. The bottled brands, meanwhile, are controlled by the FDA, which requires NO testing at all after bottling or storage, and regulates only 30%-40% of what's sold across state lines! The biggest brands (hi Aquafina) ARE just repackaged tap water. Tap water costs on average .002 cents a gallon, while bottled water average range from .89 cents to 8.26 per gallon. As Scott said, if you want to learn more about your tap water, you can order your local Consumer Confidence Report from the EPA at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/index.html- nowhere do the big bottled water corporations provide that kind of accountability. Bottom line is, kudos to Chicago- your public tap is better for your health, environment, and pocketbook. More great info, reports, citations, etc on these issues is at www.takebackthetap.org.

Scott the Jerseyist

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:46:00 -0600

Of course, I use a Brita as well! I implied the stats were good, not perfect! However, when tested independently tap is equal to if not better than most bottles. And either way you have to trust one arm of the gov. vs. another, FDA vs. EPA. One has their findings posted annually, the other has no findings, and if they did, they wouldn't want you to know anyway.

spookhatespuppies

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:44:14 -0600

Scott the Jerseyist makes a good point. The EPA regulates water purity levels across the board. There is no body to monitor bottled water. It's not that I trust the guv'ment totally (I use a Britta filter and a Nagelene bottle) but I just think bottled water is one of the biggest scams ever, and I only drink it when there's nothing else around. Also, my favorite part of the Tribune article I read was the lady pissing and moaning about how she doesn't like tap because it tastes "gritty" to her. Boo-hoo, what you're drinking IS tap, lady.

Scott the Jerseyist

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:12:54 -0600

So is it ok for the beverage companies to gouge the price of water? And if it is illegal to tax one specific product, then why are cigarettes and booze taxed? If you are willing to pay $1.00 for a 12oz bottle of water (around $11 per gallon!) What's another $0.55 per gallon? Just drink tap. Go to www.epa.gov and check the quality levels yourself and good luck trying to find the quality levels from the beverage companies to compare.

Ward Up

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:59:07 -0600

"...I don't have a lot of confidence that our alderman put *any* sort of reasoned thought into it whatsoever. If they wind up being in the right here, it was by pure luck..." I really like that comment! (no sarcasm!)

the new guest number 2

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:09:27 -0600

"The tax is reactionary, but understandable considering that municipalities are doing most of the heavy lifting by initially purifying the water." Yes, but it's not as if the bottlers get the water for free -- do they even get any kind of reduced rate compared to the rest of us? So they are already paying for that purification. It's a pure money grab, plain and simple -- whether it's a justified money grab is up for debate, but I don't have a lot of confidence that our alderman put *any* sort of reasoned thought into it whatsoever. If they wind up being in the right here, it was by pure luck.

Chuck Sudo

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:45:11 -0600

Seth: Margaret mentioned the soda tax as an example refuting the beverage lobby's claim that State law prohibits the city from taxing a singular item like bottled water. They're gonna feel the effects of the tax the most. Sparky raises a wonderful point in stating that the bottled water tax could have been rolled into the soda tax, but that probably wouldn't have been copacetic with the beverage lobby. The tax is reactionary, but understandable considering that municipalities are doing most of the heavy lifting by initially purifying the water. What I'm finding amusing about this is that these lobbies seem to be playing catch-up with their anti-bottled water opponents, who have been much more effective in getting their message across and raising awareness of the knowledge that many bottled water brands come from public sources. This has been evidenced by both the bottled water tax and State facilities no longer buying bottled water using state funds.

Seth Anderson

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:12:29 -0600

The previous article on this topic that ran in the Trib (back in October ) did mention the soda tax (3 percent of a distributor's gross sales receipts, or 3 cents for a $1 bottle of soda pop), and that the tax was already factored into the vending machine price. I guess there were phone calls made to certain editors so as not to include this inconvenient detail in the current article.

Seth Anderson

Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:12:12 -0600

Tower18

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:49:09 -0600

Don't hate on people you see with water bottles. That bottle of SmartWater or whatever might have been purchased from the airport Starbucks 3 weeks ago, and is continually refilled. Or maybe that's just me. ;)

JuliaPorter

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:39:29 -0600

Bottled water is the pet rock of the new millennium.

Mondegreen

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:03:08 -0600

But the 80s person would be wearing Z.Cavariccis or maybe even Zubas. So, we'd be amused. Win-win. Make it happen!

Ward Up

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:58:55 -0600

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about the tax. For example, that "landfill" argument seems OK until you realize that you are letting more egregious landfill-stuffers off the hook. My gripe is all these secretaries (sorry, ladies, for sounding sexist) and students walking around with water bottles like they are some sort of pacifiers. Drink tap water, for crying out loud. And save money doing it! If you took someone from 1980 and brought them here in a time machine to show them the bottled water fad, the 1980's person would be perplexed, or at least amused, and rightfully so!

Mondegreen

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:05:18 -0600

This seems like a pretty good tax to me. Water bottles fill up landfills (and take oil to make), and we've got a great source of municipal water here, so it's really easy to get around paying this tax, if you don't want to. While we're at it, don't you hate when take out places give you extra small cups if you ask for water? Just charge me a nickel and give me a big person's cup.

sparky

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:41:32 -0600

why the city just didn't roll this into the soft drink tax is beyond me.