13
FIJI water by the numbers
Manufactured luxury by the numbers:
• 5,500 miles per trip from Fiji to Los Angeles (the closest Fiji Water destination point in the US)
• 46 million gallons of fossil fuel
• 1.3 billion gallons of water
• 216,000,000 lbs of greenhouse gases
... and that's in just one year. Oh, then there's the chemical cocktail we call PET plastic with a 12% recycling rate in the US. You know, that substance that never breaks down and is found in little pellets worldwide, covering a continent-sized sheet in the Pacific Ocean.
This is the face of Fiji Water. Rob Walker recently reported about Fiji's new commitment to sustainability explained on fijigreen.com whose sexy byline is "Every Drop is Green." Like other difficult nuanced discussions such as Wal-Mart's greening through energy, employee programs and dramatic supply chain refinements, this to me is another lipstick on a pig story.
Fiji is a very successful business model. They experienced a 40% sales increase in 2007 and expect the same this year. Fiji is a distance from Seattle, almost 6,000 miles in fact. The company benefits from the South Pacific Convergence Zone which dumps over 3,000 mm of rain a year into a pristine aquifer, gifting the exotic, silica-y water consumed by millions of marketing receptive Americans (one of Fiji's marketers claimed unsubstantiated health benefits from silica).
But here is where the problem starts. Fiji is using staggering amounts of energy, water, and fossil fuels to take a naturally occurring product (which is not regulated like drinking water here in the US), put it in an inherently problematic container and then have that forever-container tossed into landfills or incinerators all over America (and Asia, where we have a healthy export market for plastics).
Even if we set aside a moment the drawing down of a pristine aquifer (yes, recharged by a lot of rain), the green house gas emissions, the use of an available fuel source to make plastic, the unavailability of plastic recycling infrastructure through the US, and the incredibly dirty bunker fuel used in ocean freighters in what the company describes as "carbon efficient transportation," there's the chemical issue.
Plastic water bottles are made of PET, which is an acronym for polyethylene terephthalate. It would be alright if used once but many people refill the bottles time and time again, releasing the chemical DEHA which is a known carcinogen. Other competing plastic bottles are emerging as bad boys as well, including the camper's beloved Nalgene which now offers a BPA-free bottle. Bisphenol A (BPA), a reproductive toxin which has shown to have adverse effects on women and developing fetuses at surprisingly low levels, is used in water bottles and tin cans.
Virtually every problem associated with bottled water would be alleviated if each of us could manage to make one, $15-$17 investment in a new generation of sexy, green bottles: Sigg and Klean Kanteen to name a few. Away with climate change, toxics, depleted water, dirty bunker fuel and yet another highly successful campaign based on want. The same very successful marketing strategies have been used to sell you antibacterial products and SUVs and the joke is not only on you, but on all of us planetary citizens.
Pages
Many of the comments against Fiji water are based off an ignorant position that municipal tap water sources are safe. The fact is chlorine is a carcinogen and we "add" that to try and make water safe to drink - does that make any sense? Municipal water sources regularly test positive for arsenic, commercial detergents, dry cleaning solutions, and other toxic contaminents. Not only does the EPA rarely fine municipalities for violations, they fail to alert local residents. Look at the cancer rates in places like NJ, you can't be sure tap water is not contributing.
It is also downright false to allege that bottled water is not regulated. Do your homework, the FDA does regulates it and the testing requirements are the same as tap. The difference is it will pull a product off the market if it does not pass tests. Unless you can absolutely proves that even small amounts of toxic chemicals found in tap water are safe, I will continue to look for safe, pure, and natural water that is not polluted for me and my children. Where is the outrage about shipping coffee, something that is not good for you? Another cleverly omitted piece of misinformation is that the filters and reverse osmosis systems you promote mostly remove bad oders and taste, but they still allow residual or even large amounts of bad things to remain in water. Since our bodies are made up of 66% water, I think it is best to put the very purest and natural water I can find into it. You can suit yourself with toxic tap water, but don't try to force me to do it.
I used to be a huge Fiji water drinker, until I found that the people of some areas in Fiji have some of the worst drinking water around.
I actually purchased a Water Ionizer and Sigg bottles for my family. It's an amazing machine really - From being able to clean your counters to drinking it, restructured water is the new way to become eco friendly. It takes your own tap water, removes the harmful stuff like chlorine, microclusters it so your body and becomes more hydrated, detoxifies your body and you can use "water" to clean your house from top to bottom. No more harmful chemicals and the best drinking water around. It really has changed my life. Please email me if you want to learn more or hear how it has helped with my family.
It is worth noting that FIJI Water does not taste better than SmartWater, which is bottled regionally to keep transportation costs low and reduce carbon impact on the environment.
The folks behind branding FIJI Water green are arguably the most misleading and offensive in the entire beverage business. Their green strategy is a sham, nothing more. They should be charged the SEC for indescency.
Heidi,
Thank you for raising the issue.
I am a little bit confused about the situation of PET bottle recycling in the U.S.
According to your statement, the recycling rate of PET bottles is 12% in the U.S.
On the other hand, EPA states;
"While overall recovery of plastics for recycling is relatively small—2.1 million tons, or 6.8 percent of plastics generation in 2007 - recovery of some plastic containers has reached higher levels. <strong>PET soft drink bottles were recovered at a rate of 37 percent</strong> in 2007. Recovery of HDPE milk and <strong>water bottles was estimated at about 28 percent</strong> in 2007."
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/plastics.htm#benefits
First of all, there is a big gap between the 2 data.
Secondly, there are 2 types of plastic bottles for water??
Is the classification system of plastic containers in the U.S. so complex that we actually don't know the exact recycling rate of PET bottles for water?
I agree with the claims made against "transporting" water into the mainland and the use of PET or BPA plastic bottles. Tap water is an inexpensive, local and quite possibly the most eco-friendly option for water drinkers since it is highly regulated before reaching a consumers mouth and does not use a plastic container to store it. But if you are someone who just must have bottled water, what healthy choices do responsible consumers (the 12% who do recycle after one use of a plastic bottle) have here on the mainland to avoid contributing to the eco footprint caused by transporting water into the states.
I think you're confusing studies on animals with studies on Human beings. There are no studies that show BPA to have adverse affects on women and developing fetuses.
There have been some quite a few studies that show adverse effects on rodents, but then rodents aren't able to metabolize BPA as efficiently as human beings.
There is a huge scientific controversy about this issue that really can't be resolved without actually testing on primates.
I really *hate* being put in a position of having to be a cheerleader for BPA but please, accuracy is important.
It's worth a look at the http://www.figigreen.com website. It is really greenwash at its finest. They promise to be carbon neutral yet they also plan to lower their carbon footprint by only 25% by 2010. The rest will supposedly made up by purchasing offsets.
So basically they are doing nothing. A 25% improvement in 2 years would be expected thru ordinary manufacturing and packaging upgrades and in this case probably lower sales. Then the selling of water is so incredibly profitable that they can afford to pay for the carbon indulgences for marketing purposes. Hosers.
On the human/animal BPA issue: animal testing allows faster iterations with fewer ethical issues. As well, it frequently predicts human outcomes. Although there may be controversy in this case, (which sounds to me like the tobacco & global warming "controversies") The precautionary principle demands that we act to protect vulnerable populations.
Finally: "Janne Flisrand, cycling mistress of the universe?" It goes without saying...
"Bisphenol A (BPA), a reproductive toxin which has shown to have adverse effects on women and developing fetuses at surprisingly low levels, is used in water bottles and tin cans."
Easy there cheetah. For every action there is an equal or greater reaction. It was some circles constant claiming over the problems of tap water that set us up for the explosion in bottled water. Who knows what the above mistruth will lead to if you repeat it often enough.
Pages
