Certainly, plastic water bottles are beneficial as people can be able to carry water any freely for their consumption. Yet trouble begins immediately after the water is fully consumed remaining with an empty bottle. Everyone must have experienced this lethal mistake of abandoning a plastic water bottle at the scene of consumption as it feels useless after (Gornall, 2017). Plastic is material that is highly volatile and can result in extreme damage; in case the bottle catches fire. For instance, a plastic water bottle left in a car after consuming water can easily catch fire if sung light rays pass through the bottle (Zollinger et al., 2017). Definitely, this example among other considerations poses health, environmental as well as economic threats resulting from plastic water bottles.
Arguably, despite its portability significance; there are several concerns mostly focusing on individual well-being and environmental sustainability. One of the environmental controversies of the plastic water bottles revolves around its non-biodegradable factor (Harper, 2017). This issue has raised several opinions towards proper disposal mechanism to be implemented. Some views made by water processing companies’ claim that water bottles can be easily recycled after use (Laville& Taylor, 2017). While considering the benefit of consuming clean safe water the firms support the claim by proposing measures that can be adapted to collect the bottles back for recycling after consuming water.
In contrast, other groups attack the rising use and distribution of plastic water bottles concerns using a ban suggestion (Fears, 2017). In support of the proposal; they claim that imposing a legal ban on the use of plastic water bottles has been proven to work in countries such as Australia and major cities in the U.S like California, Malibu and San Francisco (Ban the Bottle, 2018). The claim, however, puts forth contentious opinions. Some argue that in the process to totally eliminate plastic bottles; the society will be salvaged from the perilous effects associated with them. Other contradicting assertions reconsider the positive outcomes of the bottle as being abundant as compared to risks. It is cruel to limit consumers’ choices of exchanging their money for convenient goods.
Taking a case study of the U.S beverage consumption statistics; bottled water is among the most purchased commodity (International Bottled Water Association, 2018). Interestingly, out of the 20,000 bottles manufactured every single; only 7% of the bottles are recycled. Again this attracts dissimilar opinions regarding the recycling approach to plastic bottles. There are further claims that this approach least helps solve the problem as the number of plastic bottles disposed of aimless is more than the environment can handle. The declaration present doubts regarding the destiny of the remaining fraction of bottles; which is possibly the largest (Parker, 2017). The perceptions further advocate that incessant production of water bottles will progressively contaminate the environment.
The most noteworthy economic controversy resulting from the use of plastic water bottles is that natural resources such as water and oil are unnecessarily being exploited to generate energy used in the manufacture of plastic bottles (Schriever, 2013). In the argument, it is claimed that the energy required to manufacture bottled water is 2000 times than that required to process and transport tap water. While opposing the claims, another group questions on the portability of the tap water (Fan et al, 2014). Considering that people occasionally move away from home while executing daily duties; it will be difficult for them to quench their thirst in the absence of bottled water.
Furthermore, supporting groups claim that it is economic to use tap water than bottled water as tap water is located in most of the common public places. The suggestion given here is that individuals can simply purchase re-usable water containers that can be used to carry tap water for their use (Gornall, 2017). Unlike bottled water that is purchased frequently; a water container can be purchased once to be used forever. Eliminating the use of bottled water is a proper approach towards cutting down the adverse effects of plastic bottles. As a result, there will be a reduction in the usage of bottled water, therefore, cutting on additional expenses besides keeping the environment free from pollution.
In other discussions, activists claim that glass and other forms of beverage bottles are less harmful to the environment as compared to plastic water bottles (Westerhoff et al, 2008) Water has zero levels of carbon and sugars as compared to other consumed beverages. They argue that thicker and more durable bottles should contain water instead. A report by IBWA (2018) shows that a certain material polyethylene terephthalate used in the manufacture of plastic bottles has the potential to leach perilous chemical in the water and the environment entirely (Gornall, 2017). While opposing the allegations the manufacturing companies' consider the reduced use of the material, therefore, increasing the pro-environmental approaches to reduce hazards associated with plastic bottles.
Furthermore, addressing the health dilemmas there are fascinating debates on whether drinking bottled water is convenient and safer using the bottle or out of a faucet (Fan et al, 2014). One side proposes that drinking bottled water directly from the bottle is safe as the bottles are usually disinfected. Yet another group facade refuting claims that bottled water is not clean and safe as it is supposed. The onset of disposable materials lured an indirect incorporation of side effects resulting from endocrine-disrupting elements (Glassmeyer et al, 2005). This also touches on the storage requirements; high temperatures catalyze the process. As this carcinogenic material gets released to the environment and the water to be specific it increases the likelihood of unsafe water.
In the same context, the water plastic bottle elimination opposing argue that bottled water contain an edible product. In fact according to Schriever (2013) the packaging and distribution is approved by the Food and Drug Act. As a result both the water and bottle are safe and environmental friendly. Tap water on the other side is as well unsafe as the water is transported through lead conduit pipes presenting a likelihood of corrosion (Glassmeyer et al., 2005). They argue that lead is a harmful metal to the health of consumers and they can only be safe if they stick to bottled water. Despite the water body regulations and tests regarding the quality of tap water; the protective measures rarely go beyond the water processing plants
There are cities in the U.S. like San Francisco that have considered the aspect of tap water quality before actually limiting the use of bottled water. Again studies by Levin (2017) suggest that imposing strict regulations to check on the safety of water has not helped in anyway. Several homes have reported severe health issues resulting from the consumption of tap water. Apart from the effects of lead particles; citizens have also claimed the outbreak of severe water-borne diseases such as cholera and bilharzia (Postman, 2016). As much as few people have complained over the impact of water plastic bottles to the environment; bottled water is the remedy for future health problems resulting from tap water.
Other sources present findings that bottled water is a major source of prompt and safe water to drink. Therefore abolishing the use of plastic water bottles will cause a large number of people to turn on substitutes beverages which are full of sugars and carbon (Berman & Johnson, 2015). These two components are detrimental to health as they are possible causes of major chronic diseases such as cancer. On the contrary, the substitutes manufacturing companies dismiss the allegations claiming that the beverages, for instance, orange juice contain significant portions of water apart from the other ingredients such as carbohydrates and vitamins that are integral for the body. As result, they support the elimination of plastic water bottles (Fan et al., 2014).
A critical study conducted by Berman and Johnson (2015) show how individuals will turn to unhealthy beverages choices if bottled water was to be eliminated. The anti-plastic bottles ban suppose that without complete plans of availing supplementary water sources people there would be an increase in diseases related to consumption of unhealthy beverages. In their study; they asses the fluctuations in beverage consumption rates among university students for three consecutive semesters (Fan et al., 2014). It is estimated that bottled water is most consumed in the universities than any other beverages. Its removal will mean that students will turn to other beverages that act as water increasing health risks.
The attempt to reduce adverse effects of plastic water bottles and increase public health is actually the opposite. Other beverage holders such as portable boxes would increase environmental pollution were it for the water bottles to be eliminated (Glassmeyer et al., 2005). Incoherent with the anticipated in water foundation usage rate; purchasing substitute beverages will increase the rate of sugar consumption and other hazardous elements present in the beverages. In contrast, those supporting the consumption of substitute beverages claim that; no one can be forced to consume anything that contradicts the desires of an individual. In this case, students independently decide to consume water substitutes with minimal external interference.
Another interesting argument regarding the elimination of plastic water bottles presumes the availability of fake bottled water in the market (Gornall, 2017). Some groups claim that the water bottling company is faced by a major fraud regarding the illegal supply of unsafe water in the market for consumption. Indeed, there are cases of the presence of unsafe water in the market; water that has not passe4dthrough all the legal quality assurance measure for packaging (Fan et al., 2014). They suppose that the elimination of plastic water bottles will help curb such cases. On the contrary, other groups oppose the allegations claiming that consumers can first check the quality mark on water bottles before actually consuming bottled water.
In a nutshell, there are diverse opinions resulting from the need for responsibility for the convenience of water plastic bottles in the environment. It is a debate that can go for ages with a trivial remedy. The freedom of choice has almost similar weights with the concerns for environmental protection. Both sides present in-depth perceptions that are of substance in handling the controversy (Zollinger et al., 2017). While it is beneficial to protect the environment from the adverse effect of the plastic water bottle; the side effects of eliminating the same still need to be examined.
Reference
Ban the Bottle. (2018). Map of campaigns
[Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.banthebottle.net/map-of-campaigns/
Berman, E.R., Johnson, R.K. (2015). The unintended consequences of changes in beverage options and the removal of bottled water on a university campus. American Journal of Public Health, 105(7), 1404-1408.
Fan, Y.Y., Zheng, J.L., Ren, J.H., Luo, J., Cui, X.Y., Ma, L.Q. (2014). Effects of storage temperature and duration on the release of antimony and bisphenol A from polyethylene terephthalate drinking water bottles of China.Environmental Pollution, 192, 113-120.
Fears, D. (2017, Sept 26). The National Park Service showed that its bottled water ban worked - then lifted it. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/26/the-national-park-service-showed-that-its-bottled-water-ban-worked-then-lifted-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3c2c7af44b9e
Glassmeyer, S.T., Furlong, E.T., Kolpin, D.W., Cahill, J.D., Zaugg, S.D., Werner, S.L., Meyer, M.T., Kryak, D.D. (2005). Transport of Chemical and Microbial Compounds from Known Wastewater Discharges: Potential for Use as Indicators of Human Fecal Contamination. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(14), 5157-5169.
Gornall, J. (2017, Jan 31). Global environmental impact of bottled water is ‘enormous.’The National. Retrieved from https://www.thenational.ae/uae/global-environmental-impact-of-bottled-water-is-enormous-1.88275
Harper, J.L. (2017, Oct 10). Plastic vs reusable water bottles. [web log comment]. Retrieved from http://sites.psu.edu/math033fa17/2017/10/10/plastic-vs-reusable-water-bottles/
International Bottled Water Association. (2017). Bottled water – the nation’s healthiest beverage – sees accelerated growth and consumption. Retrieved from https://www.bottledwater.org/bottled-water-%E2%80%93-nation%E2%80%99s-healthiest-beverage-%E2%80%93-sees-accelerated-growth-and-consumption
International Bottled Water Association. (2018, May 31). Consumers reaffirm bottled water is America’s favorite drink. Retrieved from https://www.beveragemarketing.com/news-detail.asp?id=486
Laville, S., Taylor, M. (2017, Jun 28). A million bottles a minute: world’s plastic binge ‘as dangerous as climate change.’ The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic-bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change
Levin, S. (2017, Jun 28). How San Francisco is leading the way out of bottled water culture. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/how-san-francisco-is-leading-the-way-out-of-bottled-water-culture
Parker, L. (2017, Jul 19). A Whopping 91% of Plastic isn’t recycled. National Geographic. Retrieved from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/plastic-produced-recycling-waste-ocean-trash-debris-environment/
Postman, A. (2016, Jan 05). The truth about tap. [web log comment]. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/stories/truth-about-tap?gclid=Cj0KCQjwuafdBRDmARIsAPpBmVUuhIKAfkWY-CXis7jVypqNbohz49yrJl9Ajh6m6vGgFTqGeZz-gkQaAjvPEALw_wcB
Schriever, N. (2013, Jul 29). Plastic water bottles causing a flood of harm to our environment. The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-schriever/post_5218_b_3613577.html
Westerhoff, P., Prapaipong, P., Shock, E., Hillaireau, A. (2008). Antimony leaching from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic used for bottled drinking water. Water Research, 42(3), 551-556.
Zollinger, M., Pike, A., Dettling, J., Humbert, S. (2017, Oct 24). Life cycle inventory and environmental footprint of bottled water for the North American market: executive summary. Retrieved from https://www.bottledwater.org/public/IBWA_BottledWaterLCI_ExecutiveSummary_2017-10-24_Quantis%20%28003%29Final.pdf
