Study Finds Contaminants in Many Bottled Water Brands

Bottled water, whose surging sales have been driven by a consumer thirst for purity, sometimes contains contaminants and is not necessarily cleaner or safer than tap water, according to a four-year study made public Tuesday by a national environmental group.

Testing 103 brands of bottled water, the Natural Resources Defense Council found that samples from one-third of the brands contained chemical or bacterial contamination exceeding industry or government guidelines.

While the study concluded “that most bottled water apparently is of good quality,” it maintains that many brands don’t match their pristine claims.

Bottled water “is of spotty quality,” said Dr. Gina Solomon, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “People are not always getting the purity they’ve paid for.”

In conjunction with the study, the Environmental Law Foundation announced the filing of a lawsuit in San Francisco against eight bottled water companies doing business in California, accusing them of violating the state’s false advertising and health and safety laws.

“It’s not an acute health hazard that’s the issue,” said Laura McKinney of the law foundation. “The issue is these companies are claiming to be pristine and clean and natural, and they are violating standards in California and are profiting. This is an industry that needs to live up to its advertisements and statements.”

Industry representatives quickly defended their product, saying there have been no confirmed reports in the United States of illness or disease linked to bottled water.

“Bottled water is extremely safe,” said Cindy Yablonski of the International Bottled Water Assn.

Yablonski, whose organization represents companies that produce 85% of the bottled water sold in the United States, faulted the report for holding bottled water to a variety of industry and government standards, when, in fact, bottlers do meet existing federal regulations.

“We believe they are very strict, adequate for the industry,” she said.

The Natural Resources Defense Council strongly disagreed Tuesday, calling for a strengthening of federal bottled water standards, which are overseen by the Food and Drug Administration and are not as tough as federal regulations governing public tap water supplies.

The environmental group concluded that most of the water tested was relatively free of contamination and “therefore generally doesn’t pose a health threat to healthy people.”

But the organization also warned that the presence of certain types of bacteria in some samples might pose problems for vulnerable populations, including infants, the frail elderly and those with HIV and AIDS.

Finding a Market

After a brief scare in 1990 when samples of Perrier were found to contain benzene, sales of bottled water exploded, driven by consumers who either dislike the taste of tap water or have concerns about contamination of public drinking water supplies.

In recent years, tap water, which is more tightly regulated than bottled water by the federal government, has been found in some cities to contain contaminants.

With its large, often health-conscious population, California is a leading market for bottled water, with state residents consuming more than one-fourth of the nation’s total of more than 3.2 billon gallons a year, according to industry statistics. In 1987, Californians purchased 486 million gallons of bottled water; in 1997, state consumption had leaped to 893 million gallons.

However, the lawsuit alleges, some companies selling bottled water are breaking state law, which includes the toughest bottled water regulations in the nation.

Filed in San Francisco Superior Court, the suit makes a number of claims. Among them:

* That Crystal Geyser, Vittel, Volvic and Apollinaris should carry Proposition 65 warnings that some lines of their bottled water contain arsenic levels exceeding 5 parts per billion.

Arsenic, a carcinogen, occurs naturally in soil, and federal drinking water standards permit up to 50 ppb. All the samples cited in the lawsuit contained less than that amount.

But the suit contends that bottled water, as a consumer product, is subject to the state’s stricter Proposition 65 warning provision.

* That Crystal Geyser, Safeway, Vittel, Volvic and Apollinaris are “falsely or deceptively” representing the “purity, wholesome[ness] and healthfulness of their bottled water products” when some samples actually contained levels of contaminants exceeding state bottled water or Proposition 65 standards.

* That Safeway’s drinking, purified and spring water and Alhambra’s mountain spring water contain levels of heterotrophic bacteria that exceed state and industry standards.

* That Lucky, Ralphs and Safeway brands of bottled water contain levels of chlorine byproducts exceeding state bottled water standards.

* That Safeway’s “spring water” appears to be derived from a public water supply.

Safeway Inc. representative Debra Lambert categorically denied the latter assertion. “Absolutely false,” she said. “It is from a certified spring.”

She also denied that the company engaged in unfair or misleading business practices. “We go to great lengths to ensure the integrity of products,” she said.

Lucky declined to comment, saying that it had not seen the suit. Crystal Geyser said the suit “was unnecessarily alarming to consumers.”

“For the record,” the company said in a statement, “we believe we are in full compliance with Proposition 65 and all other state and federal regulations, and certainly are not engaged in any unfair business practices.”

Yablonski, of the bottled water association, dismissed any concerns about heterotrophic bacteria, saying “it’s safe, natural, of no health concern.”