Default Set to Misleading
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) won its lawsuit against Eco Canteen, Inc., a company that distributes reusable stainless steel canteens. A U.S. District Court in western North Carolina awarded IBWA a permanent injunction against Eco Canteen for what was deemed false and misleading advertising — their TV commercials claimed that steel containers were safer than plastic bottles.
75 percent of plastic bottles do not get recycled at all; they end up in landfills. So, even if a plastic water bottle is made from 100 percent recycleable materials, does that make it eco-friendly?
The results of this case will likely make tap water proponents cringe more than usual for two big reasons. First, IBWA won because the case ended in a default judgment due to Eco Canteen lacking licensed counsel — a fact they didn’t include their press release. The statement from the court record says, “Eco Canteen is either unwilling or unable to defend itself in this lawsuit. As a result, the Court is left with no choice but to award judgment to IBWA.”
There’s another reason this case is troubling — not because IBWA won a lawsuit against a company that makes reusable bottles, but more because of what it symbolizes.
The victory provided a soapbox for IBWA President and CEO Joe Doss to use while warning bottled water critics not to make “false and misleading advertising claims.” The irony here is not lost on anyone who values the tap — Doss’s comment is on behalf of an industry that misleads consumers in several ways.
IBWA has a promotional video on Youtube that claims, “bottled water is among the best environmentally friendly products we have today,” and that, “bottled water containers are recycled in curbside programs more than any other plastic container.” But adding plastic packaging to water is not eco-friendly. And, unfortunately, 75 percent of plastic bottles do not get recycled at all; they end up in landfills.
The bottled water industry has spent millions of dollars each year over the past decade to differentiate their product from tap water and market it as “pure” and better tasting. They use images of mountains and springs on their labeling and use names like Pure Life and Poland Springs. But we revealed to the public that almost 50 percent of bottled water is actually from municipal sources, not from mountain springs.
When approaching small, economically stressed communities to gain access to public water resources, bottled water companies often promote employment opportunities at their proposed facilities to boost local economies. However, they really only offer a few low-wage jobs, which are more dangerous than average. In some cases, they take public water for less than the amount residents pay for the water they use for drinking and basic sanitation.
As a result of Eco Canteen being unwilling or unable to defend itself, the court prohibited them from making various claims about plastic bottles. Joe Doss opined, “The truth about safe, healthy, convenient bottled water will carry the day as both consumers and the courts examine the facts.”
If we truly examine the facts, we might see that consumers are returning to the tap. One fact is indisputable: Despite the seemingly enthusiastic tone of IBWA’s press release, their case was won by default, not on facts. Does that seem false or misleading to you?
-Rich Bindell
This from an organization that continues to publish misinformation of its own, along with all its allies. Misinformation like phthalates and other endocrine disruptors in PET plastic. PET does not contain phthalates! PET does not contain BPA! The recycling rate is now beyond 30% and improving – get your facts up to date and accurate. You claim that the bottled water industry is one of the most dangerous. Based on what? You neither provide data nor any comparison with any other industry. You’re all about junk science and no substance. Just meaningless mantras. Read http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/5/anti-bpa-science-less-than-meets-the-eye/ – perhaps a little reality will cure what ails you!
[...] Food and Water Watch posted on the settlement here, noting that the district judge ruled in IBWA’s favor only because Eco Canteen, lacking [...]
[...] Food and Water Watch posted on the settlement here, noting that the district judge ruled in IBWA’s favor only because Eco Canteen, lacking licensed [...]
Ecocanteen’s commercial did not claim that disposable plastic water bottles contain BPA. In fact, it was edited with text and voice-over that specifically said that disposable water bottles do not contain BPA.
The beggining of the commercial describes that some hard polycarbonate bottles can contain BPA, which many unquestionably do. Ecocanteen is presented as an alternative to these reusable bottles.
Later in the commercial, the environmental problems posed by disposable water bottles is addressed. This included the fact that disposable bottles take 1,000 years to break down in landfills and that bottled water often comes from municipal sources. Viewers are urged to “kick the plastic habit”, with an Ecocanteen stainless steel bottle.
Ecocanteen accurately educated consumers about the wastefulness of bottled water. This message was embarrassing to the IBWA and was reaching millions of people.
The IBWA made the far reaching claim that because the mention of BPA in reusable, polycarbonate bottles was in the same commercial as the mention of bottled water, consumers would some how become confused and think that BPA was in disposable water bottles. Even after the commercial was changed to specifically state that disposable bottles did not contain BPA, the IBWA still persisted in its suit.
The IBWA did not win on the merits of their case, instead they outspent a small company and crippled them. The “Tobacco Tactics” and spin put on the IBWA’s press release should come as no surprise. The Author of the release, Tom Lauria is a former spokesperson for the tobacco industry and can be seen twisting the facts about second hand smoke in a NY Times interview: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/11/us/ban-is-urged-on-cigarette-smoke-in-public-places.html.
@ Bob
You, sir, are mistaken. PET stands for Polyethylene terephthalate. I would beg you to carefully consider the latter part of that name. You know, the one that includes “phthalate.”
@ Bob “[...]Misinformation like phthalates and other endocrine disruptors in PET plastic[...]”
Check the facts: PET bottles DO contain endocrine disrupting chemicals as recent research has shown (free article available here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/515wg76276q18115/ ) but nobody so far knows what they are, if they leach into foods and if they are harmful for people, too.