A Congressional hearing yesterday is generating national headlines today. As the Associated Press puts it, “Consumers know less about the water they pay dearly for in bottles than what they can drink almost for free from the tap because the two are regulated differently, congressional investigators and nonprofit researchers say in new reports.”

That’s no surprise to those who’ve followed the issue for years. The double standard is one of the reasons for the surge in popularity of bottled water. The Minnesota Legislature should correct that for in-state bottlers if Congress won’t act nationally.

Marketing is another reason for the surge. Bottled water is sold to consumers as a lifestyle choice, an accessory, like a cell phone. Sometimes that marketing gets out of hand. At yesterday’s hearing, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak noted an example: Aquamantra Spring Water explains that the words written on its labels — mantras such as “I am healthy” and “I am loved” — “permeate the liquid influencing the taste and beneficial properties of the water.” The company also claims that “Aquamantra uses the design on its labels to affect the molecular structure” of the water.

The question not discussed at the hearing is this: What happens to public control of groundwater, lakes and streams when private parties are allowed to claim ownership of and make enormous profits from this public trust resource? Water-rich Minnesota needs to think this through carefully.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 9th, 2009 at 9:55 am by Dave and is filed under Water. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.