The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry
*In the days before the British Water Cooler Association (BWCA) annual meetings, events were dominated by an onslaught on the bottled water industry from several directions. *
Commencing some two weeks previously, the media initiated the debate of tap water vs bottled water in restaurants, and set the scene for the Minister of the Environment, Phil Woolas, releasing his view in The Grocer magazine on 16 February, where he was quoted as stating that “drinking bottled water verges on being morally unacceptable”.
On Monday 18 February, BBC Television’s Panorama programme focused on the tap water vs bottled water issue. It examined the carbon footprint of bottled water imported into the UK from many worldwide destinations, including Fiji, as well as the landfill issues concerning the PET bottles, of which only some 20% are recycled.
The next day, Sustain issued its long-awaited report entitled 'The taps are turning – are we ending our love affair with bottled tap water?'.
As a result of this media attention, the subject was the talk of the events in Telford, and BWCA Chairman Michael Barnett gave the opening address at the Annual General Meeting, entitled 'They have us in their sights'.
Michael Barnett: No one could have failed to notice the media campaign that has developed over the past few weeks and climaxing in recent days, firmly set against the drinking of bottled water.
So many issues are put forward by the many interested parties that one is left bewildered and wondering just who is the prime mover behind this campaign? Who really stands to gain?
Of course, there's never smoke without fire, and among some of the outlandish claims made about bottled water, there are of course some with an element of truth.
For example, the sustainability and Carbon Footprint claims. However, is there any manufactured product available today that has no Carbon Footprint associated with its manufacture available to the consumer? Of course there isn’t. Even the human organism at its basic survival level, just metabolising, as in sleep for example, produces a Carbon Footprint.
So, why is so much fiction and passion entering this debate? Why the panic? Why the ever-increasing crusades from the Eco Warriors? There is undoubtedly a concerted campaign afoot. Just see the daily papers:
"In 2008 bottled water drinkers are the new smokers ... " The Times 16.01.08
And that old chestnut: "One litre of bottled water is 1,000 times more expensive than tap water!"
Then on Saturday 16 February, the Environment Minister, Phil Woolas, stated that drinking bottled water 'borders on being morally unacceptable ... ".
The Panorama programme of Monday 18 February followed up on this subject and other contributions by the Eco Warriors.
Consumer choice But why the attack on the consumers’ free choice to spend their hard earned money on what they choose to drink, be it tap water or bottled water?
No one forced consumers in the UK to consume approximately 2.3 billion litres of bottled water in 2006 – an exceptionally hot year. That’s about 40 litres per person. They did this of their own free will and spent £1.7 billion in the process. That purchase level is nothing short of a vote of confidence in a product and a delivery system, isn’t it?
Whatever their reasons; lifestyle, taste, quality, health, hydration, convenience, or availability, consumers did so of their own free will and preference.
The UK’s labour force is approximately 30 million people who go out to work five days a week. From the time they leave their homes to travel to work and then return home at the end of the day, they spend an average of 10 hours per day away from their home. During these 10 hours, or some 65% of their awake hours, they don't easily have a direct means of accessing the mains tap water system.
On their route to and from work, whether it's by public or private transport, tap water is rarely an available option. Any fluid intake for hydration has to come from beverages they purchase on the way. Tea, coffee, carbonated drinks and of course bottled water. Why, therefore, has it come into vogue to criticise these consumers for choosing to drink bottled water? It is, after all, available in convenient handy packs at affordable prices and has also been proven to be the healthiest alternative of all the available soft drinks.
In the workplace, much of the building stock isn't state of the art, and mains tap water may only be available in the kitchen, canteen or toilets. Staff in these workplaces have to choose what they drink and many of them have chosen bottled water for one reason or another.
The bottled water industry is being criticised for its meteoric growth over the past 20 years. If this has been so, then who has driven this growth? The consumer, naturally. The free-choosing consumer, whatever his reasons may have been. One thing we're sure of: no one forced him to do this! No Government Minister said, “you must drink bottled water".
The growth seen in the bottled water industry has come from an increased level of consciousness and understanding by the British public that health matters!
In part, this consciousness ironically did come from Ministerial statements in support of initiatives for healthy lifestyles, healthy food and drink in the home, workplace and of course schools. But these statements failed to consider the simple fact that tap water isn't generally available to consumers at all times when away from their homes.
Much of the growth that has been achieved by bottled waters has been at the expense of sweetened warm beverages such as tea and coffee, as well as carbonated bottled beverages, rather than tap water. Bottled water has challenged the traditional bottled carbonated soft drinks for their ‘share of throat’. Water, including bottled water, is now universally acclaimed as the healthy alternative in delivering hydration. * Hydration in a healthy context* There's now also universal recognition that health and hydration are interrelated. This isn't the exclusive domain of private medicine, the health and leisure industry, or the private commercial sector. The National Health Service openly recognises that drinking water and being adequately hydrated is essential for health. It has recognised that its operational costs would be cut substantially if the UK population was better hydrated.
We hear from health experts that the average person is only 70% hydrated at most times and the implications this has to lack of performance, failing health and general well-being. So there's absolutely no argument that WATER, all water, is good for ALL.
So why isn’t this the message the Government Minister is projecting? Why is he stating that only one type of water, tap water, is the solution – one which isn't universally available to the consumer? To quote a known brand of confectionary publicity material: “at Work, Rest and Play”.
... and price? Exaggeration about the price of bottled water is rife, too. It's publicised that huge volumes of bottled water are sold in restaurants at up to £6.00 per litre. Yes, that may well be so in the top restaurants of Mayfair, London, alongside bottles of Burgundy and Champagne costing in excess of £15,000 per 75cl bottles.
So what if they are? Are we not in a society where freedom of choice is paramount? If some private equity city slicker wishes to blow his New Year’s bonus on that bottle of Burgundy, shouldn’t he be allowed to do so?
But in the real world, we all know that at our local supermarket, the high volume own brands sell at about £0.28/2-litre bottle – just 14 pence a litre. These are the brands which account for the vast majority of the 2.3 billion litres consumed in 2006 by Jo Public.
So why exaggerate unless the real point one wishes to make is a weak one, and one stands a better chance of being heard by knocking the opposition.
Carbon footprint Let’s look at probably the only valid element of the argument against bottled water: its carbon footprint. Yet, to do so in isolation is wholly unfair.
Probably the largest contributory elements of the carbon footprint are transportation and the use of PET bottles.
Interestingly, all carbonated soft drinks are delivered in the same PET packaging and transport as bottled water. However, we don't see Eco Warriors and government ministers indicting cola manufacturers for their carbon footprint.
In reality, bottled water accounts for only one seventh of the whole UK bottled drinks market by volume – just 16% – yet it receives 100% of the media and Ministerial attention.
Is this fair? Especially when everyone agrees that water is the healthy alternative to the whole gamut of soft drinks.
One of the reasons for the focus on bottled water is due to misinformation, or to be kinder, the lack of information available, or even secrecy surrounding the true carbon footprint of tap water. What no one has yet calculated is the true environmental damage sustained by delivering a litre of tap water to our homes and businesses.
It's easy enough to claim that a litre of bottled water is x gm of CO2 having assessed the production and distribution energy usage of the manufacturer. But it's much, much harder to obtain data to assess the true carbon footprint of delivering a litre of tap water from the water utilities.
If such an analysis of mains tap water was undertaken, it mustn't ignore the trillions of litres and trillions of tons of water leaking from our national mains distribution systems daily. Just to give this some measure of scale, here are some facts: * “Daily 50% of mains water leaks from the distribution system.”*The Times 10.7.06 * “Total UK losses are 3.4 billion litres per day.” * The Times 10.8.07
This is an equivalent volume to fill three Lake Windermere’s each day. Or, almost 50% more water leaks from mains water pipes in the UK in one day then total UK consumption of bottled water in a year!
“The volume of the UK water leakage in 37 days is greater that the global volume of all bottled water sold.”
So, that’s the scale of the problem and the huge task before the water utilities to maintain these pipes on a daily basis, employing tens of thousands of men. These men drive as many vans and trucks and use diggers to excavate our roads, which they shut-off to traffic causing jams and diversions and longer travel distances. The carbon footprint of all this direct and indirect activity is on a mega scale, but it's not logged and set against the carbon footprint of tap water. Is this fair?
If this additional data was factored in to the ‘claimed’ carbon footprint of tap water, it's questionable if the carbon footprint would be the small fraction it's claimed to be, as compared to bottled water. * So what’s all this fuss about?* Ask yourself. How can a Government Minister make a statement pointing the finger of blame squarely at the bottled water industry, which provides an acclaimed safe healthy product, wherever and whenever it is needed, to an educated and informed consumer which selects to purchase it out of free will.
How can the same Minister state that drinking bottled water “borders on immorality….”
Have you ever heard any Government Minister make a similar statement that;
gambling borders on immorality?
smoking borders on immorality?
drinking alcohol borders on immorality?
driving 4 x 4 gas guzzlers borders on immorality?
Of course we have not, because the governments of the free world believe in freedom of choice.
Normally, if a government is not enthusiastic about a specific activity e.g. smoking, drinking, gambling then it applies a tax to it, swinging in some instances, to make the cost of pursuing such activity higher, but what is does not do is state that such an activity is immoral. It allows the consumer to exercise his free choice and pay the price, should he wish to do so.
Whilst speaking of government action and accepting that only some 23% of PET bottles are recycled, the question arising is who is at fault? The bottled water industry?
Maybe, partially. They could have introduced a deposit scheme, as did the bottled water cooler industry nearly 20 years ago to ensure that bottles are returned when empty. But what of government initiatives? What have we seen? Not much!
I visit Israel regularly and there, on every street corner, is a substantial wire cage intended for the public to place their empty PET bottles. These cages are never more that some 50 metres apart and nightly are emptied and the contents taken for recycling – not landfill. The national recycling rate is in excess of 80% and rising
In Germany each PET retail pack bottle has a Euro 0.5 deposit for the same purpose. So where is positive action from our Government? Non-existent! It appears they find it easier to point the finger at the bottled water industry. As is said, the best form of defence is attack.
And what of the 20,000+ jobs that the bottled water industry provides and the £1.7 billion that it adds to the UK GDP?
Both government and media soon forget the vital role bottled water played in the West Country last year when we had unprecedented flooding. Without the availability of bottled water this social tragedy would have become a national disaster. Oh, yes they want and expect the benefits of the bottled water industry, but only when it suits them . . .
Inform and reassure clients
We water cooler suppliers, members of the BWCA are only a little insulated from this raging debate, as our industry can differentiate itself in several ways from the bottled water PET retail pack providers. However, we are also supplying bottled water and the brush being stroked across the canvass at this time will probably touch us to some extent. Our clients will need to be informed and reassured of the benefits we provide and where we stand.
Firstly, our water cooler industry is essentially a B2B orientated service provider (not product) supplying hydration in the workplace where it is required both, under legislation and by staff wishing to maintain their hydration levels.
Our members offer both bottled water coolers and plumbed-in water cooler delivering tap water. Which of these our customers install is their choice, based on availability of plumbing and that old chestnut of tap water V bottled water taste debate. Whichever it is to be we fulfil the requirement by installing the relevant water cooler.
As an industry we have shown tremendous foresight and dedication to reduce the environmental impact of our activities.
Were we not one of the first, if not the first industry to provide financially for the recycling of water coolers at the end of their lives? We go back to 2005 – two years before the WEEE Regulations mandated we do so.
Have we not always charged bottle deposits to ensure that our bottles re returned to us?
Have we not always used returnable, refillable and recyclable bottles with a life of some 50 roundtrips before they are taken out of service?
Have we not always ensured that our scrapped bottles are supplied to recycling centres which crush and shred them to supply other industries as a raw material for non-food application?
Have we not recognised other aspects of our environmental footprint and appointed consultants to assist and direct us to reduce our Carbon Footprint where possible and offset where not?
I believe that whilst this storm blows overhead we need to remember our contribution to society by providing a safe, high quality product, where and when it is needed, in an environmentally conscious manner to consumers who drink it from personal choice to impove their wellbeing, health and hydration.
Michael Barnett Chairman British Water Cooler Association