Vanessa Nunez

Dr. Marks

ENGL 145

June 10, 2009

Take Back the Tap

I was walking to my economics class on a typical school day during winter quarter when I was stopped in my tracks by a huge cube that seemed out of place on Dexter Lawn. As I got closer, I was informed that the cube was composed of a half ton of crushed water bottles that the recycling center had provided for the “Take Back the Tap” campaign. Alongside the cube there was a sign stating, “Cal Poly students provide half a ton of waste from plastic bottles every two weeks.” Another stated, “Students dispose of 80,000 plastic bottles of water per quarter.” I was amazed at these statistics. Was I really part of a population that contributed to this amount of waste as a bottled water consumer? I regretted my actions and wondered why an institution that emphasized on the importance of sustainability was continuing to sell these environmentally destructive products.

By the end of their academic career at Cal Poly, students graduate with a degree in a major all the while acquiring an education in sustainability. Sustainability is defined by the United States Green Building Council as, “…balancing environmental responsiveness, resource efficiency and cultural and community sensitivity.” So why in the simple act of buying bottled water, do Cal Poly students fall short of these three principles? Like diamonds, plastic’s non-degradable structures promise to last, forever condemning our environment, resources, and communities, which are the very sources of sustainability we are fighting to conserve. This year, the pro-sustainability club, called the Empower Poly Coalition, began the “Take Back the Tap” campaign started by the Food and Water Watch Organization in an attempt to eliminate the purchasing of bottled water and replace it with the use of tap water. Using usingtap water instead of bottled water is sustainable because it is economical, resource efficient, environmentally friendly, and healthier.

The Food and Water Watch Organization is, “a nonprofit consumer rights organization, based in Washington, DC, that challenges the corporate control and abuse of our food supply and water resources” (Take Back the Tap). The organization’s purpose for the national “Take Back the Tap” campaign is to educate individuals on, “Why choosing tap water over bottled water is better for your health, your pocketbook, and the environment” (Take Back the Tap). In a 16 page report, written for the campaign, the organization provides significant research that explains the benefits and sustainability that come from drinking tap water versus bottled water. For example, the organization states that tap water is of a better quality because the Environmental Protection Agency, “…requires water systems serving more than one million residents test 300 water samples per month… far more often than the once-a week test for bottled water” (Total Coliform Rule). It goes on to mention that in 2006, Americans drank 8.3 billion gallons of bottled water,—about 26 gallons per person (Take Back the Tap). Industries are taking tap water that costs $.0002 per gallon and selling it at prices ranging from $0.89 to $8.26 per gallon, charging consumers 240 to 10,000 times more per gallon than tap water (Franklin, Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?). For example, Pepsi’s Aquafina brand, “…which is nothing more than the tap water further purified, registered $425.7 million in sales in 2005, followed by Coca- Cola’s Dasani bottled tap water at $361.1 million”(State of the Industry). Furthermore, the environment is also greatly impacted by the 86 percent of the empty plastics that are not recycled which contribute to about 2 million tons of disposable packaging material that end up in United States landfills each year (Arnold and Larsen).

Bottled water is sold on this campus exclusively by Pepsi Corporation. Cal Poly is currently in what has become a 12 year contract making this corporation the exclusive provider for on-campus beverages. This contract was in part established in return for the funding provided by PepsiCo for the construction of the sport fields for football, baseball, and other sport facilities which all carry the company’s logo. Alan Cushman, the Campus Dining Associate Coordinator for the Cal Poly Corporation, oversees the department of food products sold on campus and is familiar with this contract. Although many details could not be disclosed, Cushman did state that under this contract, ending this year, PepsiCo beverages currently sold on campus include Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Starbucks frappachinos, Aquafina, and Sobe drinks. Cushman calculated that Aquafina, the only water brand owned by PepsiCo, has sold 500 bottles a day on campus, adding to about 80,000 water bottles by the end of the quarter. Students are paying as much as $1.69 for a 20oz. bottle of Aquafina that will add to about $135,200 total in sales for the school by the end of this quarter. Cushman realizes that water bottles may pose a threat to the environment; however, he stated that there are many items sold that also possess negative characteristics, and taking them all off the shelves would not be possible or fair. Although there might be disagreement about Aquafina being sold by the institution, Cushman stated, “We are market driven and as long as students are buying these items I have to do my best to provide them.”

Due to the increasingly publicized concern about bottled water, major bottled water companies are working on renovating their production systems to keep their products on the market. I will focus on the PepsiCo Corporation, because that is the current vender at Cal Poly. On the company website, PepsiCo claims to be a sustainable packing company by following the, “…five principles of sustainable packing design…” which include reducing, reusing, recycling, removing, and renewing packaging materials to increase resource efficiency and waste reduction. They state that Aquafina’s half- liter, 16.9 oz., bottles are now being made with 35 percent less plastic saving, “…more than 50 million pounds of plastic annually. Aquafina's half-liter bottle weight has changed from 15 grams to 13.2 grams putting it among the lightest water bottles on the U.S. market” (Packaging and Solid Waste). Another claim made by the company is their purification system that they use on “public water sources” called HydRO-7TM. This seven-step purification system, according to Tanya Peacock, a Quality Assurance Manager for PepsiCo, “…removes impurities, micro growth, and organic matter, anything you don’t want in your water.” This method involves a process where water is transported through several filtrations that remove particulates, off-odors, and taste compounds; then adds a polishing finish for a crystal appearance, and is oxygenated to ensure its stability (HydrRO- 7 Process). Peacock assures that this process gets the impurities out and leaves pure water.

Although companies like PepsiCo have impressive packaging modifications and purification processes, that does not mean their system is acceptable. Pablo Paster, who is currently the Vice President of Greenhouse Gas Management Innovations for Climate CHECK, has done extensive research in the life cycle of bottled water, and has written articles for the Journal of Wine Economics, National Geographic, and Environmental Leader. Paster states, “The main issues with the production of bottled water are the packaging and the fact that it has to be transported by truck. Local water delivered through pipes is much more efficient.” Paster, in his “Ask Pablo” column, once calculated the true cost of the Fiji water bottle brand and found, “The manufacture and transport of that one kilogram bottle of Fiji water consumed 26.88 kilograms of water, 7.1 gallons, .849 Kilograms of fossil fuel, one liter or .26 gal, and emitted 562 grams of greenhouse gases, 1.2 pounds,” (Pablo Calculates). Astonishingly, it takes about seven times as much water to make a Fiji water bottle as the water it actually holds. Paster stated that every brand of bottled water releases different amounts of greenhouse gasses in their lifecycle, which mostly depends on the distance they have traveled. When asked if he believed that the corporations were truly concerned with the impact bottled water made on the environment, he stated that, “Companies are concerned with their image. Since consumers now care about bottled water, the companies ‘care’ too.” Paster, a recent Cal Poly alumnus and founder of the Campus Sustainability Initiative, believes that, “Cal Poly should encourage the use of reusable bottles (Sigg, Nalgene, Kleen Kanteen, etc.) by subsidizing their price and providing filtered water filling stations. This would reduce the impact of producing and transporting bottled water as well as reducing campus waste.”

One of the Empower Poly Coalition sustainability teams has formed to address the issue of bottled water consumption on campus. Jorge Montezuma and Michelle Beam are the Coordinators of the “Take Back the Tap” campaign. In accordance with the Food and Watch Organization, the goals of this national campaign are: “1) stop the purchasing of all bottled water for campus and community events, 2) stop the purchase of all bottled water for dining halls, and 3) renew the Cal Poly community commitment to safe, affordable water for everyone, by investing in well maintained fountains and cisterns in public space,” (Take Back the Tap). So far, the Empower Poly team has focused on informing the student population of the benefits of tap water and the wastefulness of bottled water. For example, Montezuma and Beam illustrated the concept of selling a natural resource that is not only vital for our existence, but also, rightfully has no owner by attempting to sell “bottled air” on campus. They also set up a booth during the University Union hour to get students to make a pledge to stop purchasing bottled water. In addition, the activist group set up a large display board asking students to write down why they chose to drink tap or bottled water, in order to see what preconceived notions kept them from drinking either source. They also tested the taste preference of tap water versus Aquafina by performing a one-sided blind test where they had 23 subjects drink two cups of water without knowing the water source. The subjects were then asked which water they preferred. The results showed that 12 out of the 20 subjects choose tap water over Aquafina, showing that bottled water, without the attractive packaging, is actually less favorable. The campaign coordinators also petitioned to the Cal Poly Corporation to eliminate the selling of bottled water but were rejected due to the high sale rate of the product. Since then, they have asked the Cal Poly Corporation for support in the selling of affordable reusable containers, such as Sigg, Nalgene, and Kleen Kanteen. These containers are a great investment because they are made with either stainless steel or other material that will not leak chemicals into your water. In addition, these reusable bottles can be used countless time, and thus reduce pollution. Beam, who has spoken to Cushman, says that Campus Dining is willing to support these alternatives to bottled water items.

My experience with this assignment has opened my eyes to a new meaning of sustainability. I have learned that sustainability does not mean using technology to replace former systems that are practical and work just fine. Bottled companies, like PepsiCo, have made millions in selling tap water to the same communities they took it from. Local filtration systems have provided quality water for many years without depleting sources, creating pollution, or charging high rates for their service. I believe a natural resource that falls from the sky has no owner and should be available for free public consumption. I was also inspired by my fellow students, Montezuma and Beam, whose passion for sustainability has driven them from contemplating an idea, to taking action towards making a change that will benefit the community and the planet.

Works Cited

1. Arnold, Emily, and Janet Larsen. "Bottled Water: Pouring Resources Down the Drain.” Eco-Economy Updates. 2 Feb. 2006. Earth Policy Institute. 5 June 2009 <http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update51.htm>.

2. Beam, Michelle. Personal Interview. 4 June 2009.

3. "Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype?” Issues: Water. Mar. 1999. Natural Resource Defense Council. 6 June 2009 <http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/bwinx.asp>.

4. Cushman, Alan. Personal Interview. 5 June 2009.

5. Franklin, Pat. "Down the drain Plastic water bottles should no longer be a wasted resource.” Waste Management World. 6 June 2006. Container Recycling Institute. 5 June 2009 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/5-WMW-DownDrain.htm>.

6. "HydRO-7 Process.” 2009. Aquafina. 6 June 2009 <http://www.aquafina.com/>.

7. Montezuma, Jorge. Personal Interview. 2 June 2009.

8. "Packaging and Solid Waste.” PepsiCo. 5 June 2009 <http://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Environment/Packaging-and-Solid-Waste.aspx>.

9. Paster, Pablo. Personal Interview. 4 June 2009

10. "State of the Industry.” April 2006. Beverage World.

11. "Sustainability.” Sustainability Web Page. 30 July 2008. Cal Poly. 8 June 2009 <http://www.facilities.calpoly.edu/sustainability/#report>.

12. "Take Back the Tap.” Water. June 2007. Food & Water Watch. 8 June 2009 <http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/take-back-the-tap/TakeBackTheTap_web.pdf>.

13. "Total Coliform Rule: A Quick Reference Guide.” Ground Water & Drinking Water. Nov. 2001. U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 5 June 2009 <www.epa.gov/safewater>.