SALSEG| 1

Bottled Water: Balancing Convenience and Chemical Contamination

Jason Salseg

Kapiolani Community College

SALSEG| 2

Dilution is the solution to pollution. While this catch phrase once

promoted by an Illinois water official in 1989 (Davis 3) is no longer favorable in the 21st century,

―reduce, reuse, recycle‖ is becoming as equally antiquated as world population continues to

rapidly grow, emerging countries push forward into the industrial age and communities scramble

to deal with compounding waste management problems and inefficiencies. Plastic is undoubtedly

an integral part of everyday life for Americans. Technology has not yet provided us with a textile

as versatile and inexpensive as the glorious and ambiguous chemical compound known as plastic.

The ever increasing popularity of plastic bottled water is now a perceived daily necessity for

some 25% of Americans (Hays). Bottled water is the hallmark of America‘s misconception on

what is safe and beneficial to human health and the environment, yet it continues to gain

momentum in popularity across the world. Bottled water is the pinnacle of an un-sustainable

practice permanently destroying marine environments, endangering the health of the consumer

and persons located across the globe, incorporating the depletion of un-renewable natural

resources into the daily American diet and the progressive, irreversible toxification of natural

food and water resources for future generations. The depth of disposable plastic‘s impact on the

human race over the last century is only now beginning to emerge as sales of the disposable

bottled water reach a 40 year high.

How did people drink water before plastic bottles? How did humans get clean water?

Before plastic bottles, families relied on water from the faucet. Before modern plumbing, people

drank water from wells. Before wells, humans drank water directly from the source; streams,

SALSEG| 3

rivers, rain, and plants. Today, humans drink water from manmade Polyethylene terephthalate

(PET) containers. The sales of bottled water in the United States and developing countries such

as China are growing at a staggering rate. Bottled water has become a commodity that

Americans not only purchase for convenience, but also as a part of their daily diet. The

increased reliance on packaged water has created a massive industry which sole purpose is to

manufacture the material needed to make single use PET bottles for water and other beverages.

The perception Americans have on bottled water is continuing to fuel the sales of this industry

and drive the chemical byproducts and waste of this readily available consumer resource to an

unmanageable level.

PET, or Polyethylene terephthalate, is a manufactured plastic resin and a form of

polyester widely used for packaging foods and beverages, especially convenience sized soft

drinks and water (―Global PET Market‖). The raw material for all packaging plastics is ethylene,

which is a gas derived from crude oil or natural gas, both of which are unrenewable fossil fuels

(―PTF: Manufacturing‖). Since the 1980s the materials needed to make virgin PET bottles have

become more inexpensive and manufactured at extraordinary volumes driving the price to put

anything in a disposable plastic bottle progressively cheaper for consumers. From 2005 to 2011

sales of newly manufactured PET resin, also known as virgin PET, the raw form of the material

needed to make a plastic bottle, have risen progressively at 7.8% a year, with Asia and North

America being the largest producers of PET resin (―Global PET Market‖). The production

outlook is optimistic for virgin PET manufactures. China National Bluestar, a company that

manufactures chemical materials, animal nutritional additives as well as PET resin, proudly

states ―raw material . . . is in abundant supply, and demands remain exuberant, the market

presents optimistic prospects‖ (―Global PET Demand‖). Bluestar states in their market report

SALSEG| 4

regarding handling future demands that ―manufacturers are adapting to the pace of new markets

through facility output expansion, large mergers, and new plants construction‖ (―Global PET

Demand‖). The increased demand for cheap bottled beverages has encouraged companies to

produce these chemicals on massive scales, subsequently flooding local economies with an

inexpensive product which waste is difficult to manage environmentally safe and accurately.

In 2010, the demand of bottle grade PET resin stood at 16.2 million tons (―Global PET

Demand‖). Sales of bottled water have skyrocketed over the last 30 years, from a product that

was practically unheard of 40 years ago, due to this increase in global supply and demand

(Cormier). Global sales of bottled water are rising 8% a year in the US and in even more in

developing countries like China, with bottled water sales growing 18% annually (Cormier). The

estimated cost in energy to produce the world‘s bottled water is 106 billion magajouels of energy

(Pacific Institute). To put this number into perspective, that is enough energy to power the Las

Vegas strip for 14 years of hot, desert, summer climate (Lovitt). The U.S. is significantly the

biggest consumer of bottled water per capita in the world although over 1 billion people across

the globe lack access to clean, safe and affordable drinking water (Hays; Rodwan). According to

the Beverage Marketing Corporation (BMC), a bottle beverage industry organization, U.S

bottled water sales are the strongest they have been in 5 years (―U.S. Consumption‖). In 2012,

per capita consumption in the U.S. increased 5.3% with every person in America drinking an

average of 30.8 gallons of bottled water annually (―U.S. Consumption‖). According to Consumer

Reports, every 60 seconds Americans spend $10,000 for bottled water (qtd. in ―U.S.

Consumption‖). The irony of these statistics is that 268 million Americans, almost every home in

America, has readily available, clean, safe drinking water, yet the public continues to

increasingly demand water wrapped in plastic (USEPA). As 40 years of sales growth statistics

SALSEG| 5

and market forecasts predict, ―Reduce‖ as part of the ―Reduce, Reuse, Recycle‖ campaign, is

clearly not going to be accepted by the public as viable option for single use plastic bottles.

―It struck me that all you had to do is take water out of the ground and sell it for more

than the price of wine, or oil for that matter‖ says Gustave Levin, former chair of Perrier Water

Company (qtd. in Hays). If only it were that straight forward. Given the simplicity and wide

spread availability of safe water, marketing tactics require bottlers to be creative. The

extraordinary steady increase in sales and popularity of bottled water is by no means accidental

or driven through necessity in America. Bottled water is marketed to the public through brand

image, exasperated claims of corporate social responsibility and misleading health benefits. As

the increasing environmental impact of bottled water has drawn the attention of economically

conscious consumers, marketing for these products has shifted to include heavily promoted

corporate social responsibility (CSR) claims. Three large multinational companies, Nestle,

Danone and Coca-Cola, share approximately one third of the global market and aggressively

market their bottled water in a way to draw attention away from the environmental fallout of

their products (Brei, Bohm). A current popular marketing strategy is the promotion of a bottled

water brand claiming to donate a socially valuable service, such as clean water, food or shelter in

exchange for the purchase of a particular label of bottled water. This is widely promoted as a

service to poor countries marketed in wealthy countries in comparison, which strategy is proving

successful (Brei, Bohm). Seven of the 10 biggest countries in per capita consumption of bottled

water are wealthy countries, including the U.S., where almost everyone has access to good

quality and relatively cheap tap water (Brei, Bohm). Volvic bottled water markets a campaign

―Drink 1, Give 10‖, in which the company will donate funds to UNICEF and World Vision in

order to help poor African nations for each liter of water sold (Brei, Bohm). This strategy in

SALSEG| 6

which bottlers market their product by claiming to solve world environmental and social

problems to maintain positive brand image raises serious questions in ethical marketing. Andrean

Harden, a researcher with The Polaris Institute, states that bottled water ―has perceived social

value, rather than true market value‖ (qtd. in Cormier). Brands such as Ethos Water make claims

in addressing global water problems each time their product is purchased (Hawkins, Emel).

Ethos Water, a Starbucks Coffee Partner, states on their website and bottles, claims such as

―Ethos® Water was created to help raise awareness about this terrible crisis and provide children

with access to clean water‖ (―Ethos Water Fund‖). Jeffery Caso, former Vice-President of Nestle

says ―We sell water . . . so we need to be clever‖ (qtd. in Hays). These questionable clever sales

tactics are admired by fellow water bottlers. In 2008, the Water Innovation Awards, an annual

industry event, included two categories related to ethical branding; Best Environmental

Sustainability Initiative and Best Ethical or Humanitarian Initiative (Brei, Bohm). Contradictory

claims such as these mislead the public to believe they are solving a global problem by

purchasing a product when in fact they are creating senseless waste through irrational

consumerism. In a research study by Vinicius Brei of the Federal University of Santa Catarina on

the moral values of bottled water marketing, Brei states ―that CSR should be based on genuine

multi-stakeholder regimes, where governments, corporations and civil society actors work

together to ‗do good ‗for society as a whole‖(Brei, Bohm). Brei concludes stating ―The only way

these poor impoverished nations can be seen as a stakeholder is through the consumption of

‗ethical‘ goods by Western consumers who the marketing campaigns are targeted at‖ (Brei,

Bohm). Water bottlers pushing claims of humanitarian movements based on the sale of a

controversial product is purely a marketing and management ploy to spin negative attention

surrounding their product into a misrepresented solution to a social problem that the consumer is

SALSEG| 7

inadvertently contributing to. These marketing tactics are unethical and deceiving to consumers

with good intentions who may otherwise not purchase bottled water, consequently contributing

more unnecessary waste to the local community.

One major particular driving force in the steady incline of bottled water sales is the social

stigma that bottled water is the safer alternative to public water and the collective feelings of

certain social status groups that it is the only safe source for clean water. Corporate

Accountability International (CAI) is a non-profit organization that works to inform and protect

the public from irresponsible and dangerous practices. CAI states that 75% of people in America

drink bottled water and 1 in 5 Americans rely solely on bottled water (Hays). Long gone are the

days of relying on water provided to your home. Public water supplies, including homes, airports,

commercial buildings and parks are monitored and controlled by the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) (USEPA). The EPA guideline for monitoring and controlling the quality of the

water being supplied to Americans through municipal infrastructure is a long list of laws and

regulations reinforced by the Safe Water Drinking Act. In order to make these laws and

regulations transparent to the public, the EPA periodically reviews, updates and issues

memorandums which clarify drinking water policies and regulations. The EPA states that ―these

policy memos have been collected into a water supply guidance (WSG) manual which is made

available to states and public water systems to assist in implementation of the Safe Drinking

Water Act‖ (―Public Water Supervision‖). The WSG manual is a lengthy, detailed, and technical

document that covers every aspect of public water, ground water, ocean water, waste water, rain

water and any source of contaminant to water one could imagine. Bottled water, on the other

hand, is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) whose policy is based on the

EPA‘s national primary drinking water regulations as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and

SALSEG| 8

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (Stephenson). The FDA regulations for bottled water are intended to be

at least as stringent as the EPA standards for tap water although several alarming concerns have

been brought to congress by John Stephenson, Director of Natural Resources and Environment

of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (―U.S. Consumption‖). Stephenson expresses

concern in a 2009 testimony to Government officials regarding the known dangerous chemical

DEHP, an organic compound widely used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride plastics, and

accuracy in quality control and labeling by the water bottle industry (Stephenson). Stephenson

goes on record stating;

FDA deferred action on DEHP in a final rule published in 1996, and has yet to either adopt a

standard or publish a reason for not doing so, even though FDA‘s statutory deadline for

acting on DEHP was more than 15 years ago. More broadly, we found that FDA‘s regulation

of bottled water (including its implementation and enforcement), particularly when compared

with EPA‘s regulation of tap water, reveals key differences in the agencies‘ statutory

authorities. Of particular note, FDA does not have the specific statutory authority to require

bottlers to use certified laboratories for water quality tests or to report test results, even if

violations of the standards are found. Among our other findings, the states‘ requirements to

safeguard bottled water often exceed those of FDA, but are still often less comprehensive

than state requirements to safeguard tap water. FDA and state bottled water labeling

requirements are similar to labeling requirements for other foods, but the information

provided to consumers is less than what EPA requires of public water systems under the Safe

Drinking Water Act. Public water systems must annually provide consumer confidence

reports that summarize local drinking water quality information about the water‘s sources,

detected contaminants, and compliance with national primary drinking water regulations as

SALSEG| 9

well as information on the potential health effects of certain drinking water contaminants.

FDA does not require bottled water companies to provide this information (Stephenson).

In this document it is very clear that there is cause for major concern to the FDA‘s ability to

monitor and control bottled water being imported from around the world and drawn from natural

sources across the United States. If there are discrepancies, as stated by Stephenson of the GAO,

in the testing, labeling and monitoring of dangerous chemicals by the FDA in the billions of

bottles of water Americans buy every year, then there should be as much concern as to how the

chemicals are monitored that make up the bottles in which this water is sold in. The FDA, which

is dependent on EPA guidelines set for monitoring public water, lacks the expertise and history

the EPA has in water quality control. As America‘s dependence on bottled water has increased

and the use of public water sources has declined, it is concerning that the quality control of

bottled water is struggling to meet the most minimum standards set for tap water.

In 2012, American consumers purchased 31.2 billion liters of packaged water (Pacific

Institute). Supplying American consumers demand for bottled water requires a significant

amount of energy generated from natural resources to acquire and process the water, bottle and

package the water, ship to the consumer and dispose of the inevitable waste and byproduct of

this highly valued convenience. The Pacific Institute (PI) is an organization of Scientists and

Researchers that tackle global environmental problems in order to find sustainable solutions. In

addressing global problems concerning bottled water and pollution caused by it, PI states that

environmental impact of bottled water can be estimated to require more than 17 billion barrels of

oil to produce resulting in 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide released into the environment, not

including the energy for transportation (Pacific Institute). In addition to these costs there is also a

significant amount of energy consumption involved in filling the bottles, moving them to the

SALSEG| 10

point of sale, cooling them in the store, vending machine or at home and eventually recovering,

disposing or attempting to recycle them (Pacific Institute). The depletion and cost of these

resources needed to produce or import bottled water increases exponentially for Hawaii because

of our remote location. Hawaii does not manufacture PET feedstock, PET resin, PET bottles or

the material needed to make any type of beverage bottle, so as a result all these materials must be

shipped no less than 3,758 miles to Hawaii and often times much farther. Richard Thompson,

Professor at the School of Marine Science and Engineering, states in a research study published

by the Royal Society, that approximately 4% of world oil production is used as feedstock to

make plastics and a similar amount is used as energy in the process (Thompson et al.).

Thompson summarizes his view on PET and plastic packaging stating ―given our declining

reserves of fossil fuels, and finite capacity for disposal of waste to landfill, this linear use of

hydrocarbons, via packaging and other short-lived applications of plastic, is simply not

sustainable‖ (Thompson et al.). All Hawaii residents absorb a cost for these PET containers. The

increased consumption of bottled water in Hawaii creates a three-fold financial impact in which

Hawaii customers are consuming and paying for the natural resources needed to import the

bottles themselves and packaging, the cost of disposal or recycling, as well as the shipment of the

water itself, often times not extracted locally.

Many chemicals used in PET resin manufacturing produce problematic effects to humans

and the environment based on exposure levels. The chemicals and byproducts such as ethylene

monomers, Antimony and various types of Dioxins are used and created in the manufacturing

process of PET feedstock or resin. Chemicals used in the manufacturing process are not required

to be labeled on the product or tested for human side effects prior to release or use in PET and

are considered proprietary of the manufacturer (Terry). What is current knowledge are the

SALSEG| 11

industry standard chemical compounds required to make any type of PET resin or feedstock. In

order to make PET feedstock or resin, chemicals are manufactured, processed and molded into a

preform, a small dense, miniature, plastic bottle, from raw materials before being processed

again into a full size bottle of varying sizes, shapes and colors. The main chemical component, or

feedstock, in plastic bottles is Polyethylene terephthalate (ethylene), also identified and labeled

on most bottles as PET, PETE, PETP or PET-P, R-PET (―Organic Chemical Process‖).

Substantial threats to health arise during plastic manufacturing, consumer use and disposal, both

from ethylene monomers, one of the basic building blocks for plastic, and from the problem

chemicals added to give plastic products their desirable performance properties (―Organic

Chemical Process‖). Any type of ethylene monomer can pose a risk to human health when used

in manufacturing food products and is not intended to be a part of the human diet or daily human

exposure.

In addition to ethylene, a known chemical used in the manufacturing process of PET

resin or feedstock is Antimony, a chemical element found in nature as sulfide mineral stibnite

(SMS)(―World Antimony‖). SMS must be processed and altered into Antimony in order to be

used in PET (―World Antimony‖). China has been the largest producer of Antimony and its

compounds using industrial methods such as roasting and ―subsequent carbothermal reduction‖

or direct reduction of stibnite with iron in order to use it in PET applications (―World

Antimony‖). According to the NRDC, ―PET plastic water bottles have been shown to leach

antinomy into water‖ (NRDC). A recent study conducted by University of Heidelberg researcher

Bill Shotyk and published in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring, found antimony levels in

PET water bottles were higher than levels found where the water was sourced (as cited in

NRDC). The EPA has not classified antimony for carcinogenicity but has reviewed studies

SALSEG| 12

showing ―an increased incidence of spontaneous abortions, as compared with a control group,

was reported in women working at an antimony plant‖ as well as listing other disturbing,

inconclusive side effects requiring further research (―Antimony Compounds‖). These chemicals,

amongst many others, that are required for the production of the raw materials required to make

PET resin and feedstock, have been shown to some degree to be harmful to humans and animals

alone on a small scale. Based on this information it would be logical to conclude these chemicals

alone needed in the manufacturing process of PET resin pose an increase danger to humans,

animals and the environment as world PET resin production increases.

In addition to dangerous chemicals used in PET resin manufacturing, the production of

dioxins, a chemical air pollutant that is released during the manufacturing process and an

estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide are released annually as a result of bottled water

production (Pacific Institute). Dioxins, which are highly toxic in even at low doses, are emitted

into the atmosphere and waterways when most plastics are manufactured and incinerated. While

dioxin levels in the United States environment have been declining for the last 30 years, they

break down so slowly that some of the dioxins from past releases will still be in the environment

many years hence (Pacific Institute). In its 2000 final draft reassessment of the health effects of

dioxins, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that dioxins have the

potential to produce an array of adverse health effects in humans (NRDC). The EPA report

estimated that the average American's risk of contracting cancer from dioxin exposure may be as

high as 1 in 1,000, one thousand times higher than the government's current "acceptable"

standard of 1 in a million (NRDC). Dioxins are also endocrine disruptors, substances that can

interfere with the body's natural hormone signals, damage the immune system and may affect

reproduction and childhood development (NRDC). The effects of bottled water globally

SALSEG| 13

consumed and mass produced at the current extraordinary rate is simply an answer to the

public‘s demand. Ironically, bottled water has no known health benefits, but instead has

countless studied and researched health consequences, not only for the consumer, but for the

global community and the environment, yet it continues to gain popularity across the world with

recycling the prevalent answer to PET‘s absurd risk to benefit ratio.

After the PET resin has been manufactured, it is then sold to be made into various types

of pre-forms immediately prior to becoming a bottle and being filled with water. Each

manufacture has individual proprietary chemical blends based on the desired performance, retail

cost and application. Numerous chemicals that make up various types of PET bottles continue to

be researched and proven to be a danger to humans. PET chemical derivatives enter the human

body through several avenues and countless studies have been done on several common PET

elements in varying control conditions. A PET bottles chemical composition varies from each

different manufacture, therefore it offers limited benefit for researchers to conclude a single

chemical alone is dangerous to humans before the composition or concentration is changed by

the manufacture or the FDA can set a guideline based on presumed exposure levels to humans.

Several chemicals in the PET preform and bottle manufacturing process have been

studied and concluded to be dangerous to humans. One widely recognized and used chemical in

plastic bottle manufacturing is Bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA is a hardening agent used in the process

of making PET feedstock. Many polycarbonate bottles, microwave ovenware, and eating utensils

are made with BPA or similar chemical compounds (NRDC). Hundreds of studies have

evaluated BPA as a chemical that disrupts the body‘s normal hormonal activity (NRDC). The

National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) states that ―more than 90 percent of the population

has BPA in their bodies, at levels close to those which have been shown to cause harm in animal

SALSEG| 14

studies‖ (NRDC). BPA is presently widespread in the human environment and food chain.

According to the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Bisphenol-A

can leach into food from the protective internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from

consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers, water bottles, and

baby bottles (―Bisphenol A‖). The primary source of exposure to BPA for most people is through

the diet, while air, dust and water are other possible sources of exposure (―Bisphenol A‖). BPA

in food and beverages accounts for the majority of daily human exposure. In the 2003-2004

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted by the Center for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC), the CDC found detectable levels of BPA in 93% of 2517 urine samples

from people 6 years and older (―Bisphenol A‖). As recent as 2008, a report was publicized and

drew national attention by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) regarding the chemical BPA

and its dangers to humans (―Plastic Water Bottles‖). In response to this publication many US

manufactures leaned away from using the chemical BPA and began labeling their products BPA

free, such as major water bottle manufactures Nalgene, Kor, Tritan and Camelbak (―Plastic

Water Bottles‖). Despite the EPA determining BPA compounds to be ―generally safe‖, a recent

study by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of 10 products advertised as microwave-safe, found

that BPA leached into food from packaging labeled with resin codes 1,2 and 5, the most common

resin types used in bottled water (―Plastic Water Bottles‖).

As studies continue to be done on PET chemicals such as BPA, more answers produce

more questions and concerns. A common misconception by consumers regarding products

advertised as BPA free is that they have been concluded safe, but a substitute chemical of similar

properties must be used in its place to process PET. These replacements to BPA have also been

studied and often produce similar or worse effects to the human reproductive system. In a study

SALSEG| 15

published in Environmental Health Perspectives on products advertised as BPA free, they found

that these products also release hormone-disrupting chemicals having estrogenic activity (EA)

similar to BPA (Yang et al.). The studied tested and determined ―almost all commercially

available plastic products we sampled—independent of the type of resin, product, or retail

source—leached chemicals having reliably detectable EA, including those advertised as BPA

free, in some cases, BPA-free products released chemicals having more EA than did BPA-

containing products‖ (Yang et al.). This research study concludes;

The exact chemical composition of almost any commercially available plastic part is

proprietary and not known. A single part may consist of 5-30 chemicals, and a plastic

item containing many parts (e.g., a baby bottle) may consist of 100 or more chemicals,

almost all of which can leach from the product, especially when stressed (Yang et al.).

A substitute for BPA now used in baby bottles, water bottles and other PET bottles is Bisphenol-

S (BPS), thought to be safer than BPA. Cheryl Watson at The University of Texas Medical

Branch at Galveston studied BPS and BPS leaching in water bottles. Her research found that

even small amounts of BPS leached from bottles can disrupt a cell‘s normal functioning,

potentially leading to metabolic disorders such as diabetes and obesity, asthma, birth defects or

cancer (as cited in Bilbrey). Watson states ―[Manufacturers] put ‗BPA-free‘ on the label, which

is true. The thing they neglected to tell you is that what they‘ve substituted for BPA has not been

tested for the same kinds of problems that BPA has been shown to cause . . . that‘s a little bit

sneaky‖ (as cited in Bilbrey). A blurred range of chemicals is found in PET bottles when

analyzed, none of which have health benefits. Manufactures proudly stating ―BPA Free‖ is

misleading the public to believe the need for chemicals similar to BPA has been found to be

unnecessary in the manufacturing process when instead they have only changed the chemical

SALSEG| 16

enough to lose the public‘s negative association with the product and hazardous chemicals it

contains. This common practice by PET bottle manufacturers is an irresponsible, immoral and an

unethical way for bottlers to stay ahead of research by the EPA, FDA and the scientific

community whose interests are solely in human health and public safety.

Plastic is incorporated into nearly every part of human daily life. None of these plastic

components of daily life are directly correlated to human diet on a consistent daily basis

throughout the entire world like PET and water. Because of bottled waters growing immersion in

human diet, mounting attention by the scientific community has been brought to discover how

wide spread throughout the population the chemicals that migrate from PET are and the levels at

which they are unsafe to humans. In the report ―Plastics, the Environment and Human Health:

Current Consensus and Future Trends‖ by Richard C. Thompson, he covers biomonitering, the

testing and measurement of toxic chemicals in the human population, and PET bottles. In his

study Thompson states ―this approach (biomonitering) has shown that chemicals used in the

manufacture of plastics are present in the human population, and studies using laboratory

animals as model organisms indicate potential adverse health effects of these chemicals‖

(Thompson et al.). It hardly needs to be proven that humans are exposed to plastic chemicals on

a regular basis, but knowledge of the safe level of exposure and concentration of these chemicals

in the general population is critical to determining safe levels for manufacturers of these products.

The FDA is responsible for determining what chemicals are safe or can be claimed as

safe and at what levels for use in human food products such as water bottles. No claims are

made or regulations in place by the FDA as to what are safe levels of secondary exposure are,

such as consuming food like fish exposed to these chemicals. The FDA recognizes the danger of

these chemicals and attempts to regulate what they determine are safe levels or ―negligible risks‖,

SALSEG| 17

understanding that to prevent human exposure to these chemicals would prompt expensive

changes in manufacturing practices and FDA policing. The FDA sets general rules for the

amount of a dangerous chemical a human can be exposed to by PET water bottles or recycled

PET by calculating an estimated risk based on an average person‘s daily intake and setting a

threshold. As the FDA states, chemicals in PET are calculated by estimating daily intake.

Although when chemicals utilized in PET are within these threshold guidelines set by the FDA,

but an individual‘s exposure is above the FDA‘s estimated daily intake, an adverse health effect

seems inevitable.

Studies have taken into consideration what government regulatory agencies such as the

FDA consider ―estimated‖ daily intake. The increased observations of PET chemicals

widespread in the human population and government agencies allowing PET manufacturers to

push chemical concentrations to estimated risk levels has brought on concern by scientists. In

Thompson‘s comprehensive study he states;

(there) is the need to modify our approach chemical testing for risk assessment . . . as

noted by these authors and others, there is a need to integrate concepts of endocrinology

in the assumptions underlying chemical risk assessment . . . in particular, the assumptions

that dose–response curves are monotonic and that there are threshold doses (safe levels)

are not true for either endogenous hormones or for chemicals with hormonal activity,

which includes many chemicals used in plastics (Thompson et al.).

The current FDA system that regulates what chemicals are allowed to be contained in PET

bottles and at what levels are skewed. The bottled beverage regulatory agency relies on outside

laboratory tests based on estimated consumption levels. The FDA does not take into account

outside sources of human exposure to these chemicals or the inevitable fact these inexpensive

SALSEG| 18

disposable bottles are being lost into the environment by consumers and local waste and

recycling programs. In Thompson‘s study he reports about BPA, a type of a phthalate, stating;

Recent work has shown a significant relationship between urine levels of BPA and

cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and abnormalities in liver enzymes, and Stahlhut

et al. (2009) have reported that exposure of adults in the USA to BPA is likely to occur

from multiple sources and that the half-life of BPA is longer than previously estimated,

and the very high exposure of premature infants in neonatal intensive-care units to both

BPA and phthalates is of great concern . . . the toxicological consequences of such

exposures, especially for susceptible subpopulations such as children and pregnant

women, remain unclear and warrant further investigation (Thompson et al.).

The testing the FDA relies on to regulate these chemicals can only be done on laboratory test

animals, one isolated chemical at a time, therefore much is unknown about the overall effects on

grown adults, children, or pregnant women through PET leaching and consumption of food or

animals exposed to these chemicals. Thompson states;

Studies have reported associations between phthalate levels and a number of adverse

health effects in humans, suggesting that either humans are more sensitive to phthalates

than experimental animals or that the testing paradigm used in traditional toxicological

studies, which examines one phthalate at a time, has not served to accurately predict

adverse effects from the mixture of phthalates to which humans are exposed

(Thompson et al.).

It is evident that the scientific community is deeply concerned about the chemical mixture

humans are being exposed to as a direct cause of mass produced and marketed PET bottled

products. There is no clear research to which the FDA can claim a bottled beverage is safe.

SALSEG| 19

Conversely, there is mounting evidence and intensifying concern that no current chemicals used

in PET can be considered safe for anyone and that PET is unquestionably toxic at any

concentration on individual and global levels.

These empty bottles, plastic labels, caps and bulk packaging material must be dealt with

by the consumer, municipalities and public and private waste services after its single use. It is

estimated that 85 million bottles are used every minute and that plastic makes up 260 to 300

million tons of waste of annually, most is one time use and less than 5% get recycled

(Handwerk). A small percentage of these bottles get recycled, but inevitably some cannot be

recycled and some do not even get a chance to be recycled. In the United States it estimated by

the Polaris Research Group that 85% of PET bottles escape recycling and the ones that do get

picked up by recyclers about 40-50% are shipped to developing countries such as China

(Cormier). This translates to approximately 5-7% of the estimated 11.8 billion dollars annually

Americans spend on bottled water get recycled, 85% get landfilled, burned or lost and 5-7% gets

shipped to developing countries with questionable environmental and recycling methods

(Handwerk). Brian Handwerk of National Geographic points out that ―in many parts of the world,

particularly in developing nations, people have no means of disposing of plastic bottles and

packaging have become ever-present parts of daily life‖ (Handwerk). Developing countries like

China are experiencing a similar bottled water sales growth as the U.S. experienced in the 1990‘s,

with bottled water sales in China growing at a rate of 18% annually (Cormier). It is clear that

developing countries like China will continue to grow in respect to their market share in the

bottled beverages sector and will struggle with similar challenges as the United States is

currently facing in recycling and managing the post-consumer waste. The United States‘

contribution of discarded and valueless PET recyclables to economies like China‘s is only

SALSEG| 20

contributing to an inevitable difficulty for these countries to practice environmentally safe

methods of waste management that these heavily polluted countries are already immersed in.

In Hawaii we have a recycling system as unique as our geographical location in

comparison to the rest of the United States. In Hawaii, the 30% of total PET purchased on Oahu

that is placed in the mixed recyclables, blue recycling bins or redemption centers are sent to RRR

Recycling Center (RRR), a company contracted by the City and County of Honolulu in Cambell

Industrial Park (―Where Does it Go‖). At RRR these materials are placed on a single line

conveyor belt and are manually sorted by 14 workers, operating 2 shifts per day and operating 16

hours a day (―Where Does it Go‖). This labor intensive operation allows RRR to sort through

approximately 7 tons of mixed recyclables per day (―Where Does it Go‖). The plastic bottles

with resin codes #1 and #2 are separated by hand from newspapers and aluminum and are then

crushed into 900 pound bales of plastic (―Where Does it Go‖). Virgin PET is indicated on the

bottom of the bottle by any PET product not labeled R-PET, signifying no part of the bottle was

made from recycled material. The overwhelming majority of bottled water sold in Hawaii is

packaged in virgin PET. Girard of Polaris Institute states it is cheaper for companies in the

United States to use virgin PET manufactured from raw material than heavily processed recycled

PET (Cormier). The remaining plastic bottles #3 thru #7 at RRR are bundled as ―mixed plastic‖

and are either sold to China, dependent on market value, or sent to H-Power Power (Honolulu

Program of Waste Energy Recovery) to be burned and buried or directly buried in the

Waimanalo Gulch Landfill (―Where Does it Go‖). The resulting bails of plastic bottles #1 and #2

from RRR are then sold and shipped 5,961 miles to PET brokers and scrap recyclers in China

(―Where Does it Go‖). Plastics #3 thru #7 that China does not purchase is sent to H-Power,

owned by the City and County of Honolulu and managed by Covanta Energy (Harvey). Plastic

SALSEG| 21

that is sent to H-Power, including all bottle caps and labels, is then combusted in furnaces at

2,000 degree F temperatures reducing it to ash 10% of its original volume (Harvey). From H-

Power the resulting 100,000 annual tons of ash and chemical mix is sent to Waimanalo Gulch

Landfill overlooking Ko‘olina Marina to be buried (Harvey). The 200 acre Waimanalo Gulch

Landfill is owned by the City and County of Honolulu but is operated and managed under

contract with Waste Management of Hawaii and is estimated to have an additional 20 years of

capacity (Harvey). The landfill is maintained in a ―honeycomb‖ method, in which the chemical

liquid and ash are enclosed in three layers of dirt, plastic and fabric liners on top of a ―sump‖

area that collects and re-routes contaminated rainwater run-off and methane gas produced by the

waste that will eventually be burned (Harvey). In 2010, Oahu recycled over 550, 000 tons of

waste, or about 30% of the total waste stream, also called the municipal waste stream (MWS)

(―Where Does it Go‖). Including construction and demolition materials, Oahu recycled 40% of

the MWS in comparison to the national average of 33% (―Where Does it Go‖). This statistic,

proudly stated by recycling officials, is somewhat misleading due to the fact that none of

Hawaii‘s total MWS is physically recycled on Oahu or in the U.S. It could be assumed that it is

unknown if the plastic PET that is sent to China is ever recycled, or recycled in a socially and

environmentally responsible method. The ―Reduce, Reuse, Recycle‖ process promoted and

relied on across the United States as an attempt to maintain single use plastics clearly shows an

inability to ―self‖ sufficiently manage even the minority percentage of this ―recyclable‖

consumer waste. Hawaii‘s method of using un-renewable natural resources to ship consumer

waste to another country with no knowledge of the resulting outcome is globally irresponsible

and should not be passed off or promoted as ―recycling‖. The State of Hawaii is not currently

equipped to recycle or effectively recover the public‘s waste stream of ―recyclable‖ plastic and

SALSEG| 22

naively relies on the premise that a foreign country will forever accept this waste. Under these

current conditions, the State of Hawaii is not and will never be a U.S. candidate as a good

example of a sustainable economy or an environmentally sound state.

Hawaii‘s PET bottle waste that is currently being sent to China is presumed to be burned,

landfilled or ideally, recycled. Although it is unknown if this PET waste actually does get

recycled, it would be assumed that if it does, it is down-cycled into food packaging or another

PET bottle, also labeled R-PET or PET-R, for recycled PET. The chemical composition in the

resulting mixed blend of PET could be from many sources containing the chemicals from the

original PET bottle. The EPA addresses this overlooked step in the recycling process by stating;

A recommended approach for estimating the maximum level of a chemical contaminant

in the recycled material that would result in an estimated daily intake (EDI) that does not

exceed 1.5 micrograms/person/day, the level that FDA would generally consider to be of

negligible risk for a contaminant migrating from recycled plastic (FDA).

The FDA explains their regulatory power to enforce these guidelines to PET recyclers by stating;

The FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally

enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidance‘s describe the Agency's current thinking

on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or

statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word ‗should‘ in Agency guidance‘s

means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required (FDA).

In a lack of expertise and supervision, the FDA allows water bottlers to self-regulate the safety of

recycled PET and the sources of the material they use. In the FDA‘s 2006 ―Guidance for

Industry: Use of Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging: Chemistry Considerations‖, the FDA

states ―the possibility that chemical contaminants in plastic materials intended for recycling may

SALSEG| 23

remain in the recycled material and could migrate into the food the material contacts is one of the

major considerations for the safe use of recycled plastics for food-contact applications‖ (FDA).

In an attempt to clarify enforceability of recommendations, the FDA addresses manufacturers

that produce recycled material for PET water bottles stating, ―although not required by law or

regulation, recyclers of plastics intended for the manufacture of food-contact articles are invited

to submit information on their recycling process to FDA for evaluation and comment‖ (FDA). It

is obvious the FDA has little concern for the chemical composition of recycled PET bottles

effects on human health, although government recycling programs claim success in recycling 30%

of these products overseas. The EPA and FDA guidelines for regulating contaminants in PET

containers should be policy put in place to protect the public, not recommendations and

suggestions allowing manufactures to interpret what is safe to the public. U.S. recyclers are not

required to take chemical contamination into consideration for their recycled products or

materials subsequently leaving many questions to the safety of the PET resin being purchased

from oversea recyclers like China National Bluestar or the use of Hawaii‘s recycled material in

the Chinese consumer market.

Currently 285 billion tons of plastic waste in the United States is not recycled and

eventually landfilled, littered or lost. It is inescapable that a percentage of this plastic will end up

in the Ocean. Bottled water sales are growing by 8% annually and correspondently is this

pollution visually present and scientifically verified in the world‘s oceans. This is especially of

great concern in the Pacific Ocean because of observed growing concentration and quantity of

discarded plastics. In a comprehensive study by Richard C. Thompson of the Marine Biology

and Ecology Research Centre at the University of Plymouth, Thompson states ―data from

shorelines, from the open ocean and from debris ingested by seabirds, all indicate that quantities

SALSEG| 24

of plastic fragments are increasing in the environment, and quantities on some shores are

substantial‖ (Thompson et al.). Plastic bottles find their way into the ocean via several methods,

including runoff from land, landfills, shipping containers used to ship recyclables or careless

disposal methods at homes, commercial facilities or recycling centers. Handwerk of National

Geographic states ―80% of the waste stream into the ocean is land base; rivers, streams, drains,

gutters a mile or so from the shoreline‖ (Handwerk). The mismanagement and indifferent

attitude of consumers and waste management of PET, even a minority percentage, compounds

over time progressively increasing as single use PET bottles grow in popularity.

When these plastic containers reach the ocean they are subject to the movement of the

wind and seas becoming concentrated in ocean current areas called vortexes. The North Pacific

Gyre is 1 of the world‘s 11 gyres and is made up of 4 major ocean currents located between Asia

and the U.S., encompassing Hawaii (―Project Kasai‖). The North Pacific Gyre (NPG) is made up

of thousands of square miles of ocean and presents the greatest mass of water pollution (―Project

Kasai‖). The NPG is approximately twice the size of Texas and is so heavily polluted by plastic

debris that is often referred to as the ―The Great Pacific Garbage Patch‖ by scientists and

researchers (Barry; ―Project Kasai‖). Handwerk of National Geographic estimates that as much

as 10% of the world‘s 260 million tons of discarded plastic ends up in vortices like the Pacific

Garbage Patch (Handwerk). The concerning correlation between the NPG, China, Hawaii and

the U.S. mainland is that the NPG, the largest concentration of PET pollution, is the area in

which PET waste is transported from the U.S., the largest consumer of bottled water, to China,

the largest purchaser of PET waste.

The effort to reverse human destruction to these critical marine ecosystems such as the

North Pacific Gyre is challenging, complicated and disheartening. Currently there are no

SALSEG| 25

solutions for cleanup and most believe it is not possible due to the quantity of debris and the

steady increasing contamination plastic into the world‘s oceans. Determined companies like

Project Kasai, an ocean voyaging clean-up initiative, are testing to learn if the debris can be

detoxified (―Project Kasai‖). Jim Dufour of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the

University of California, San Diego is advising Project Kasai and states "We need to do the

chemistry and see how much plastic is reaching the water and the ocean sediments, how much is

being broken into [these] tiny particles and ingested by marine life at rates we can't imagine"

(Handwerk). This ongoing effort to monitor areas of mass plastic pollution in areas like the NPG

is one of very few due to the NPG‘s remote location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Unfortunately in the case of single use PET bottles, the contribution of new waste will certainly

out-pace the research efforts at the current rapidly inclining rate of PET sales and disappointing

waste recovery statistics.

The presence of human plastic waste in the marine environment has steadily increased

over time as humans have depended more on plastic in daily life and progressively incorporate

these items, such as bottled water, as a necessity. The presence of plastic debris in ocean

locations such as the North Pacific Gyre effect the marine ecosystem and the animals that live

there in multiple negative aspects, including physical harm, adaptation, feeding habits and the

toxification of the food chain.

In a 2008 study published in the journal Environmental Research by oceanographer and

chemist Charles Moore of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, Moore states, ―about 44

percent of all seabirds eat plastic, apparently by mistake, sometimes with fatal effects and 267

marine species are affected by plastic garbage—animals are known to swallow plastic bags,

which resemble jellyfish in mid-ocean‖ (Barry). In a collaborative study done by Julia Reisser at

SALSEG| 26

the School of Environmental Systems Engineering in Perth Australia on the effect of micro-

plastics on marine animals, Reisser states ―millimeter-sized plastics are abundant in most marine

surface waters, and known to carry fouling organisms that potentially play key roles in the fate

and ecological impacts of plastic pollution‖ (―Algalita Expeditions‖). Sadly, it has become

common knowledge that the physical presence of plastic is doing harm to marine animals in the

form of entanglement, suffocation and death from digestive track complications. Reisser points

out in her study the effects beyond digestions, stating;

Anthropogenic millimeter-sized polymers have created a new pelagic habitat for

microorganisms and invertebrates. The ecological ramifications of this phenomenon for

marine organism dispersal, ocean productivity, and biotransfer of plastic-associated

pollutants, remains to be elucidated (―Algalita Expeditions‖).

As polymers have increased in public use, emerging studies like Reisser‘s are now beginning to

show and question the adverse effects caused by the ingestion of plastic and the chemicals

contained in the material. The iconic photos of sea animals entangled in plastic are merely

scratching the surface of this growing problem in the ocean ecosystem and the damage to marine

animals.

In addition to habitat changes caused by chemicals, research is beginning to confirm that

over time the concentration of plastics is creating an environment in which marine animals must

adapt and evolve to in order to survive, subsequently irreversibly changing the ecosystem. In

2012 a study was done on the North Pacific Gyre by researchers at the Scripps Institution in La

Jolla, California on the effect of the presence of plastic in the ocean and its effect on marine life

(Madren). The study compared data from 2 recent voyages to the Pacific Gyre and data collected

as far back as 1970 on the eggs of the Halobates sericeus, a water strider that lays its eggs on

SALSEG| 27

floating objects (Madren). The study showed that the concentration of plastic in the Pacific Gyre

has increased 100 times over the last 40 years (Madren). This increase in plastic concentration

has provided more opportunity for the water strider to lay eggs and the eggs themselves have

evolved to become denser (Madren). These changes due to increasing amounts of plastic debris

in the ocean are of particular concern because it is unknown if it could be providing them with

advantages over other animals not associated with hard surfaces, therefore changing the way the

ecosystem works in these areas (Madren). Studies like that of the Scripps Institution develop

over several decades, therefore it provides limited current knowledge of the extent of damage

due to the relatively recent incorporation of PET into daily human diet. These physical changes

in the marine environment are irreversible and are undoubtedly greatly disrupting the delicate

balance of the ocean ecosystem. Forty years of careless human polymer use is a direct cause of

the physical changes that have taken place in the marine environment. The continued increase

use of polymers such as PET in applications like bottled water will continue to put solutions to

this problem further out of human reach and consequences further deeper into evolution.

Although the large accumulation of plastic in the ocean in places such as the Great

Pacific Garbage Patch is a sad visual of humans ineffectiveness to manage this problem, this

plastic does not only reside at the surface (Barry). Brian Handwerk and Carolyn Barry with

National Geographic state that 70% of the plastic in the ocean has ―sunk‖ (Barry; Handwerk),

only 30% of the actual debris is visible. The plastic doesn‘t just sink to the bottom of the ocean

and remain intact and of course these plastic bottles do not biodegrade because they are made of

PET, a synthetic chemical made on a global industrial scale. Scientists have found these plastic

bottles photo-degrade, breaking down over time into smaller and smaller microscopic pieces and

instead remaining forever present in the ocean. In a study by U.K. researchers published in the

SALSEG| 28

research journal Science, seven types of microscopic plastic were found widely spread on British

shores (Owen). Richard Thompson, a senior marine ecology lecturer at the University of

Plymouth who led the study states that "we believe that these [fragments] probably represent

only a small proportion of the microscopic plastic in the environment" (Owen). The study also

examined plankton samples collected over a period of 40 years between Iceland and Scotland

which showed approximately three times more plastic in the water column in the 1990‘s

compared to that of 1960 (Owen). Thompson states that ―estimates for the longevity of plastic

range from a hundred to a thousand years . . . Since we've only been [mass producing] plastics

for 40 years, we still don't have a full handle on their longevity‖ (Owen). Algalita Marine

Research Foundation (AMRF) in Long Beach, California is an organization of researchers

studying the effects of pollutants in the marine environment. In an ongoing research study,

AMRF found that the mass of plastic fragments in parts of the central Pacific Ocean is six times

greater than that of resident plankton and a predominance of tiny plastic fragments tangled in

with the plankton (―Algalita Expeditions‖). Studies are currently being done across the globe on

the effects of plastic in the ocean in hopes to determine the rate of damage being done. The

concentration of plastic in the ocean, once long ago ―diluted‖, is steadily increasing in toxicity.

Unfortunately, with current sales of single use plastics such as bottled water and world

population growing at steadfast rates, marine research such as what is being done at University

of Plymouth can only assess the damage done, but recycling and production statistics show the

rate at which the damage will increase.

In addition to humans, marine life is suffering the effect of PET chemicals as a result of

consuming plastic, consuming other animals in the food chain that have consumed plastic as well

as swimming in a sea of photo-degraded plastic. Studies are beginning to show that the

SALSEG| 29

chemicals used in the manufacturing process of PET bottles are becoming leached from the

plastic into the ocean and marine life through the food chain. Thompson‘s study on polymers

published in the Royal Society states, ―in addition to the physical problems associated with

plastic debris, there has been much speculation that, if ingested, plastic has the potential to

transfer toxic substances to the food chain‖ (Thompson et al.). Previously it was generally

thought that plastics break down only at very high temperatures over hundreds of years and pose

a risk based on the volume consumed by sea animals. Thompson points out;

Recent mathematical modeling studies have shown that even very small quantities of

plastics could facilitate transport of contaminants from plastic to organisms upon

ingestion . . . this could present a direct and important route for the transport of chemicals

to higher animals such as seabirds (Thompson et al.)

In addition to the chemicals in the polymers, the micro pieces of PET absorb outside pollutants

present in the ocean, creating a multifaceted degree of toxicity through the food chain.

Thompson adds in his study that;

Another possibility, recently shown by researchers in Japan, is that when plastics are

floating in the seas, they will accumulate and absorb toxic chemicals that are present

from other sources . . . these are hydrophobic chemicals that hate to be in water and cling

to plastic as an alternative . . . these chemicals may then be transported to organisms that

eat the plastic" (Thompson et al.).

Thompson‘s study is referencing a Japan-based research team at Nihon University led by

chemist Katsuhiko Saido. The Japan team found plastics can break down at cooler temperatures

in a shorter time period, as soon as within a year of entering the ocean. The Japan based team

collected samples in waters from the U.S., Europe, India, Japan and elsewhere and found that all

SALSEG| 30

contained derivatives of man-made plastic products (Barry). The Japan team later simulated the

decomposition at warm 86 degree Fahrenheit water and found the same chemicals discovered in

the ocean were found in the lab tests, such as BPA (Barry). Moore discusses his research in

marine life mistakenly eating plastic in relation to the Japan research team stating ―along with

toxic chemicals released from plastic, animals also take in other chemicals that plastic has

accumulated from outside sources in the water‖ when they eat plastic (Barry,). Plastic pollutants

can become more concentrated as animals eat other animals (Barry). Moore explains that plastic

are like sponges stating ―we knew 10 years ago that plastic could be a million times more toxic

than the seawater itself‖ (Barry). Chillingly, every piece of photo-degraded plastic, which cannot

currently be removed from the ocean, is absorbing chemicals from countless human disasters

such as the Gulf oil spill and the Fukushima nuclear waste spill. Thompson‘s report also states

that ―these show that phthalates and BPA affect reproduction in all studied animal groups and

impair development in crustaceans and amphibians. Molluscs and amphibians appear to be

particularly sensitive to these compounds and biological effects have been observed in the low

range‖ (Thompson et al.). The effects of these chemicals entering the marine food chain, which

humans around the world depend on as a food source, are alarming. It is evident that these

pollutants will continue to grow in concentration and spread throughout the food chain as a result

of a continued increase in society‘s consumption of bottled beverages such as water, unavoidably

ending up in the food on our dinner table.

The solution to pollution was clearly never dilution. The world‘s answer not so long

ago to waste was to simply throw the items into the incomprehensible large ocean and the plastic

would seemingly disappear into the vast unknown. This practice has evolved to shipping waste

overseas to secondary economy countries combined with America‘s attachment to single use

SALSEG| 31

plastic and ineffectively dealing with it afterwards has left us with a chemical soup for an ocean.

Anything can be bad when done to excess. Bottle waters phenomenal growth in popularity across

the world has shown that in its effects to human health, the ocean, wildlife, the food chain,

natural resources, and the global environment.

Balancing the unarguable importance of clean drinking water and the chemical waste,

byproducts and contamination that result from conveniently packaged and distributed water will

be an increasingly difficult problem for humans to resolve as time progresses. Ultimately, when

each individual person throughout the world is given the inexpensive option to purchase a

product, such as bottled water, that is posing a risk to human health, natural resources and the

food chain, while sales continue to skyrocket over four decades, ―reduce‖ cannot be considered a

realistic solution under current conditions. When scientific studies conclude the chemicals in

PET pose serious risks to human health and the concentration of these chemicals can be passed

from PET packaging and through the recycling process which world governments and agencies

cannot control or monitor, then it is clear that ―reuse‖ is not currently a safe option. When it is

apparent that public waste management infrastructure cannot stop their community‘s waste from

entering and destroying international waters and world food sources, then the current system for

recovery of this product is not sustainable or effective, rendering the current attempt to ―recycle‖

as an ineffective approach. Richard Thompson, Senior Consul at the Imperial College London of

the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Physics writes ―it seems inevitable, however, that

the quantity of debris in the environment as a whole will continue to increase—unless we all

change our practices‖ (Thompson et al.). Something must be done to overhaul Americas obsolete

and fruitless ―reduce, reuse, recycle‖ campaign, a feeble rationalization to senseless waste.

SALSEG| 32

It is clear that every bottle poses a degree of risk and each bottle purchased by the

consumer contributes significantly to future and present environmental damage seeing that as

many as 630 million PET bottles a year escape Hawaii‘s ability to recover and ship them

overseas (―Hawaii Deposit‖). Local government in Hawaii also plays a key role in the

management of this waste by currently resolving to bury it in a landfill that is ever decreasing in

capacity or handing off the toxic problem overseas to citizens of a communist government. The

combination of 2 solutions I propose for Hawaii, understanding these laws may not be able to be

enforced country wide on a Federal level, is the modification of the existing Bottle Bill, currently

being underutilized in Hawaii, in addition to new legislation for city and state property. I propose

these policies also understanding that complete elimination of bottled water from the consumer

market is unreasonable at this time in Hawaii based on sales trends and would be met with

extreme opposition by the many companies making large profits from the sale of bottled water,

yet having no obligation to the resulting waste.

The first proposition would be to local governments, institutions and public facilities

attitude toward bottled water on city and state property. Elected government officials represent

the collective values of the public and are entrusted with the power by the people to make

decisions in the best interest of their constituents and state. Promoting or contributing to a global

problem by selling, distributing and allowing a product such as bottled water on government

property is an obvious contradiction to civic and moral values and an important first step. It

seems obvious that Hawaii elected officials should make a simple, personal sacrifice of this

unnecessary convenience for the interests of the state and choose to drink water from the State of

Hawaii municipal water supply like so many local residents. Unfortunately this is not current

policy. On March 4th 2014, San Francisco‘s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to bar the

SALSEG| 33

city from buying plastic water bottles and to ban distribution of plastic water bottles smaller than

21 ounces on city property beginning October of this year. Board President David Chiu stated at

the hearing ‖we all know with climate change, and the importance of combating climate change,

San Francisco has been leading the way to fight for our environment, that's why I ask you to

support this ordinance to reduce and discourage single-use, single-serving plastic water bottles in

San Francisco" (―SF Bans Water Bottles‖). In 2007, Liverpool England‘s municipal council also

has banned bottled water after realizing it was spending $100k dollars a year on bottled water

(Cormier). These progressive policy makers in England and San Francisco are ahead of the curve.

A ban of these products by Hawaii state elected officials would be setting an example that they

understand their role as public servants and the implied support of a senseless, damaging and

dangerous personal convenience is in bad taste. The perception of bottled water has to change by

those enforcing policy, before enforcing policy on bottled water can change.

The second proposal is in regards to the existing Hawaii Deposit Beverage Container

Program, or HI5. It is evident that the initiation of this bottle fee in 2005 has had a measured

amount of effectiveness in Hawaii for its intended purpose of generating enough revenue to

recover some PET bottles sold. The state of Hawaii Department of Health states on its website

―each year, over 900 million beverage containers are sold in Hawaii . . . consumers can help to

recycle as many beverage containers as possible to prevent these containers from ending up in

the waste stream or as litter in our community‖ (―Hawaii Deposit‖). The Bottle Bill has proven

that financial incentive motivates people who would otherwise not recycle or haphazardly

dispose of plastic bottles in the garbage, streets or ocean. It could be then said that an increased

financial incentive could motivate consumers to practice responsible waste habits more often.

Although any increase in the HI5 fee would be opposed by local bottlers because of an inevitable

SALSEG| 34

decrease in sales, the decline in PET sales would naturally create less senseless waste and public

resources needed to manage the waste. Currently the HI5 fee is based on ―breaking even‖ with

Hawaii‘s current negligent recycling methods. The amount of fee collected from the HI5

program is based on the global market value of recyclable PET, fuel costs and ultimately China‘s

economy. As the HI5 fee is outlined by the Container Recycling Institute, ―the Director of the

program is authorized to suspend any increase in this fee if the size of the deposit beverage

container fund is sufficient to maintain operations‖ (―Bottle Bill Resource Guide‖).

Unfortunately relying on the foundation that China will continue to demand Hawaii‘s PET waste

forever, oil prices remain constant for shipping these recyclables to China, consumers continue

to buy as much or more bottled beverages and the labor intensive methods of RRR recycling

don‘t change are ridiculous ways to maintain a recycling program. The Hawaii Bottle Fee must

be based on creating enough revenue to improve, overhaul and drastically change the recycling

system in Hawaii, deter the unnecessary purchase of bottled beverages, increase the incentive to

recycle and innovate in Hawaii to become un-reliant and self-sustainable without shipping

dangerous waste to other countries overseas. The bottle fee must be significantly raised to fund

Hawaii‘s progression in becoming socially, economically and independently sustainable, not just

simply maintained. Hawaii must honestly and locally recycle or stop importing PET.

Hawaii residents and businesses are interconnected as local and global members of

society. It is the civic and moral responsibility for Hawaii residents as a whole to refuse to persist

at doing the bare minimum in addressing the state of Hawaii‘s significant contribution to this

ongoing global ruin and change Hawaii‘s current sub-standard efforts at barely maintaining and

promoting an un-sustainable ―recycling program‖. We must become global leaders in defining a

SALSEG| 35

modern sustainable island state or Hawaii may someday soon find ourselves with plastic beaches,

poisoned poke, islands of buried bottles and boat loads of PET with nowhere to go.

SALSEG| 36

Works Cited

"Algalita Expeditions." Algalita: Marine Research and Education. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

"Antimony Compounds." Technology Transfer Network - Air Toxics Web Site. USEPA, 1 Jan.

2000. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

Barry, Carolyn. "Plastic Breaks Down in Ocean, After All – And Fast." National Geographic

News. National Geographic Society, 20 Aug. 2009. Web. 10 Sept. 2014.

Bilbrey, Jenna. ―BPA-Free Plastic Conatiners May be Just as Hazardous.‖ Scientific America.

11 Aug. 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.

"Bisphenol A (BPA)." National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

―Bottle Bill Resource Guide.‖ Bottle Bills in the USA. Web. 30 Nov. 2014

Brei, Vinicius, and Steffen Böhm. "Corporate Social Responsibility as Cultural Meaning M

Management: A Critique Of The Marketing Of 'Ethical' Bottled Water." Business Ethics:

A European Review 20.3 (2011): 233-252. Business Source Premier. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

Cormier, Zoe. "Message In A Bottle." New Internationalist 415 (2008): 10-12. Academic Search

Premier. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Davis, W.S. and T.P. Simon (eds.). ―1989 Proceedings of the 1989 Midwest Pollution

Control Biologists Meeting, Chicago, IL‖. USEPA Region V, Instream Biocriteria

and Ecological Assessment Committee, Chicago, IL. EPA 905/9-89/007. 14 Feb.

1989. Web. 30 Nov. 2014

"Ethos® Water Fund." Starbucks Coffee Company. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

FDA. "Guidance for Industry: Use of Recycled Plastics in Packaging: Chemistry

Considerations." FDA. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 14 July 2014.

Web. 10 Oct. 2014.

SALSEG| 37

―Global PET Demand to Sustain 6% Growth For 10 Years.‖ China National Bluestar. 24 June

2011. Web. 30 Oct.. 2014.

"Global PET (Resin) Market Report- 2012 Edition." Koncept Analytics. 5 Mar. 2013. Web. 30 N

Nov. 2014.

Handwerk, Brian. "Giant Ocean-Trash Vortex Attracts Explorers." National Geographic News.

National Geographic, 31 July 2009. Web.

Harvey, Rachel. "Where Does It Go? A Closer Look at Oahu‘s Waste Stream (Grey

Bins)." Kanu Hawaii. Kanu Hawaii, 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

---. "Where Does It Go? Recyclables on Oahu." Kanu Hawaii. Kanu Hawaii, 28 Nov. 2011.

Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

―Hawaii Deposit Beverage Container Program.‖ State of Hawaii Department of Health. Web. 30

Nov. 2014.

Hawkins, Roberta, and Jody Emel. "Paradoxes of Ethically Branded Bottled Water: Constituting

The Solution To The World Water Crisis." Cultural Geographies 21.4 (2014): 727-743.

Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Oct. 2014

Hays, Mark. "The Social and Environmental Impacts of Bottled Water." Responsible

Purchasing.org. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Lovitt, Rob. "Greening the Las Vegas Strp." Season Travel. NBC News, 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 30

Nov. 2014.

Madren, Carrie. "For Some Species, Plastic Is Fantastic." Scientific American 307.2 (2012): 23.

Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.

NRDC "Food Storage Containers." National Resources Defense Council. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

SALSEG| 38

"Organic Chemical Process Industry." Poly(ethylene Terephthalate) 6.6.2 (1995). Web. 14

Nov. 2014.

Owen, James. "Oceans Awash With Microscopic Plastic, Scientists Say." National Geographic

News. National Geographic Society, 6 May 2004. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

"Pacific Institute: Research for People and the Planet." Pacific Institute. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.

"Plastic Water Bottles: Is ‗BPA-free‘ the Same as Safe?" National Resources Defense

Council. 1 Feb. 2009. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

"Project Kaisei." Project Kasai: Capturing the Plastic Vortex. Project Kasai. Web. 13 Sept. 2014.

"PTF: Manufacturing." Ecology Center. Ecology Center. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

"Public Water System Supervision Program Water Supply Guidance Manual."Water: Safe Water

Drinking Act. USEPA, 1 May 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

Rodwan Jr., John. "Bottled Water 2011: The Recovery Continues." Bottled Water Recovery

Market Report Findings 2011.April / May 2012 (2012): 13-21. Bottled Water Recovery.

Web.

"SF Bans Water Bottles." San Francisco Bay Guardian 10 Mar. 2014. San Francisco Media C

Company. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.

Stephenson, John B. "FDA Safety and Consumer Protections Are Often Less Stringent Than

Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water." GAO Reports (2009): 1. MasterFILE

Premier. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.

Terry, Beth. "BPA-Free Does Not Mean Safe. Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Disrupting

Chemicals." My PLastic Free Life. 12 Apr. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

SALSEG| 39

Thompson, Richard C., Charles J. Moore, Frederick S. Vom Saal, and Shannah H. Swan. "

―Plastics, the Environment and Human Health: Current Consensus and Future Trends."

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Royal Society Publishing, 14 June 2009.

Web. 9 Oct. 2014.

"U.S. Consumption of Bottled Water Shows Continued Growth, Increasing 6.2 Percent in 2012;

Sales up 6.7 Percent." www.bottledwater.org. The International Bottled Water

Association. Web. 9 Sept. 2014.

USEPA.”Water On Tap: What You Need To Know”. USEPA. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

―World Antimony Forum 2013.‖ Asian Metals Ltd. Web. 5 Dec. 2014

Yang, Chun Z., Stuart I. Yaniger, Craig Jordan, Daniel J. Klein, and George D. Bittner. "Most

Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be

Solved." Environmental Health Perspectives 119.2011 (2011): 989-96. Environmental

Health Perspectives. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.