RSS FeedWater Bottle Ban on the Horizon
Bottled water must be the most brilliant marketing ploy ever conceived.
Some marketing reps decided to take regular tap water, run it through a filter, and then package it in attractive bottles designed to somehow set their product apart from basically identical competing brands. Through clever advertising about the dangers of tap water and the pure, delicious, refreshing nature of bottled water, these reps built a multi-billion dollar industry.
Specifically, according to Wikipedia, bottled water products poured 60.9 billion dollars into the coffers of mostly large bottlers like Coca Cola in 2006 alone, and that number is only expected to grow.
All the reps could do now was slap each other on the back, laugh, and watch the money flow — like, well, water from a tap.
That is, of course, until you consider the environmental impact.
Environmental Impact
Earlier this year, Phil Woolas, the UK’s Environment Minister stirred up headlines when he said that consumption of bottled water bordered on immorality.
The carbon footprint involved in producing a bottle of water and then transporting those bulky bottles to the consumer is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. According to The Times, “a Swedish study calculated that the environmental impact of bottled water was 90 to 1,000 times greater than tap water, and could be higher.”
The manufacturing process takes approximately 5 liters of water to produce a 1-liter finished product. In addition, once the water inside them is consumed, most of those plastic water bottles end up in landfills (or in gutters).
Peter Ainsworth, an MP and outspoken environment critic, backed up Woolas:
“Huge amounts are imported from other countries — some now ludicrously from the Far East. This is an ecological nightmare and it doesn’t make economic sense either. It certainly raises questions about the basis on which we have constructed our economic lives. By any rational standard it’s crazy to be importing water from countries far away when there’s perfectly good water in our taps.
“It looks like the epiphany [sic?] of any unsustainable human activity. I think as consumers we should consider the impact we have on the environment. If they think about it they might change their behaviour.”
Towards a Ban
The city council of London, Ontario this week voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on bottled water.
The move will make London one of the first major Canadian cities to institute such a ban, which is expected to go into effect on September 1.
The phased-in ban will begin by limiting the sale of bottled water at municipal buildings and city facilities. By the end of next year, the sale of those ubiquitous plastic water bottles will be prohibited at golf courses and city parks as well.
Only three councilors opposed the measure, on the basis that it undermines choice. The London Free Press quotes councilor Paul Van Meerbergen as saying:
“It’s one more brick in the construction of a nanny state.”
Nevertheless, the tide seems to be turning in favour of greater regulation.
According to the Canadian Press, Mayor David Miller of Toronto is now considering following London’s example. I’ve noticed advertisements against bottled water popping up on Toronto bus shelters, and the City of Toronto will be looking at a ban as part of a larger strategy to curb waste.
Other Canadian cities like Vancouver, Ottawa, St. John’s, Kitchener, and Windsor have all been considering municipal bottled water ban measures.
My View
In Southern Ontario, we are blessed with some of the cleanest and safest drinking water courtesy of the Great Lakes. Even though there are water fountains readily available, I see people spending $1.50 for a 591mL bottle of Dasani on my university campus. That’s double the price of gasoline. Personally, I’m not even sure how one can justify spending money on what is essentially free and abundant.
There’s something to be said for our municipal government taking small steps to show the public that it frowns on absurd consumer practices. Drinking a bottle of water might one day carry the same social stigma as smoking a cigarette. If it can help change consumer attitudes, I’m all for the bottled water ban.
Follow-up: SCC tosses “dead fly” appeal
Yesterday I explained the background to the Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada cases. As expected, the Supreme Court issued its decision today. The full text of the lovely (read: short) decision can be be found here: Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27.
In a unanimous decision written by McLachlin CJC, the court threw out the appeal against Culligan. The reasons for judgment differed from those of the Ontario Court of Appeal (2006 CanLII 41807), with the Supreme Court finding that the negligence action failed at the remoteness of damages stage.
Here’s a summary:
Duty of care (para 6): As a manufacturer, Culligan owed a duty of care to the consumers of its products as per Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (HL).
Standard of care (para 7): The court was a little light on its reasons here, because the issue was not seriously argued after the trial level. The trial judge heard evidence that apparently flies were present in the bottling room and (obviously) could get into the bottles in spite of safeguards implemented by the company. Gross.
The Supreme Court concluded simply that Culligan breached the standard of care expected of it by not ensuring that water intended for consumption would be free of contaminants.
Damages (paras 8-10): The SCC reiterated that minor upset, anxiety, disgust, etc. are not recoverable in tort. However, Mr. Mustapha suffered recognizable and serious psychiatric trauma (namely a major depressive disorder coupled with anxiety and phobia). As such, Mr. Mustapha’s psychological injuries were very serious and sufficiently interfered with his quality of life to be recoverable.
Causation (paras 11-18): This was the crux of the SCC’s judgment:
“in order to show that the damage suffered is not too remote to be viewed as legally caused by Culligans negligence, Mr. Mustapha must show that it was foreseeable that a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer serious injury from seeing the flies in the bottle of water he was about to install. This he failed to do.” (para 18, my emphasis)
The trial judge was mistaken in applying a subjective standard which took into account Mr. Mustapha’s past history, circumstances, and cultural factors.
The chief justice did make one important qualification to the objective standard. At para 17, she writes:
“In those cases where it is proved that the defendant had actual knowledge of the plaintiffs particular sensibilities, the ordinary fortitude requirement need not be applied strictly. If the evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew that the plaintiff was of less than ordinary fortitude, the plaintiffs injury may have been reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.”
Conclusion (para 20): Mr. Mustapha’s appeal was dismissed with costs.
So there we have it.
Podcast Feeds
