Share
From a Sept. 13 editorial in the Los Angeles Times:
Woe to the thirsty of Concord, Mass. Under a bylaw born of convoluted reasoning, a person who heads into a store in that town for some hydration will be able to buy a plastic bottle of soda, but not a similar bottle of what dietitians say should be the drink of choice: water.
That’s because Concord has become the first city in the United States to ban the sale of serving-size bottled water. It’s enough to make New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose proposed ban on the sale of large servings of soda was approved this week, weep.
Yet the two ideas have a lot in common. Both represent sincere attempts to fight social ills. Both also suffer from a lack of consistency (the soda law would allow big servings of other drinks with even more calories) and are an unwelcome interference in the marketplace. Both involve campaigns with national ambitions.
Bottled water owes its popularity to a variety of factors: a misconception that all bottled water is safer or purer than the stuff that flows from the tap; convenience; flavor; concerns about the chlorination or fluoridation of tap water; and marketing. Americans guzzle from 2.5 million plastic bottles an hour, according to Boston University, NASA and other sources; more than 70 percent of those are thrown away rather than recycled. We certainly could be doing better.
Some towns provide recycling bins next to or on top of sidewalk trash cans. Cities that do their own sorting of household trash glean more recyclables than those that depend on residents to do the job. Well-maintained public drinking fountains and vending machines that dispense single servings of cold, filtered water would encourage more reuse of bottles. Bigger deposits on bottles would help.
But Concord’s new bylaw is unnecessarily intrusive and problematically inconsistent. A plastic bottle that holds soda is no less damaging to the environment than one that holds water. Why force a convenience-seeking customer who forgot his reusable bottle to choose a less-healthy option? This isn’t a policy we’d like to see travel cross-country.
