Under the 1996 SDWA amendments, public source suppliers are required to issue annual reports to all of their consumers, which many call "right-to-know reports." These reports inform consumers of all contaminants found in their tap source and the standards and health goals for those contaminants, information on the system's compliance with EPA rules, and details on their source. 

After a pitched battle in which consumer and environmental groups fought to get a similar requirement adopted for bottled water, bottlers were successful at killing a measure that would have required such right-to-know information from bottlers to be provided to consumers.

Right-to-Know Information for Tap Water, and Industry's Opposition to It for Bottled Water

The bottled water industry's opposition to a right-to-know requirement applying to bottled water is particularly disturbing in light of the industry's frequent citation of public source quality problems as a rationale for switching to bottled water. It also is galling because of the industry's open admission that it has substantially benefited from labelling requirements for beverages such as diet soda, which have caused concern among many consumers about the ingredients in these drinks. The IBWA's primary spokeswoman recently noted, for example, that the recent burst in industry sales is linked in part to soda labels, which revealed to consumers just what they were drinking. 

An internal communication from the IBWA executive director, obtained by NRDC, bragged about the industry's successful effort to keep consumers in the dark about the quality of the bottled water they are buying:

During the [House-Senate SDWA] conference some members wanted the same "right-to-know" provision enacted for bottled water. Although IBWA vociferously opposed any type of right-to-know for bottled water, we were informed by Congressional staff that it was a non-negotiable part of the discussion. Nevertheless, we then met with the House and Senate conference staff to communicate the industry's concerns to this type of notification and were successful in getting...a draft study [evaluating the feasibility of requiring bottled water right-to-know, rather than instituting a requirement] into the bill....This has been a great victory for the IBWA and the entire bottled water industry! 

Thus, if the bottler finds coliform bacteria, Cryptosporidium, cancer-causing solvents, or other contaminants in the contents, but no violation of FDA's standards is triggered (either because there is no standard for the contaminant or because it was found at a level below the standard), there is no specific requirement in the FDA rules that such information be provided to consumers. 

Neither is the bottler required by FDA rules to disclose information about the source, how well protected that source may be from contamination, or whether an assessment has been performed to determine its vulnerability to contamination. The bottler also has no obligation to disclose how and whether it is treated.

Therefore, as a result of a successful vigorous lobbying campaign by the bottling industry against right-to-know requirements for consumers the public likely will know little or nothing about what contaminants are in what they drink. The FDA "feasibility study" to evaluate requiring right-to-know information for consumers, referred to by IBWA in the internal communication just quoted, was included in the SDWA essentially as a consolation prize to consumer and environmental groups. It has not yet been issued, even in draft, although the law required FDA to publish a draft by February 1998. FDA issued a Federal Register notice late in 1997 asking for public comment on the feasibility of requiring some kind of disclosure.  The study must be finalized by February 1999, but FDA considers this study to be a low priority and has no firm date for its completion. 

The industry has continued to fight against applying right-to-know rules to its product. When FDA asked for comments on the feasibility of providing information to consumers on labels, via the Internet or otherwise, they were inundated by complaints from IBWA and many individual bottlers.  IBWA opposed any right-to-know rules and charged that FDA had "exceeded its Congressional mandate" by even asking for comments on the type and contents of reports that might be provided to consumers about these contaminants.  One bottler argued that "only the EPA can think up something as dopey as applying" right-to-know requirements to a "discretely-packaged, easily identified, pure food product" like this.

Click here to read the entire article

Return to Previous Page