Sure. When you’ve done a double blind taste test and proved this, publish the results. They’d be ground breaking. You should be able to get published in serious journal.
Flouridation doesn’t change taste. Chlorine is very volatile and would evaporate out of anything you cook. It’s in your mind.
Capitalism is fine. Exploitation sucks. (See: EpiPen.)
This is worth a re-start. Like arguments about “television,” the discussion here has conflated several different things under one heading, producing more confusion than sense. (You know: “I don’t watch television. I stream everything.” - and so forth.)
Water in bottles is not an inherently bad thing. Water in bottles can be a very good thing. Water put in bottles by companies who then charge for it can be just fine. Buying such water can be perfectly acceptable.
But.
Water is water; H2O is H2O. It can be purified easily in almost any quantity, anywhere there is a supply of even the nastiest saltwater sewage. There is nothing different about water from Fiji, Northern Canada or France. (German fart-water and such, fine. But we’ve established that’s sippin’ water, not something you buy by the case to drink all day.)
So bottled water, produced locally and sold at some proportionate price, like the 20-25 cents plain case water goes for… fine. For the car, for trips, as an alternative to buying soda at events… fine. As household backup for emergencies and water failures, fine.
But when you get to water in a brand-name bottle, water that has a bigger marketing budget than some carmakers, water that is vaguely promised to be closer to nectar than H2O, and is priced the same as drinks that do have ingredients and processing other than distillation - I think there are serious issues there from a consumer standpoint.
When the market for such water (brand-name, shipping long distances, high marketing efforts) is a significant portion of the overall drinks market, I think there are serious issues not only for consumers in a financial sense, but consumers in a larger social and economic matrix. There are serious considerations about the ecological cost of this product segment.
TL;DR? Okay.
Water is the most generic food substance on earth, and it is identical wherever you find it.
Packaging it as a generic substance and buying it at a generic price point for uses where tap water is inconvenent is perfectly reasonable.
Adding to the social, economic, societal and ecological load on the planet to sell overpriced, heavily marketed H2O as some kind of status symbol, ‘right’ or necessity should be criminal - but since I don’t believe in fixing things like this with legislation of any kind, the goal is to get people to wake up from their marketing-concussed stupor and say, “Ya know what? FUCK that!”
(redacted after reading AB’s latest post which wasn’t there when I wrote my response)
Ugly! Ugly bags of mostly water.
Fine, but I respectfully submit that doing the message board equivalent of grabbing people by the collar and yelling “YOU BUY BOTTLED WATER INSTEAD OF JUST INSTALLING A PURIFIER? WHASSAMATTA U???” is not the way to accomplish that.
I don’t think any of my posts here come close to that.
No, I don’t do kindergarten-polite very well - “Yes, Dasani is a very fine choice, but you might want to consider the advantages of blah blah blah…”
But it’s pretty exasperating to have people defend spending many hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a year on PFW, and instead of admitting they’ve been bitch-slapped into it by thirty years of marketing pressure, they whine that their tap water is awful… when for $3-500 and $50 a year they can permanently fix that problem.
As I said, it’s no more defensible than taking a cab everywhere for years because your car has a flat tire. And it’s *not *just a personal-choice issue that’s nunny - it has significant consequences for global ecology, not to mention economic and societal impact.
Please enlighten me; which companies have fraudulently claimed that your local tap water is dangerous? I ask sincerely, because I’ve never seen it. As far as “better tasting,” that’s pretty much taste, preference, opinion, and an unarguable point, isn’t it?
Bottled water is merely a convenience. Sure, you have equivalent tap water, but how to transport it for a weekend to the beech. Oh, you have to buy bottles (just slightly less cost than bottles with water in them), or drink it from a washed out empty milk container, which you had to pay for. 400,000%, or whatever the fear-mongering quantification, people could buy Ford Escorts, but they choose to buy Lincoln Navigators because they can afford it, even though a mile driven in a Lincoln is the same mile in an Escort. But Lincolns cost soooooo much more than Escorts, you dumb fool, who somehow stumbled into millions of dollars.
Buying bottled water over drinking tap water is not the same as taking a cab for years vs fixing a flat tire. Not even close.
The manufacturing process for everything ever produced has significant ecological impact. Please tell me, other than drinking tap water, what you do to avoid ecologically unsound consumer choices. You buy cattle instead of milk? Walk instead of using highly ecologically unsound motor vehicles?
Spending $300 to provide an essentially unlimited supply of drinking and cooking water vs. perpetually spending as much as several dollars a day on bottled water? It’s exactly the same thing.
And arguing that because not every other choice people make is perfect, making this one is okay is somewhere below male bovine excrement. Buying food prepared for you in some fashion (even butchery) is of a completely different order than buying something identical you get at essentially no cost by opening a tap.
Fixing a flat tire would be ~$40, taking a cab everywhere for a year would be several thousands (tens of thousands) of dollars. Buying bottle water for a year (who buys bottled water for cooking?) doesn’t even approach that.
How is it not ok? That’s your pretentious opinion. In every product consumers buy (even you!) there is a better economical and ecological choice. So why do you attack just bottled water and not almost every other consumer choice you make?
And, for spite, “exactly the same thing” is redundant.
A modest difference of scale, and if it’s a case of perfectly acceptable (=NYC) tap water and a preference for Fiji water, we’re talking the same values.
You’re unaware that MANY people buy bottled for cooking? Jesus, you need to step out of the argument. Really. Some people even use only the brand-name stuff for the foggiest of reasons.
There’s little that’s more pretentious than taking a specific argument (go check the thread title; I’ll wait while you read it) and trying to undercut it because there are parallel issues not being discussed.
For the record, (1) this is my field and (2) my arguments don’t stop with bottled water, except when that’s what the discussion is about. Bwater is also a target the size of Trump’s ass on the overall spectrum of consumer issues.
What is your field? Railing against capitalism on the Internet?
While I’m sure there are some people who do it, I highly doubt the vast majority of bottled water consumers do. This thread is the first I’ve heard of it.
I don’t drink bottled water but, hey, if that’s your thing, knock yourself out. It’s no scam–everyone knows what it is and if they’re willing to pay for it, go for it. I’d buy it if they sold more of the bubbly mineral water here. Love that stuff, but there’s not many options that I know of beyond Perrier.
Funny how being anti-exploitation turns into being “anti-capitalist.” But it’s okay. Even after years I get endless amusement from the sophist extremes people will go to explaining how they really like being buggered by the consumer products industry.
Radical consumer economics, to answer your first question.
The blue collar world does not always have ready access to tap water. Lots of construction sites have no running water. I pack a cooler of bottled water every morning to keep my hydration levels up and stave off heat exhaustion.
Obviously I’m unaware. Please enlighten me. What is your reference? But, of course, it is insignificant. Even if people bought bottled water for drinking AND cooking vs tap water, it wouldn’t approach taking a cab for a year vs fixing a flat tire, unless you can demonstrate that singular people spend thousand to tens of thousands of dollars per year on bottled water. I’m happy to be corrected.
“The Bears were 1-15 this year coach, what do you think is the state of the team?”
“You’re being to broad. We won our last game. We’re 1-0 as far as this press conference is concerned. Why are you talking about the rest of the season?”
I doubt not that this is your field, but it seems more like appeal to authority at this point. Your arguments don’t stop with bottled water? Then please demonstrate how you always make better economical and ecological choices in the products you buy. Oh, that’s hijacking. I get how you wouldn’t want to hijack this thread with a logical ancillary discussion. Must be about bottled water, not the implied larger discussion on consumerism, economics, ecology, wealth…
I don’t know about a majority, but I’m pretty sure some in this thread have said they do, and if you go through any of the other longer threads, it’s discussed there, too. Most of them are not “bottled water consumers” in the sense of buying a drink on the go as much as those who tote home case after case, carboy after carboy of water because their tap water is bad - instead of making a one-time fix that will save vast amounts of personal time and money, as well as being more generally sensible on an ecological and economic scale. (And a rejection of marketing influence, but I’ll concede that’s a side issue for most.)
I don’t drink bottled water but, hey, if that’s your thing, knock yourself out. It’s no scam–everyone knows what it is and if they’re willing to pay for it, go for it.
[/quote]
It’s not a scam by Economics 101 standards, no. Brand-name bottled water gets pretty scammy from a sociological and consumer socioeconomic viewpoint, though. If the way business chooses to see it is adequate for you, knock yourself out. 
If I haven’t adequately excluded specialty waters from this argument, I’ll do it here. However, essentially tasteless water is essentially tasteless water no matter what latitude and longitude it comes from… and any bottlery can duplicate a mineral and carbonation fingerprint without having to ship tonnage weights of H2O around the planet. You can even get drops to add mineralization to plainer water if you really don’t like the latter, or want to emulate the taste of vastly expensive spring water from Siberia.
I’ve never once said I am immune to these influences and that every consumer decision I make is infallible… but after twenty or so years, I’m pretty much willing to stack my choices up against anyone else’s. I have, many times… but only in person, without the meaningless house-of-mirrors distortion that online communication fosters. If I can’t walk into your house, you’re able to claim anything you like about your consumer choices, in either good faith or blackest bullshitting. (This is also the problem with the “television” discussions…)
But I’ll repeat: I make no claim to perfection in the matter; only awareness and both personal striving to meet my own standards and a continuing effort to communicate them.
As for discussion here, I comment in relevant threads and try to confine my comments to whatever the thread is about. The evidence by the thousands is that any thread that gets too wide also gets ridiculously shallow.
Got a specific question about consumer economics? Ask it in a separate thread. Happy to discuss anything at any length - but only with relatively tight focus on each issue.
Sorry, bad quote break up there in post 98. Second paragraph is quote/response.