bottled water should not be banned essay

Should Bottled Water Be Banned? Essay

Plastics is one of the products that are leading in polluting the environment. Some of the goods made of plastic include plastic water bottles. Bottled water is the most consumed drink and beverage across the world. This is since the product is easily accessible and cheap. They are bought in large numbers and end up being irregularly disposed of, thus polluting the environment. Plastics are detrimental to the environment; they affect the soil, water, air and eventually lead to climate change and global warming. Although plastic bottled water is a better alternative to sugary drinks, plastic bottles are a threat to the environment, hence they should be banned.

Banning bottled water would be the right decision that would help reduce waste and protect the environment. The main component in water bottles is plastic. Plastics are a product of fossil fuels; when they are burned, they produce persistent organic pollutants (POP) (“Should Bottled Water Be Banned” 1). This is the polluting component of plastics. Although they are burnt, they still remain persistent in the air for a long time. When this happens, it forms its own clouds or merges with the existing ones forming polluted air. They are rich in toxic chemicals. Air pollution, one of the factors contributing to climate change, is caused by harmful emissions as a result of human activities. Factories and industrial facilities manufacturing plastic products are the major contributors to air pollution.

Banning bottled water is a correct decision since plastics are harmful to our health when ingested or inhaled. Plastics are made of petroleum products that also contribute to air pollution. Regulating emissions from these agents will therefore ensure that air pollution is reduced not only in the community but globally (“Should Bottled Water Be Banned” 2). Most communities lack proper waste disposal mechanisms; one of the harmful ways of disposing of wastes is burning – this often leads to air pollution.

Plastics are a threat to aquatic life. Aquatics such as fish are at a danger of being extinct because of plastics being disposed of in lakes, oceans, and seas. When consumed by fish and other aquatic creatures, the plastics block the breathing system of the animals and they end up suffocating. On the other hand, since ocean currents and air affect the climate, when they are polluted, they cannot form enough precipitation to form clouds that would eventually lead to rains. Unfortunately, some of the aquatic life such as fish find themselves on our tables as food; hence, we are jeopardizing our health when we use bottled water. Besides, they are a threat to aquatic life as when they are consumed by aquatics, they cause complications and may lead to death. When plastics are burnt, they pollute the air. When this occurs, they cause the greenhouse effect which is associated with climate change and global warming. Plastics adversely affect the soil since they cannot be decomposed and utilized as nutrients in the soil.

A ban on bottled water would protect the local water supplies from exploitation. Bottling plants are the cause of dried-up wells and wetlands or a depletion of the streamflow in the areas they are set up (“Should Bottled Water Be Banned” 2). Deposits of plastics in oceans interrupt the flow of oceanic currents. Due to destructive human activities such as the use of plastics, global climate has been fluctuating, and climate patterns have been difficult to predict. Recent research indicates that the conveyor belt has been affected as well. The oceanic conveyor belt is a system that facilitates the movement of oceanic currents. Unfortunately, climate change is threatening to change the pattern of how the circulation of oceanic currents occurs. One of the consequences of its interference in the flow of ocean currents is that it could either slow or stop the conveyor belt entirely. One of the effects of climate change on the oceanic conveyor belt is that it leads to a rise in global temperatures.

Although the use of bottled water may be cheap to purchase, it is costly to maintain and dispose of. One of the consequences of the use of plastic bottles is climate change. Due to harsh climatic conditions, such as droughts, governments have been forced to initiate food distribution programs that are costly (“Should Bottled Water Be Banned” 3). Climate change and global warming also have detrimental impacts on agriculture, which is one of the leading income-generating sectors in most countries. There has been a change in climate all over the world with some parts of it experiencing extreme climatic conditions such as high temperatures or lack of rainfall. These environmental issues affect the quality of life. Recently, it has become hard to predict the climate in most parts of the world, as weather patterns have changed.

In summary, it is evident that bottled water does more harm than good to both humans and the environment, and hence they should be banned. They are harmful in the following ways: First, plastics do not decompose easily. This means that when they are burnt, they stay in the air longer, and since they contain pollutants, they contaminate the air. Due to plastics’ inability to be decomposed, they pose a threat to both the vegetation and insects, animals, and microorganisms in the soil. It has also been scientifically proven that it interferes with the flow of oceanic currents which leads to a rise in global temperatures. Some of the impacts of climate change on a diverse population include food shortages, aridity, acid rain, high temperatures, lack of rainfall.

“Should Bottled Water Be Banned? – Top 4 Pros and Cons.” ProCon , 2018. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 30). Should Bottled Water Be Banned? https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-bottled-water-be-banned/

"Should Bottled Water Be Banned?" IvyPanda , 30 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/should-bottled-water-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Should Bottled Water Be Banned'. 30 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Should Bottled Water Be Banned?" October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-bottled-water-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Bottled Water Be Banned?" October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-bottled-water-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Bottled Water Be Banned?" October 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-bottled-water-be-banned/.

• The Conveyor System in American Culture
• The Global Ocean Conveyor Belt
• Marcellus Shale as a Gas ’Supergiant’
• Grain Company Machines and Processes
• Ethics of Bottled Water
• Is Bottled Water Ethical?
• The Issue of Bottled Water Consumption
• Environmental Impact of Bottled Water
• Bottled Water Industry and Aquafina
• Parent Purchase Bottled Water
• Carbon Dividends Analysis
• Microplastic Soil Contamination in the Context of Environmental Safety
• The Skepticism of Consumers Towards Green Products
• Forests Are the Earth's Lungs
• Coral Reefs Protection: Academic Sources Analysis

• Environment

Bottled Water Should Not Be Banned Persuasive Essay Example

Water bottles, a popular bottled beverage, have been a growing trend since 2010. Around 42.6 billion bottles are sold every year. In 2013, Concord, Massachusetts banned the use of plastic water bottles because of environmental concerns leaving everyone with the question: should water bottles be banned? The answer is simple. Bottled water should not be banned because it eliminates a healthy option, it is crucial to have in everyone’s emergency supply, and a ban on water bottles would not necessarily reduce waste. 

Removing water bottles would take away a healthy option to drink. In 2017, the National Park service, who placed a water bottle ban in their parks, revoked the ban due to much criticism from guests. “The ban removed the healthiest beverage choice at a variety of parks while leaving sugary drinks available at concessions” (Barnum). This explains that the water bottle ban took away water and left unhealthy drinks for the guests. This shows that water bottles should not be banned because people need a healthy option to drink. The ban was ineffective because it left the park guests without any water and offered sugary drinks in plastic bottles instead. When the point of view of the guests is considered, it is realized that they may feel dehydrated and may want water to refresh themselves. It might be frustrating to discover there is no water but only sugary drinks that will not satisfy their thirst as well as water would have. If there is no water bottle ban, then people will not have to worry about not having any water and places and places would get less criticism from the guests.

Bottled water should be a staple in all emergency water supply kits. At procon.org, it says “Between Dec. 2016, and Mar. 2018, residents of St. Joseph, LA, relied on state-issued bottled water as a replacement for tap water after high levels of lead were found in their system” (Markoff). This quote means that bottled water was used when their tap water, that got contaminated with lead, became too dangerous to drink. This proves that bottled water could be necessary in an emergency. What most people see are the effects the plastic has on the environment. What is not usually recognized is that bottled water can be very useful in an emergency, when water is needed. This can be applied by thinking about if the Thatcher community was to lose all of their tap water like the residents of St. Joseph did. It would then become essential to use plastic water bottles for a source of water.

It is true that banning water bottles may reduce waste. At 5gyres.org, it says “Less than 30% of all plastic water bottles are recycled. Roughly seven out of every 10 bottles are trashed. And from the landfill, many plastic water bottles end up in the ocean” (Box). This means that not many plastic bottles get recycled and instead get thrown to the ocean. Though this is true, other bottled beverages are more abundant in landfills and are even worse for the environment. Procon.org says “Plastic water bottles contain much less polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic than soft drink bottles that require a thicker plastic container due to the drinks’ carbonation- 9.89 grams of PET v. 23.9 grams for a 16.9 oz bottle… plastic water bottles make up 3.3% of all drink packaging in US landfills, which is less than both plastic carbonated soft drink containers (13.3%) and aluminum cans (7.9%)” (Markoff). Plastic water bottles are much better for the environment than other plastic beverage bottles. Banning plastic water bottles would be unproductive. There would still be a large amount of plastic still going in landfills and oceans. It would be a better choice to ban plastic carbonated drinks instead of water bottles. 

Bottled water should not be banned; it would take away a healthy option to drink, it is needed in all emergency supply kits, and a ban on water bottles wouldn’t reduce much waste. Water bottles cut an innumerable amount of calories from diets, they are beneficial during an emergency when you can not access tap water and more waste comes from other beverage packages, not water. Stop the water bottle ban from happening to you for all of these reasons.

Related Samples

• Reasons to Visit Everglades Essay Example
• Mount Rainier Volcano Essay Example
• Essay About Dogs. How Can You Not Like Dogs?
• Essay on Water Purification With Low-Cost Materials
• Keystone Species Essay Example
• Deepwater Horizon Tragedy. The Ecology Essay Example
• Pollution's Effects on Animals Essay Sample
• Climate Change and Wildfires Essay Example
• Earth Is Being Harmed by Human Activity Essay Example
• The Benefits of Recycling Essay Example

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• Presidential Search
• Editor's Pick

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

‘Gender-Affirming Slay Fest’: Harvard College QSA Hosts Annual Queer Prom

‘Not Being Nerds’: Harvard Students Dance to Tinashe at Yardfest

Wrongful Death Trial Against CAMHS Employee Over 2015 Student Suicide To Begin Tuesday

Cornel West, Harvard Affiliates Call for University to Divest from ‘Israeli Apartheid’ at Rally

Don't Ban the Bottle

From November 18 to November 21, Harvard students have the opportunity to vote on an Undergraduate Council referendum that seeks to ban the sale of plastic water bottles on campus and increase the availability of tap water sources such as filling stations. Proponents of the proposal have hailed it as commonsense measure, claiming the ban would represent a commitment to protecting the environment. Banning plastic water bottles, which are inarguably harmful to the environment, would have important symbolic implications, but the very real negative consequences of implementing such a ban far outweigh the symbolic victory that would come with its passage. Instead of approving this misguided proposal, we should look for more efficient ways to tackle this problem.

The environmental damage caused by disposing plastic water bottles is a textbook case of a negative externality. The ban proposes to reduce the damage of this externality by limiting the choice of the consumers. Limiting consumer choice, however, is extremely problematic on an economic level and often brings with it a number of unintended consequences.

At the University of Vermont, which recently banned the sale of water bottles, students bought over 350,000 bottles of water yearly before the ban. It is reasonable to project that the sales revenues lost from banning water bottles would not be insignificant. This fall in revenues could lead to either lower pay or fewer student-employees being hired at student-run establishments that sell water bottles, such as Lamont Café. Employment opportunities represent a valuable part of Harvard financial aid packages, and limiting sales at Harvard establishments hinders Harvard’s ability to pay its students fair wages.

Furthermore, when consumers are no longer able to purchase a preferred good, they often choose to purchase a substitutable, or similar, good. In this case, that means that students might purchase bottled sodas in place of the banned bottled water. Few would argue that this is the ideal outcome. In addition to causing the same environmental harm as bottled water, bottled soda is also a danger to students’ health.

Students who do not switch to soda might instead buy bottled water from other stores in Harvard Square. Because these alternate purchasing locations are not as convenient as on-campus locations, students might choose to buy bottled water in bulk so as to limit the time they spend buying water. Because of this, students who previously consumed bottled water infrequently and only out of necessity might actually consume more of it, since they would have bulk quantities on hand.

Fortunately, there is an alternate option for reducing Harvard’s consumption of bottled water that avoids or lessens all of the aforementioned consequences: incentivizing consumer behavior. The second portion of the proposed referendum, the building of more tap water fill stations, is a great example of a proposal that incentivizes behavior. Because tap water is free and bottled water expensive, students should naturally consume less bottled water and use the free tap water instead once it is made more accessible through the fill stations.

Another way to incentivize students to purchase few water bottles would be to impose a University tax on bottled water. By raising the price students must pay for bottled water, the tax would cause students to purchase less water, reducing the detrimental environmental impact of the bottles. Furthermore, the University could then use some of the tax revenues to supplement employee pay to ensure that the tax does not result in lower salaries for student-employees. The remaining tax revenues could then be used to fund other environmental initiatives, including the building of more filling stations. Coupling a bottled water tax with a program to increase tap water accessibility would thus present a much more efficient solution to reducing Harvard’s environmental impact than would an outright ban on bottled water.

Aside from its direct inefficiencies, the proposed ban also creates problems for the image of environmentalism. Because banning bottled water represents an encroachment on individual choice and consumer freedom, such a policy invites criticism on an ideological level. As I have previously sta ted, there is considerable danger in taking a radical tact on an issue that could be more effectively solved by a moderate approach. An outright ban of water bottles offers easy fodder for conservative pundits bent on opposing the cause of environmentalism, making it easy for such pundits to label proponents of this policy as radicals who are willing to overlook any and all individual freedoms in order to achieve their aims. Inviting these kinds of attacks on environmentalism is ultimately harmful to the larger goal of convincing more people to recognize the necessity of environmental consciousness. An incentive-based approach would avoid these sorts of attacks by preserving the choice of the consumer, allowing the progress of environmentalism to go unhindered.

Because the current proposal does not solve the issue at hand in an efficient and responsible manner, we should vote “no” as an affirmation that we can devise a better solution.

Carson J. Scott ’16, a Crimson editorial writer, is an economics concentrator in Winthrop House.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Water Quality — Should Bottled Water Be Banned

Should Bottled Water Be Banned

• Categories: Natural Resources Water Quality

About this sample

Words: 680 |

Published: Aug 31, 2023

Words: 680 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 770 words

4 pages / 1731 words

1 pages / 424 words

5 pages / 2919 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Water Quality

The subject of water consumption is a critical and multifaceted topic that holds significant importance in today's world. With growing concerns about water scarcity, environmental sustainability, and the health of our [...]

A poor drainage system can have far-reaching consequences on urban areas, affecting the quality of life, infrastructure, and overall well-being of residents. This essay explores the challenges posed by inadequate drainage [...]

The delicate balance of marine ecosystems is under siege as ocean acidification poses a grave threat to their health and vitality. This essay dives into the intricate web of challenges presented by ocean acidification and [...]

The interplay of soil and water within the ecosystem forms the cornerstone of life on Earth. These two fundamental elements, seemingly humble in their origins, are the vital underpinnings that sustain all living organisms and [...]

Access to safe, clean water opens up a world of possibilities for community development. Without water, the most basic element of life, all other development efforts cannot be imagined. Sanitation and hygiene, working together [...]

The importance of wastewater treatment cannot be overstated in today's world. As populations grow and urbanization continues, the generation of wastewater has surged, posing serious environmental and public health challenges. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

Would Banning Plastic Bottles Help or Hurt the Planet?

Please try again

Plastic bottles are EVERYWHERE and are a big source of pollution. But banning them might create another problem for the environment. Here’s why.

TEACHERS: Guide your students to practice civil discourse about current topics and get practice writing CER (claim, evidence, reasoning) responses.  Explore lesson supports.

How did plastic bottles become such a problem

Early forms of plastic have existed since the mid-1800s. But when WWII came along, scientists diverted all their plastic technology to help with the war effort. So after the war, all this plastic needed to go somewhere, so why not the American consumer? What we got was a plastic explosion, and it’s never really stopped. That’s why today, it’s estimated that humans have created over 8 BILLION tons of plastic, most of which still exist. See, plastic doesn’t ever really break down completely or biodegrade — it just breaks apart into smaller and smaller pieces over time. These tiny bits of plastic make their way into oceans, creating a plastic soup of pollution that can get into the bellies of all kinds of marine animals like fish, pelicans, and turtles. Some research studies predict that by 2050, pound for pound, plastics in the oceans will outweigh all the fish.

What are the pros and cons around banning plastic bottles?

About 70% of plastic water bottles bought in the U.S. are not recycled, and so end up in the oceans. On top of that, plastic bottles are made from fossil fuels. In fact, the Pacific Institute found that it took about 17 million barrels of oil to produce enough plastic for the bottles of water consumed by Americans in 2006. And since then, consumption has increased by 65%, meaning Americans need over 28 million barrels of oil to fuel their plastic water bottle needs for one year.

But banning plastic bottles altogether can have unintended consequences. After the University of Vermont instituted their ban on selling single-use plastic water bottles on campus, total shipments of all plastic bottles actually INCREASED 20 percent as people bought OTHER plastic bottle beverages like soda and juice instead. And switching to alternatives like glass or metal containers can require more energy to transport because they weigh more. That means burning more fossil fuels and creating more pollution.

Fast Facts About Plastic Pollution (National Geographic)

What’s the real price of getting rid of plastic packaging? (BBC)

A million bottles a minute (The Guardian)

2017 United States National Postconsumer Plastic Bottle Recycling Report

The environmental impact of corn-based plastic (Scientific American)

Key moments in lead in water crisis in Flint, Michigan (US News)

State Plastic and Paper Bag Legislation

To learn more about how we use your information, please read our privacy policy.

Pros and Cons of Bottled Water: Should It Be Banned?

Green Coast is supported by its readers. We may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you if you buy through a link on this page . Learn more .

Bottled water usage has skyrocket in recent years. Should bottled water be banned? Here we evaluate the number of pros and cons of bottled water. 

Water is an essential component of every living thing. Our bodies need constant supply of water for of it to operate normally. One way to stay hydrated is to have quick access to readily available source of water.

Having access to eco-friendly water consumption is one of the many advantages of going green .

What happens when you are in travel or away from other water sources? A majority of us turn to bottled water. But is bottled water a good option? Well.  In this article, we will focus on some of the pros and cons of bottled water.

Why the bottled water debate is important

Besides being the most significant component of our bodies, water helps us in numerous other functions.  If we were to write about the importance of water, we would fill an entire book with ten thousand things. But here, our primary focus is to explore whether bottled water is good or not.

Should bottled water be banned?  It is a question that keeps popping up when searching for bottled water. While there are many companies and big brands that are leaping big in this sector, a few industries are advocating for banning of bottled water.

Whether you should continue buying bottled water or not is a choice that you will be able to make after you read this article to the end.

Besides the unmatched convenience of bottled water, there some other advantages of bottled water that we will explore in a few.

However, bottled water also has a bunch of disadvantages ranging from environmental (like polyethylene terephthalate embedded in the bottles) to financial implications that cannot be ignored.

How to Curb Your Bottled Water Consumption

Regardless of the advantages or disadvantages of consuming bottled water, I think everyone should eliminate or reduce consumption. We are at historic levels of bottled water purchasing.

I’m a huge fan of eliminating my bottled water consumption to nearly zero. Why? Reducing bottled water consumption saves you time and money.  Plus, you eliminate significant waste management needs by using reusable water bottles. Here is the definition of the 3R’s of waste management .

Save money and avoid bottled water by obtaining a traveling water jug. No matter the occasion always use an eco-friendly reusable water bottle. I recommend the below products to bring with you on any travel, day trip or even at work.

To answer the question of why we should keep water bottles or not, we need to explore some of its pros and cons. So, here are some of the advantages and disadvantages of bottled water:

Pros of Bottled Water

Let’s evaluate some of the advantages of using bottled water.

One of the biggest advantages of bottled water is that it is very convenient. When you are out in the field or on holiday in a hot summer day, you can grab a bottle of water to quench your thirst from the nearest store. If you walk into any supermarket or a nearby grocery shop, you can find different brands of bottled water on sale. Bottled water is without a doubt readily available as well as portable.

It thus comes in handy when you are traveling long distance trips since it can keep you hydrated while on the move. Bottled water is usually purified and filtered to remove any harmful contents.

So, in a majority of instances, bottled water is a clean and safe option. Bottled water banning would, therefore, inconvenience people who are on travel or those who cannot access other ready to drink water options.

Bottles are recyclable

Another advantage of bottled water is that you can put the water bottle into a different use after you finish your water. The water bottles can serve you later if you want to store anything that is in liquid form. Even though water bottles are recyclable, a lot of it still ends up in trash cans.

It increases environmental hazards and results in increased cost of waste management. People should, therefore, be mobilized to stop throwing away empty cans aimlessly.

They should instead reuse them or give them to the recycling companies. Recyclable is very different than compostable.

Offers a variety of tasty water

Different companies that provide bottled water offer an array of flavors to their customers. Flavored water provides you with a chance to take water that best suits your taste buds.

If you love mint or other fruit essences such as pineapple, orange, coconut or cucumber flavor, you can find it in bottled water. Bottled water offers you a variety of choices.

See Related : Best Reusable K Cup Options to Consider

Now, let’s look at some of the disadvantages of bottled water:

Cons of Bottled water

Let’s evaluate some of the disadvantages of using bottled water.

Environmental issues

Bottles are harmful to the environment. While bottles used can be recycled, a few people still dispose of the cans carelessly after use. It consequently ends up in the wrong places like in drainage systems or even in water bodies.

Such waste hence causes drainage blockages or can pollute the water bodies that serve us in different ways. If the empty cans are disposed of in the trash cans, they may mix up with other wastes which are then transferred to the landfills.

When the landfill is burnt up, it may cause air pollution which can ruin the ozone layer and cause global warming. It is thus vital to throw away the empty cans responsibly, reuse them or take them to a recycling company.

Pollution also occurs when the factories that make the bottles emit greenhouse gases during the manufacturing process. These GHG gases also contribute greatly to global warming.

Using a reusable water bottle is sustainable and proven. It’s that simple.

Economic Implications

While you spend a dollar to buy bottled water, it may seem so little. But, if you compare bottled water vs. tap water, bottled water is by far more expensive compared to tap water and other ready to drink water options. A bottle of mineral water in most countries cost more than an equivalent or higher amount of tap water.

Bottled water processing is a long process. Though it creates job opportunities, it can be quite an expensive process from purifying to advertising the bottled water. Purchasing bottled water is an expensive option compared to tap water.

See Related : Are Plastic Straws Recyclable

Health-related issues

Bottles are made of plastic. Plastic containers contain a chemical called BPA and many others.  Research shows that these chemicals can seep into the water that is in the bottle, especially when exposed to heat or direct sunlight. The compounds can cause different deadly diseases including cancer.

Water can also be contaminated if it is left open which can result in different bacterial illnesses. If you must take bottled water, avoid storing it in high temperatures conditions and don’t leave it open for longer.

Its source and process of bottling is not well-known

Different brands keep cropping out every other day that offers mineral bottled water. But how sure are you that the source of the water and the process of bottling it are safe for you?  Some water companies don’t tell their sources of water which means it could be from anywhere.

How sure are you that the water in the bottle is safe for human consumption? Even though there are bodies that check the quality of any products in the market, that doesn’t stop the unregulated people from operating the black market.

So, be sure to always check the quality mark and be careful with the brand of water that you purchase from the store.

See Related : A Complete Guide to Greywater

Conclusion on the Pros and Cons of Bottled Water

If you weigh the pros and cons of bottled water, you are now able to answer the question, “Should bottled water be banned?” With that in-depth information on bottled water pros and cons, you can now decide which side you belong.

One thing to consider is that water is renewable . However, there is limited amounts of fresh drinking water available. We need to find ways to use gray water systems to free up water consumption elsewhere.

Our take is that bottled water usage should be mitigated as much as possible. Our oceans are clearly being damaged by the over-consumption of plastics. The pros simply don’t outweigh the cons of using bottled water. You can make sacrifices with your everyday life to curb bottled water consumption.

Use these greywater systems in your home to free up drinking water since you won’t use potable water for other purposes.

What are some additional pros and cons of bottled water? Please let us know in the comments below. We’d love to hear from you.

Articles you might also like

How to Dispose of a Microwave Responsibly

The Best Natural Skin Care Products for a Green Beauty Routine

The Best Solar Water Pumps: A Guide to Selecting and Installing a Pump

How to Reuse Candle Jars: Easy & Creative Ideas

19+ Energy Conservation Methods: Eco-Friendly Ways to Reduce Energy

25 Facts About the Environment With Ways to Reduce Your Environmental Footprint

5 Effective Ways You Can Prevent Acid Rain

How to Dispose of LED Light Bulbs Responsibly

Cooking With the Sun: Best Solar Ovens

Flipper Energy Review: Is It Worth It to Switch?

Pros and Cons of Recycling Every Eco-Conscious Person Should Know

Composting Toilet Pros and Cons: Is This Effective?

Should Bottled Water Be Banned: Pros and Cons

Should Bottled Water Be Banned?

#1 banning plastic bottles is a step closer to a healthy environment.

It is common knowledge that plastic bottles contribute to our carbon footprints. Plastic water bottles leach harmful chemicals into the water and the environment, making them a menace for both the ecosystem and our own health.

#2 Banning Bottled Water would Protect Natural Water Sources

Up to 64% of bottled water is sourced from municipal water, also known as tap water, which can drain the supply meant for public use. Additionally, some bottled water companies are not transparent with their water sources, and destroy natural resources to supply their water bottles. A ban on bottled water would protect these supplies.

#3 Banning Bottled Water Opens Opportunities to Innovate Alternative Materials

The ban on bottled water is mostly limited to banning plastic water bottles. Other sustainable and eco-friendly materials are welcome for use as alternatives to plastic. In select cities across the US, private establishments have already enacted plastic water bottle bans, which opened opportunities for materials like stainless steel and aluminum to be commonplace.

#1 Banning Removes a Healthy Drink Option

Since 2016, bottled water outsold soda as the preferred drink of choice for the majority of consumers. The sales of water continue to skyrocket since then, taking a lead over unhealthy, sugary drinks. Removing bottles of water as a choice would veer people towards soda bottles instead, which would not solve the problem, and increase rates of diabetes and obesity.

#2 Banning Bottled Water is Not the Only Way

Some experts believe that banning bottled water is just a band aid solution to the ever-growing plastic problem. Certainly enough, plastic containers aren't limited to your ordinary water bottle. Plastic comes in various forms from food to single-use containers, and banning one or the other would not solve the problem. There are other ways to remedy plastic pollution.

#3 Other Drinks will Still Continue to Contribute to Global Warming

Out of the 20,000 plastic bottles sold every second, more than 10,000 of them contained drinking water. However, even if you remove drinking water out of that statistic, you would be left with bottles of sports drinks, sodas, juices, and other beverages consumers can opt for over water. This contributes to plastic waste concerns just the same.

Alternatives to Bottled Water

Refillable Water Bottles

One of the best alternatives to plastic containers is to use reusable ones. Most reusable bottle materials are made from stainless steel or plastic, but silicone and glass bottles also exist. These are meant to be multi-use, where you use the bottle infinitely until it can no longer safely contain your beverage.

However, most people tend to use more than one reusable bottle at a time depending on their aesthetic or affinity for certain tumbler designs. It is also inconvenient to bring your bottle around, and refilling it with water from unknown sources is not safe.

Glass Bottles

Glass bottles don't leach chemicals into your water, and they are endlessly recyclable as well. The problem is that glass shatters easily, and can be dangerous for small children to drink from. Glass bottles make for good alternatives to plastic ones, but must be handled with proper care.

• Aluminum Bottles

For a bottle that ticks all the boxes: portable, safe, recyclable, sustainable, and sanitary, aluminum bottles are the way to go. Aluminum is endlessly recyclable, but unlike glass, will not shatter upon impact. Aluminum is also lightweight and portable, which can top plastic materials in safety and sustainability. They are also reusable.

My Own Water produces our own line of aluminum bottles. We understand the plastic problem, and we aim to provide our customers with a guilt-free and sustainable choice. Our aluminum bottles are recycled, which uses up only 5% of the energy to process raw aluminum. Make the better choice, and go for aluminum bottled water!

Management Over Restrictions

From a privileged perspective, it seems easy to ban bottled water due to their negative environmental impacts . However, this decision is not fair to those areas where bottled water is the only potable water source, and the most practical emergency water supply.

Thick back to those times when a bottle of water was your only safe and practical option to drink: like in roadside carnivals or restaurants where the safety of their tap water and other drinks is dubious. In some landlocked areas, bottled water may be the only drink option for the people living there.

Bottled water is not all bad, but the more damaging aspect is how we manage our plastic waste. In the US, only 30%, or less, of plastic water bottles are recycled yearly, leaving 70% or so plastic water bottles littering the environment. The problem lies with the way we process this waste, which has room for improvement.

What we can personally do is make the choice for better alternatives like using a reusable bottle, or aluminum bottles instead of plastic. This way, we maintain the convenience of plastic without harming the environment.

Recent Article

To request more information or to get an estimate, simply fill out the contact form below.

Get In Touch With Us

• Bottle Sizes
• Bulk Bottles
• Custom Labels
• Label Templates
• Our Process
• Water Quality
• Our Commitment

© 2021 Crystal Beverage Company

News from the Columbia Climate School

Should Universities Ban Bottled Water?

Kavita Jain-Cocks

The University of Vermont is set to join a small but determined group of universities by moving to  end the sale of bottled water on campus as of January 2013.  Ending a ten year contract with Coca-Cola has allowed for increased options as the university attempts to reduce their environmental impact by cutting down on bottled water and to provide healthier options to students.  As in most of these situations, students pushed for change collecting well over a thousand signatures in favor of a “sustainable beverage system” and citing issues such as the oil required to make plastic bottles, the water that went to waste in the process (about three liters of water are required to bottle just one), the lack of recycling that takes placed with disposed bottles, that the bottled water is often sourced from tap water, and that their particular water supply was one of the cleanest in the country.  Although the university imposed change has yet to take place, students have already succeeded in reducing sales from 362,000 to 235,000 bottles per year between 2007 and 2010.

Other universities in Canada and the United States to have banned plastic bottled water include Belmont University, Oberlin College, Seattle University, University of Ottawa, University of Portland, University of Wisconsin (Stevens Point), Upstate Medical University, and Washington University in St. Louis.  Others including, but not limited to, New York University and Stanford University have banned plastic bottles from their dining halls.  Finally there are numerous student led efforts to ban bottled water at places such as Brown University, Cornell University, and Pennsylvania State University, though these have yet to become official.

Since bottled water is often cited as a convenience, places such as the University of Canberra in Australia have installed water vending machines that charge students to refill containers, though the prices are lower than they would have been for bottled water.  Others have installed something called hydration stations , which are essentially drinking fountains with an extra spigot making it faster and easier to refill bottles.  It has yet to be seen whether these changes will end up increasing the purchases of soft drinks as some claim it will.

As with most changes not everyone is happy about these developments, at the College of Saint Benedict in Minnesota, following the ban the Minnesota College Republicans handed out plastic water bottles to students claiming that the new policy deprived students of the right to choose.  Other criticisms include claims that people will tend to choose less healthy options such as soft drinks, that bottled water is simply convenient and even hydration stations or similar options will not be at the same level, that students may rightly be wary of unclean tap water especially at older schools, and as mentioned earlier that ultimately consumers should be able to decide for themselves what they buy.

Others assert that there is a surprisingly large amount of misinformation circling that unfairly portrays the detriments of bottled water.  The proponents of this include Chris Hogan , a spokesman for the International Bottled Water Association.  An editorial by John B. Challinor II , Nestle Waters Canada’s director of corporate affairs, elaborates on this point of view claiming that bottles are made in a more environmentally friendly way than is usually portrayed and that a ban would be largely irrelevant since bottled water is a competitor of other bottled beverages, not tap water.  Beverage companies such as Coca-Cola also have come out against these bans claiming, among other things, that people tend to hugely overestimate the scale of bottled water’s effect on landfills.  John Sicher, editor and publisher of Beverage Digest, points out that “Consumers have spoken” and they “like bottled water and that will remain for the foreseeable future”.

On the other side of the issue , are the groups pushing for change arguing that a ban on bottled water will help protect the environment while reducing campus beverage costs and improving the universities’ images as they “go green”.  Other points made are that for the most part bottled water is not really better for you than tap water and the idea that as a “basic human right” water is not something they should have to pay for.  Therefore, despite the criticisms they encounter, movements to ban bottled water have been gaining traction in various universities across the country as well as in other parts of the world.

Related Posts

Register to Present at the Climate School’s Earth Month and Student Research Showcase

Strategies for Safe Drinking Water: Ensuring Lead-Free Taps for All

Repairing Tectonic GNSS in Bangladesh’s Tea Region

Celebrate over 50 years of Earth Day with us all month long! Visit our Earth Day website for ideas, resources, and inspiration.

Kind of a ridiculous idea if you ask me. The best way that universities (and everyone else) can contribute to a drop in bottled water consumption is to have clean, working water fountains in more locations. These are far too few and far between, both on campuses and in places like shopping centers, municipal buildings, and offices.

We are using legal means to deal with cultural norms in a way that is heavy handed. The effects will be minimal, and the smoke caused by all the complaints will be considerable. If we want to save water (and everything else) how about reducing the number of parking spots on campuses?

I bought my Gobie H2O filtered water bottle about a year ago and not only have I stopped adding to the number of one time use water bottles, I also know I have clean water when I drink it. You can’t say that for sure from a water fountain or from any “bottled water”. Also I save money because I can fill up my filtered bottle at any bathroom sink, outside water hose, water fountain or just about any where I go. It has a wide mouth so I can even add ice. It just makes sense.

[…] more than 100 comments. Columbia University’s Water Center posted an essay last week asking, “Should Universities Ban Bottled Water?” which is getting a little of Twitter […]

I regularly travel with a Gobie water filter bottle as mentioned above and it’s been absolutely fantastic, particularly in areas of the world where sanitation is a little limited.

Should bottled water be banned? It’s very wasteful of resources, not just the bottle, but shipping, manufacture and proper disposal / recycling – but then so are soft drinks and they’re not going to be banned in a month of Sundays.

great idea altogether, but the suggestion to have more water fountains available reminds me of the days when we did have more water fountains available — and the water they dispensed usually tasted awful. Need to fix that if they are to be successful against the bottled water industry.

We all have different views on whether to ban the bottled water completely or not. But in doing the first step in going green, i see nothing wrong with it if you are helping the community and your health. It is indeed costly, but would the outcome be worth it in the end?

Bottled water should be taxed, just like cigarettes have been taxed. It is BAD for the environment.

From the WATER wasted to actually create the disposable plastic bottle to the waste created to actually recycle it, IF you are one of the 30% who actually recycle it. And even for the recyclers. That bottle does not magically get picked up and refashioned to become another bottle. That bottle sits and sits until it is picked up by a human in a Middle East oil guzzling truck. It is then dropped off at some recycling plant where it is chopped up and melted to one day meet its destiny as some plastic widget on some other product that will one day be chucked and left to litter this planet for a generation to come in some landfill somewhere. The WISE thing to do is to just carry an aluminum refillable WATER bottle everywhere you go. I’ve vowed to NEVER EVER drink bottled water.

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter →

Should Bottled Water Be Banned?

Are you a fan of bottled water? Do you often reach for a plastic bottle when you’re thirsty on the go?

The convenience and portability of bottled water have made it a staple in our modern lives. However, there is growing concern about the negative impact that plastic water bottles have on the environment. This has led to the question: should bottled water be banned?

As an environmentally conscious individual, you may believe that banning plastic water bottles is necessary to reduce waste and protect our planet. Plastic bottles take hundreds of years to decompose, and they can harm wildlife if they end up in oceans or other natural habitats.

On the other hand, some argue that bottled water provides a safe and convenient source of hydration, especially in areas where tap water is not readily available or safe to drink.

So what are the pros and cons of banning bottled water? Let’s explore both sides of this debate.

• Key Takeaways
• Plastic water bottles have a negative impact on the environment by taking hundreds of years to decompose and harming wildlife.
• Limiting access to drinking water for those without clean tap water is a concern with banning plastic water bottles.
• Banning water bottles can encourage eco-friendly practices and have a positive impact on the environment.
• The convenience and availability of bottled water in stores is a factor in the perception that it is cleaner and safer than tap water, but there are no significant health benefits from drinking bottled water.

Table of Contents

Should plastic water bottles be banned, why should water bottles be banned, reasons why we should not ban plastic water bottles, pros and cons of bottled water.

You know what’s crazy? Some people think plastic water bottles should be banned. It’s no secret that these bottles are a major contributor to environmental pollution, but is banning them really the best solution?

If you’re writing an opinion piece or argumentative essay on this topic, there are a few things to consider.

Firstly, let’s take a look at San Francisco. This city was one of the first in the world to ban plastic water bottles in public places. While this may seem like a positive step towards reducing waste, it hasn’t necessarily had the desired effect. Many people have simply switched to buying other bottled drinks such as soda or juice instead.

Additionally, some argue that by banning plastic water bottles we are actually limiting access to drinking water for those who don’t have easy access to clean tap water.

So before jumping on the bandwagon and calling for a nationwide ban on plastic water bottles, it’s important to weigh up all sides of the argument and think carefully about potential unintended consequences.

In today’s world, it’s hard to ignore the negative impact of plastic containers on our environment. As a writer of opinion pieces or argumentative essays, you may have come across the topic of banning water bottles.

San Francisco has already taken this step by prohibiting the sale of single-use plastic water bottles in public places. Here are four reasons why water bottles should be banned :

• Plastic waste is a major contributor to environmental pollution.
• The production and transportation of bottled water require significant amounts of energy and resources.
• Drinking tap water is a cheaper and more sustainable alternative.
• Banning water bottles can encourage individuals and businesses to adopt more eco-friendly practices.

By considering these points, it becomes clear that banning bottled water can have a positive impact on our environment.

As you write your own opinion piece or argumentative essay on this topic, remember to highlight the importance of reducing our environmental impact for future generations to come.

Contrary to popular belief, plastic water bottles play a crucial role in emergency situations where access to clean water is limited. In areas of natural disasters or other emergencies, bottled water can be quickly distributed and easily transported to those in need. Banning plastic water bottles would take away an important resource for those who rely on them during such times.

Furthermore, while cities like San Francisco have implemented bans on plastic water bottles, this may not necessarily solve the issue of waste. People will simply turn to other forms of single-use plastics or disposable containers for their drinking water needs. Instead of banning plastic water bottles altogether, efforts should be made to promote recycling and proper disposal methods for these products.

Ultimately, whether or not plastic water bottles should be banned is a matter of opinion and can make for an interesting argumentative essay or opinion essay topic.

Just like a coin, there are two sides to the debate on the advantages and disadvantages of relying on bottled water. On one hand, bottled water is convenient and readily available in most stores. It is also portable and easy to carry around, making it perfect for people who are always on-the-go. Additionally, bottled water is often perceived as cleaner and safer than tap water, which may contain harmful chemicals or bacteria.

On the other hand, the production and consumption of bottled water have negative effects on the environment. Bottled water generates a significant amount of plastic waste that ends up in landfills or oceans. In fact, San Francisco has already banned single-use plastic bottles from being sold on city-owned property due to environmental concerns. Moreover, some studies suggest that drinking bottled water may not be any healthier than drinking tap water since both sources undergo similar treatment processes before distribution.

Whether or not we should ban bottled water remains a topic of debate for opinion writing or argumentative essay. While it offers convenience and perceived safety benefits over tap water, its negative effects on the environment cannot be ignored. Ultimately, individuals can make small changes by reducing their reliance on single-use plastics and choosing reusable options instead.

Well, well, well. Looks like you’ve made it to the end of this article on whether or not bottled water should be banned. Are you feeling parched yet? Maybe you’re reaching for that trusty plastic bottle right now, ready to quench your thirst. But wait! Before you do that, consider the arguments presented here.

On one hand, those in favor of a ban argue that plastic bottles are wasteful and harmful to the environment. They point out the staggering amount of plastic waste that ends up in our oceans and landfills each year. And let’s not forget about the energy required to produce and transport all those bottles.

But on the other hand, some argue that banning bottled water is impractical and even elitist. Not everyone has access to clean drinking water, after all. Plus, some people just prefer the convenience of grabbing a bottle on-the-go.

So what’s the verdict? Honestly, it’s hard to say. But one thing we can all agree on is this: whether or not we ban bottled water outright, we need to start taking better care of our planet before it’s too late.

So next time you reach for that bottle, maybe consider filling up a reusable container instead – your taste buds (and Mother Earth) will thank you for it!

Audrey McGill

Meet Audrey, the water-enthusiast behind WeLikeWater.com. Her love for all things H2O inspired her to create this laid-back space where folks can dive into the world of water. From the fizzy to the calm, Audrey's been on a journey through every ripple and wave, and she's eager to share her discoveries.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

'Do not drink' order issued for Harwich drinking water after Dennis fire. What we know.

The "do not drink" order was lifted Thursday .

Harwich has issued a "do not drink" order for the town's drinking water.

Crews were expected to have been flushing the system Tuesday night, after the town found firefighting foam in the water supply, from a fire in Dennis Tuesday. The foam is 100% biodegradable and PFAS-free, according to the town notice. The "do not drink" order was issued "out of an abundance of caution."

The water department will collect water samples and test them. When tests show no contamination, the "do not drink" order will be rescinded.

Residents are advised to use bottled water during the order for drinking, brushing teeth, making ice, washing dishes and food preparation. Town water can be used for laundry and bathing.

The town of Dennis is not under any order, according to Superintendent David Larkowski. The town has not received any complaints of foamy water — which was discovered in parts of Harwich — and after flushing their system on Tuesday evening found no signs of contamination.

"Some kind of backflow event happened from the fire and from the fire departments connecting to the hydrants," he explained. "The Dennis Water District has not experienced any customer complaints or foamy water from anything so any problems were in the Harwich area and not the Dennis area."

A Tuesday fire in Dennis, on Great Western Road, was determined to be the cause of the contamination. Officials believe the water contamination in Harwich is restricted to North Harwich, according to the town notice.

The fire was in a commercial building behind Great Western Deli in Dennis, according to a Facebook post from the Harwich Fire Department. Harwich firefighters arrived shortly before 11 a.m. and were on the scene for about an hour and a half.

The situation was described as "heavy fire" and photos from the Harwich Fire Department show huge clouds of billowing smoke.

Further information on the fire was not immediately available. This story will be updated as more information becomes available.

Reporter Frankie Rowley contributed to this story.

Thanks to our subscribers, who help make this coverage possible. If you are not a subscriber, please consider supporting quality local journalism with a Cape Cod Times subscription.  Here are our subscription plans.

• Share full article

Should Alcoholic Beverages Have Cancer Warning Labels?

Ireland will require them starting in 2026, and there are nascent efforts elsewhere to add more explicit labeling about the health risks of drinking.

An example of a label that will be added in 2026 to all beer, wine and liquor sold in Ireland, emphasizing ties between alcohol use and liver disease or cancer. Credit... Alcohol Action Ireland

Supported by

By Ted Alcorn

• Published April 9, 2024 Updated April 11, 2024

Fifteen words are roiling the global alcohol industry.

Beginning in 2026, containers of beer, wine and liquor sold in Ireland will be required by law to bear a label in red capital letters with two warnings: “THERE IS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN ALCOHOL AND FATAL CANCERS” and “DRINKING ALCOHOL CAUSES LIVER DISEASE.”

The requirement, signed into law last year, is backed by decades of scientific research and goes much further than any country has thus far communicated the health risks of alcohol consumption. It has sparked fierce opposition from alcohol businesses worldwide, but it is also inspiring a push in some other countries to pursue similar measures.

“It’s an important step,” said Dr. Timothy Naimi, the director of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria. “People who drink should have the right to know basic information about alcohol, just as they do for other food and beverage products.”

In Thailand, the government is in the final stages of drafting a regulation requiring alcohol products to carry graphic images accompanied by text warnings such as “alcoholic beverages can cause cancer,” according to The Bangkok Post .

A bill has been introduced in the Canadian Parliament that would require labels on all alcoholic beverages to communicate a “direct causal link between alcohol consumption and the development of fatal cancers.”

Last week, the Alaska State Legislature held a committee hearing on a bill that would require businesses selling alcohol to post signs carrying a cancer warning.

Norway, which already heavily regulates the sale of alcohol, is developing proposals for introducing cancer warning labels. The country’s state secretary, Ole Henrik Krat Bjorkholt, who followed Ireland’s effort with great interest, said in an interview, “I think it’s probable that we will implement something similar.”

Ireland has been a trailblazer in setting aggressive public health policies before. In 2004, it became the first country to ban smoking in indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants, a policy since adopted in over 70 countries. The warning label requirement for alcohol could be the start of a similar change in how beverages are packaged, and a vehicle for raising awareness about the dangers of drinking, however small the amount.

A long fight

The evidence linking drinking and cancer is well established. In 1988, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that alcohol is carcinogenic to humans. Research in the decades since has only strengthened the conclusion, including for breast, liver, colorectal and esophageal cancers. In November, the W.H.O. and the I.A.R.C. declared in a joint statement : “No safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers can be established.”

Despite this, the connection between alcohol and cancer isn’t well known. In the United States, a recent nationwide survey found that about one in three Americans was aware that drinking increased the risk of cancer.

Globally, only a quarter of countries require any kind of health warning on alcohol, according to a recent study , and the mandated language is generally imprecise. The United States last altered its warning labels in 1989 , when it introduced language that discouraged drinking during pregnancy, or before driving or operating heavy machinery, and that vaguely acknowledged that alcohol “may cause health problems.”

It took over a decade for Ireland’s labeling requirement to become a reality, according to Sheila Gilheany, chief executive of the advocacy organization Alcohol Action Ireland, who described it as “the most contested piece of legislation in Irish history.” She said that the effort began in 2012, when a steering group assigned to address the country’s high rate of alcohol-related deaths recommended a raft of measures, including warning labels.

Many of the recommendations were watered down by the time they became law in 2018, but the labeling requirement made it through unscathed. It took another four years for lawmakers to hammer out the specific wording and the design that would be required.

As those details were decided, alcohol companies stepped up their protests. In late 2022, a group of major alcohol-exporting European countries submitted formal objections to the European Commission, the European Union’s executive branch, arguing that Ireland’s labels impeded free trade and were not appropriate or proportionate to the objective of reducing alcohol’s harms.

When the commission raised no objection, Antonio Tajani, Italy’s foreign minister, called the Irish proposal “an attack on the Mediterranean diet.” The language in the labels “doesn’t take into account the difference between moderate consumption and alcohol abuse,” he said on Twitter .

Coordinated industry opposition

Alcohol businesses are fighting on multiple fronts to keep the Irish labeling requirement from taking effect. At committee meetings of the World Trade Organization in June and November, trade groups and eleven alcohol-exporting countries, including the United States, expressed concerns, questioned the scientific validity of the cancer warning and argued that Ireland’s labels would infringe on free trade.

In comments submitted to the World Trade Organization, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States called the labels “inaccurate” and “misleading.” The group also suggested that “this important public health objective would be best managed” as part of a parallel effort to address cancer in the European Union, an area where the alcohol industry has proved to have greater influence.

The European Commission was supposed to propose language for alcohol health warnings as part of the its Beating Cancer Plan by the end of 2023 but failed to meet that deadline. In December, over the objections of the World Health Organization , the European Parliament approved a report that did not affirm the need for warning labels, instead calling for information on “moderate and responsible drinking.”

In the final report, its authors repeatedly watered down language about alcohol’s role in disease, narrowly warning only about “harmful” or “excess” consumption.

Size and design

Cormac Healy, the director of Drinks Ireland, a trade group, said that his organization wasn’t entirely utterly opposed to health warnings. But he said that the mandated size of the labels would be impractical for use on smaller products, picking a 50-milliliter bottle up from his desk to demonstrate. And the warning language itself was “disproportionate and inaccurate,” he said, and primarily geared toward scaring people.

“To inform, to educate — you can’t really do that on a label,” he added.

In the United States, alcohol warning labels are typically on the back of the bottle or can, where they blend in with other graphic features. Dr. Marissa Hall, an assistant professor in the department of health behavior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that the labels would be more effective at catching a purchaser’s eye if they were on the front, included an image or icon, and featured one of a rotating group of brief messages.

Dr. Hall recently received a grant from the National Institutes of Health to test the impact of stronger design features. When she tells friends about her research, many are surprised to learn the United States requires warning labels at all, she said, because the existing ones so easily go unnoticed.

“They have no idea,” she said.

In the last 15 years, a few countries have proposed stronger alcohol warning labels, but each has been met with fierce opposition, said Paula O’Brien, a professor of law at the University of Melbourne. In 2010, Thailand proposed requiring a rotating group of warnings accompanied by graphic color imagery; O’Brien called it “the high-water mark for alcohol labeling.” But at the World Trade Organization, other countries raised concerns that the labels would restrain free trade, and the measure stalled.

In 2016, South Korea overcame similar objections to mandate a group of warning labels, some of which link alcohol with cancer, that alcohol makers can choose from to put on their products.

Even research on the topic has been contentious. In 2017, Yukon, a sparsely populated territory in northwest Canada, forged a partnership with scientists to introduce and test the impact of brightly colored warning labels, one of which included the phrase “alcohol can cause cancer.” But after alcohol trade groups complained, the local government paused the study out of fear it would face a lawsuit that it could not afford to fight.

“I was a bit surprised about the strength of the reaction,” said Dr. Erin Hobin, a scientist at Public Health Ontario who led the project in Yukon.

When the researchers resumed the study several months later, on the condition that the cancer warning be omitted, they found that people buying alcoholic beverages featuring the labels were still more likely to notice the messages, and reported reducing their drinking. Sales of products carrying the labels also fell by around 7 percent during the intervention and several months that followed.

Most importantly, Dr. Hobin said, as drinkers grew more informed about the link between alcohol and cancer, they also became more likely to support policies for controlling alcohol availability, pricing and marketing, which have been shown to reduce drinking even more.

If the alcohol industry dissuaded the European Union from adopting warning labels, it would keep Ireland isolated and out of harmony with European law. That could ultimately form a basis for challenging the labeling requirement in Irish courts, said Dr. Ollie Bartlett, an assistant professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland. But he said that such efforts were unlikely to prevail because Ireland’s alcohol warning labels are “proportionate to the objective of protecting public health.”

Observers say the European Union isn’t likely to take any further action until after parliamentary elections this summer. And there’s no indication that Ireland will retreat from its commitment to require the labels starting in May 2026.

Dr. Gauden Galea, a strategic adviser at the World Health Organization, said he was confident that broader labeling efforts would eventually succeed. At 63, he’s old enough to recall how cigarette companies once advertises on the front pages of newspapers, he added.

Eventually, he hopes, “People will not remember the time when you needed a warning on pesticides, but could sell an unlabeled carcinogen like alcohol with impunity.”

The Fight Against Cancer

Colon and rectal cancers are increasing among people younger than 50. Experts have a few ideas about why .

Should alcoholic beverages have cancer warning labels? Ireland will require them starting in 2026, and there are nascent efforts elsewhere .

Risk calculators can offer a more personalized picture of an individual patient’s breast cancer risk. But experts warn that the results need to be interpreted with the help of a doctor .

The human papillomavirus vaccine provides powerful protection against the leading cause of cervical cancer and against a strong risk factor for anal cancer. Here’s what to know about the shot .

A recent study adds to growing evidence that exercise is an important part of preventing prostate cancer , the second most common and second most fatal cancer in the United States for men.

No single food can prevent cancer on its own, but experts say that there are some that may help you build the best defense .

Advertisement