Fontis Water : News Releases

Coke: Wait, People Thought Vitaminwater Was Good for You?

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:00:00 GMT

In light of Coca-Cola’s much-discussed attempt to place itself at the vanguard in the fight against obesity—see video above—it’s worth taking look at its line of “enhanced waters,” known as Glacéau vitaminwater. You could be forgiven for thinking the product is a life-giving nectar. The made-up word Glacéau evokes the purity of glaciers. Vitamins are essential nutrients. And water is an unimpeachable ingredient.

Coca-Cola’s marketing encourages the healthy image. According vitaminwater’s website, the Power -C flavor of vitaminwater delivers “zinc and vitamin C to power your immune system”; while the XXX offers “antioxidant vitamins to help fight free radicals and help support your body.” And so on.

But not everyone’s convinced that vitaminwater does a body good. Back in 2009, the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued Coca-Cola for making “deceptive and unsubstantiated” health claims about the products. In 2010, a US federal district court judge rejected Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss the suit (document here), noting that Coke’s lawyers had made a remarkable argument: “At oral argument defendants suggested that no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.”

In other words, no one actually believes our flashy marketing—it’s obviously nonsense. The vitaminwater suit still hasn’t been resolved, a CSPI spokesperson informed me. And hilarity over Coca-Cola’s cynical defense strategy is ongoing, too. Stephen Colbert spoofed it just this week:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Vitaminwater Advertising Lawsuit
www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

And I think Coke’s obesity campaign should be read in the same light: No consumer should be misled into thinking that the sugary-beverage giant (its heavily marketed array of “diet” products nothwithstanding) has been transformed into an obesity-fighting machine. Or, as New York University dietician Marion Nestle put it on her Food Politcs blog, “Coca-Cola fights obesity? Oh, please.”

Just for fun, I checked out the ingredients of “orange-orange”-flavored vitaminwater, which are remarkably similar to the other 11 flavors (also listed in that link). Here they are :

Reverse osmosis water, crystalline fructose, cane sugar, less than 0.5% of: citric acid, magnesiumlactate and calcium lactate and potassium phosphate (electrolyte sources), natural flavors, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), gum acacia, vitamin B3 (niacinamide), vitamin E (alpha-tocopheryl acetate), vitamin B5 (calcium pantothenate), glycerol ester of rosin, vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride), vitamin B12, beta-carotene, modified food starch, sorbitol.

So, it contains less than 0.5 percent of a whole list of stuff (none of which has anything to do with this particular flavor’s namesake fruit, the orange), and thus at least 99.5 percent water, crystalline fructose, and sugar. Crystalline fructose, it turns out, is an even more processed version of high-fructose corn syrup—it provides a pure jolt of fructose. “Cane sugar” is about half fructose and half glucose. There’s a growing body of literature, described ably by Gary Taubes in his 2011 New York Times Magazine piece “Is Sugar Toxic,” suggesting that refined sweeteners, and in particular their fructose component, are driving a range of health problems including diabetes. Recently, UCLA researchers have found evidence that “a diet steadily high in fructose slows the brain, hampering memory and learning.” And then there’s the emerging suspicion that diets high in refined sweeteners can trigger Alzheimer’s disease. In a 2012 Mother Jones piece, Taubes and Cristin Kearns Couzens showed how the sugar industry has worked hard over the decades to suppress and downplay such research.

So what Coke is passing off as “enhanced water” is mostly just sugar water; or as CSPI has put it, “vitamins + water + sugar + hype = soda – bubbles.” Granted, there’s less sugar in vitaminwater (19 grams per 12 oz.) than in, say, Coca-Cola classic (39 grams per 12 oz.). But it’s still pretty sugary.

Coke charges about twice as much for its vitaminwater as it does for Coca-Cola Classic."
What about the other 0.5 percent of vitaminwater—the vitamin part? It includes electrolytes—the stuff found in sports drinks. It turns out that electrolyte-laden drinks are mostly hype. As for all those vitamins, there’s little or no evidence that vitamin supplements do much to improve health. “We have an enormous body of data telling us that plant-rich diets are very healthy,” Josephine Briggs, head of the National Institute of of Health’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine told The Wall Street Journal in 2011. “As soon as we take these various antioxidants [and other nutrients] out and put them in a pill, we’re not consistently getting a benefit.”

In other words, you’re much better off getting your vitamins from whole foods than from sugary drinks.

What, then, is vitaminwater good for? Well, it does seem to provide good profit margins for its maker. At Staples, you can pick up an assorted 12-pack of assorted 20-oz. vitaminwaters for $19.99. That’s about 8 cents per ounce. Another form of Coca-Cola-produced sugar water, Coca-Cola Classic, fetches $11.99 for a 24-pack of 12-oz. cans at Staples. That’s about 4 cents per oz. So Coke gets about twice as much for its vitaminwater as it does for its flagship product.

Say what you want about Coke’s marketing of vitaminwater and its anti-obesity rhetoric, but its business sense is impeccable.

Sinus rinses require sterile water

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Myth: It is safe to use tap water with neti pots and other sinus-rinsing devices.

Fact: While the medical community generally accepts sinus rinsing as a safe and inexpensive way to treat allergy and cold symptoms without medication, the Food and Drug Administration last month warned that rinsing with tap water can lead to infection, or possibly even death.

Sinus rinsing often takes place at home using neti pots, which are small, salt water-filled devices that look like teapots with long spouts. By pouring the saline solution in one nostril and out the other, users can rinse away pollen and debris and loosen mucus in the nose and sinuses, and many report getting relief from nasal congestion.
But people should only rinse their sinuses with sterile water, FDA officials warn. Bacteria and other microorganisms can live in tap water. The water is often safe to drink because stomach acid kills these offending agents, but the “bugs” might survive in the nasal passages and could cause serious infections.
Water that is safe to use includes store-bought distilled water, tap water that has been boiled for 3 to 5 minutes and then cooled, or water that has been passed through a filter with pores that are one micron or smaller (one one-thousandth of a millimeter).
The FDA consumer alert noted that two deaths in Louisiana in 2011 may be linked to improper use of neti pots. Both people died from rare brain infections the state’s health department said were caused by an amoeba found in the tap water. The consumer alert also stressed that users should use sterile water to clean their neti pots or other sinus rinsing tools like bulb syringes, squeeze bottles and battery-operated pulsed water devices.
Despite the risks that come with improper use, neti pots may be more effective than other over-the-counter sinus remedies. A 2007 study from the University of Michigan followed 121 adults who treated their chronic sinus conditions with either a saline nasal spray or a neti pot rinse. After eight weeks, 61 percent of the spray users reported they had symptoms “often or always,” compared with only 40 percent of those who rinsed.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Sinus-rinses-require-sterile-water-3839682.php#ixzz25c1u2aWa

Healthier School Lunches? No Thank You, Says Congress

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:00:00 GMT

Is pizza with tomato sauce a vegetable? Apparently yes, according to Congress, which on Monday blocked legislation that would have made school lunches healthier.

In their final version of a spending bill that includes planning for the $11 billion National School Lunch Program, House and Senate committee members blocked or delayed major proposals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that aimed to toughen nutritional standards for students’ subsidized meals.

The USDA proposals — the first update to school-lunch nutritional guidelines in 15 years — suggested cutting back on salt; reducing starchy vegetables like potatoes, corn, lima beans and peas; and adding more fresh fruits and vegetables. The proposals also called for setting a maximum calorie allowance for meals (currently, there is only a calorie minimum) and installing more specific targets for dairy and whole grain content in school lunches. The USDA also proposed not counting tomato paste on pizza as a vegetable.

Given that a third of American children are overweight or obese, and that they get roughly 40% of their daily calories during school lunch, nutrition experts have long advocated for an overhaul of the federally subsidized meals dished out to 31 million students each year.

Not surprisingly, frozen pizza makers and potato growers pushed back on the USDA proposals. Schools also complained that the changes would have cost too much money, and some politicians and school administrators said the government shouldn’t be in the business of telling school districts that they can’t serve specific foods.

Citing financial concerns and a lack of data on the potential benefits of the USDA proposals, Congress blocked the following requirements:

Limiting starchy vegetables, including corn, peas and potatoes to two servings a week, and requiring weekly minimums of leafy greens and vitamin-rich orange veggies. This measure was aimed at reducing kids’ consumption of French fries, which some schools serve daily. (A group of senators with farmer constituents, led by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, successfully blocked this provision.)

Preventing two tablespoons of tomato paste — roughly the amount on a serving of pizza — from being classified as a serving of vegetable. The USDA wanted to increase the conversion, and allow no less than a half-cup of tomato paste — too much to put on a pizza, but adequate for more nutrient-dense meals like pasta, chili, ragout and soup — to equal a serving of vegetables. Federally subsidized lunches are required to have a minimum number of vegetables to be served.

Limiting sodium in school meals. Congress wants to hold off until more study is done on the long-term effects of sodium-reduction requirements.

Requiring half of all grains and breads to come from whole grains, rather than refined sources. Congress requested that the USDA define “whole grains” before regulating them.

“They are making sure that two of the biggest problems in the school lunch program, pizza and French fries, are untouched,” Margo Wootan, a nutrition advocate at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the AP.

The USDA’s recommendations, originally announced in January, would have significantly revamped the standard school menu, as evidenced by a pair of before-and-after weekly menus [PDF] — one based on the current guidelines, and the other based on the proposed updates. “This is a huge step forward and USDA deserves lots of support for doing this,” wrote Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University and the author of Food Politics, on her blog at the time. It’s a shame the agency didn’t get it.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/16/healthier-school-lunches-no-thank-you-says-congress/#ixzz1duWaMb4N

Appearance at Teen Center Caps Leon Thomas Visit

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:00:00 GMT

Leon Thomas III stopped by the Kennesaw Teen Center on Tuesday, April 19 to meet and greet the participants in the after school program conducted there. The visit followed up on his support of local teen initiatives demonstrated by his appearance at the Big Shanty Festival as well as an evening program at Kennesaw Mountain High School on April 16.

Leon was also honored by Mayor Mark Mathews at the April 18 City Council meeting, where a proclamation marked April 16 as Leon Thomas III Day and he was awarded the key to the city.

“Having Leon’s support was a real boost to our teen initiatives here in Kennesaw,” according to Mayor Mathews. “He is a wonderful role model who proves how hard work and effort can lead to success.”

Thanks to Domino’s and Papa John’s Pizza and Fontis Water and special thanks to Sherwin Williams for their donations to the Teen Center.

20 rising stars UNDER 40

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:00:00 GMT

Jamie Carroll is proud to follow in the footsteps of his family’s business traditions. Carroll, a 35-year-old East Cobb resident, is Founder and President of Fontis Water, located on Canton Road in Marietta. His father, Jim, and uncle, Steve, founded Georgia Mountain Water in 1980 and were very involved in community service in Cobb and the North Georgia area.

Carroll says the duo sold their business to Crystal Springs in 2000 and Jamie worked there until 2003. It was then he began Fortis and has never looked back.

“It takes a certain amount of commitment and willingness to put the time and effort into your own business,” says Carroll. “But it definitely pays off.”

Carroll is active in the Kennesaw and Acworth Business Associations as well as the Cobb Chamber of Commerce. He has over 2,000 business and residential customers throughout Georgia, and he has also added coffee service and single cup brew service.

“The past two years have been slower because of the economy, but things seem to be moving forward and growing,” says Carroll, who remembers some wise words his father gave him. “Dad told me that you have to be involved in your community – that’s your backyard,” says Carroll.

Waterworks

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:00:00 GMT

At Fontis Water, Jamie Carroll carries on the family tradition of bottling pure, natural mountain spring water. A family-owned and operated company, Fontis Water specializes in home and office delivery of bottled water.

“I grew up in the business,” said the Marietta native.

For 20 years, Carroll’s family owned Georgia Mountain Water, Georgia’s largest family-owned water company. They sold it in 2000. After GMW, Carroll operated Carolina Mountain Water and then opened Fontis in 2003.

The 35-year-old entrepreneur started working in the business at age 14. He uses his experience to set Fontis apart in the highly competitive beverage market where there are plenty of options. He said that his goal is to give families and businesses impeccable service they should expect from their bottled-water provider.

According to Carroll, customer service is what makes Fontis stand out above its competitors. “We always prided ourselves on our customer service,” the said 1993 Sprayberry High School graduate.

Fontis, serving Atlanta and the north Georgia area, continues to enjoy growth because Fontis builds relationships with its customers. “When someone calls, 99 percent of the time we pick up the call on the first ring and they’re talking to a live person,” he said. "We’re always in direct contact with customers and our drivers and our trucks. It’s just that attention to detail and service that sets us apart.

“Bigger isn’t always better,” he said.

Fontis water comes from a cold, deep rock spring in the Georgia Blue Ridge Mountains on family-owned land and is available in 5-gallon, 3-gallon, 1-gallon and single serving bottles. Fontis offers other services and products including break room service.

“My dream is to provide Georgians with their very own ultra-pure, fresh and invigorating bottled natural spring water, affordably priced and delivered with a friendly smile,” Carroll said.

Fontis is located at 3929 Canton Road in Marietta, between the Chastain Connector and Hawkins Store Road. To learn more about its other products and services, visit www.fontiswater.com or call (678) 494-1981.

50 reasons to oppose fluoridation

Sun, 09 Jan 2011 05:00:00 GMT

Dr. Paul Connet, Ph.D. of St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY offers 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation as listed below and the statements are slightly edited.

1, Humans don’t need fluoride to have good teeth;

2, Fluoridation is unnecessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and they have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the U.S. where a majority of cities are fluoridated;

3, Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt;

4, Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities in Canada and other countries, dental decay has not increased but actually decreased;

5, Dental crises were reported to have occurred in U.S. cities where fluoride has been added to drinking water for over 20 years; Tooth decay is more correlated with income than fluoride levels in water;

6, A decline in tooth decay had been already seen before fluoridation was introduced; Some studies suggested increased levels of fluoride in drinking water was associated with elevated risk of tooth decay;

7, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledges findings by many leading dental researchers that fluoride does not have to be ingested to have a protective effect, which is topical, but not systemic. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, no reason exists to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply;

8, The FDA has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective;

9, Fluoridation does not help reduce dental decay rates. A major survey has found 30 percent of children in fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth while the purpose of fluoridation is to limit the rate below 10 percent;

10, While fluoride is a known risk factor for dental fluorisis, other factors also affect the dental condition;

11, The level of fluoride put into drinking water at 1 ppm is not what nature intended. Fluoride presented in mother’s milk is 200 times lower than 1 ppm. No benefits but only risks come from this level of fluoride;

12, Fluoride is a cumulative poison, and only 50 percent of this mineral ingested daily can be excreted through the kidneys;

13, Fluoride actively interferes with hydrogen bonding and inhibits a great number of enzymes;

14, Together with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins leading to further interference with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals;

15, Fluoride is mutagenic and can damage DNA and interfere with enzymes that help DNA repairs;

16, Fluoride can form complexes with other metals or minerals causing a variety of problems;

17, Animal studies show exposure to 1 ppm of fluoride in the form of sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride in drinking water for a year resulted in morphological changes in kidneys and brains of rats, increased uptake of toxic metal aluminum in the brain and the formation of beta-amyloid deposits, which increases the risk of Alzheimer’s disease;

18, Aluminum fluoride used to fluoridate water is toxic to the brain; the U.S. government recommended this chemical should be tested for its toxicity;

19, Fluoride accumulates in the brain and alters mental behavior in a manner like a neurotoxin;

20, Five studies in China revealed fluoride exposure was linked lower IQ in children;

21, Fluoride also accumulates in the pineal gland to a very high level and reduces melatonin production and leads to an early onset of puberty;

22, Fluoride was prescribed in Europe to patients with hyperthyroidism. Water fluoridation essentially forces people to use a thyroid-depressing drug; The department of health and human services reported fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated at the range of 1.6 to 6.6 mg per day, which covers the dose range from 2.3 to 4.5 mg per day that decreases the thyroid functions;

23, Some early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, which is caused by fluoride, mimics the symptoms of arthritis, a fact that leads to misdiagnosis of skeletal fluorosis. Because of this, incidence of skeletal fluorosis can be underestimated;

24, High doses of fluoride up to 26 mg per day were tried to treat people with osteoporosis in hopes that their bones can be hardened and fracture rates can be reduced. Exposure to such high levels, in fact, increased the rate of fractures, particularly hip fractures. The level of exposure can be easily reached in people who live in fluoridated areas during their lifetime;

25, Many studies have linked exposure of fluoride with increased risk of fractures, particularly hip fractures, which are serious health problems;

26, The one and only government-sanctioned animal study intended to examine the effect of fluoride on cancer risk showed a dose-dependent increase in risk of bone cancer in male rats. Other cancers in the liver and the mouth were also increased, but the government downplayed the findings;

27, A review of data in a National cancer database found higher rates of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated areas compared to unfluoridated areas. A smaller study revealed the increase in bone cancer in young men living in fluoridated areas was 6 times higher, compared with those living in unfluoridated areas;

28, Animal studies showed high levels of fluoride wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system, specifically damaging sperm and boosting the odds of infertility;

29, Although toxic at high levels, the fluoridation programs are poorly monitored. As a result, the exposure to high toxic mineral varies widely and some people might have been victimized by the practice;

30, No one can really know exactly how much his daily intake of fluoride is. Some people could expose themselves to much higher levels than others even though the average may or may not be too much out of the normal range;

31, Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are forced to drink fluoridated water. If fluoride is indeed beneficial, people can always take it as a dietary supplement;

32, Referenda cause a conflict between individual rights and majority rule. Fluoride, a toxin, should not be given to an individual just because his neighbors agree that he should receive it in drinking water;

33, Some people are more sensitive than others. One 13-year study showed about 1 percent of patients given 1 mg of fluoride per day developed negative reactions;

34, The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry and other researchers reported that certain individuals including elderly, diabetics, and those with poor kidney function may be more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects;

35, Vulnerable are also those who suffer malnutrition such as deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and iodine and protein in their diet. People with malnutrition are likely the poor, who are the targets of new fluoridation programs;

36, Dental decay is more commonly seen in poor communities. That is not because they have no access to fluoride, but because they are poor and don’t have access to adequate dental care and don’t have dental insurance;

37, Fluoridation has failed to prevent the most serious oral health problem facing young and poor children, that is, baby bottle tooth decay or early childhood caries;

38, Early studies intended to help launch fluoridation programs were criticized for their poor methodology and choice of control communities. Dr. Hubert Arnold from the University of California at Davis was cited as saying the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.”

39, When the U.S. Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, no single trial had been yet completed;

40, After the launching of fluoridation, evidence from studies indicated that fluoride could not help prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, which represents up to 85 percent of the tooth decay in children. This is a fact that has been known to the dental community;

41, People today are exposed to much higher levels of fluoride than the optimal fluoridation level 1 ppm, which is the level viewed as optimal in 1945.

42, Fluoride chemicals used to fluoridate water in the U.S. are not food or pharmaceutical grade. They come from the wet scrubbing systems commonly seen in the superphosphate fertilizer industry. They are contaminated with impurities and only 90 percent of it is sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilic acid.

43, The chemicals used for fluoridation have not been tested for its safety. The tests conducted in animal studies used pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, but not industrial grade fluoride chemicals;

44, Use of fluorisilic acid increased uptake of lead into children’s blood;

45, Sodium fluoride is an extremely poisoning substance, a dose of 200 mg of fluoride ion can be enough to kill a young child, and 3 to 5 grams of it may kill an adult. Deaths were reported to result from excess exposure to fluoride;

46, At least 14 Nobel Prize winners had expressed their reservations about fluoridation;

47, Nobel laureate in Medicine and Physiology Dr. Arvid Carlsson was quoted as saying ""I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history…Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).

49, Pro-fluoridation officials refuse to debate over fluoridation. Dr. Michael Easley, a well known lobbyist for fluoridation in the US was quoted as saying “Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view”. Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, was quoted as observing “the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues”.

49, Scientist, doctors, and dentists who have spoken against fluoridation have been subjected to censorship and intimidation;

50, The Union representing scientist at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC opposes water fluoridation. “In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments.”

For more details about adverse effects of fluoride, readers are encouraged to visit the fluoridealert.org’s website.
EPA wants less fluoride in water, but do we need any of the chemical?

Report: Harmful chemical found in tap water of 31 U.S. cities

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 05:00:00 GMT

Millions of Americans in at least 31 U.S. cities could be drinking tap water contaminated with the harmful chemical hexavalent chromium, according to a report released Monday by the non-profit Environmental Working Group.

While the dangerous carcinogen, otherwise known as chromium-6, may sound foreign to most people, perhaps the name Erin Brockovich will ring a bell.

After chromium-6 was discovered in the water supply of Hinkley, California, Brockovich helped bring about a lawsuit that ultimately ended in 1996 with the utility company, Pacific Gas & Electric, paying more than $330 million in damages. Norman, Oklahoma; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, California, top the non-profit organization’s list of cities with water supplies contaminated by chromium-6.The Environmental Protection Agency has classified the toxin as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” as part of a risk assessment the agency is currently conducting on total chromium. The agency says water utilities are required to test for total chromium levels in the water but not explicitly for chromium-6. Chromium-6 is a natural byproduct of total chromium.

“In order to protect people’s health, EPA has had drinking water standards for total chromium, which includes chromium-6,” the agency said in a statement to CNN. “When this scientific assessment is finalized in 2011, EPA will carefully review the conclusions and consider all relevant information, including the Environmental Working Group’s study, to determine if a new standard needs to be set.”

“I was expecting to find hexavalent chromium in some of the cities we checked, but I didn’t expect it to be so widespread,” said Rebecca Sutton, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group and the lead author of the study.

Sutton said there is a well-documented corollary between exposure to chromium-6 and a greater risk of stomach cancer in humans. Additionally, there is ample animal evidence showing a broad risk of gastrointestinal tumors in rats and mice exposed to the toxin, she said.

Worse, skipping tap water in favor of bottled water does not guarantee you’ll be protected.

“Bottled water is not necessarily any safer than tap water,” said Sutton. “We just don’t have any guarantee that hexavalent chromium isn’t in that water.”

So how can you protect yourself? Sutton says your best bet is buying an effective water filter.

“Getting the water filter is a great way to protect yourself and your family,” says Sutton. “It’s a step you can take yourself; you don’t have to wait for government action.”

Samples from the test provided a “one-time snapshot” of water systems that serve 26 million people, the Environmental Working Group said. But the organization said the results show that more federal regulation of the cancer-causing chemical is needed.

The National Toxicology Program has said that chromium-6 in drinking water shows “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity.”

California’s state environmental agency has proposed capping levels of the chemical in drinking water at 0.06 parts per billion. The Environmental Working Group said 25 of the cities it tested showed exceeded that level.

To conduct its test, the organization said it recruited volunteers in 35 cities to collect tap water samples “from unfiltered taps in homes or in public buildings such as hospitals, libraries and malls,” the report said.

Here are the cities

1. Norman, Oklahoma
2. Honolulu, Hawaii
3. Riverside, California
4. Madison, Wisconsin
5. San Jose, California
6. Tallahassee, Florida
7. Omaha, Nebraska
8. Albuquerque, New Mexico
9. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
10. Bend, Oregon
11. Salt Lake City, Utah
12. Ann Arbor, Michigan
13. Atlanta, Georgia
14. Los Angeles, California
15. Bethesda, Maryland
16. Phoenix, Arizona
17. Washington, D.C.
18. Chicago, Illinois
19. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
20. Villanova, Pennsylvania
21. Sacramento, California
22. Louisville, Kentucky
23. Syracuse, New York
24. New Haven, Connecticut
25. Buffalo, New York
26. Las Vegas, Nevada
27. New York, New York
28. Scottsdale, Arizona
29. Miami, Florida
30. Boston, Massachusetts
31. Cincinnati, Ohio

Nation’s water bottle recycling picks up

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:00:00 GMT

The International Bottled Water Association says two new studies suggest nearly one-third of bottled water containers are being recycled.

The 2009 rate — 31 percent — is up only slightly from the previous year’s 30.9 percent. But the upward trend is continuing, the association noted, pointing to a 16.62 percent increase from 2004, the year the analysis began. About 25 percent of the plastic in PET bottles comes from this recycled material.

What’s the rate in Utah?

There’s no way to know, said Ashlee Yoder.

“In Utah recycling is voluntary,” said Yoder, who coordinates recycling programs for Salt Lake County.

“We are increasing our rates,” she added, “but we have not been able to achieve anything close to those [national] rates.”

One issue is that neither Utah nor the Salt Lake Valley has a standardized method for determining recycling rates. And without standardized reporting, there is no way to track how Utahns are doing, she said.

Crystal Springs Water Leaves Workers High and Dry

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT

NASHVILLE, Tenn.- Following more than 18 months of bargaining, workers at Crystal Springs began ambulatory pickets today in response to the bottled water company’s refusal to bargain in good faith. The workers are members of Teamsters Local Union 480 in Nashville, Tenn.

The union had exhausted all other options in its effort to reach a fair and equitable agreement with Crystal Springs. To date, company representatives have refused to back off their unreasonable demands.

“Crystal Springs is a profitable company – no one can deny that,” said Lendon Grisham, President of Teamsters Local 480. “Yet the company continues to deny giving raises to workers who have not had a change in their wages for more than a decade. Crystal Springs would rather spend its money on a high-priced, union-busting attorney fromWashington, D.C. than use that same money to give these workers the raises they deserve.”

The union has filed multiple unfair labor practice charges against the company with the National Labor Relations Board but still hopes that Crystal Springs will return to the table with a suitable contract offer.

“They want us to work more hours for the same amount of pay,” said Rick Wilson, a 10-year route sales representative at Crystal Springs. “This is just more of the same behavior from the company. Over the years they’ve done nothing but take things away from us. All we’re asking is fair wages for a hard day’s work.”

Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.4 million men and women in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.

SOURCE Teamsters Local 480