U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–089 2012

REGULATION OF BOTTLED WATER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 8, 2009 

Serial No. 111–56 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

(II) 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 5 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Representative in Congress from the Virgin 

Islands, prepared statement ................................................................................ 138 

WITNESSES

John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 141 

Joshua M. Sharfstein, Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration ................................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Jane Houlihan, Senior Vice President for Research, Environmental Working 

Group .................................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 144 

Joseph K. Doss, President, International Bottled Water Association ................. 84 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

REGULATION OF BOTTLED WATER 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Stupak 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Stupak, Christensen, Walden, 

Burgess, Blackburn and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff present: David Rapallo, General Counsel; Theodore 

Chuang, Chief Oversight Counsel; Stacia Cardille, Counsel; Anne 

Tindall, Counsel; Scott Schloegel, Investigator; Jennifer Owens, 

Special Assistant; Ken Marty, HHS–OIG Detailee; Lindsay Vidal, 

Special Assistant; and Jen Berenholz, Deputy Clerk. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. STUPAK. This meeting will come to order. 

Today we have a hearing titled ‘‘Regulation of Bottled Water.’’ 

The chairman, the ranking member and the chairman emeritus 

will be recognized for 5-minute opening statements. Other members of the subcommittee will be recognized for 3-minute opening 

statements. I will begin. 

Food safety is an extremely important issue that this committee 

has held nearly a dozen hearings on over the past 2 years. Time 

and again we hear from individuals who want more information so 

they can make wise decisions about what they eat and drink. My 

constituents are no exception. Today’s hearing on bottled water hits 

close to home. My vastly rural district in northern Michigan contains more shoreline than any other Congressional district except 

Alaska but we have a keen awareness of water quality issues. 

Michigan is also home to a large bottled water facility in Mecosta 

County that has not been without controversy over the years. 

In 2008, Americans consumed 8.6 billion gallons of bottled water. 

Bottled water is a billion-dollar-a-year industry with sales up more 

than 83 percent this decade. Many Americans believe that the 

water they drink from a bottle is healthier than the water that 

comes from their faucets. The Water Research Foundation found 

that nearly 56 percent of bottled water drinkers cite health and 

safety as the primary reason they choose bottled water over tap 

water. As a result, Americans are willing to pay top dollar for botVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Aug 04, 2012 Jkt 074089 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A089.XXX A089

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

tled water, which costs up to 1,900 times more than tap water and 

uses up to 2,000 times more energy to produce and deliver. 

Over the past several years, however, bottled water has been recalled due to contamination by arsenic, bromate, cleaning compounds, mold and bacteria. In April, a dozen students at a California junior high school reportedly were sickened after drinking 

bottled water from a vending machine. Consumers may not realize 

but many of the regulations that apply to municipalities responsible for tap water do not apply to companies that produce bottled 

water. I would like to put up a chart that outlines some of these 

differences. 

[Chart.] 

For example, municipal tap water suppliers are required to tell 

their consumers within 24 hours if they find dangerous contaminants that exceed federal levels but this requirement does not 

apply to bottled water companies. Certified laboratories must be 

used to test tap water but bottled water has no similar requirement. Tap water suppliers provide their customers with annual 

consumer confidence reports that detail the sources of their water, 

any contamination found, the likely cause of contamination and 

any potential health effects. Bottled water distributors are not required to provide this report to consumers. Instead, bottled water 

consumers rely on limited information found on labels and in some 

cases on company Web sites. 

Some companies exacerbate this problem by exaggerating claims 

about the health benefits of their products. For example, Poland 

Springs explains the history of its water by saying, ‘‘When Joseph 

Ricker was revived from his deathbed, reputedly by drinking the 

spring’s water and lived another 52 years, the water’s health benefits became legendary.’’ Mountain Valley Water Company provides 

similar accounts of its water, stating ‘‘Clinical tests at hospitals in 

New York, St. Louis and Philadelphia demonstrated improvements 

in the health of patients suffering from kidney and liver disorders 

and rheumatism as a result of drinking Mountain Valley Water.’’ 

Aquamantra spring water explains that the words written on its labels, mantras such as ‘‘I am healthy’’ and ‘‘I am loved’’ permeate 

the liquid, influencing the taste and beneficial properties of water. 

The company also claims that Aquamantra uses the design of its 

label to affect the molecular structure of the water. 

Today the subcommittee will receive two new reports that raise 

questions about why the regulations governing bottled water are 

weaker than those governing tap water, as well as widespread public perception that bottled water is healthier than water from the 

tap. The first is a report by the Government Accountability Office 

that was originally requested by our former colleagues, Hilda Solis 

and Al Wynn. In this report, GAO examines whether federal and 

State authorities are adequately ensuring the safety of bottled 

water and the accuracy of claims regarding its purity and health 

benefits. The second report is by the Environmental Working 

Group, which conducted an 18-month survey of bottled water labels 

and Web sites and concluded that just two of the 188 bottled water 

companies surveyed provided consumers with information on the 

source of their water, the manner in which it is treated and any 

contaminants present. Given these findings by GAO and EnvironVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Aug 04, 2012 Jkt 074089 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A089.XXX A089

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

mental Working Group, the subcommittee is sending today to a 

dozen bottled water companies letters requesting information on 

the source of their water, their treatment methods and results of 

their contaminant testing for the past 2 years. 

Even when water is treated at municipal facilities and then bottled, there still may be questions about contaminants such as pharmaceuticals that may be present in the treated water. Environmental Working Group reports an estimated 25 percent of bottled 

water brands that rely on tap water are drawing from supplies that 

collectively contain 260 pollutants. According to Associated Press, 

drugs have been found in municipal water samples across the country. Officials in Philadelphia discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in treated drinking water. Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety 

medications were detected in the treated drinking water for 18.5 

million people in southern California. And drinking water here in 

Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas testified positive for six 

pharmaceuticals. For these reasons, I have introduced H.R. 1359, 

the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2009, which will 

provide for proper disposal through drug take-back programs so individuals are not simply flushing their medications down the toilet 

into our water systems. I am also proud to be the original cosponsor of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, which passed out 

of this committee last month and which is again ready for Floor action, and which provides FDA with much-needed authority to assessing testing records of food and water supplies. 

I look forward to today’s hearing, and I ask for unanimous consent that reports issued today and the other documents in the 

binder prepared by staff be entered into the official record. Without 

objection, they will be entered in the record and will be used 

throughout the hearing. 

Mr. STUPAK. I next would like to turn to my friend, Mr. Walden 

from Oregon, for his opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. 

My home State of Oregon and the 2nd Congressional district 

which I represent is home to a number of water bottlers including 

those located in the small central Oregon community of Culver, 

EARTH20, and the eastern Oregon town of Cove with Artesian 

Blue, and in the northern portion of my district in The Dalles, H2 

Oregon. These successful businesses are in many cases providing 

much-needed job opportunities in areas of Oregon that have been 

hard hit by today’s weak economy. In fact, Mr. Chairman, our unemployment rate is second only to yours in Michigan. 

Today’s hearing raises some valid questions regarding the differences in regulation between the Food and Drug Administration 

and the EPA regarding bottled water. However, I should note, concern that with all of the life-threatening health priorities facing the 

FDA including numerous foodborne illness outbreaks, complications with acetaminophen and swine flu pandemic, this issue does 

to me seem a little secondary in terms of the FDA’s overwhelming 

workload on other issues. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

We should also put this hearing in context. The two reports that 

are the focus of today’s hearing point out a few noteworthy findings 

but do not assess the safety of the bottled water itself. Neither the 

Government Accountability Office, GAO, nor the Environmental 

Working Group, EWG, conducted any testing of the bottled water 

or the bottles themselves while completing their reports. The regulations for bottled water do differ from those promulgated for tap 

water, mostly because bottled water is considered a food product 

and is therefore regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, 

whereas tap water is regulated by the Environmental Protection 

Agency. However, FDA does require that the standards of quality 

for bottled water must be no less protective of public health than 

the EPA standard. Under the FDA regulations, bottlers must follow 

current Good Manufacturing Practices, also known as GMPs. 

FDA actually requires more safeguards from water bottlers than 

other food processors. The GMPs for bottled water are commodity 

specific. Under these GMPs, bottlers must, among other things, 

test their source of water once a week for microbiological contaminants and test finished bottled water weekly for microbiological 

contaminants. Now, some of the water bottlers in my district follow 

a practice of testing their water every hour in order to meet the 

requirements of purchasers of their products, so they are doing 

hourly water testing. 

I do have a few questions for FDA. One discrepancy between 

EPA and FDA is in the case of a chemical substance called DEHP. 

This is a phthalate, a substance added to plastics to change their 

physical characteristics, and I am sure you are familiar with it. 

FDA has yet to establish a standard for this contaminant in bottled 

water, even though the EPA did over a decade ago. An FDA 

taskforce is supposedly examining the information surrounding 

DEHP and I want to ask the deputy commissioner when we can 

expect a ruling from your agency. And the question that I will 

speak to in a minute is about recycled bottles themselves. I have 

some tell me that the use of recycled bottles perhaps produces more 

leaching or whatever it is that comes out of the plastic than firsttime use, and I would be curious to know if that is the case. 

Conducting inspections is one way the FDA ensures the bottlers 

are following GMPs. Concerns have been raised on how frequently 

the plans are inspected and what access FDA inspectors have to 

plant records regarding testing and other important information 

during the inspection, and I would be curious to know the legislation passed unanimously out of the full committee that expands 

FDA’s inspection process, if that would apply in these cases and 

therefore you will get new authority if the House and the Senate 

Act. I would like to hear from the deputy commissioner as well on 

how the agency can improve the inspection process and if you do 

need any additional authorities. Congress needs to act. We need to 

know exactly what the agency needs and why. Currently, bottlers 

are not required to disclose the source of their water, the treatment 

process used or the detection of any contaminants. The question is, 

should they, and I look forward to your response on that. 

Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by thanking you for this hearing 

but I would also like to raise the issue that July 8th has come and 

gone. A number of us on this side of the aisle have raised questions 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding bottled-up 

science, and we expect the EPA to respond to our inquiries regarding Dr. Allen Garland and his report that is not allowed to be considered in the endangerment finding process, and if the EPA is unwilling to respond in a timely manner, which may well be the case, 

I do hope that our request of this subcommittee to have an oversight hearing on what appears to be the bottling up of science and 

debate on the whole carbon issue will be granted an opportunity for 

a hearing and a full investigation. So we will be coming back to you 

on that issue, and I thank you for your time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Walden. 

Ms. Blackburn, opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to 

welcome our witnesses and thank them for being with us today. 

As you have heard, we all are concerned about bottled water, the 

product that is there. We are also concerned about tap water and 

the work the EPA does there. And I will submit a written statement. Mr. Chairman, I want to take my time to just say I would 

prefer that we be spending this time to look at other issues that 

are important to our constituents that the FDA and EPA deal with. 

There are other committee issues that we could be looking at such 

as the options for reducing health care costs for our constituents 

and looking at how you do that through patient-driven, consumerdriven, patient-centered health care. We should be looking at the 

Medicare trust fund and the pressures that are on that trust fund, 

the ballooning costs of Medicaid if we move to a public option as 

we move into health care reform or even from my State, the lessons 

that should have been learned from TennCare, which was the test 

case for Hillary Clinton health care back in 1994. My State still 

has this. It is the greatest public health care in the country. That 

would be a great opportunity for us to look at what is affecting us 

with health care. Certainly there are more pressing issues. We are 

appreciative of your time to be before us today, and while we all 

are concerned with leaching chemicals that come from plastics into 

bottled water, we are indeed very concerned with what we see as 

sequestering evidence from EPA employees. We are concerned with 

what we see, health care issues that are affecting all of our constituents and a lack of willingness to address those in a patientcentered, consumer-driven manner, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Let me just respond that, you know, we 

had a hearing just before we broke here not even 2 weeks ago on 

health insurance on rescissions where companies rescind health 

care to people who have it, and next week is scheduled all week 

in committee for the health care markup bill, so I am sure we will 

have plenty of opportunities to speak of health care. 

Mr. Burgess for opening statement, please. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and maybe I should 

take a second to respond to your response, and isn’t it a shame that 

we have a Subcommittee on Health within the Committee on Energy and Commerce and we are to have no markup on what is 

going to be the greatest change in the delivery of health care in 

America since the institution of Medicare in 1965. Certainly the 

people who were in Congress in 1965 likely could have never foreseen what Medicare would become, at least as far as the price of 

that federal program, and wouldn’t we all be in better shape today 

if perhaps a little more care was taken back in 1965 and the object 

lesson for us today is, we need to take good care and exercise due 

caution as we structure this major fundamental change to American health care. 

We also could have had a hearing on medical devices in this subcommittee, which I have asked for for some and has yet been forthcoming, so there are ways we could have made use of this time 

today, Mr. Chairman, but here we are and we are going to talk 

about bottled water this morning, and that is important. Normally 

I have a bottle of water here so that if I get parched in the hour 

that I have to address the committee, but now we are stuck with 

D.C. water which there used to be a little sign in my office in the 

Longworth Building that said do not drink the tap water. I don’t 

know if that has changed but I am a little reluctant to drink what 

is before us today. 

A pretty broad definition of food would be one that included bottled water, and the tremendous breadth and depth of the responsibility entrusted to our good friends at the Food and Drug Administration is this $11 billion industry known as bottled water. The average American consumer is unlikely to think that the FDA would 

be the primary regulator of bottled water but it is. The regulatory 

responsibility of bottled water is split between the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 

with the Food and Drug Administration overseeing the process of 

taking public water in its natural form in the environment into a 

convenient plastic container for sale to the American consumer. 

Now, as much I appreciate the collegiality, the intelligence and 

the willingness of Dr. Sharfstein to appear here today as a representative of the Food and Drug Administration, it does seem odd 

to only have the Food and Drug Administration here to answer 

tough questions and to not have the Environmental Protection 

Agency to answer questions that would fall into their jurisdiction 

about the standards for municipal water versus bottled water. Currently, bottled water requires a higher threshold of testing than 

municipal water. Municipal water is required to be tested every 4 

years, bottled water every year. In fact, bottled water is currently 

one of the few stand-alone industries with its own Code of Federal 

Regulations regarding Good Manufacturing Processes. From the 

definition of water to the testing and sampling of products, from 

the length of time the records must be kept, currently 2 years, and 

how they should be available to the Food and Drug Administration 

as well as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 

State and local government agencies in helping to ensure the safety 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

and sanitation and quality of water, this burgeoning industry has 

seemingly existed in a compliance-oriented manufacturing system 

rarely, if ever, producing bad actors. It would seem that this industry is an example of the ingenuity and innovation of the marketplace to create a product which had, if you will pardon the pun, an 

unquenchable need for a convenient, transportable water and this 

good idea has been met with significant market success. 

We must ensure that the trust and faith of consumers and that 

the government places in the bottled water industry are not misguided. More Americans drink bottled water than milk or beer 

combined, so if there is any step in this multilayer process to deliver this food product where the trust and faith is misallocated, 

then certainly I look forward to having the science point to a solution. Furthermore, any deficiencies in the regulation of bottled 

water, any potential fraud in the process of producing bottled water 

and any alleged environmental issues of draining of our natural resources and the burdensome transportation costs of moving the end 

product, we will certainly look forward to seeing what is sure to be 

voluminous evidentiary proof. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I will yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. No problem. I didn’t want you to get parched. As 

you know, in the Health Subcommittee, you guys did hold a hearing on medical devices last month and the 510K approval process, 

so those hearings are being taken. This hearing—— 

Mr. BURGESS. But I would submit the investigatory part of that 

has not been completed, as least to my satisfaction, and I think 

this subcommittee would be the appropriate place to have that. In 

addition, we have got the whole question of biosimilars out there 

that would probably just roll into this health care bill and we have 

not had the FDA in to talk to us about the science of biosimilars. 

So there is stuff we could be doing, is the point I am trying to 

make. 

Mr. STUPAK. Absolutely, and this committee has been very active, as you know, for the last 2 years and we hold many, many 

hearings, and this one with the two reports being released today, 

it really dovetails into everything we have been doing for the last 

couple of years in food safety, and whether it is BPA or the PET 

that we talked about here, or as Mr. Walden brought up, the 

DEHP, why has it taken 15 years to put out regulations for that, 

certify labs’ test results, all that is contained in this hearing so it 

is not just strictly bottled water, false advertising. That is what 

this whole thing is about, sort of wraps up everything we have 

been doing for the last few years, and we do have these two reports 

coming out today so we thought it was appropriate to have the 

hearing today. Very good. 

Mr. Barton, opening statement, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say before I give 

my prepared statement how much I personally appreciate you, so 

don’t take some of what I am about to say too personally. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

But I think it does say something, given the serious issues which 

you have traditionally tackled as your subcommittee chairmanship 

along with Ranking Member Walden that today’s hearing does not 

rank at the top of that list, and it shows when you look on your 

side how much support there is. They may all be here but they are 

disguised as empty chairs, if they are. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, you know, most of the committee is down in 

the Consumer Protection because we are putting a new administrator in there and that is where most of them are. In fact, that 

is why we started a little late because I am also on that subcommittee and I had to stop by there. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, Greg and I will take over if you want to go 

down there. 

Mr. WALDEN. Could we have a vote on that right now? 

Mr. BARTON. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, today’s hearing does examine several interesting questions surrounding the differences between bottled water and tap water. These differences arise in regulatory approaches as well as in processing, treatment and public 

perception. Several of the witnesses today including the Government Accountability Office and the Food and Drug Administration 

will discuss and possibly debate ways in which bottled water regulations should be changed and possibly improved. Other witnesses 

including the Environmental Working Group and the International 

Bottled Water Association will discuss ways industry can be more 

transparent and responsive to consumer inquiries. I don’t have a 

problem with transparency, in fact, I am pushing transparency in 

the upcoming health care debate, and as you well know, I am certainly pushing transparency at the Environmental Protection Agency where Mr. Walden and I have asked the EPA to release their 

documents concerning their suppression of the EPA report within 

its own agency debating whether there really is an endangerment 

finding with regard to CO2. 

So those of us on the minority are concerned whether this particular hearing is the best use of our limited oversight hearing 

times. We have confronted the issue of swine flu pandemic. We 

have confronted safety of products like Tylenol. As I said a minute 

ago, Mr. Chairman, this one just doesn’t seem to be up to that 

standard of excellence which you have established for your oversight. I hope that after this hearing you will consider supporting 

Mr. Walden and myself on getting information about the EPA’s 

suppression of the document which we call Carbon Gate regarding 

the CO2 and the endangerment finding. We also hope that you will 

work with us, as I talked with you yesterday informally about 

doing more hearings and doing some action times on the automobile dealer closure issue. I know that is something that is very 

important to you personally. We await your response and Mr. Waxman’s response. 

So Mr. Chairman, we always appreciate when you hold a hearing. We always participate and we are looking forward to going on 

to a little bit more intense issues in the future. Again, thank you 

for holding this hearing. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, thanks, Mr. Barton. And, you know, one of the 

reasons why we are having this hearing because I think as we have 

seen on your side a little bit, maybe we assume because it is in a 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

bottle like this it is healthy, it is clean, it is pure, and that is an 

assumption I think we erroneously are making, so we are doing a 

hearing to try to get to the issues here because I don’t think we 

have to wait for a deadly outbreak of disease in bottled water like 

we have seen in salmonella in peanut butter last year, and we can’t 

say there is zero risk here. Between 2002 and 2008, there were 23 

recalls of bottled water. Now, that is about one every quarter. Most 

of them stemmed from an elevated level of contaminants such as 

arsenic and bromate, both of which cause cancer. Over the past 6 

years the FDA has issued three warning letters to bottled water 

companies for violating safety regulations, and that is in addition 

to dozens of other problems found in the EPA inspections at water 

bottling facilities. 

In 2007, the FDA issued a press release against drinking mineral 

water imported from Armenia because the arsenic level was 50 

times greater than the federal standard. And then, like I said, last 

month in southern California, we have girls sick at a high school 

who were buying bottled water out of a vending machine. So these 

are problems the FDA has uncovered and they only have about two 

or three employees devoted to it, and like I said earlier, I think just 

because it comes in a bottle, we assume it is healthier for us. That 

is what most Americans assume. We find that is not the case and 

that is the reason for the hearing, and all the other things we have 

done this year on salmonella, institutional review boards, dual use, 

so we have got a lot going on here. 

Mr. Walden, go ahead. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, just two points, one I didn’t 

mention in my testimony but I know that water is also an ingredient in many other drinks, and I guess the question I would have 

for our panel is, well, just because it is clear and in those bottles, 

how is that treated or monitored versus if it is colored and sugared 

and perhaps carbonated. Does somebody check the water that goes 

into that as well? Are there different standards there? The second 

point I would make on, I think it is Santa Clara, the junior high 

students, my understanding is that the FBI may be involved in investigation there so it might be more of a tampering issue. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. STUPAK. They are involved but no one has reached a conclusion whether it is tampering. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. I understand. I wasn’t trying to jump to a 

conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. You bet. That is a good segue into our first 

panel. Let me introduce our first panel of witnesses with Mr. Joseph Stephenson, who is director of National Resources and the 

Environment at the Government Accountability Office. We have 

Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, who is the principal deputy commissioner at 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Ms. Jane Houlihan, who 

is the senior vice president for research at the Environmental 

Working Group, and Mr. Joseph K. Doss, who is the president of 

the International Bottled Water Association. 

It is the policy of this subcommittee to take all testimony under 

oath. Please be advised that you have the right under the rules of 

the House to be advised by counsel during your testimony. Do you 

wish to be represented by counsel? Mr. Stephenson. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

Mr. STEPHENSON. No. 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Sharfstein, Ms. Houlihan? No. OK. Then I am 

going to ask you to please rise and raise your right hand to take 

the oath. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. STUPAK. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have replied in the affirmative. You are now under oath. We will now hear 

5-minute opening statement from our witnesses. You may submit 

a longer statement for the record and would be included in today’s 

hearing. Mr. Stephenson, we will start with you. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; JOSHUA M. SHARFSTEIN, DEPUTY 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; 

JANE HOULIHAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, 

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP; AND JOSEPH K. DOSS, 

PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN STEPHENSON 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Walden. I 

am pleased to be here today to discuss the quality and safety of 

bottled water and its environmental impacts. 

Over the past decade, the per capita consumption of bottled 

water in the United States has more than doubled from 13.4 gallons per person in 1997 to 29.3 gallons per person in 2007. That 

is over 200 bottles a year for every man, woman and child and an 

$11 billion plus market. With this increase come several questions 

and concerns over bottled water’s quality and safety. My testimony 

is based upon the report that we are issuing to the committee 

today which is going to be publicly released. 

In summary, we found that FDA’s safety and consumer protections are less stringent for bottled water than comparable EPA protections for tap water. While FDA’s standards for bottled water 

generally mirror the standards for nearly all of the 88 contaminants covered by EPA’s national primary drinking water regulations, there is one notable exception, DEHP, which is a plasticizer 

used to soften plastic, which has been linked to reproductive and 

liver problems and increased cancer risk. It has been regulated by 

the EPA in tap water since 1992 but FDA deferred action on DEHP 

in a rule published in 1996 and has yet to either adopt a standard 

or publish a reason for not doing so, even though the statutory 

deadline for acting was more than 15 years ago. Since DEHP is 

used in food packaging as well as bottled water, this is a broader 

issue that FDA is still studying. Nevertheless, our report recommends that FDA expeditiously promulgate a DEHP standard for 

bottled water. 

More broadly, we found that FDA, unlike EPA, does not have the 

statutory authority to require bottlers to use certified laboratories 

for water quality tests or to report test results, even if violations 

of the standards are found. Most tests are done by the bottlers 

themselves. Several states have requirements to safeguard bottled 

water that exceed those of FDA but are still less comprehensive 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

than for tap water. In addition, while FDA bottled water labeling 

requirements are similar to labeling requirements for other foods, 

they provide consumers with far less information about the source 

and quality of water than what EPA requires of public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act. For example, public 

water systems must annually provide consumer confidence reports 

that summarize water quality information about the water sources, 

detected contaminants and compliance with national primary 

drinking water regulations as well as information on the potential 

health effects of certain contaminants. FDA does not require bottled water companies to provide similar information. In a study 

mandated by the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water 

Act, FDA concluded that it was feasible for the bottled water industry to provide the same type of information to consumers that public water systems must provide. However, the agency was not required to act on its findings and has yet to do so. 

A survey of 50 States and the District of Columbia showed that 

consumers have misconceptions about bottled water, believing that 

it is safer and healthier than tap water. We also found that information comparable to what public water systems are required to 

provide to consumers of tap water was available for only a small 

percentage of the 83 bottled water labeled we examined, companies 

we contacted or company Web sites we reviewed. We believe that 

consumers would benefit from better information on the quality 

and safety of bottled water, and our report also recommends that 

FDA implement the results of this study to accomplish this. 

In examining the environmental effects of bottled water, we 

found that only about 25 percent of water bottles are recycled and 

that the remaining 75 percent are discarded in municipal landfills 

where they never decompose and essentially remain forever. While 

this is over 900,000 tons of plastic annually, it represents less than 

1 percent of municipal waste. 

Another issue is the amount of energy used to manufacture and 

transport bottled water. Another study estimates the energy use at 

5.8 megajoules per liter. At the current rate of consumption, this 

is the equivalent of the energy used by 4.7 million households for 

a year and is 1,000 to 2,000 times the energy used for tap water. 

We also found that groundwater extraction for bottled water facilities in selected areas and that Michigan and other States have 

passed laws to minimize the impact of stream levels and wetlands. 

Finally, I would note that some of our bottled water findings are 

indicative of FDA’s overall food safety oversight problems that led 

to GAO’s designating it a high-risk area in January 2007 and again 

in 2009 when we called for a fundamental reexamination of the 

federal food safety system. We believe that FDA’s lack of authority 

and resources to effectively regulate bottled water should be part 

of that reexamination. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the summary of my statement and 

I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 74089A.001
13 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 74089A.002
14 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 74089A.003
15 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 74089A.004
16 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 74089A.005
17 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 74089A.006
18 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 74089A.007
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 74089A.008
20 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson. 

Dr. Sharfstein, would you like to make your opening statement? 

TESTIMONY OF JOSHUA M. SHARFSTEIN 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Thank you very much. We appreciated the GAO 

report, and I especially appreciate that he finished with exactly 2 

seconds left. I was watching. I have never seen that before. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

I am Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the principal deputy commissioner of 

the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health 

and Human Services. I want to thank the committee for your work 

on a wide range of health issues and for the opportunity to discuss 

FDA’s regulation of bottled water today. 

As has been mentioned, bottled water and tap water are regulated by two separate agencies. FDA regulates bottled water while 

the EPA regulates tap water, also referred to as municipal water 

or public drinking water. EPA has regulations on the production, 

distribution and quality of public drinking water including source 

water protection, operation of drinking water systems, contaminant 

levels and reporting requirements. 

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act provides FDA with regulatory 

authority over food and as part of that, bottled water that is introduced into interstate commerce. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, manufacturers are responsible for producing safe, wholesome and truthfully labeled food products. It is a violation of the 

law to introduce into interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded products. 

FDA has established specific regulations for bottled water in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations include standard 

identity regulations that define different types of bottled water 

such as spring water versus mineral water and standard quality 

regulations that establish allowable levels for chemical, physical, 

microbial and radiological contaminants. FDA has established Good 

Manufacturing Practice regulations for the processing and bottling 

of bottled drinking water. Labeling and GMP regulations for foods 

in general also apply to bottled water. Federal law requires FDA 

to set similar standards for bottled water as exist for municipal 

water or explain why they should not apply. FDA has established 

such standards for more than 90 contaminants and in some cases 

such as for lead or copper, the FDA limits are stricter for bottled 

water than for municipal water. And another point to make in this 

regard is that the way that the testing is done is different. For example, take the lead standard. Any test that is high is violative 

when that is done on FDA-regulated bottled water; for the municipal water only a percentage of the samples is above a certain level. 

The municipal water supply failed that. So they are allowed to 

have certain failures and not have it as a failure for the municipal 

water supply. So it just illustrates that there is a different approach that is taken in a few contexts. 

FDA monitors and inspects bottled water products and processing plants as part of the general food safety program. Inspections occur approximately once every 1 to 3 years. The agency inspects violative firms more frequently, depending on the number, 

significance and recurrence of violations. FDA’s field offices follow 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

up on consumer and trade complaints and other leads on potentially violative bottled water products. As for other types of food, 

FDA periodically collects and analyzes samples of bottled water. 

Samples of foreign bottled water offered for entry may be collected 

and tested to determine if they are in compliance with the laws 

and regulations, and labs may test the water for microbial, radiological or chemical contamination. 

In recent years, FDA has promulgated a number of quality 

standards for bottled water in conjunction with EPA. Most recently, on May 29, 2009, FDA published a final rule to require that 

bottled water manufacturers test source water and finished bottled 

water products for total coliform organisms and to prohibit distribution of products containing any E. coli, an indicator of fecal 

contamination. FDA is also requiring that before a bottler can use 

source water from a source that has tested positive for E. coli, the 

bottler must take appropriate measures to rectify or eliminate the 

cause of the problem, and the bottler must keep records of such actions. 

In general, FDA’s oversight of bottled water, I think can be described as successful. The agency is aware of no major outbreaks 

of illness or serious safety concerns associated with bottled water 

over the past decade. FDA is aware the GAO report released today 

highlights a number of issues that the agency faces in regulating 

bottled water. FDA has worked with GAO to provide information 

and assist with their investigation. 

Let me address some of the issues that GAO has raised, and let 

me say that while I do believe that FDA’s oversight has been generally successful, I also believe that there is room for improvement. 

First, GAO found that FDA has not yet set a standard for the 

phthalate known as DEHP. This was contemplated in 1996 but the 

Administration at the time did not pursue this because of a legal 

issue we could discuss further if you want known as prior sanction. 

We are now revisiting this decision and intend to pursue a DEHP 

standard as anticipated under the law. 

Second, GAO found that FDA labeling regulations for bottled 

water provided for less information about the sources and quality 

of water than required by FDA for municipal systems. FDA has 

found that it would be feasible for manufacturers of bottled water 

to provide such information to consumers. However, the Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act does not provide a mechanism to require bottlers 

to make that information available so Congress would have to take 

additional action. 

Third, GAO expressed concern that FDA cannot require the submission of results to the agency on tests conducted by bottled water 

manufacturers. This is a fair point and a part of the oversight of 

water and food in general that should be strengthened. In fact, it 

would be strengthened by the food safety legislation that the committee is showing so much leadership on. 

Fourth, GAO has pointed out that FDA does not have specific authority to mandate the use of certified laboratories. This is also a 

reasonable point, and FDA does require the use of methods that 

are at least as sensitive as FDA’s methods but the food safety legislation passed by the committee would also be extremely helpful 

here. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

I would also mention that the food safety legislation provides for 

food safety plans, hazard analyzes and preventive controls that will 

complement FDA’s Good Manufacturing Practices for bottled water 

facilities and generally strengthen the system of oversight for bottled water, and for foreign-produced bottled water, the Act would 

require importers to register with FDA, comply with Good Importer 

Practices and give FDA the authority to require certification as a 

condition of importation. 

So we will continue to work with this committee on the legislation, which we think is very important, and I am pleased to be here 

and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sharfstein follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 74089A.009
24 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 74089A.010
25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 74089A.011
26 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 74089A.012
27 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 74089A.013
28 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 74089A.014
29 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 74089A.015
30 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 74089A.016
31 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 74089A.017
32 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 74089A.018
33 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 74089A.019
34 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 74089A.020
35 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 74089A.021
36 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 74089A.022
37 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 74089A.023
38 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 74089A.024
39 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Doctor. 

Ms. Houlihan, would you pull that mic over. 

TESTIMONY OF JANE HOULIHAN 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research 

at Environmental Working Group. We are a nonprofit research and 

advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

Today we are releasing an 18-month survey of labels and Web 

sites for 188 bottled waters. Here is what we found. Consumers 

spent about 1,900 times more for bottled water than for tap water 

yet they often have no way to learn essential facts about what is 

actually in the bottle. Only two of 188 bottled waters make public 

three basic facts routinely disclosed by local tap water utilities. 

These are the specific name and location of the water source, purification methods and chemical pollutants that remain in the water 

after treatment. These two brands are Ozarka Drinking Water and 

Penta Ultra-Purified Water, the only two of 188 doing so. 

Bottled water companies are not required to make these basic 

facts public, and here is the reason: they enjoy a regulatory holiday 

under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act with near-complete 

latitude on what, if any, information to share with consumers. In 

contrast, every one of the Nation’s 52,000 municipal water suppliers produces an annual water quality report giving its water 

source and pollutant testing results as required under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. EPA calls these reports the centerpiece of consumers’ right to know about water quality. 

This double standard is unfair to consumers who have a right to 

know what is in the water they buy. Surveys show that over half 

of bottled water drinkers choose it because they are worried about 

the safety of their tap water. They believe it is free of contaminants. They do it for their health. But in too many cases, consumers have no way to check if the purity they are looking for is 

what they are actually getting. 

So where does the water come from? Our survey found that 30 

percent of bottled waters provide no information whatsoever about 

their water source on the label but 37 percent fully divulge both 

the name and location of their water source, and the remaining 33 

percent give generic information like spring or deep aquifer. If you 

could look at figure 1 in your packet, please, this is a brand that 

is doing the right thing. It is Great Value. It is called in your figure 

a smaller brand. It is not in the top 10 but it is actually distributed 

by Walmart. You will see on the label the source clearly indicated 

as municipal supply, Fort Worth, Texas, so you know exactly where 

this water comes from. You will also see the treatment method on 

this label, reverse osmosis. Let us look at the next figure by way 

of contrast. On the other end of the spectrum is Dasani. On this 

label, you will see that the product is pure and it is crisp and it 

has a fresh taste but nowhere on this label will you find the source 

of that water. Dasani is one of 30 percent of the brands not giving 

any information on source along with Whole Foods, Food Lion, 

CVS, Kroger store brands and many other brands. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

How is bottled water purified? Bottled water companies are not 

required to disclose what, if any, methods they use to purify their 

water. Municipal water suppliers aren’t required to disclose this information either but most of them do. We found that 44 percent of 

bottled waters provide no treatment information on labels. Onethird provide no information on labels or Web sites. 

If you look at figure 2 in your packet, you will see a label for 

Ozarka. This is a Nestle brand that is actually doing the right 

thing. You will see on this label the water comes from the Houston 

municipal water supply, but it doesn’t stop there. It is further 

treated by reverse osmosis, carbon filtration, microfiltration and 

ozonation. Now, for contrast, let me read to you what you will see 

on a Fiji label. ‘‘The purest water comes from the purest clouds. 

Our rainfall is purified by trade winds as it travels across the Pacific Ocean to the islands of Fiji,’’ and that is all the information 

you will see on treatment on that label, and Fiji is one of the 60 

percent of bottled waters that print marketing claims of purity 

from among those waters that don’t label their treatment methods. 

Consumers have no way to know if the claims are true. 

What pollutants are in bottled water? Every tap water utility 

publishes an annual water quality report listing all their results for 

the year but only 18 percent of bottled waters do the same. Those 

that do include all eight domestic Nestle brands. Those that don’t 

include Aquafina, which is a Pepsi brand, and figure 3 of your 

packet. Without data, consumers are left with marketing claims, 

and these are extensive. You have heard Poland Springs, a man 

who lived 52 additional years after drinking the water. Mountain 

Valley Springs became known as a remedy for the treatment of 

gout, rheumatism and other diseases. Evian claims its water is a 

symbol of health, general well-being. Valdix water is extremely 

pure but they don’t publish a test report. And finally, 

Aquamantra’s water resonates with the energy and frequency of 

well-being. When you pay a premium price for bottled water, you 

deserve more than just claims. We recommend that bottled water 

labels and Web sites disclose the same information that the law requires of municipal water utilities and that this disclosure be mandatory. Consumers have a right to know where their bottled water 

comes from, how or if it is treated and the pollutants it contains. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Houlihan follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 74089A.025
42 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 74089A.026
43 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 74089A.027
44 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 74089A.028
45 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 74089A.029
46 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 74089A.030
47 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 74089A.031
48 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 74089A.032
49 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 74089A.033
50 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 74089A.034
51 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 74089A.035
52 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 74089A.036
53 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 74089A.037
54 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 74089A.038
55 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 74089A.039
56 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 74089A.040
57 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 74089A.041
58 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 74089A.042
59 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 74089A.043
60 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 74089A.044
61 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 74089A.045
62 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 74089A.046
63 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 74089A.047
64 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 74089A.048
65 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 74089A.049
66 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 74089A.050
67 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 74089A.051
68 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 74089A.052
69 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 74089A.053
70 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 74089A.054
71 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 74089A.055
72 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 74089A.056
73 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 74089A.057
74 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 74089A.058
75 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 74089A.059
76 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 74089A.060
77 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 74089A.061
78 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 74089A.062
79 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 74089A.063
80 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 74089A.064
81 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 74089A.065
82 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 74089A.066
83 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 74089A.067
84 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Mr. Doss, your opening statement, please, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH K. DOSS 

Mr. DOSS. Chairman Stupak, Ranking Member Walden and 

members of the subcommittee, my name is Joe Doss. I am president and CEO of the International Bottled Water Association. I appreciate very much this opportunity to discuss the regulation of 

bottled water. 

Bottled water, whether in retail-size packages or in larger containers used in home and office water coolers, is a safe, healthy, 

convenient beverage. It is comprehensively regulated as a packaged 

food product at both the federal and State level, and as with other 

packaged food and beverages, bottled water must meet FDA’s general food regulations which include extensive labeling requirements 

for ingredients, the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer or distributor, the product’s net weight, and if required, nutrition labeling. In addition, FDA has promulgated separate standards, as we have heard, separate standards of identity 

including labeling requirements that identify the type of bottled 

water, standards of quality and good manufacturing practices specifically for bottled water. Federal law requires FDA bottled water 

regulations to be as protective of the public health as EPA standards for public drinking water systems, and to that end, FDA has 

established bottled water standards for quality for more than 90 

substances. Most FDA bottled water quality standards are the 

same as EPA’s maximum contaminant levels for public water systems. The few differences in regulated substances are because they 

are not found in bottled water or they are regulated under another 

provision of law such as FDA’s food additive program. 

If a container of bottled water has a contaminant that exceeds 

an FDA standard, this fact must by law be disclosed on the label. 

Failure of a bottled water container to meet the standards of quality and to be properly labeled can subject it to recall by the company and enforcement action by FDA. If a bottled water product 

source is a public water system and the finished bottled water 

product does not meet the FDA standard of identity for purified or 

sterile water, that product label must disclose the fact that it 

comes from a public water source. 

It is also important to note that the courts have held that FDA’s 

jurisdiction over food and beverages extends not only to those products that move in interstate commerce but to those products sold 

within a single State if they are using packaging materials that 

have moved in interstate commerce such as the bottle, the caps or 

the labels, and that is the case for almost every bottled water sold 

in the United States. In addition, Congress has created a statutory 

presumption of interstate commerce for all FDA-regulated products 

including bottled water. 

Now, while the current laws regulating bottled water products 

protect the public health, IBWA members and others in the food 

industry have recently worked with the Energy and Commerce 

Committee to update the food safety laws. IBWA supports a riskbased inspection system that would require inspections of all food 

facilities every 6 months to 3 years, a requirement for all food manVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Aug 04, 2012 Jkt 074089 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A089.XXX A089

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

ufacturers to conduct a hazard analysis and establish and maintain 

preventive controls which all IBWA members already do as a condition of membership in granting FDA authority to mandate recall 

under circumstances where a food product presents an imminent 

threat of serious adverse health consequences or death. 

IBWA supports a consumer’s right to clear, accurate and comprehensive information about the bottled water products they purchase. As I mentioned, all packaged food and beverages including 

bottled water are subject to extensive FDA labeling requirements 

that provide consumers with a great deal of product quality information. In addition, virtually all bottled water products include a 

phone number on the label that consumers can use to contact the 

company. In fact, IBWA petitioned FDA in 2001 to require all bottled water labels to include a phone number on the label. IBWA believes that the most feasible way to consumers to obtain information not already on the label is through a request to the bottler. 

In addition, consumers can go to the IBWA Web site to obtain contact information or water quality information for all IBWA member 

brands. 

Consumers have many options when choosing which bottled 

water brand to drink. If a bottled water company does not provide 

them with the information that they want, he or she can choose another brand of bottled water. That is not the case with tap water. 

Consumers cannot choose which public water system is piped into 

their homes, and that is a fundamental issue: consumer choice. 

Unfortunately, many people want to make this out to be a bottled water versus tap water issue. We just don’t see it that way. 

If people are drinking water, whether it is tap or bottled, that is 

a good thing and consumers should be free to choose. In fact, 75 

percent of consumers who drink bottled water also choose to drink 

tap water. IBWA supports investments to improve the U.S. public 

drinking water system in order to maintain the highest quality of 

water for all citizens. And with the increase in diabetes, obesity 

and heart disease rates in the United States, any actions that 

would discourage consumers from drinking bottled water are not in 

the public interest. Throughout the years, bottled water companies 

have always responded to the need for clean, safe drinking water 

after natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods and forest fires, 

and in emergency situations such as terrorist attacks and boil 

alerts. However, the bottled water industry cannot exist only for 

disaster response. The vast majority of bottled water companies in 

the United States are primarily family owned and operated small 

business that depend on a viable commercial market to provide the 

resources necessary to respond in emergency situations. In fact, 90 

percent of IBWA’s members have gross sales of less than $10 million a year. 

In summary, bottled water is a safe, healthy, convenient good 

product that is comprehensively regulated at the federal and State 

level. IBWA stands ready to assist the subcommittee as it considers 

this very important issue. Thank you for considering our views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doss follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 74089A.068
87 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 74089A.069
88 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 74089A.070
89 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 74089A.071
90 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 74089A.072
91 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 74089A.073
92 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 74089A.074
93 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 74089A.075
94 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 74089A.076
95 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 74089A.077
96 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 74089A.078
97 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 74089A.079
98 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 74089A.080
99 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 74089A.081
100 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 74089A.082
101 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 74089A.083
102 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 74089A.084
103 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 74089A.085
104 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 74089A.086
105 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 74089A.087
106 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 74089A.088
107 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 74089A.089
108 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 74089A.090
109 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 74089A.091
110 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 74089A.092
111 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 74089A.093
112 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 74089A.094
113 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 74089A.095
114 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 74089A.096
115 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 74089A.097
116 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 74089A.098
117 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, thanks. We will start with questions, and 

thank you all for your comments. 

Mr. Doss, let me ask you this. Is it true 80 percent of the water 

bottlers are part of your organization, about 80 percent? 

Mr. DOSS. I am sorry? 

Mr. STUPAK. Water bottlers in this country, they belong to your 

organization? 

Mr. DOSS. I would say we probably represent 75 percent of the 

actual facilities. 

Mr. STUPAK. Is Dasani, Coca-Cola, are they part of your—— 

Mr. DOSS. Dasani is not a member of the association. 

Mr. STUPAK. How about Nestle? 

Mr. DOSS. Nestle is a member. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. And how about Aquafina? That is Pepsi, right? 

Mr. DOSS. That is not a member. 

Mr. STUPAK. So are those the three biggest, Coke, Pepsi and Nestle? 

Mr. DOSS. The largest companies. 

Mr. STUPAK. So two of the three are not part of your organization? 

Mr. DOSS. That is correct. 

Mr. STUPAK. Your standards, which track many of the things we 

recommended and GAO and the others, that is voluntary standards 

you try to have your member comply with? 

Mr. DOSS. IBWA has always tried to, you know, have the highest 

possible safety standards so we have a mandatory requirement for 

our member, and if they don’t meet those standards, then they cannot be a member of the International Bottled Water Association. 

Mr. STUPAK. Do you do anything on the advertising then? I 

mean, we have seen these crazy—— 

Mr. DOSS. No, advertising is not an issue that we deal with. Obviously that is a case-by-case situation where there are State and 

federal laws that would allow companies to be—action to be 

brought against them for deceptive or misleading advertising, so 

we don’t do anything in that regard. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. So like Aquamantra about these mantras inherently penetrate the molecular structure of the water, you guys 

don’t condone any of that? 

Mr. DOSS. It is not something—the association does not deal with 

advertising issues. That is something that would be left to the 

State and federal authorities. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, the company went on to say that it consulted, 

and I use the word ‘‘consulted’’ because that is what it said on the 

Web site, with a Dr. Marura Emoto who wrote a book called Hidden Messages in Water, and the company said that he showed us 

the basic principles of quantum theory whereby the molecular 

structure of water was changed by a Zen Buddhist monk’s 

thoughts. Based on this premise, Aquamantra uses the design on 

its labels to affect the molecular structure of California natural 

spring water to make it more refreshing and wholesome. Is there 

any water studies that a Zen monk can change the molecular structure of water? 

Mr. DOSS. Well, I can’t speak to what that company has found. 

I just can’t speak to that. I don’t know that they are a member of 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

IBWA so I can’t comment on what information they may have 

about what they say on their label or other materials. 

Mr. STUPAK. Dr. Sharfstein, have you seen anything quite like 

this? Do you think those should be part of the labeling of bottled 

water, Zen Buddhist monks’ thoughts that can change the structure of water? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I would be highly skeptical. 

Mr. STUPAK. But, you know, we have seen it, and Ms. Houlihan 

pointed out and a couple others, these are just sort of like fantastical claims. Are they legal? Can they do it underneath your misbranding or false advertising? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Well, we will definitely look into this case. In 

general, misbranding pertains to whether people are claiming to 

treat disease. That is the big one. That is where we put our priority. If people are saying you drink this water and it cures your 

cancer, then people may not pursue cancer treatment. 

Mr. STUPAK. So like Mr. Ricker of Poland Springs who had a miraculous recovery and lived nearly 52 years and it is good for liver 

and kidney diseases, is that—— 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Well, there were two that you—you know, the 

one with historical fable. I don’t know if that is exactly—— 

Mr. STUPAK. That is Mr. Ricker. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. But the other one where you said used in clinical—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Clinical tests, Philadelphia, St. Louis. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. That one I think we would like to see. I mean, 

that to me strikes me as pretty, you know, worth our evaluating. 

I am not familiar with that. But I think that would definitely fall 

into something we would look closely at. 

Mr. STUPAK. How about the other one? The makers of H20M 

claim that they play music and sounds at their bottling facility that 

charge the water with special vibratory frequencies? Would that be 

misadvertising? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I am not a musician but I would still express 

skepticism about that one, and I think that, you know, we have— 

the misbranding provision is really about things that we focus on 

we really think are going to pose a public health threat, a claim 

like that, and you know, the issue about whether it treats kidney 

or liver disease, this really does raise that issue. 

Mr. STUPAK. You know, in tab 13 is that chart again, and we 

might want to put it back up on the board there. And the two reports by GAO and Environmental Working Group talk about the 

regulations, and you mentioned a little bit in yours too. If the 

bottlers discovered dangerous contaminants of water, they don’t 

have to alert the public. Unlike municipalities, bottlers don’t have 

to use certified labs. Water bottlers generally are not required to 

provide information about test results, the source of their products. 

You know, take Dasani here. We mentioned them today, and I have 

this bottle that was put on the airplane when I fly back and forth 

so I grabbed it with me as I was reading my testimony. When I 

go through and read it, you know, their claims aren’t too outrageous. It is enhanced with minerals for a pure, fresh taste that 

can’t be beat, and then you go to www.makeyourmouthwater.com. 

That is out there a little bit but it says bottled by CCDA Waters 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

LLC, Millersburg, Pennsylvania, but then underneath it they have 

CT and then the symbol for number, 992, then they have NV 

07354, NYSHD certificate 173 and then they have another one, L, 

but CT, would that be Connecticut? NV, would that be Nevada? 

New York State Health Department, I take it, would be New York. 

It doesn’t say anything about sources or anything, so you don’t 

know where this water really came from, Nevada, Connecticut, 

New York or Pennsylvania. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I could not decipher that for you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Doss, can you help out on that, these markings? 

Mr. DOSS. I can’t say for sure because I obviously don’t—I am not 

familiar with that brand but it may be that all of those states require the product to be registered like other food products do within the State. If you are going to sell products within a State, I 

think all food products tend to have those registration information 

on the bottles. 

Mr. STUPAK. So you would have to figure out—the last one is 

probably a lot number. You would have to go through and figure 

out your lot number to try to figure out where it came from, right, 

and whether Nevada, Connecticut, New York or Pennsylvania, or 

Coca-Cola in Atlanta, Georgia, because that address is on there too. 

Really, a consumer has no way of knowing, and this is one of the 

big bottlers. 

Mr. DOSS. Again, I can only tell you I think that is what that 

refers to. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Just like any food product regulated by the FDA, if dangerous 

contaminants are in the bottled water, it is considered adulterated 

by the FDA, correct, Doctor? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. And it violates the law if it is sold to consumers? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. People can go to jail if they do it. 

Mr. WALDEN. And if we are worried about some of these claims 

on the label, isn’t that really also under the jurisdiction of the FTC, 

the Federal Trade Commission, on false advertising and labeling? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. You know, I will have to get back to you. I don’t 

know if I can answer that. I think we do have certain jurisdiction 

there and I am not sure about the FTC. 

Mr. WALDEN. I would assume that they would but I don’t know 

that for a fact but it is something we ought to look at because it 

would be helpful if they were here today and the EPA was here 

today and perhaps somebody from Coca-Cola as well since they are 

not represented on this panel but we are singling them out. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. One thing I might want to mention is, in just 

a couple of months FDA is going to launch—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Is your mic on, by the way? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. In just a couple months, FDA is going to launch 

the reportable food registry that was part of legislation that Congress passed, and when that happens, we are anticipating September, companies will have to notify FDA if there is a product release that could pose a serious risk to health. So some of the gap 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

will be filled by that but we really think, you know, the passage 

of the food safety legislation is necessary to really close that. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, we are hopeful that that can be brought up 

on the—Mr. Chairman, has that been scheduled for House Floor 

consideration yet? 

Mr. STUPAK. Not yet. We are still working on the final touches. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. In your testimony, Doctor, you discussed new 

FDA testing requirements for bottled water to include testing 

source water for total coliforms and establish a zero tolerance for 

E. coli. Does the EPA require testing for coliforms in tap water and 

did the EPA establish a zero tolerance level for E. coli? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Give me one second. I have some information on 

that right here. I was curious about that also. 

Mr. WALDEN. Because I think you made the case on lead, that 

you have zero tolerance for lead in bottled water but EPA allows 

a certain—— 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I think it illustrates the point that it is just a 

little different, the systems. My understanding is that public water 

systems are required to collect monthly total coliform samples 

throughout their distribution systems and that if they are positive 

they must be tested for E. coli. For a system collecting more than 

40 samples per month, if more than 5 percent are positive, that 

triggers a violation. If it less than 40 samples per month, then one 

positive sample triggers a violation. So, you know, for FDA, bottled 

water, if there is any violation that kicks in for municipal, it has 

to be certain percentage of the tests violative for it to trigger a violation. So the standards are slightly different. I hope I was able to 

explain that clearly enough. They do a whole bunch of tests—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Are they more stringent under your regulations or 

the EPA regulations? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. It is—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Or is it just different? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. They are different. I mean, you know—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Because I know here in the District of Columbia, 

I think I am correct in saying this, that we all went many years 

drinking the tap water believing it to be safe only to discover that 

they hadn’t really fully disclosed the amount of lead that was coming into the water through the pipes, and so I don’t know if you 

ran into that in Baltimore when you were health commissioner 

there, but as I recall you advocated to people to buy it and it would 

be safer to drink bottled water. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Well, not for the population of Baltimore because the municipal water supply in Baltimore we felt very comfortable with but—— 

Mr. WALDEN. But for public school children? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Public school children. That is right. In fact, I 

advised the school superintendent to turn off all the drinking fountains in the Baltimore City public schools because of problems that 

they were having with lead. 

Mr. WALDEN. And to go to bottled water. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. And to go to bottled water across the system. It 

turned out to be cheaper also, given the expense of testing the municipal water because of the old buildings and the problems they 

had with the pipes in the school. So, you know, I certainly as a 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

health commissioner, I think there are certain scenarios where, for 

example, after certain types of disruptions of the water supply, the 

water can be unsafe for a period of time and we recommended that 

people buy bottled water or boil it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Doss, a question about this notion that consumers are wanting to know what it is in their bottled water. While I want to know 

that it is safe when I drink it, I am not sure I am going to chase 

down what spring it came out of or well, as long as I know it is 

safe. How many inquiries do you get through your association of 

people who say I want to know the ingredients, I want to know— 

I mean, when I take water out of my place here in D.C., there is 

no label on the tap that tells me all this stuff. I wouldn’t know 

where to go in the D.C. system to even find out, and frankly, as 

long as it is safe, I don’t care. How much of this is the case? How 

many people are rushing to you and calling your folks saying hey, 

I demand to know where this water came from? 

Mr. DOSS. At IBWA, the association has hardly gotten any comments, any questions from consumers. I have talked to some of my 

members including our large members and our small- and midsized members, and they get very few requests. Now, I will say—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And how do they handle those requests? 

Mr. DOSS. They provide them with the information. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do they disclose? 

Mr. DOSS. If they want testing results, if they want source information, whatever they ask for, you know, in our opinion, that is 

what they should provide, and that is, our bottom line is, that if 

a consumer has a question, we believe they have the right to have 

that information. The real issue is how to best provide that information. I think that is the distinction here and that was related 

a minute ago. These are two different systems. Bottled water is a 

packaged food product in a very different distribution system than 

tap water. So there are necessarily some differences in the way you 

might want to provide the information, and as far as the overall 

safety is concerned, again, they both have to be safe. There are different ways that you get to that goal. 

Mr. WALDEN. Because I don’t think in a soft drink bottle they 

disclose where the liquid source comes from, right? Because they 

put water in a cola beverage, right? Is that right, Doctor? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Isn’t that the number one ingredient, is water, in 

these beverages we all drink? And the last time I checked, nobody 

is saying tell me where the water came from that is in there. It 

is not required to be on those labels, is it? 

Mr. DOSS. And that is why—— 

Mr. WALDEN. So you are kind of being singled out. 

Mr. DOSS. Bottled water is a food product so we follow the rules 

that are in place. 

Mr. WALDEN. Is cola a food product? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Cola is a food product and it is not subject to 

the Good Manufacturing Practices that exist specifically for bottled 

water, so there is a—— 

Mr. WALDEN. So is there less oversight on our soda drinks from 

the FDA’s perspective? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Maybe I wouldn’t use the word ‘‘oversight’’ but 

I would say there is definitely more regulations and—— 

Mr. WALDEN. On which? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. On bottled water. 

Mr. WALDEN. Than on cola products? And I am not picking on 

cola versus uncola versus, you know, the new cola versus whatever. 

I am just talking soft drinks. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. That is correct. 

Mr. WALDEN. So there is less oversight—well, I will use the term 

‘‘oversight’’ but in terms of food safety issues—— 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Right, and there are Good Manufacturing Practices that apply to foods generally that apply to colas, and someone 

will tap me if I am getting this totally wrong, but I understand 

that the bottled water has a whole set of regulations that are really 

just for bottled water, and it relates to the fact—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Commodity-specific—— 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Right. 

Mr. WALDEN [continuing]. Regulations which don’t exist for soft 

drinks? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Right. 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Can I also say that one difference between bottled water and soda is also that people choose bottled water because they think it is healthier and safer than—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, but that is not—— 

Ms. HOULIHAN [continuing]. In a lot of cases, and that is not the 

reason they are choosing colas. So I think that—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, but the question—whether they choose it or 

not, the question I thought you were getting at is, consumers have 

the right to know the source of the ingredients in the bottle, the 

labeling and all that. I mean, I want to know if—I may think a 

soda product is better than bottled water. 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Water is very different from other kinds of food 

products. It makes up more than half of our body and we are advised to drink at least eight—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right, because it helps remove toxins and everything else. 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Exactly, and so people are choosing bottled water 

in particular, not colas, because there is a perception that it is 

safer and healthier than tap water, and I think that is why it is 

being singled out here over other foods because of the special place 

that it holds in people’s minds. Also, because it is almost 2,000 

times more expensive than tap water and people—— 

Mr. WALDEN. How much more expensive is a soda drink over tap 

water? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Maybe a similar amount, but people are making 

really tough choices right now about their budgets and so bottled 

water is part of that. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I have almost doubled over my time. 

Mr. STUPAK. No, that is all right. We will come back another 

time but I want to get to Mrs. Christensen for questions. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to go 

over the contaminant disclosure issue again so I am clear. According to the new reports released today, it appears that consumers 

have access to a lot more information about contaminants in tap 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

water than they do about contaminants in bottled water in answer 

to some of the questions previously asked. 

Mr. Stephenson, under current law, municipal water authorities 

have to notify the public within 24 hours when they detect contaminants such as E. coli above prescribed levels in tap water. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is right. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And they have to send that notice over 

broadcast media or in warnings posted in conspicuous locations? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, there are very specific requirements on 

how you report those. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But if a bottled water company ran the same 

tests on its water and found the same level of E. coli, a level that 

both EPA and FDA say is dangerous to human health, they don’t 

have to tell the FDA or EPA or the public? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Or the State. Well, some States require it but 

not the FDA. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. A few States require it but generally no? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Excuse me? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Generally they don’t have to report it? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Generally, they don’t. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Now, under current law, municipal water 

systems are also required to issue annual consumer confidence reports that disclose any contamination problems, the likely source of 

that contamination, potential health effects of that contamination 

and information about the system’s susceptibility to future contamination, correct? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But bottled water companies are not required 

to make similar disclosures to the public? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is true. We currently don’t have the authorities to make that requirement. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Dr. Sharfstein, this is a striking disparity in 

the information available to consumers. We learn about dangerous 

contaminants in our tap water through broad public announcements within 24 hours but we may never learn about the dangerous contaminants in bottled water. Did you say that you supported a requirement to have the bottled water companies disclose 

test results showing contamination above the federal levels? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Actually, starting in September, we think, that 

requirement will take effect for contamination that poses a risk to 

the public. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Is it enough to have the companies report 

their lab reports or should there be certified labs and should the 

labs be required to tell FDA when a positive result is found? Isn’t 

that more reliable? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I think it is a very important question. I think 

there are two questions there, the certified lab and then whether 

labs should be required to report. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Right. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. So for certified labs, I think FDA would like to 

have authority to require labs if we think that that is important 

for a particular product, and I think that because of the broad preVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Aug 04, 2012 Jkt 074089 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A089.XXX A089

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

ventive authority that this new legislation that has been moving 

through the House would give, we would be able to do that. 

The second question of requiring labs to report to FDA is a little 

bit more complex because there are so many tests that are done. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Just the positive ones. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Right. I understand. The concern that is expressed there is whether or not it inhibits the private sector from 

testing at all. If they have a good testing program in place where 

there are identifying and keeping things out of the system, you 

know, should they be reporting every single positive, which ones 

should get reported. Those are questions that are a little bit more 

complex because you could be drowning, and if you are thinking 

not just for water but all the different foods, all the different tests, 

we don’t want to inhibit companies from doing their own testing if 

they have good preventive plans in place. We want to not be missing the forest for the trees in terms of all the information coming 

to us. So that question of how much to require, where to get it from 

is sort of more complex issue that we would probably look at, you 

know, in a particular industry, a particular situation like, you 

know, certain types of tests we probably would want to know because they would be so serious. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And earlier this year, the subcommittee held 

two oversight hearings on salmonella poisoning in peanut products 

that caused multiple deaths and dozens of illnesses, and we 

learned that the Peanut Corporation of America received positive 

tests for salmonella and was not required to disclose them to anyone, and FDA didn’t have the access to those results and couldn’t 

access them until people fell ill by invoking another law, the bioterrorism law, and so the same legal loophole applies to bottled water 

companies. Although the municipal water authorities are required 

to disclose their test results, FDA cannot compel bottled water companies to disclose theirs. 

So Ms. Houlihan, if a bottled water company tests its water and 

finds dangerous levels of E. coli, as far as you understand, is that 

required to disclose those results to the public? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. As far as I understand, that is the case. We 

found a lot of bottled water brands that are posting, 18 percent of 

the brands that we looked at that are posting full water quality 

test reports online, and we think 100 percent of companies should 

be doing that and letting people know right away about contamination. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I am not really—even though I made a reference to peanut butter, I am not in any way suggesting that the 

water issue is similar. But one important lesson that we learned 

is that sometimes disreputable companies have warning signs long 

before major problems arise because the systems are faulty, and if 

federal or State officials had access to that testing data, they might 

be able to flag small problems before they become big ones. 

Mr. Doss, your organization represents, I think you said about 75 

percent of the bottled water industry. Do you support a requirement that bottled water companies make their test records available to the FDA during routine inspections? 

Mr. DOSS. We do. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And I am sure Dr. Sharfstein already answered that question. I guess I am out of time right now and I will 

just hold for a second round. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Mr. Burgess for questions, 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

gone during your testimony and the earlier questioning. Can anyone tell me, if bottled water has a certain standard, what about our 

cola drinks? Are those bottles held to the same standard as bottled 

water? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. So cola drinks are considered food and there are 

food Good Manufacturing Practices that they are held to but cola 

drinks are not held to the bottled water Good Manufacturing Practices which are sort of in addition to the general Good Manufacturing Practices. 

Mr. BURGESS. To the best of anyone’s knowledge, there is no difference in the way any of these compounds would leach out of the 

plastic into liquid phase whether it be water or cola drinks. Is that 

correct? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Yes, I don’t know if I know enough to answer 

that question. I do think that the point that is there, you know, 

from a food safety perspective. You know, there is not a—from a 

food safety perspective, water has a whole additional set of regulations compared to cola. It really depends on—and, you know, public 

health, you are saying compared to what. If you compare bottled 

water to cola, it has got a whole additional set of regulations. If you 

compare bottled water to municipal water, then there are certain 

disclosure requirements of municipal water that don’t apply to bottled water. So it is sort of just your vantage point, but from a food 

safety perspective, you know, there is a whole additional set of regulations that apply to bottled water compared to cola. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, what about the water that is manufactured 

and sold with caffeine added to the water? Does that fall under the 

foodstuff or is that a water? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. That is not a water. 

Mr. BURGESS. That is not a water? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Yes, I think—and somebody is going to tap me 

if I get this wrong but I am pretty sure that it is not a water. It 

depends. I think some of those may be—people may be attempting 

to market them as dietary supplements and other things but what 

they are actually marketed as is a whole separate discussion, but 

I don’t think they are considered a water if you put extra caffeine 

in. 

Mr. BURGESS. It just really underscores the complexity of the 

process that you have to deal with. 

Now, let me ask the GAO, on the report that two people to inspect the $11 billion water industry, and 4 years ago the FDA 

changed the risk assessment for bottled water from low risk to high 

risk, so the question then comes, how many inspectors should be 

required? If two are not enough, what is our limit? We will be 

doing the agriculture appropriations bill this afternoon which will 

have the funding for the Food and Drug Administration in it. How 

do we know that we have got the right number of inspectors so 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 

that we can then know that we have the right appropriation attached to the FDA? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is a good question, and we don’t have a 

precise number just for this segment of FDA’s overall responsibility. We have said designating food safety a high-risk area over 

the past 2 years that the resources are inadequate to do the job 

right now, and we have pointed out from a broader standpoint that 

food safety is spread over a number of different agencies and of 

those agencies, FDA seems to get the smallest proportion of the 

budget yet it has 80 percent of the responsibility. So I don’t know 

whether two is right or four is right or six is right just for bottled 

water. All we are just doing is stating a fact, that that is how many 

FTAs are currently dedicated to inspecting bottled water facilities. 

Mr. BURGESS. And that in fact does not seem to be a sufficient 

number? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It does not seem to be a sufficient number, 

given the number of bottled water facilities. 

Mr. BURGESS. Also in your testimony, you note that three-quarters of the water bottles produced in the United States in 2006 

were recycled. Do we know about the rates of recycle for other beverages? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think it is probably similar for all plastic bottles. With bottled water being a growing share of the market, there 

are more bottles dedicated to water than soda percentage-wise. 

Mr. BURGESS. So numerically, there are more in the environment—— 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Right, and this isn’t a volume problem, as we 

noted. It is less than 1 percent of what is going into a landfill. Nevertheless, they never decompose and they stay there forever, and 

recycling is a good thing in general. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I would agree with that. 

Dr. Sharfstein, in the GAO report it states that the FDA currently assigns two people yet 4 years ago the Food and Drug Administration changed the risk assessment from low to high risk, so 

again, I would ask the question, how many inspectors should now 

be assigned to oversee the Code of Federal Regulations as it relates 

to bottled water? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I am not sure that is right, that we changed it 

to high risk. I think that in general compared to other foods, we 

considered bottled water in the lower risk side. I think that there 

are two issues. One is the frequency of inspection and the other is 

all the things that go with inspections, and one of the key things 

we talked about is just knowing who is making bottled water, and 

we have a hard time under the current food safety laws really understanding that because by law, people can register on paper and 

the category is called soft drinks and waters, so everyone is sort 

of thrown in together so we don’t have a very good idea—we don’t 

have as good an idea as we would like to have or we should have 

exactly who is making it. That is sort of the first step to have, like, 

you know, a solid system. And then we would like the ability to require preventive plans and, you know, all the key basic steps there, 

and then you put inspections as part of that strategy. But just 

thinking of inspections alone with the rest of the way it is, it is 

probably going to leave some opportunities for strengthening the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
127 

system off the table if you are just thinking of inspection alone 

which is why we would like the parts of the law giving us access 

to records, giving FDA the ability to require preventive plans, certified labs if we think necessary, other things like that. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me ask you a question in the time I don’t have 

remaining, and it is not fair to ask you this but I will do it anyway. 

We are going to vote on the agriculture appropriations bill today 

or tomorrow. Is the number we have in the bill for the Food and 

Drug Administration, do we have the right number there? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Yes. The President’s budget and what came out 

of committee is a historic increase and I think there is no question 

the Administration responded very strongly to GAO’s finding this 

would be a high risk and putting a lot more resources into food 

safety, and if we get that combined with additional authority, I 

think we will be able to strengthen the system considerably. 

Mr. BURGESS. And just for the record, Mr. President, the beautiful campus that they occupy is actually part of the GSA budget 

so none of your food safety dollars are going to build that lovely 

campus which we are all so proud of. I will yield back. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thanks, Mr. Burgess. 

Let us go another round of questions. Dr. Sharfstein, if we do 

testing and if they have to report their positive results, wouldn’t 

after a while if you see a continued positive results for E. coli or 

something from a plant that indicates you have a problem, we have 

to get there or at least increase inspections, like the peanut butter 

one with the salmonella. We had report after report of problems 

but no one ever received a report and no one ever knew, at the 

FDA, at least, what was going on there. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I agree with you. FDA has to respond to problems very aggressively and has got to be able to follow up with 

manufacturers that aren’t meeting standards and if necessary shut 

them down, and, you know, in recent weeks we have taken action 

against some firms—— 

Mr. STUPAK. But you wouldn’t know unless you received positive 

results, I mean, unless you received the results. Somewhere, someone at the FDA has to receive results and look at them, right? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Well, it could be that we got a complaint and 

we investigated. It could be testing that FDA does, and FDA does 

do some testing. So we can find out problems. We could have somebody call us and say there is a problem with this company, and so 

that leads us to investigate. But once we find the problem, I think 

it is important to really follow up until that problem is clearly resolved. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, how about for those bottlers who use municipal water as their source? Wouldn’t it make sense to require them 

to post a link to the required EPA testing results because they 

have to do it once a year? Wouldn’t that make sense to require 

them to—25 percent, I think, Ms. Houlihan was in your report, 25 

percent of the bottlers use tap water, so why wouldn’t we just require them to post their Web site? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Right. I can totally understand why that would 

make sense, why consumers might be interested in that. But the 

thing for FDA is, the standard that we have for putting something 

on the label is that it would have to be misleading without it, and 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

so we can’t—you know, we use that to say that, you know, something has got to be there or it is misleading without it, and that 

is a hard thing to put that, you know, to kind of file that in that 

category. So that is not to say we wouldn’t support it but whether 

we could do it under our misleading, you know, authority, that we 

think is questionable and that it might require a different authority. 

Mr. STUPAK. It is misbranding authority that you have? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Yes, the misbranding authority. The basic—if 

we were to do it, and this would—you know, what standard would 

we have to meet, and it would be that it is misleading without it, 

and, you know, we don’t require it for other types of foods. You 

know, would it really be misleading consumers not to have that, 

and that is a hard standard for us to reach. There may be a better 

way for Congress to achieve that. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Stephenson, if I may, on page 22 of your report 

you referred to a poll conducted by Water Research Foundation 

that approximately 56 percent of bottled water drinkers cite safety 

and health as the primary reason they sought an alternative to tap 

water. So is it fair to say that the number one reason people are 

buying bottled water is because they think it is safer and healthier 

than tap water? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, there is that poll and several other research studies that have concluded that, although convenience is a 

top reason as well. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, what bothers me about that is the perception 

that bottled water is healthier than tap water, in many instances, 

bottled water is nothing more than tap water. The Natural Resources Defense Council, they estimated, as I said, 25 percent of 

bottled water is just tap water in bottles. Sometimes it is treated, 

sometimes it is not. So I guess my question is, and Ms. Houlihan, 

I think you cited in your report, is that accurate that 25 percent 

of the bottled water is just tap water in a bottle? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Those are the numbers that are publicly available, and I think it is a big question as to whether it is even more 

than that because in so many cases we just don’t have the information on what the source actually is and we found almost a third of 

all bottled waters have no information on their label. 

Mr. STUPAK. But if they take it from tap water and do something 

like reverse osmosis or something, then they don’t have to claim it 

is tap water, right? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. That is right, and there is a provision that requires that bottled waters be labeled as from a municipal supply 

if they have not undergone any additional treatment, but any treatment that is, according to FDA, quote, suitable, allows that bottled 

water manufacturer not to use that label and just to call it this is 

a purified water without giving people information on what the 

treatment processes actually were. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, like I said, I got this on the airplane yesterday. Does Coca-Cola use municipal water for its Dasani bottled 

water? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. You can’t tell from the label. There is no information at all on the water source for that product. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

Mr. STUPAK. How about Pepsi there that Dr. Burgess is drinking, 

the Aquafina bottled water? Does that come from a municipal 

source? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Aquafina, we have that label in one of the examples, if you could pull that up. So on the label, it is labeled as from 

a municipal supply for Aquafina. It doesn’t name the municipal 

supply, which is what so many other bottled waters are choosing 

to do. 

Mr. STUPAK. But do we know if they do any further treatment 

or anything of it? Would it have to be on there? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. It doesn’t have to be labeled at all, and we found 

44 percent of all labels don’t provide any information on treatment. 

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Doss, if Aquafina was part of your organization, 

I understand it is not, but if it was, would the have to put on there 

whether they further treated or would they just put down municipal source? 

Mr. DOSS. No, they wouldn’t, and I think the issue here is one 

maybe of misunderstanding. Purified bottled water, which is what 

Dasani is and what Aquafina is, is not just tap water in a bottle. 

Mr. STUPAK. Correct. Something else happens to it. 

Mr. DOSS. When water comes in from a municipal source, it goes 

through reverse osmosis, it goes through UV light, it goes through 

ozonation and then in a sanitary condition is placed in a bottle. 

Now, those purified waters must meet the U.S. pharmacopoeia 

standard for purified or sterile water. If it dose not, then that label 

must disclose in that bottle that it comes from a municipal source. 

So in that case, that water because it doesn’t list it as from a municipal source, meets the U.S. pharmacopoeia standard for purified 

or sterile water, and that is the big difference, and that goes to the 

sourcing of the water. It would be not—to list that this source was 

the Dayton whatever county municipal water, that water is quite 

different once it gets in that bottle than when it started out, and 

that is the distinction here. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK, let me ask you this. Let us go back to Dasani 

then. And again, I am reading the label right here on what I got 

here. It says ‘‘noncarbonated, crisp, fresh taste. Dasani is filtered 

through a state-of-the-art purification system and enhanced with 

minerals for a pure, fresh taste that can’t be beat.’’ And then if you 

go on the other side of the label, it says purified water, magnesium 

sulfate, potassium chloride, salt, and then it has as asterisk, ‘‘adds 

a negligible amount of sodium,’’ then it has a cross on it and it says 

‘‘minerals added for taste, purified by reverse osmosis.’’ So to get 

that clean, crisp taste, are the chemicals they are adding then magnesium sulfate, potassium chloride, salt and sodium or is it other 

chemicals? 

Mr. DOSS. I can’t speak to Dasani specifically but what is done 

sometimes is that the water comes in from a municipal source, it 

is purified by reverse osmosis and other treatments and then minerals are added back for taste. That is what they are disclosing. 

Again, I can’t speak to that specific label but in general that is oftentimes what happens. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. I guess my time is up. 

Mr. Walden, questions? 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

First of all, what the chairman cited, are those chemicals or minerals? 

Mr. DOSS. I believe they are minerals that have been added for 

taste, and that is why they disclose it on the label. They are meeting the labeling requirements. They are making sure that they are 

informing those who buy it that this is a purified water with minerals added back. 

Mr. WALDEN. And if they added other things into the water, 

would they have to disclose that? 

Mr. DOSS. I believe they would. It then is a question of the 

standard of identity for bottled water, which we talked about which 

specifically says if you are spring water, you have to do this, if you 

are purified water, you have to do that. So what—— 

Mr. WALDEN. So there are already rules that say that? 

Mr. DOSS. There are rules that say exactly what you must do if 

you want to say you are a purified water, a spring water, an artesian water, well water. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. DOSS. If you then add something else to the water, then for 

labeling purposes you would probably—and this is where FDA—I 

will have to make sure we can get back to you on this specifically 

but I think in that case, FDA would say you need to then make 

sure you are saying this is purified water with minerals added 

back, and I think that is why they do it. 

Mr. WALDEN. Dr. Sharfstein, do you know or do your folks know 

if that is correct? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. The question is, what you are allowed to put 

back in? 

Mr. WALDEN. Not what you are allowed to put back in but that 

which you put back in, do you have to disclose on the label? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I am getting a yes, it is required. 

Mr. WALDEN. So it is already required? If I am a bottler of water 

and if I go through reverse osmosis and the UV and all that and 

then I add things back in, I have to put that on the label? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. That is what I am understanding. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. I want to ask about the DEHP issue. In your 

testimony, you state the FDA has decided to move forward on making a decision on DEHP. Can you elaborate on this and tell us 

when we can expect a ruling? That is actually what I hear. If I 

hear anything about bottled water, it is about this discussion about 

what is in the plastic. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. This is where it gets a little bit confusing, but 

basically in the mid-1990s when this was originally done and this 

particular chemical was deferred. The reason it was deferred is because it had been marketed prior to 1958 and had a special grandfather-like provision as a food additive, and it was thought that it 

was in plastic and therefore this provision of the law that we are 

talking about conflicted with another provision of the law. Our understanding has changed since that time. In fact, we don’t believe 

that it is being used in water bottles or water caps right now, and 

as a result of that, the concern that existed—and I am a pediatrician and not a lawyer—basically the legal conflict that was of concern in the mid-1990s is not of concern now and that we can move 

forward and basically testing whether or not there is a reason to— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 

there has to be an affirmative reason not to have the same standard as municipal water so, you know, my presumption would be 

that we will move forward with the standard for DEHP like we 

have for all the other contaminants. What held it up before was 

really the grandfather legal issue, and I think that that may not 

apply anymore and we can move forward. 

Mr. WALDEN. But I want to get to sort of the heart of the matters 

for the people I represent. You are telling me that plastic in the 

cap here doesn’t have the phthalate? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. In our communications with industry, as I understand, we do not believe that this is regularly used in—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Doss, can you speak to this issue? 

Mr. DOSS. I can. It is my understanding that none of the plastic 

containers used for bottled water contain DEHP at all, not the 

PET, not the polycarbonate, not the HDPE. So none of the bottled 

water containers contain any DEHP. However, the International 

Bottled Water Association for purposes of parity several years ago, 

we have a standard in our model code that is exactly the same as 

the EPA, more for parity reasons, but none of the plastic containers 

used for bottled water contain DEHP. 

Mr. WALDEN. From your knowledge, does that apply also to Dr. 

Burgess’s Pepsi bottle there and other bottles used for sodas? 

Mr. DOSS. If they are using PET, which I believe most are, if 

they are using polycarbonate or HDPE, which are the three primary uses for all beverage products, then there is no DEHP in 

them. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. So the DEHP issue is really, is it in the water 

separately just because it is in the environment and, you know, 

that—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Is there a number that you use for DEHP like PET 

has a number 1 on it, and that is what this one is here. But there 

is usually a symbol. Is there a symbol that if you use DEHP in a 

plastic—— 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I will have to get back to you on that. 

Ms. HOULIHAN. Can I also add—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Go ahead. I actually have another question, 

though, I want to get to. 

Ms. HOULIHAN. The food contact notifications that EPA has approved show at least 100 different other kinds of plastic additives 

that could leach into the water, so this is a problem that is much 

bigger than DEHP. 

Mr. STUPAK. Go ahead, Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. I just wanted to get to another point because we 

are so focused, and I realize that is the focus of the hearing is on 

bottled water and where that water comes from and all of that, but 

I am sitting here thinking, if I buy orange juice in a carton that 

is made from concentrate, what percent of that is water? It has to 

be a huge percent, right? Because we are adding water in and then 

the concentrate. And if the issue here is the quality of the water 

and the source of the water going into what we consume, then it 

seems to me we are kind of myopic here just looking at bottled 

water because somebody doesn’t like bottled water or presumes 

that it has a higher sort of threshold in our minds about purity. 

I would suggest that a lot of us drink orange juice thinking that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

is better than perhaps bottled water because you get other—no offense, but you get other things with it, and yet I am thinking 80 

percent, 90 percent of what I am getting in the carton of orange 

juice unless it is, you know, fresh squeezed only, not from concentrate, is probably water. And so from the FDA’s standpoint, do 

you look at the water that goes into that? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. That is part of what makes food safe is the 

water and they need to meet food safety requirements, and—— 

Mr. WALDEN. And that is the same thing you apply to the bottled 

water, right? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. It is more we apply to the bottled water because 

we—— 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. So as I was saying before, a lot of this is compared to what—if you are comparing bottled water to other foods 

or other foods that contain water, there are additional regulations 

that apply. If you are comparing it to municipal water, then there 

is more disclosure on municipal water than there is on bottled 

water. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, I—— 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. It is just your point of comparison. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, but I guess the question would be, where is 

that disclosure? I mean, I have never even—at least there is something on this label. In my hometown of Hood River, we have it out 

of a spring but I don’t get a notice on my tap or on my water bill, 

or here in the District of Columbia, for heaven’s sake, I mean, what 

it runs through to come out of my tap is scary. That is why I put 

a filter on the end and then refilter it in another deal and, you 

know, all of that. So anyway, I am over my time. I am done. Thank 

you. 

Mr. STUPAK. So you get from a municipal water supply and you 

don’t get a notice every year? We get a letter, seriously. 

Mr. WALDEN. Probably. And I rush out to my mailbox to read it. 

Mr. STUPAK. OK. 

Mr. WALDEN. And, you know, it is like the sewer notice I get 

here. It tells me that when it rains they inflate these inflatable 

things to keep the sewage from rushing out into the Potomac unless it rains too much and then they deflate them because they 

cause too much problems. But that is a whole other issue. 

Mr. STUPAK. No, we don’t want them releasing untreated sewage 

in our waters, that is for sure. 

Mrs. Christensen. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Stephenson, I note that in your report the surveys were done 

in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Any reason why the 

territories are not included or are they generally not included in 

surveys done by GAO? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. No, no particular reason, just the methodology 

we chose. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But they are not generally excluded just—— 

Mr. STEPHENSON. No. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN [continuing]. That in this particular—— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

Mr. STEPHENSON. No, a limited amount of time, a limited 

amount of resources dictated 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And Dr. Sharfstein, in your testimony you 

say that FDA has broad authority over food that is introduced or 

delivered in interstate commerce. So if it is just within a state or 

within a territory, FDA doesn’t have any jurisdiction or do you 

work with the States then and the territories? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. That actually is a pretty broad statement because if the bottle comes from outside the State or the cap comes 

from outside the State, even if it is just sold within the State, it 

counts as interstate, and there is a presumption, I understand, that 

it would be interstate, but in theory there might be products that 

could be challenged, our authority over them, although I am not 

aware that we heard about a problem that we haven’t been able 

to get to either directly or through the State. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Stephenson, we have talked a lot about 

whether bottled water is safer and healthier and there is disagreement on that but there is no disagreement on the fact that bottled 

water uses more energy to produce and deliver. On page 26 of your 

report, there is a quite amazing statistic where you refer to a study 

by the Pacific Institute which examined how much energy it takes 

to bring bottled water from different locations throughout the world 

to L.A., and in your report this is what it says. ‘‘The Institute estimated that the total energy required to bring a typical one-liter 

bottle of water weighing about 38 grams to a consumer in Los Angeles would typically range from about 1,100 to 2,000 times the energy cost of producing tap water. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is true. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So if I drink a single bottle of Evian or Fiji 

or some other bottled water, which I may not ever drink again, 

from overseas, I could be using up to 2,000 times more energy than 

if I just walked over to my sink and filled up a glass? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is true. The import bottled water accounts for a very small percentage of the total bottled water but 

that is true. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I see. OK. The study cited in the GAO report 

also describes how transporting these bottles can be the single biggest cost. According to that study, transportation energy costs can 

be as high as 57 percent of the total energy costs for spring water 

bottled in France, transported overseas by cargo ship and transported by rail from the eastern United States to Los Angeles. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is correct. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Your report also has some other findings related. For example, you concluded that most plastic water bottles 

are discarded rather than recycled. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, we estimate 25 percent are recycled, so 75 

percent are discarded. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So Ms. Houlihan, how did we get here? Why 

do consumers pay so much, hundreds of times more for bottled 

water, taking thousands of times more energy to produce? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. You heard some of the marketing claims that are 

used by the industry and I think a lot of people are under a 

misperception that bottled water must be safer than tap water. A 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

lot of people believe that it is free of contaminants. In fact by law, 

it is not required to be any safer than tap water. When we tested 

10 major brands of bottled water, we found 38 different pollutants, 

everything from disinfection byproducts to radioactive isotopes, 

even traces of Tylenol and fertilizer residues. So one thing that we 

need when it comes to the bottled water industry is just more daylight, information for consumers on where that water comes from, 

how it is treated and what is in it. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I think it is really important for the information to be there so that people can make knowledgeable judgment. 

I certainly understand that bottles are convenient, but if we are 

going to use them, isn’t there a better way than going into the 

landfill. This bottle of water is bottled in Virginia and is transported just a few miles from here to the Capitol and it is biodegradable. Mr. Doss, you represent the bottled water companies. How 

many of them are using biodegradable bottles? 

Mr. DOSS. I am not sure exactly how many are using biodegradable bottles but I will say that as a general statement that bottled 

water companies like other food industry companies are trying to 

do whatever they can to reduce their environmental footprint. Obviously, going to bottles such as those is one way of doing it. We 

have made significant efforts to lightweight the bottled water containers. Anyone who drinks bottled water knows these days they 

are much lighter weight which uses less plastic. We also have some 

of our companies that are using recycled content, less virgin materials. So bottled water is trying to do what it can to reduce the environmental footprint, but I think it is important to recognize that 

bottled water is just one of thousands of food products on the market in plastic, and in fact, we are only one-third of 1 percent, as 

reported in the GAO report, of the entire waste stream in the 

United States so I think that any efforts to reduce the environmental impact of packaging has to focus more broadly on all consumer goods. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Absolutely. Thank you for your answers. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Mr. Burgess, let us get 5 minutes in before we have to go for 

votes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Great. Thank you. 

Dr. Sharfstein, just to follow up a little bit on what Mr. Walden 

was talking about on the lawsuit with the phthalate DEHP that 

has been held up. I think Mr. Stupak referenced it has been 15 

years in the making. You are now prepared to issue a ruling in 

September. Do I understand that correctly, on DEHP? The FDA is 

prepared to go ahead with that ruling now or is that—— 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. So there is questions whether we set a standard 

for bottled water, and our intent is to proceed with setting a standard for bottled water. That is just a matter of preparing the standard, getting it going. If we come across some reason why this 

doesn’t apply to bottled water at all, we are permitted to make the 

statement that it doesn’t apply to bottled water at all but it is not 

obvious to us there is such a compelling reason at this point, so we 

would anticipate then going forward and setting a standard. So at 

that point is just as long as it takes to do. What is in the law, and 

this gets, you know, there is a 180-day standard in the law which 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

is that if EPA sets the standard, FDA needs to set a standard at 

least 180 days before so that it can take effect at the same time 

as the EPA standard. But with this one where they waited so long 

because of this legal thing, that is sort of out the window. It doesn’t 

really apply because the EPA’s standard went into effect so long 

ago. So really, we would just like to do it in a reasonable time 

frame. 

Mr. BURGESS. And at this point, any preview, any look ahead as 

to what that standard may be? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Sure. It would just be the—if we were to do it, 

it would be the same standard that EPA has unless we had a really 

good reason otherwise, but that would be the assumption, just like 

we have done for almost all the other contaminants, the same 

standard as EPA. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, on the issue of the high risk, low 

risk, apparently there was a ruling issued by the FDA in 2005 in 

the risk assessment, and I have a copy of that. With your permission, we will make that available to the committee for its consideration and adding it to the record. 

And then finally, let me just ask a question about recycling, and 

really this is for everyone on the panel, about the compounds leaching out of the plastic in greater amounts in recycled materials than 

native or first-run materials. So is that a real concern for us to 

have? Are there going to be different standards for the recycled bottles or should there be different standards? Do consumers need to 

be aware of any difference between a recycled bottle and a first-run 

bottle? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. We looked at FDA reviews of additives in plastic 

and found that there are over different compounds that could leach 

out of plastic, so the question you have raised is a very important 

question and we think not only do recycled bottles need to be more 

closely inspected and tested with regard to that but also new bottles, what is coming out of the plastic into waters, and that kind 

of testing is not required. We fully support the greater rates of recycling in industry. That is just a smart move overall. 

Mr. BURGESS. Is there another secondary use for the recycled 

plastic water bottle other than re-creating another plastic water 

bottle? Can they be used in building materials or is there any other 

use for these bottles? 

Ms. HOULIHAN. That is a fabulous question, and I think we are 

creative enough in this country to come up with other uses that 

don’t involve direct contact with water. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Doss, do you have an opinion? 

Mr. DOSS. I don’t know anything specifically about the issue you 

just raised but I do know that FDA has to clear all contact packaging materials. So if FDA clears it, then the manufacturer is able 

to use it and they have made the determination that they are safe 

to use. 

Mr. BURGESS. So we come to Dr. Sharfstein. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. There has got to be a standard of safety. Whether it is recycled or not recycled, there has got to be a standard of 

safety, and so that is what FDA enforces, and understanding in 

light of, you know, new evidence that comes out about the particular substances and the latest science and the different concerns 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 

people have, FDA’s job is to weigh that, but at the end of the day, 

it has to be a standard of safety and it has got to apply no matter 

what is in the package. 

Mr. BURGESS. So where are we right now with the issue of recycling? Should consumers be concerned about buying bottled water 

in a recycled product? Are you testing these products currently, or 

even are there any available? 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. Well, we test the water, you know. When we 

test water, it could be from a recycled bottle or not, but I am not 

aware of any special concerns for recycled plastic but I think if 

there are concerns people have they should share them with the 

agency. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I guess I don’t really even know enough to 

know whether these recycled materials are then broken down and 

reconstituted or do we just simply wash out the bottle and put a 

new cap on it. But, I mean, obviously the push is to recycle so we 

are going to be seeing more of these products on our shelves and 

in our stores. 

Dr. SHARFSTEIN. I think you are illustrating why the job is so 

challenging because products change and FDA has to be up on 

them so we can enforce the same basic safety standards. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thanks, Mr. Burgess. 

Just one last question and we will close the hearing. Mr. Stephenson, in your GAO report that we talked about today about consumer confidence reports, and in 1996 Congress directed the FDA 

to assess the feasibility of providing bottled water to consumers 

with the functional equivalent of a consumer confidence report, and 

according to your GAO report that is released today, on August 25, 

2000, FDA concluded that it would be feasible to provide consumers with some of the information contained in the consumer 

confidence report directly on a bottle label and access the remaining information through an address or phone number, and that is 

tab number 3 there in the document. Is that correct? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. STUPAK. So Mr. Doss, any reason why your organization 

would object to that or do you think we should have a consumer 

confidence report for bottled water? 

Mr. DOSS. Well, as I think was reported in their study, they did 

say it was feasible. They didn’t exactly say what was feasible to put 

on the label. I think they were quite skeptical of putting some of 

the contaminants, et cetera on the label because it would just clutter the label. Now, as I said before, I think that the bottom line 

for us that consumers ought to be able to get information and we 

think that a telephone number, call the company and request that 

information is the best way to do it and almost all bottled waters 

currently as well as other food products have a phone number at 

least that a consumer could call the company and say could you 

send me the information and that information should be sent, and 

if it isn’t, I would say go find another product to buy. 

Mr. STUPAK. So you don’t mind the phone number but you don’t 

want any other information? 

Mr. DOSS. We don’t. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
137 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think there needs to be some 

specificity in what is going to be required in those confidence reports. When were checking labels and Web sites, it was very difficult to get the kind of information we were—— 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. Your report didn’t say put the whole report 

on the bottle. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. It doesn’t have to be on the label. 

Mr. STUPAK. Just that some information should be on there and 

there should at least a phone number to back it up if you want further information. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is right. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, that concludes all of our questioning. I want 

to thank all of our witnesses for coming today and for your testimony. 

The committee rules provide that members have 10 days to submit additional questions for the record. That concludes our hearing. 

This meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 74089A.099
139 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 74089A.100
140 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 74089A.101
141 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 74089A.102
142 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 74089A.103
143 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 74089A.104
144 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 74089A.105
145 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 74089A.106