Panel Debates Ethics of Bottled Water

    As students, faculty and staff entered the Benjamin Mays Center to hear a panel featuring Take Back the Tap star Lucy Neely ’09 and President of Summit Spring Water N. Bryan Pullen, among others, they were offered a choice.
    Lying on a table to the right of the stage were cookies flanked on one side by bottles of Summit Spring water and, on the other, a big container of iced tap water with paper cups.  The battle was on.
    Other participants included environmental coordinator Julie Rosenbach, environmental studies learning associate Camille Parrish, Director of Dining Services Christine Schwarz and Brendan O’Brien ’11. Bill Hiss, Vice President for External Affairs, moderated the panel, keeping participants within their allotted time.
    Pullen started the affair with the clarification that his use of the term “bottled water” referenced natural spring water rather than bottled tap water.  Occasionally callous, Pullen took the umbrella Take Back the Tap organization’s five reasons for avoiding bottled water, responding to each with justifications similar to those in his opinion piece in the Forum section of last week’s Bates Student.
    “My comments may be pointed tonight and may be harsh. I don’t mean this against Lucy; I mean this more against the organization she represents and what they put out in the public domain,” Pullen said. “…Take Back the Tap wants to anoint itself the keeper of the masses and make the decision for you presumably because you cannot make that decision yourself.”
    Indeed, choice, decision and responsibility were major themes of the evening with different respondents interpreting them to fit alongside their priorities.  Neely started her presentation discussing Bates’ values and its history of challenging the status quo regardless of ease, for instance the College’s open admission policy towards women and African-Americans.
    Neely raised issues of bottled water’s elitism since millions of others around the world do not have access to clean water, let alone the choice of bottled versus tap.  She suggested that money spent on bottled water should be used to improve and maintain public water facilities.
    Referencing the question of choice, Neely suggested that though the Bates community can choose bottled water or tap water, “Our children and grandchildren won’t have a choice about what type of world they are born into.”
    O’Brien took a more economic viewpoint arguing that purchasing Summit Spring water resulted in a substantially smaller carbon footprint than Poland Springs, for instance, since the plant is only 50 miles away.  Responding to Neely’s argument that bottles are down cycled into products that end up in the landfill anyway, such as McDonald’s Happy Meal toys, O’Brien said that even if the bottles were not down cycled, the resulting merchandise would still be produced.
    In response to Neely’s call for social justice, O’Brien said, “Ultimately, the socially just thing to do, the values that Bates actually promotes, is responsibility and choice…and I don’t see how banning promotes responsibility or choice, it completely eliminates the choice and the responsibility you take in choosing [bottled or tap water].”
    In an enthused presentation riddled with comedy and drama, Schwartz discussed the large amount of locally produced food that Commons purchases.  She opposes the ban, comparing it to offering students Coke or Pepsi exclusively.
“What does a ban do?” Schwartz asked. “Alcohol is banned on campus if you’re underage, should I go further?” she said facetiously.
Rosenbach strayed away from advocating for a ban on bottled water, praising Pullen for his industry’s sustainability and Neely for raising the dialogue, but suggested the importance of individual responsibility.
    Parrish straightened out some facts about municipal water facilities and the quality of tap water. She was concerned with recent Forum articles and student conversations that compared tap water to a chlorinated swimming pool.
    “I think we’re exaggerating the point,” Parrish said, “and it calls into question the message you’re sending to residents of this city about the quality of their tap water.”

Be the first to comment on this article!

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out