Loren Jewkes
Myers/ Period 5 College Prep
Essay #3: Response to an Argument
15 February 2012
A Critical Response to “Bad to the Last Drop”
Standage opens with an anecdote on a time that he and his associates took a challenge. The challenge they accept is to put nine commercial bottled waters, and one bottle full of tap water on the table. Standage and those others present are to then taste-test all of the waters and score each one. “Appearance, odor, flavor, mouth, feel and aftertaste” were all factors to evaluate according to Standage. After scoring, the friends made an educated guess –using their personal scores as a reference- as to which bottle contains the tap water. One of the testers was able to identify the tap water - out of all those present, only one friend was able to differentiate - and yet consumers still buy bottled water. Standage argues that the money that is being spent on bottled water is wasted in developed countries; where almost undetectable, plentiful, and cheap tap water is supplied, the money that is going to bottled water companies could instead go to water charities. He states that water charities are a better place for funds.
The water that is used by companies to be bottled often comes from municipalities. When the water is obtained from the same source - and contamination is more likely to reach consumers - common sense dictates that the money is being spent inefficiently. Standage addresses the counter-argument of additive chemical avoidance in his article. He directly answers the argument saying “some bottled waters contain the same chemicals anyway - and they are, in any case, unavoidable.” Standage cites research done at the University of Texas showing that the chemicals are found in the air when doing tasks such as: using the dishwasher or showering. Drinking bottled water to avoid chemicals that are contained in tap water is, in fact, a misguided act. Money is spent by some consumers to avoid the chemicals; the amount of people that buy for this reason, however, is not quantifiable. I am able to say that some part of the population is extremely afraid of an alien invasion, but the fact of the matter is that those people would be in the minority. No hard numbers can be placed on either assertion. So while there may be a part of the population drinking bottled water - because they are afraid of the chemicals in tap water – using unsourced assertions about irrational individuals lends little faith to Standage’s credibility. Without any quantifiable evidence to support his claims, the economic influence of drinking bottled water to avoid chemicals is scarce at best and virtually nonexistent at worst.
The cost of bottled water is addressed where the water is shipped over long distances, refrigerated before sale, and thrown away after use. According to Standage, not only is bottled water impure, it also causes environmental damage that can be avoided; in his opinion, the only places that are justifiably using bottled water are undeveloped countries. The real heart of the issue, in his mind, is in the undeveloped world. The World Health Organization states that basic sanitation and safe drinking water cause approximately “80 percent of all illness in the world.” Standage then provides his solution; “clean water could be provided to everyone on earth for an outlay of $1.7 billion a year beyond current spending on water projects.” When combined with improved sanitation, the total cost comes to about $11 billion per year. The market for bottled water is large and economically influential in the United States. “This is less than a quarter of global annual spending on bottled water” as bluntly stated by Standage.
Major stumbling blocks are neglected in Standage’s argument; namely, the political and economic impacts of water charities are not discussed. “By providing a seemingly endless credit line to governments regardless of their policies, AID effectively discourages governments from learning from and correcting their mistakes. Giving some Third World governments perpetual assistance is about as humanitarian as giving an alcoholic the key to a brewery. Good intentions are no excuse for helping to underwrite an individual's--or a country's-- selfdestruction” (Cato). Foreign aid, such as money for municipalities, acts as a crutch in other countries. As an organization, water charities are not able to guarantee that the money will even be used for establishing drinking water. The Kenyan Parliament went through a scandal as recently as March of 2011; the Minister of Water, Charity Ngilu, embezzled 57,000,000 Kenyan shillings (the equivalent of $687,104.03). “Conspiracy theories aside, the mounting evidence [against water charity corruption] is damning” (Mzalendo). All money and funds in the developing world go through the local and national governments. Countries cannot be trusted with aid because funds are being mismanaged by their respective governments. To train others in foreign countries would be a much more efficient and long-lasting use for money given to water charities. The sheer amount of legislative qualifications, and difficulty of getting money to where it is needed, leaves water charities -as they are today- with little economic influence.
While Standage’s article has a clearly defined vision for the future, the way he goes about achieving it is difficult to implement. Few consumers when faced with the choice of convenience or foreign aid will choose the aid; especially when the aid is going through corrupt channels and very little money will actually be utilized as intended. Giving the brewery keys to an alcoholic is much the same as giving charity money to developing governments. When only embezzling some funds is the best realistic outcome, Standage’s feasibility shortcomings in arguing for water charities far outweigh his goal. Standage fails to address the positive economic effects of bottled water and the political obstacles of aid, making his plea for consumer’s donations to water charities impractical.
