« the bailout, the economic crisis and the outdoors | Main | rescue package 2.0 »

September 29, 2008


Oran Kelley

You leave out the really importnat part of Bradford's passage, "But once it is bottled and becomes itself a product, she said, trade agreements would prevent a ban on exports."

This is a paraphrase, but the point is that water in situ is not a product. Packaged water is a product. We don't have to worry about "waking up to find the lakes don't belong to us anymore." (as Jim Olsen has been quoted as saying)

That's a bugaboo. And maybe the reason why people don't get your simple point is that the simple point keeps changing and that your argument is really nothing but special pleading.

When water is extracted, filtered, packaged, shipped, refrigerated, branded and advertized it is a value-added product and you can't stop the manufacturer from selling the product wherever s/he wants.

You control this through rational environmental legislation that limits extraction

The distinction you make between "making" something that's 90+% water by content and selling bottled water is false. The water is just an ingredient of bottled water--otherwise how do you explain the fact that people buy it at an enormous markup in spite of the ready availability of cheaper alternatives? There must be something else of importance there--temperature, packaging, convenient location, psychological rewards, whatever--or they wouldn't spend the extra money buying it.

Looking at each bottled water export as a small "Nova Group plan" is moronic. Bottled water is a product much along the lines of any other soft drink and ought to be regulated as a soft drink. It isn't a harbinger of the apocalypse.

You guys will just say anything to get yours back from Nestle. Why should anyone listen?

The comments to this entry are closed.