I’d love to see a warning label on products “Contains microplastics that may increase risk of health problems” similar to cigarette warnings.
tap water: because you're out and about and didn't have the foresight or didn't want to bring a bottle with you, so you buy a bottle on site and drink from that. I doubt many people are buying bottled water to drink at home.
sugar water: because people like the taste of sugar water, and plastic bottles is the best way to deliver said carbonated sugar water to the consumer.
>I’d love to see a warning label on products “Contains microplastics that may increase risk of health problems” similar to cigarette warnings.
The fact that bottled water contains a wide array of microplastics, some of which aren't used in single use beverage bottles, makes me think the microplastics are coming from the water supply, rather than from the plastic bottle itself. If that's the case, you'd need to add a warning for tap water as well, as well as every sort of food that is made using tap water (probably every food ever). That'd just lead to a prop 65 situation[1] where everything has that warning and it gets tuned out.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65
Boy, do I have some bad news for you.
Then replace the single-use bottles with reusable ones like stores have done with bags.
>plastic bottles is the best way to deliver
Soda fountains, cans, at-home carbonation are all just as good if not better.
>microplastics are coming from the water supply
What? Water does not naturally contain microplastics. The microplastics come from plastic, not from water.
Why do you have such an interest in defending the bottle beverage industry?
What realistically happens is that we end up with thicker "reusable" bottles that end only being used once. This is basically what happened in cities that banned single use plastic takeout containers. Restaurants replaced them with "reusable" containers (think the plastic ones used for mealprep), that end up being chucked after a single use. The whole situation is worse than before because the "reusable" containers use more plastic and therefore have a larger ecological footprint than the thinner/disposable ones.
>Soda fountains
Most restaurants do have them, for cost reasons. However, they're not really feasible for small scale operations (eg. food trucks) and/or remote areas.
>cans
They're not recloseable, which presents a big problem for large portion sizes. Also they don't seem to be available in sizes larger than 12oz for carbonated drinks (maybe they don't scale well?).
> at-home carbonation are all just as good if not better.
They're only really economical if you're a frequent drinker. Otherwise it will take forever for you to recoup the cost of the unit. There are other issues with it as well. The syrup for those aren't "name brand", which puts off some people. Also, IME you lose quite a bit of fizz when mixing the syrup with the carbonated water (they tell you to carbonate the water first, then add the syrup).
>What? Water does not naturally contain microplastics. The microplastics come from plastic, not from water.
Water might not "naturally contain microplastics" in the sense that they didn't contain microplastics a few hundred years ago, but nowadays microplastics are everywhere to the extent that you can assume almost everything contains microplastic. From the article:
"Microplastics in bottled water may affect the health of millions of people, and they show their presence worldwide. Before, experts detected their prevalence in the world’s oceans, where more than five trillion pieces of plastics swim about"
see also: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/micro...
>Why do you have such an interest in defending the bottle beverage industry?
Why do you have such an interest in questioning other commenter's motivations?
You’re arguing for a status quo that needs radical change in the face of looming ecological disaster. No one else commenting defending microplastics like you are here talking like this is all okay. What is there to gain by this?
>No one else commenting defending microplastics like you are here talking like this is all okay.
I'm really not. In the comment you replied to, I pointed out:
1. why people why might buy bottled water/sugar water
2. why microplastic warning labels on bottled water might be flawed
The first is a explanation of why people drink bottled water, and isn't a defense of anything. I suppose the latter is "arguing for a status quo" in the sense that it's a suggestion to move away from the status quo, and I oppose it, but you need to have a really polarized worldview to think that opposing a policy suggestion because it's bad means I think "this is all okay", or that I'm a shill for the opposite side (as your thinly veiled comments imply). For instance, if someone's suggesting that we solve the housing crisis in the US by giving everybody $1M, and I argue against that by pointing out that giving $1M in helicopter money might be a bad idea, it doesn't mean I think the housing situation "is all okay", nor does it mean I'm a shill for landlords.
No offence meant but you're really out of touch here.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/973987/us-consumer-behav...
Even the best tap water likely flows through miles of plastic pipe before it reaches your home.