It has passed a few years since Fiji Water He launched a very questionable campaign that announced more or less like this: “The label says Fiji because it is not bottled in Cleveland“. The city of Ohio did not like being the target and in response he made some tests, from which the obvious was discovered: the water of the Cleveland tap is better than the bottle water of the Fiji.
The analysis was entrusted to the independent CWM laboratory in Cleveland, certified by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). The experts felt the presence of lead, copper, bacteria and nitrates both in the municipal water and in the bottle waters of Aquafina, Dasani, Smart Water, Fiji and the Marche of the supermarkets in the area.
Those tests revealed unequivocally that the quality and flavor of the Fiji water were lower than those of tap water, while the costs were disconcerting.
The origins of the Fiji water
In 1996, the Canadian David Gilmour began to pack the Fiji water in his company Natural Waters of Viti Ltd. A company based in Los Angeles, California, and certainly not in the Fiji.
The water came from an artesian aquifer located in Viti Levu, one of the largest islands of the Fiji.
In 2006, the controversy broke out when Gilmour’s company decided to launch an advertisement that claimed that this particular water is labeled like Fiji because it is not bottled in Cleveland, letting its natural superiority understand.
The Department of Water of Cleveland, however, felt rightly targeted and launched a test. He then established to compare Cleveland tap water with the Fiji water.
The results of the tests
The results revealed that all the samples, including those of tap water, were compliant with the strict standards of the APA, with levels of any contaminants well below the allowed limits. But there is a but: from the exams that emerged that a glass of water from the fiji is of lower quality, it loses taste compared to the rubet water of Cleveland e It costs thousands of times more.
During the test some parents were also involved who, interviewed, declared to prefer the bottle water in the first instance, supporting the perception they had of one greater safetyespecially in delicate situations such as pregnancy. However, the analysis also highlighted a substantial difference in costs: a significant disparity, especially for large families.
This story is the demonstration that When comparing bottled water and tap water It must be assumed that in many respects the packaged water is less regulated and that the bottling companies aim only to satisfy consumer request, which is to be sure. But those who would buy a less sustainable, less tasty product and more expensive At the expense of the same product that is free in the kitchen?
In short, the comparison between Cleveland’s water of Cleveland and the bottle of Fiji shows that the choice of tap water is the safest, cheaper and sustainable, net of a few rare exceptions. Beyond the advertising campaigns, the data are clear: drinking tap water not only saves, but also guarantees a high quality standard.
