Bottled Water and the Overflowing Nanny State 38%

By AJ Fluehr69%

2/17/2009, 4:12:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias and Appeal to Emotion, with Straw Man as the most egregious example at 14.5% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 178 faulty-reasoning hits from 498 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.5% and a BS Rank of 38% (9,190 of 14,612 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.90% of the article peer group.

February 17, 2009 11:12 AM ET 
For the past couple decades, bottled water had been growing in popularity as an environmentally preferred choice and as a healthy beverage alternative. 
Yet in recent years, environmental activists have begun attacking its value and quality. 
The activists’ claims do not hold water, yet, based on those claims, they are promoting bans, taxes,and regulations on bottled water—taking the Nanny State to a whole new level. 
The following analysis counters this “new wisdom,” questioning the justifications for this new assault on consumer freedom. 
Some key facts include: 
Bottled water regulation is at least as stringent as tap water regulation. 
Under federal law the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must pass bottled water regulations that are “no less stringent” than Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. 
The law does not allow the FDA to set standards that produce a lower quality product. 
As a result, FDA regulations mirror EPA regulations very closely and are more stringent in some respects because FDA applies additional food, packaging, and labeling regulations. 
Bottled water is substantially different from tap. 
About 75 percent of bottled water is from sources other than municipal systems such as springs or underground sources. 
Much of the bottled municipal water under goes additional purification treatments to produce a higher quality product that must meet FDA bottled water quality standards, packaging, and labeling mandates. 
In terms of safety, tap water has more documented health-related case reports compared to bottled water. 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends bottled water for individuals with compromised immune systems to reduce the risks associated with tap water. 
Bottled water containers are a tiny fraction of the solid waste stream. 
Many people have turned to bottled water to replace other portable drinks containing sugar and calories, producing little increase in total waste. 
In any case, single-serving plastic water bottles amount to just 0.3 percent of the nation’s solid waste. 
Bottles used in water coolers are recycled at high rates and have even less impact on landfill waste. 
Taxing and banning either type of container will not matter much in terms of overall waste. 
Plastic bottles are safe for consumers. 
The chemicals which environmental activists suggest are a problem are not even used in the PET plastic used for single-serving water bottles. 
Bisphenol A, a chemical found in large five-gallon water cooler jugs and other food containers exists at such low trace levels that there have been no reported health problems and the FDA, along with several scientific organizations around the world, have not found any problem with this substance. 
The public has freely turned to bottled water as an alternative to drinks with calories, for convenience, freshness, and whatever other reasons they themselves find worthy. 
Misinformation spread by activists should not determine who can access this product. 
People who do not like the product can make their own choices. 
They should not have any right to make them for the rest of us. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
14.5%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
9.2%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
12%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

498 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.8%attributed speech474writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
0%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech15% writer coverage
Politically Right Leaning Bias-12.7 pts
Writer 13%Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.