History shows us repeatedly that any organization that exploits a basic human weakness or need for the sake of the love of money is bad, even evil. Those that do so without fear of condemnation, reprisal or being disciplined are either governmental creations or utilities. Conversely, those who market something with a real zeal to improve or simplify our lives, while causing no tangible harm to our fellow creatures or environment must be a front for something really sinister.
No. I frankly don't think either are "bad", if people are dumb enough to smoke than the tobacco companies deserve their money. The same goes for people that buy bottled water that is no better than tap water.
Absolutely not, companies that sell the nicotine delivery device known as cigarettes are legally killing people. Selling bottle water is nothing more than a non-lethal scam, especially in cities like New York where the water quality is better than or equal to some bottled waters.
People want convenience and that's what bottled water provides.
Water is clean, healthy, and vital for life. OK, plastic bottles aren't so eco-friendly, but the water manufacturers are improving the packaging as a result of the pressure and publicity.
Cigarettes, on the other hand, are dirty, unhealthy, and will kill you. not to mention the pollution from smoke, cigarette butts, and wrappers
If we think bottled water and cigarettes are both equally evil, we have have lost our perspective.
They are the same in that they cause 'environmental cancer' by producing millions and millions of plastic bottles that are polluting our environment. Bottled water companies bare responsibility to destroying to our planet in much the same way tobacco kills our fellow citizens. However, unlike tobacco, their impact can be minimized by the adoption of biodegradable technologies that are planet friendly.
No. They are not. The reason is simple. Tobacco companies know there is a very real health risk associated with their product and they know their product is addictive. Yet, they go to great pains to market to youth and employ a number of deceptive tactics to fool customers into thinking that the health risk is lower if you smoke 'light', 'low-tar', 'filtered', etc. cigarettes.
Selling bottled water is quite different for the following reason. The public makes their choice to buy bottled water based upon a 'perceived' notion that they are drinking something that is healthier, cleaner, fresher, etc., than what they are getting out of the tap. Many studies have shown beyond doubt that bottled water is not cleaner, safer than tap water... which is the source of 99.9% of bottlers. So what is the real issue related to bottled water? It is waste disposal. Not health. So what is the response to this? In a free market system, the consumer has the right to purchase whatever they want (legal products of course). If they feel that their tap water does not meet their safety, health and taste standards, they can mobilize to do something about it. If they are informed enough to understand the important issues related to landfills, then they can (and should) do something about it.
In many respects, the issue of waste and landfills are more important than the smoking issue. While it is taking time, smoking is banned in most public places. We are also seeing legislation which will not permit people smoking in their cars if there are children with them. In other words, smoking is a 'dying' issue (couldn't let that one go by).
Unfortunately, bottled water is a serious growing issue, for which the public doesn't seem to understand its consequences on our environment. I have not entered the world of shrinking aquafiers and what the popularity of bottled water is doing to them. We are rapidly nearing a major shortage of potable water. Misuse and abuse of our water will result in a brutal wake-up call for all of us. We can't treat our water as a commodity, but rather we should understand that our reckless and abusive use of water will soon be the number one issue we have to deal with. If you think people go to war for oil, wait until we get a shortage of water.
Hope my two cents was entertaining.
Tobacco is addicting. Water is still a necessity. I suppose you can say that they're not bad, but actually quite clever because they were able to market the product in such a way that they were able to charge exorbitant amounts for it. Especially when you can get it for free from the faucet.
This is a good question, but it begs the follow-up question, "Are people who buy bottled water killing the planet faster than people who buy tobacco are killing themselves?" Is it the company or the customer who's bad? Fast Company has always stood for the responsible and imaginative companies who add real value whether that value is economic or technological or ecological or social or even all of these at once, and its best articles have always been about inspiring successes and new ideas. The articles that demean the Fast Co spirit are the ones that sling mud and sit in judgement of what's Slow. Just my 2 cents.
I don't believe these two products can be truly logically, and sometimes even rationally compared. For one, I think they are quite different on the sole premise of the water being sold to be actually purified, and worth the money spent. I think, if anything, the main difference lies in that tobacco has a huge stigma attached to it being the worst of all legal products sold in the world. To some, water is water is water, to some tobacco is nothing but a smoke lacking the ideal of the slow, self-imposed suicide. So, they may be similar, but I'm thinking in terms of a public profile here - bottled water vs. tobacco - they are not.
It's a different effect. Tobacco primarily hurts the user, with secondary effects for others, in terms of shared smoke and costs of health care. Bottled water is a good thing for the user - convenient, refreshing - but has terrible effects on the environment.
Another interesting question is to compare companies selling soft drinks and those selling bottled water.
Whoa! ...or companies that sell lead-painted toys, or faulty autos that crash into things and kill people, or liquor companies that if you abuse their products can be very harmful...just tobacco and bottled water? Aren't we judgmental! drg
Tobacco smoke and empty bottles from the water both cause pollution and impose externalities on hapless citizens.Clean Water is a birthright of every citizen so why have this cost added for survival. TObacco is for the survival of the companies and not humans. So water need not be paid for bit tobacco consumption must be taxed - polluter should pay.
= Dr M S Mamik
The bottles from bottled water CAN be recycled if the consumer chooses to. So who is at fault here? The consumer or the corporation? Seems to me that since the choice is in the hands of the consumer, then the choice to pollute our landfills with the water bottles is the choice of the consumer.
In America, we have the good fortune of having readily clean and available water at our tap, but some of us choose to purchase water of slightly higher quality (I myself buy a case of water and use the bottle over and over again by filling them at the tap after I finish the bottled water inside.) A case lasts me about 3 months this way.
The bottled water companies saw a need/want in the marketplace and fulfilled it. The market system has worked it's magic. Sometimes it works for something that an individual doesn't care for, sometimes it does. But in the long run, if enough people want something, the marketplace will respond.
No. You cannot blame the companies. It is the feeble consumers who buy bottled water who are in the dock. In most of the western world tap water is fine for drinking and much better for the environment. People who needlessly buy bottled water are silly.
It depends a hell of a lot on geography. In many western countries where the natural rainwater and spring water come from untainted supplies it seems an indulgence to buy bottled water but in some parts of Asia bottled water is a health decision. There is nothing I like better than going back to Oz where I grew up, to visit, and drinking water straight out of the tap.
Tobacco and bottled water are definitely not on the same scale at all. It's like comparing an apple and a cupboard --- Whaaaat?? Besides that, what interests me are the 'water should be free' and 'water is the right of every citizen' brigades. If water is basic right, what about food? housing? clothing? transport? They should all be 'rights'? somebody should provide them to us for free? (hmmmmm .. communism?)
Very provoking question...the answer is moderation. Neither is bad if consumed in moderation...but then there's the physiological addiction part that puts tobacco over the edge.
Sometimes with water around here it is either tasting like chlorine or funky, I have a preference to bottled water. At least with bottled water you can grab the bottle and go. I have a tendency to drink a lot more water that way than tap.
The problem is not that much with offer, it is with demand. Bottled water is a recent craze. Up until very recently, people lived very well without it. Can't we just drop that habit? I certainly did.
This could go on for some time. I think the very thought of good design suggests that it would also be a good product. Good design should be usful, well thought out to manufature (ie economical, good use of resources, low inviromental impact etc) and it should be beutiful. The Eames wooden splint is a great example look it up
Cheers
I've never known of bottled water to cause cancer but I do know from experience poor quality unbottled water can cause a myriad of illnesses. Perhaps the emphasis should be on fraudulent claims by the bottling companies. Not to mention the waste generated by the empty bottles themselves. Good question.
I don't think that judgments like this are necessary. We can find fault with anone/anything. Why cast stones? Why not look at what is good about them? If people don't like bottled water or its effects, don't buy it. If you don't like tobacco, don't buy it.
No. That's ridiculous. There's nothing more wrong with bottled water than any other bottled beverage or packaged food that requires shipment. There are local alternatives for all food and beverage choices and unless and until we impose restrictions on shipping packaged food as a society (via regulations or tarrifs), the bottled water companies are blameless. It's consumers and the government who need to take the rap here. Unlike the tobacco companies, whofor decades systematically hid and obfuscated evidence about the harmfulness of tobacco.
I don't think bottled water is as bad as tobacco. It is an indictment of our collective laziness. Give credit to manufacturers for making billions of dollars on an inferior product than what is available through our taps for a fraction of the cost. The environmental impact of manufacturing and logistics for this inferior product is a long-term evil that should be addressed.
I think you cannot compare apples and oranges. Proper use of Plastic bottles do not create cancer. However, tobacco has many ills and one of them is cancer and this has been proven time and time again, but there is little legislative support anywhere in the world because the tax benefits are enormous for the governments of the world to look elsewhere.
A recent interesting twist... here in the Southeast US we are having a drought that could bring Atlanta to its knees. Atlanta is the world HQ of Coke, a company that bottles and sells tap water under the name Dasani.
I was complaining about the use of it at a recent conference on global warming, and someone pointed out that we're having a drought, hence the avoidance of using local tap water. So it makes sense to bottle and ship water to places in drought from places with water.
But my question for Coke is- are their Southeastern US plants sourcing water locally, or importing it (albeit with a larger carbon footprint) from places with more water? In the developing world, it's a different story. Until the infrastructure is there, sometimes bottled water is the only way to avoid illness.
I have an idea where people who want to "be something" actually do some thing as opposed to talking about being something- do nothing and want their names in the papers because they are something.
I heard a speech by Vandana Shiva about the situation in India. She was saying how there's Coke factories in places in places that really can't spare the water resources. They don't care...
While the environmental impact of plastic bottles is in no way insignificant the consequences of that market pales in comparison to the impact of tobacco on a human scale and a financial impact scale;
First time visiting the site and finding the topics quite useful and relevant. Would like ot know more abt the organisaitons, NGOs, Corporates and training institutes involved in CSR related trainings and ready to network.
anil J
40 Total
January 25, 2008 at 9:53pm by Lisa Lepine
yes. they are contributing to global warming under the guise of health.
and selling us something that should be free.
January 25, 2008 at 11:17pm by Jack Netek
History shows us repeatedly that any organization that exploits a basic human weakness or need for the sake of the love of money is bad, even evil. Those that do so without fear of condemnation, reprisal or being disciplined are either governmental creations or utilities. Conversely, those who market something with a real zeal to improve or simplify our lives, while causing no tangible harm to our fellow creatures or environment must be a front for something really sinister.
January 26, 2008 at 6:35am by Judy Olson
They are definitely unethical. If everyone stops buying commercially bottled water that will end the problem. Next?
January 26, 2008 at 8:53am by Nick Reddin
No. I frankly don't think either are "bad", if people are dumb enough to smoke than the tobacco companies deserve their money. The same goes for people that buy bottled water that is no better than tap water.
January 26, 2008 at 11:47am by Harold Bolling
Absolutely not, companies that sell the nicotine delivery device known as cigarettes are legally killing people. Selling bottle water is nothing more than a non-lethal scam, especially in cities like New York where the water quality is better than or equal to some bottled waters.
People want convenience and that's what bottled water provides.
January 26, 2008 at 12:14pm by dheeraj verma
Not really
January 26, 2008 at 3:52pm by Jerry Brown
No! Are you kidding?
Water is clean, healthy, and vital for life. OK, plastic bottles aren't so eco-friendly, but the water manufacturers are improving the packaging as a result of the pressure and publicity.
Cigarettes, on the other hand, are dirty, unhealthy, and will kill you. not to mention the pollution from smoke, cigarette butts, and wrappers
If we think bottled water and cigarettes are both equally evil, we have have lost our perspective.
January 26, 2008 at 5:34pm by Michael Campbell
They are the same in that they cause 'environmental cancer' by producing millions and millions of plastic bottles that are polluting our environment. Bottled water companies bare responsibility to destroying to our planet in much the same way tobacco kills our fellow citizens. However, unlike tobacco, their impact can be minimized by the adoption of biodegradable technologies that are planet friendly.
January 26, 2008 at 10:55pm by Roger Allard
No. They are not. The reason is simple. Tobacco companies know there is a very real health risk associated with their product and they know their product is addictive. Yet, they go to great pains to market to youth and employ a number of deceptive tactics to fool customers into thinking that the health risk is lower if you smoke 'light', 'low-tar', 'filtered', etc. cigarettes.
Selling bottled water is quite different for the following reason. The public makes their choice to buy bottled water based upon a 'perceived' notion that they are drinking something that is healthier, cleaner, fresher, etc., than what they are getting out of the tap. Many studies have shown beyond doubt that bottled water is not cleaner, safer than tap water... which is the source of 99.9% of bottlers. So what is the real issue related to bottled water? It is waste disposal. Not health. So what is the response to this? In a free market system, the consumer has the right to purchase whatever they want (legal products of course). If they feel that their tap water does not meet their safety, health and taste standards, they can mobilize to do something about it. If they are informed enough to understand the important issues related to landfills, then they can (and should) do something about it.
In many respects, the issue of waste and landfills are more important than the smoking issue. While it is taking time, smoking is banned in most public places. We are also seeing legislation which will not permit people smoking in their cars if there are children with them. In other words, smoking is a 'dying' issue (couldn't let that one go by).
Unfortunately, bottled water is a serious growing issue, for which the public doesn't seem to understand its consequences on our environment. I have not entered the world of shrinking aquafiers and what the popularity of bottled water is doing to them. We are rapidly nearing a major shortage of potable water. Misuse and abuse of our water will result in a brutal wake-up call for all of us. We can't treat our water as a commodity, but rather we should understand that our reckless and abusive use of water will soon be the number one issue we have to deal with. If you think people go to war for oil, wait until we get a shortage of water.
Hope my two cents was entertaining.
Cheers.
Roger
January 26, 2008 at 11:03pm by Donna Pacheco
Tobacco is addicting. Water is still a necessity. I suppose you can say that they're not bad, but actually quite clever because they were able to market the product in such a way that they were able to charge exorbitant amounts for it. Especially when you can get it for free from the faucet.
January 27, 2008 at 1:36am by Bob Phair
This is a good question, but it begs the follow-up question, "Are people who buy bottled water killing the planet faster than people who buy tobacco are killing themselves?" Is it the company or the customer who's bad? Fast Company has always stood for the responsible and imaginative companies who add real value whether that value is economic or technological or ecological or social or even all of these at once, and its best articles have always been about inspiring successes and new ideas. The articles that demean the Fast Co spirit are the ones that sling mud and sit in judgement of what's Slow. Just my 2 cents.
January 27, 2008 at 7:36am by Lillian Moya
I don't believe these two products can be truly logically, and sometimes even rationally compared. For one, I think they are quite different on the sole premise of the water being sold to be actually purified, and worth the money spent. I think, if anything, the main difference lies in that tobacco has a huge stigma attached to it being the worst of all legal products sold in the world. To some, water is water is water, to some tobacco is nothing but a smoke lacking the ideal of the slow, self-imposed suicide. So, they may be similar, but I'm thinking in terms of a public profile here - bottled water vs. tobacco - they are not.
January 27, 2008 at 9:09am by Steve Yastrow
It's a different effect. Tobacco primarily hurts the user, with secondary effects for others, in terms of shared smoke and costs of health care. Bottled water is a good thing for the user - convenient, refreshing - but has terrible effects on the environment.
Another interesting question is to compare companies selling soft drinks and those selling bottled water.
January 27, 2008 at 11:27am by David Gilbert
Whoa! ...or companies that sell lead-painted toys, or faulty autos that crash into things and kill people, or liquor companies that if you abuse their products can be very harmful...just tobacco and bottled water? Aren't we judgmental! drg
January 27, 2008 at 2:28pm by Dr Mani Singh Mamik
Tobacco smoke and empty bottles from the water both cause pollution and impose externalities on hapless citizens.Clean Water is a birthright of every citizen so why have this cost added for survival. TObacco is for the survival of the companies and not humans. So water need not be paid for bit tobacco consumption must be taxed - polluter should pay.
= Dr M S Mamik
January 27, 2008 at 3:22pm by Patrick Clark
The bottles from bottled water CAN be recycled if the consumer chooses to. So who is at fault here? The consumer or the corporation? Seems to me that since the choice is in the hands of the consumer, then the choice to pollute our landfills with the water bottles is the choice of the consumer.
In America, we have the good fortune of having readily clean and available water at our tap, but some of us choose to purchase water of slightly higher quality (I myself buy a case of water and use the bottle over and over again by filling them at the tap after I finish the bottled water inside.) A case lasts me about 3 months this way.
The bottled water companies saw a need/want in the marketplace and fulfilled it. The market system has worked it's magic. Sometimes it works for something that an individual doesn't care for, sometimes it does. But in the long run, if enough people want something, the marketplace will respond.
January 27, 2008 at 3:30pm by paul sloane
No. You cannot blame the companies. It is the feeble consumers who buy bottled water who are in the dock. In most of the western world tap water is fine for drinking and much better for the environment. People who needlessly buy bottled water are silly.
January 27, 2008 at 11:56pm by eric fader
Potentially from an environmental perspective
January 28, 2008 at 1:34am by Tony Kelly
It depends a hell of a lot on geography. In many western countries where the natural rainwater and spring water come from untainted supplies it seems an indulgence to buy bottled water but in some parts of Asia bottled water is a health decision. There is nothing I like better than going back to Oz where I grew up, to visit, and drinking water straight out of the tap.
January 28, 2008 at 3:08am by Alex Arul
Tobacco and bottled water are definitely not on the same scale at all. It's like comparing an apple and a cupboard --- Whaaaat?? Besides that, what interests me are the 'water should be free' and 'water is the right of every citizen' brigades. If water is basic right, what about food? housing? clothing? transport? They should all be 'rights'? somebody should provide them to us for free? (hmmmmm .. communism?)
January 28, 2008 at 12:05pm by justin hazzard
Very provoking question...the answer is moderation. Neither is bad if consumed in moderation...but then there's the physiological addiction part that puts tobacco over the edge.
January 28, 2008 at 12:30pm by Tim Tymchyshyn
I don't know do they put in extra H to get us addicted too?
January 28, 2008 at 1:03pm by Deb Hellman
Sometimes with water around here it is either tasting like chlorine or funky, I have a preference to bottled water. At least with bottled water you can grab the bottle and go. I have a tendency to drink a lot more water that way than tap.
January 29, 2008 at 6:22am by Risto Päärni
before invention of sustainable water bottles.
January 29, 2008 at 8:54am by matt mcgowan
I don't think so - that said, the price on a bottle of water is outrageous.
January 29, 2008 at 10:10am by David Utter
No. How many people will get lung cancer from secondhand water drinking?
January 29, 2008 at 11:37am by Frank Watson
Hardly... bottled water is not going to kill you.
January 29, 2008 at 5:05pm by Jean-Michel Ghoussoub
The problem is not that much with offer, it is with demand. Bottled water is a recent craze. Up until very recently, people lived very well without it. Can't we just drop that habit? I certainly did.
January 29, 2008 at 5:30pm by Kevin Dunal
This could go on for some time. I think the very thought of good design suggests that it would also be a good product. Good design should be usful, well thought out to manufature (ie economical, good use of resources, low inviromental impact etc) and it should be beutiful. The Eames wooden splint is a great example look it up
Cheers
January 29, 2008 at 8:21pm by marcelo cruz
I've never known of bottled water to cause cancer but I do know from experience poor quality unbottled water can cause a myriad of illnesses. Perhaps the emphasis should be on fraudulent claims by the bottling companies. Not to mention the waste generated by the empty bottles themselves. Good question.
January 31, 2008 at 1:14pm by Rick Feltenberger
I don't think that judgments like this are necessary. We can find fault with anone/anything. Why cast stones? Why not look at what is good about them? If people don't like bottled water or its effects, don't buy it. If you don't like tobacco, don't buy it.
February 2, 2008 at 11:48am by Edward Sussman
No. That's ridiculous. There's nothing more wrong with bottled water than any other bottled beverage or packaged food that requires shipment. There are local alternatives for all food and beverage choices and unless and until we impose restrictions on shipping packaged food as a society (via regulations or tarrifs), the bottled water companies are blameless. It's consumers and the government who need to take the rap here. Unlike the tobacco companies, whofor decades systematically hid and obfuscated evidence about the harmfulness of tobacco.
February 8, 2008 at 11:39pm by Shaun Bala
I don't think bottled water is as bad as tobacco. It is an indictment of our collective laziness. Give credit to manufacturers for making billions of dollars on an inferior product than what is available through our taps for a fraction of the cost. The environmental impact of manufacturing and logistics for this inferior product is a long-term evil that should be addressed.
February 10, 2008 at 6:50am by Ziaur Rahman
I think you cannot compare apples and oranges. Proper use of Plastic bottles do not create cancer. However, tobacco has many ills and one of them is cancer and this has been proven time and time again, but there is little legislative support anywhere in the world because the tax benefits are enormous for the governments of the world to look elsewhere.
Ziaur Rahman
luckytoaccess@gmail.com
IITM, Dhaka
February 14, 2008 at 12:50pm by Andrea Tanguay
it depends on the source and authenticity of the bottled water.
February 18, 2008 at 1:14pm by Susanna Schick
A recent interesting twist... here in the Southeast US we are having a drought that could bring Atlanta to its knees. Atlanta is the world HQ of Coke, a company that bottles and sells tap water under the name Dasani.
I was complaining about the use of it at a recent conference on global warming, and someone pointed out that we're having a drought, hence the avoidance of using local tap water. So it makes sense to bottle and ship water to places in drought from places with water.
But my question for Coke is- are their Southeastern US plants sourcing water locally, or importing it (albeit with a larger carbon footprint) from places with more water? In the developing world, it's a different story. Until the infrastructure is there, sometimes bottled water is the only way to avoid illness.
February 18, 2008 at 9:48pm by Nate Bombeck
I have an idea where people who want to "be something" actually do some thing as opposed to talking about being something- do nothing and want their names in the papers because they are something.
February 19, 2008 at 10:46am by Robert Bass
@Susanna Schick
I heard a speech by Vandana Shiva about the situation in India. She was saying how there's Coke factories in places in places that really can't spare the water resources. They don't care...
February 19, 2008 at 10:32pm by Brian McLaughlin
While the environmental impact of plastic bottles is in no way insignificant the consequences of that market pales in comparison to the impact of tobacco on a human scale and a financial impact scale;
February 23, 2008 at 2:38am by Anil Jaggi
First time visiting the site and finding the topics quite useful and relevant. Would like ot know more abt the organisaitons, NGOs, Corporates and training institutes involved in CSR related trainings and ready to network.
anil J