OPINION: Forever thirsty
Photo By Anna Kebe/The Chameleon. A water bottle refill station is located in Simpson Hall for students to fill up their resuable water bottles.
By Erika Vigen
Chameleon Staff Writer
USGA has been trying to ban the sale of plastic water bottles on campus.
Despite what a large majority of students seem to think, I believe this is a stupid idea. I know that legislation was already passed last semester and is now waiting for administration to enforce the ban, but this cannot happen without support of student votes on March 27 and 28.
I’m crossing my fingers that these votes won’t support the ban so that administration cannot enforce it. With these dates approaching, I want the student body to know why I think this legislation should not be passed.
This ban is big news at Loyola. I have heard discussions about it at my job on campus. Many students support the ban because bottled water is “bad for the environment.”
The Phoenix quoted Dr. Robert Kelly, the vice president for student development, saying, “The ban is very much in line with our principles and our commitment to issues of ecology and sustainability.”
I’m sorry to inform you, but plastic water bottles are the same as pop bottles, juice bottles, and everything else that comes in some sort of plastic or glass container that is sold on campus. No one is moving to ban these!
That is not a suggestion, by the way.
I also don’t understand how banning bottled water fits into Loyola’s core values, because the “green” initiative isn’t in full effect here since not all plastic will be banned.
The other argument I’ve heard is that we are taking clean water from the third world countries to bottle it up and sell it here in the United States. Okay, can someone tell me where this information is coming from?
I literally looked through the first five pages of Google search and found nothing proving this. Maybe if someone showed me a legitimate source with this fact, I would MAYBE change my mind.
With this being said, it will be highly inconvenient for those students (like myself) who aren’t “green” or “environmentally friendly.” I don’t want to go out and buy a $30 filtered water bottle because, quite honestly, the tap water in Chicago is not the best I’ve ever tasted.
I know filtered water is better for you, but I still don’t care.
I also find water fountains revolting. Excuse me, how many mouths have been in/around that thing? It’s a breeding ground for germs.
And, yes, I’ve heard about the many water bottle refill stations. However, I’ve only seen them in Simpson Hall (maybe because I haven’t been looking for them) and, again, that would require a reusable water bottle.
I don’t even own one, because I take advantage of the ability to buy water in a recycled plastic bottle.
I’m going to attack this from a liberal standpoint: the government is desperately trying to control what we Americans consume nowadays.
I don’t know about you fellow students, but if bottled water was banned on campus, I would never drink it and neither would the people I eat lunch with regularly. I’d drink soda or other sugary drinks everyday for lunch instead.
Michelle Obama would faint at that statement.
I don’t agree with the regulation, but I do want healthy options.
Also, I want my right to buy bottled water if I please. I pay tuition at Loyola; I want to be able to do as I please.
I won’t be the only person to forget to bring my water bottle to class on any given day. Half of the time, I forget to bring a plastic water bottle from my fridge. What if I went to Halas and forgot to fill a bottle up on my way out? I’ve done this before. It would be nice to be able to visit the on-campus café or vending machine to grab a bottle AND use my meal plan, declining balance, or Rambler Bucks instead of going all the way to CVS or 7-Eleven.
Most importantly, I would also like to enjoy my right to be environmentally un-friendly. Was the recycling campaign not working or something? It’s almost unfair of Loyola to ask all of their students not to buy bottled water just because organizations or students think that it’s wrong and destroying our environment. Some of us actually think it’s doing no harm.
To contact Erika Vigen, email her at evigen@luc.edu.
Loading ...
Although the Uncap LUC campaign to end the sale of bottled water is being spearheaded by the Student Environmental Alliance with substantial help from the Center for Urban Environmental Research and Policy (CUERP) and the Solutions to Environmental Problems (STEP) Class, the ban is not environmentally focused. While the buildup of plastic bottles in landfills is a concern because not everyone recycles them (even though we have a great recycling program), that is not the reasoning behind the Uncap LUC campaign.
It is about what’s in the bottle, not the bottle itself. Bottled water companies, by selling water, are commodifying a public good and a resource that the United Nations recently declared a basic human right. Bottled water companies take away water access from communities, not all of which are in third world countries. There have been instances of bottled water companies denying communities access to water in Bolivia and India, but also in Michigan and Maine, right here in the US (the documentaries Tapped, Flow, and Blue Gold highlight some of these cases). As water is a basic human right, it is out of line with all of our values as a university committed to justice to sell a product that deprives people of a basic resource.
As far as consumer rights are concerned, there are four aspects to those rights. The right to choose the good to consume, the right to a safe product, the right to fully disclosed information about that product, and the right to have one’s opinions heard by the producer in question (John F. Kennedy, Consumer Bill of Rights, 1962). Bottled water companies do not disclose where they bottle their water from or if it’s contaminated (in some instances, bottled water does not even have to go through the FDA for safety checks), and there are numerous instances in which consumers have asked bottled water companies to change the way they do things, and the bottled water companies have refused. In large part, the “consumer rights” argument is invalid concerning this ban. Also, if a student forgets his/her reusable bottle and buys pop or unhealthy drinks, that is the student’s choice.
There is a water refill station in Simpson, but there are more in the IC, Flanner Hall, Mundelein, Dumbach, and Mertz (just to name a few). We are in the process of making sure there is at least one refill station in every building; we would not want any students to go thirsty.
Chicago tap water is some of the best in the world, it is monitored and checked multiple times every day, and the records are required to be publicly available. And it’s basically free. To drink bottled water, the price of which has been raised almost 1000%, when tap water is far less expensive and of better quality, is ludicrous.
Bottled water is not just an environmental concern. It is a social justice issue, economic issue, and political issue as well. Because when it comes down to it, everyone needs water, and there is no part of our lives it does not touch.
I hope I addressed all your concerns. If you have any others, feel free to email me. Happy World Water Day!
I have a few words to repute your argument that it is unfair for bottled water companies to make money/profit off of, well, the sale of bottled water: capitalism and free market economy.
I agree with you on the rights of the consumer but the consumer also has a right to choose what they buy! So be it if a few of us want to continue to buy bottled water. I myself very much enjoy this right. And as far as forgetting my water bottle? It doesn’t matter whether or not I choose to buy the unhealthy drinks or not, I WANT the choice to buy bottled water if I please. This movement is just taking away the freedom and RIGHT of consumer choice.
Tap water isn’t free either, and I don’t understand where this idea is coming from.
I accidentally hit submit before I was finished.
Now back to the capitalism and free market economy: if companies wish to bottle and sell water, it is their freedom and right to do so. This is what this country was based off of. The government (in this case, Loyola) needs to back off. These companies are obviously making great profit off of the sale of bottled water, so let them continue it. It is not Loyola’s place to start telling their suppliers what they can and cannot sell on campus, with exceptions of a few things. Furthermore, how are other companies allowed to significantly raise the prices of other human needs like clothing, hygiene projects, and other food items? They’re not under attack…yet. Bottled water is no exception to this.
Also, can someone please tell me where this social justice issue is coming into play? I cannot find ANY information or reliable, objective sources confirming this. Bottled water is not taking water away from communities any more than tap water is. Whether people are drinking tap or bottled water, they are consuming the same amount of it. Both types of water are consumed to the point of no return, right?
Lastly, I can not reiterate enough how this is taking away consumers’ rights and freedom to buy whatever they chose to. Loyola would be taking away or limiting a basic human right if they STOPPED the sale of bottled water on campus because, as I’ve said before, not everyone is excited about carrying a water bottle around. People still buy McDonald’s even though it’s bad for your health, like bottled water is claimed to be now. This issue of freedom is by far the most upsetting to me.
“The other argument I’ve heard is that we are taking clean water from the third world countries to bottle it up and sell it here in the United States. Okay, can someone tell me where this information is coming from?”
This information is coming from a wealth of scholarly articles, documentaries, human rights groups, etc. I would seriously suggest that you check out Tapped, Blue Gold, Flow, or even a public library if you want to know where the information is coming from. Scrolling through “the first five pages of Google search” hardly seems like a legitimate research process. To be honest, this article sounds more like casual, whiney verbatim than the well-thought-out opinion of a Staff Writer. Please check your facts next time.