Chris J Ratcliffe / Getty Images
By Julie Wilson
It's great when consumers take responsibility for using less plastic, and for cleaning up plastic waste in their communities.
<p>But wouldn't it be better if the corporations that put all that plastic into the marketplace and environment had to take responsibility for cleaning it up?</p>
<p>Plastic waste — most of it from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/13/waste-plastic-food-packaging-recycling-throwaway-culture-dave-hall" target="_blank">single-use</a> processed food and drink packaging — contaminates our <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a>, soil, air and waterways, including the deepest parts of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/oceans/" rel="noopener noreferrer">ocean</a>.</p><p>The Break Free From Plastic Act of 2020 aims to curb plastics pollution by shifting the responsibility from consumers to the companies that produce plastic. </p><p>The bill, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/business/recycling-law.html" target="_blank">introduced</a> by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), would hold <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90425011/coca-cola-nestle-and-pepsico-are-the-worlds-biggest-plastic-polluters-again" target="_blank">major plastic polluters</a>, such as Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, accountable for their pollution by requiring them to finance waste and recycling programs.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/federal-break-free-from-plastic-pollution-act-introduced" target="_blank">Break Free From Plastic Act</a> would also place an all-out ban on certain single-use plastics that are non-recyclable, and prohibit plastic waste from being shipped overseas to developing countries.</p>
<p>Plastic pollution is so <a href="https://www.weforum.org/press/2016/01/more-plastic-than-fish-in-the-ocean-by-2050-report-offers-blueprint-for-change/" target="_blank">rampant</a> in our oceans that scientists predict the sea will contain more plastic than fish by the year 2050. It also <a href="https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/plastic-planet-how-tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-soil" target="_blank">pollutes soil</a> and freshwater.</p><p>Tiny bits of plastic or <a href="http://ecowatch.com/tag/microplastics">microplastic</a> are contaminating humans, too. The average person eats at least 50,000 particles of microplastic each year — and we inhale a similar amount — <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/people-eat-at-least-50000-plastic-particles-a-year-study-finds" target="_blank">studies</a> show.</p><p>Consumers should shop responsibly, sure. But it's time we held the biggest plastic polluters responsible for the damage they cause to the environment and human health.</p>
<p class=""><em>Find out more about the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act <a href="https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/17377/action/1" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Here</a>.</em></p><p><em>Julie Wilson is communications associate for the <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a> (OCA). To keep up with OCA news and alerts, <a href="https://advocacy.organicconsumers.org/page/5554/subscribe/1" target="_blank">sign up for their newsletter</a>.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from the <a href="https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/what-if-nestle-and-coke-had-clean-their-own-plastic-pollution" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- The Story of Plastic: New Film Exposes the Source of Our Plastic ... ›
- Coke and Pepsi Are The World's Top Consumer Plastic Polluters ... ›
- Coca-Cola Says It Won't Break Free From Plastic Bottles - EcoWatch ›
- 10 Worst Plastic Polluting Companies Found by Global Cleanups ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Coca-Cola says it will not phase out its plastic bottles. Roberto Machado Noa / LightRocket / Getty Images
Despite its status as the world's No. 1 corporate plastic polluter, Coca-Cola won't be phasing out its single-use plastic bottles anytime soon.
<p>The reason? Customers like them too much, the company's head of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sustainability" target="_self">sustainability</a> Bea Perez told <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51197463" target="_blank">BBC News</a> at the World Economic Forum in Davos Tuesday. Perez said that customers value the bottles because they are lightweight and easily reseal, and argued that getting rid of them would hurt sales.</p><p>"Business won't be in business if we don't accommodate consumers," she said.</p><p>Instead, the company plans to focus on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/recycling" target="_self">recycling</a>. It has promised to recycle as many bottles as it uses by 2030, to use 50 percent recycled materials in packaging by that date and to work with nonprofits to better collect its waste.</p><p>"So as we change our bottling infrastructure, move into recycling and innovate, we also have to show the consumer what the opportunities are. They will change with us," Perez said.</p><p>However, environmental groups have argued that recycling is not the most effective solution to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a> crisis. In a statement emailed to EcoWatch, <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/" target="_blank">Greenpeace USA</a> Plastics Campaigner Kate Melges explained exactly what she thought was wrong with Perez's reasoning:</p>
<blockquote>It is mighty convenient for the world's worst plastic polluter to insist that people want their single-use plastic around. Coca-Cola continues to show how out of touch it is with the environmental crises communities around the world are facing. The solution is not to simply swap one throwaway material for another or continue to fall back on recycling. The solution is for Coca-Cola and other consumer goods giants to fundamentally rethink how they're bringing products to people, centering systems of reuse and package-free options. We cannot afford the levels of inaction that Coke has shown thus far. Soon, the company will realize just how sick and tired people are of its plastic addiction.<br><br>As long as companies like Coke keep pushing the myth that their bottles are being turned into new bottles over and over again, we are never going to solve the plastic pollution crisis. In the U.S., only 29 percent of plastic bottles are collected for recycling, and almost none of that is being made back into bottles. Instead, Coke's plastic bottles are being made from fossil fuels, which is a fact they'd rather not talk about.</blockquote><p>Coca-Cola currently produces around three million tonnes (approximately 3.3 million U.S. tons) of plastic packaging every year, according to BBC News. That comes to 200,000 bottles a minute. And currently, many of those bottles are not getting recycled.</p><p>For two years in a row, the <a href="https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/" target="_blank">Break Free From Plastic</a> movement <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coke-pepsi-plastic-polluters-2641090767.html" target="_self">found</a> Coca-Cola to be the brand best represented among the world's plastic waste. Their most recent October 2019 <a href="https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2019/" target="_blank">report</a>, based on litter collected in 484 cleanups in more than 50 countries and on six continents, found that Coca-Cola left more waste than the next three companies on the list ― Nestle, Pepsi and snack-maker Mondelez ― put together.</p><p>Worldwide, people use <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/recycling-plastic-reality-2615116844.html" target="_self">one million plastic bottles every minute</a>, and 91 percent of them are not recycled. Some of that unrecycled waste joins the more than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/8-million-metric-tons-of-plastic-dumped-into-worlds-oceans-each-year-1882012563.html" target="_self">eight million metric tons of plastic</a> dumped into the world's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oceans" target="_self">oceans</a> every year, threatening <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine life</a>.</p><p>"[C]orporations urgently need to do more to address the plastic pollution crisis they've created," Von Hernandez, global coordinator of the Break Free From Plastic movement, said in October. "Their continued reliance on single-use plastic packaging translates to pumping more throwaway plastic into the environment. Recycling is not going to solve this problem."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- How Coca-Cola and Climate Change Created a Public Health Crisis ... ›
- Greenpeace Slams Coca-Cola Plastic Announcement as 'Dodging ... ›
- Coca-Cola Produced More Than 110 Billion Plastic Bottles Last Year ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Nestlé is accelerating its efforts to bring functional, safe and environmentally friendly packaging solutions to the market and to address the global challenge of plastic packaging waste. Nestlé / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Nestlé, the world's largest food company, said it will invest up to $2 billion to address the plastic waste crisis that it is largely responsible for.
<p>The Swiss-based food giant said in a <a href="https://www.nestle.com/csv/global-initiatives/zero-environmental-impact/packaging-plastic-pollution" target="_blank">statement</a> yesterday that it will invest in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/technology" rel="noopener noreferrer">technology</a> to source more recycled plastic for packaging its products and it will reduce its use of new plastics by one third in the next five years, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nestle-environment/nestle-to-invest-billions-to-boost-use-of-recycled-plastics-idUSKBN1ZF0QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported. </p>
<p>The food and beverage giant, which packages most of its food and bottles with plastic, is regularly criticized for being one of the top plastic polluters in the world. In recognition of the plastic waste crisis, the company has vowed to make all of its packaging 100 percent recyclable by 2025, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nestle-environment/nestle-to-invest-billions-to-boost-use-of-recycled-plastics-idUSKBN1ZF0QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>"We are high up on the list because we are one of the largest companies out there in packaged goods and now we're also taking pretty big steps in using our size to actually solve the problem," said Chief Executive Mark Schneider to journalists, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nestle-environment/nestle-to-invest-billions-to-boost-use-of-recycled-plastics-idUSKBN1ZF0QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p>
<p>However, just because something is recyclable does not mean that it gets recycled. As <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Guardian</a> noted, only nine percent of recyclable plastic actually gets recycled. The market for recyclable plastic has dried up as a number of developing countries have refused to accept more plastic from Western countries. Furthermore, companies will say a product is recyclable when they know it isn't, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/opinion/recycling-myths.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported. </p>
<p>For its part, Nestlé will invest a considerable amount of money in making recycled plastic food-safe. The company will also pay market rate for recycled plastic as a way to incentivize manufacturers to produce recycled products suitable for packaging food, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Making recycled plastics safe for food is an enormous challenge for our industry," said Schneider, in a statement, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. "That is why in addition to minimizing plastics use and collecting waste, we want to close the loop and make more plastics infinitely recyclable."</p>
<p>Nestlé's total plastic packaging usage in 2018 weighed in at 1.7 million metric tons, according to Nestlé's own reporting, said <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. From that tremendous amount of plastic, only two percent of its plastic packaging is currently recycled, according to Sander Defruyt, the expert on plastics at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, who spoke to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p>
<p>Nestlé acknowledged as much when Chief Technology Officer Stefan Palzer said to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nestle-environment/nestle-to-invest-billions-to-boost-use-of-recycled-plastics-idUSKBN1ZF0QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a> that "at the moment, outside PET bottles, there's not a lot of recycled plastic available that is suitable for packaging food."</p>
<p>Break Free From Plastic, an advocacy group, found that Nestlé was ranked with Coca Cola and Pepsi as the world's top plastic polluting brands, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coke-pepsi-plastic-polluters-2641090767.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" rel="noopener noreferrer">EcoWatch</a> reported. </p><p>"It is encouraging that Nestlé has finally committed to reducing its reliance on virgin plastic," said Matthias Wüthrich senior campaigner at Greenpeace Switzerland in a statement, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/business/nestle-recycled-plastics/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported. "If Nestlé wants to stop polluting the world, it needs to end its reliance on plastic," he added, urging the company to "eliminate single-use packaging altogether."</p>
<p>Nestlé, however, has no plans to abandon its reliance on plastic. </p>
<p>"Food quality and safety are paramount, and packaging plays a major role in assuring this," said Nestlé, as <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nestle-to-invest-up-to-chf2-billion-in-sustainable-packaging-2020-01-16-21033123?link=MW_latest_news" target="_blank">MarketWatch</a> reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Coke and Pepsi Are The World's Top Consumer Plastic Polluters ... ›
- Nestlé Plans to Plunder 1.1m Gallons a Day from Florida Natural ... ›
- No Nestlé, Bottled Water Is Not an 'Essential Public Service,' Court ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Bottles of mineral water are pictured in a Nestlé water bottling plant located in Castrocielo, central Italy, on July 5, 2016. GABRIEL BOUYS / AFP / Getty Images
Nestlé cannot claim that its Ice Mountain bottled water brand is an essential public service, according to Michigan's second highest court, which delivered a legal blow to the food and beverage giant in a unanimous decision.
<p><span style="background-color: initial;">The three-judge panel that sits on Michigan's Court of Appeals said bottled water is not a public water supply, and Osceola Township was completely within its rights to reject Nestlé's bid to put a booster pumping structure in an area zoned for agricultural use, as the </span><a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/12/03/nestle-ice-mountain-bottled-water-osceola-court-of-appeals-zoning/2598332001/" style="background-color: initial;" target="_blank">Detroit Free Press</a><span style="background-color: initial;"> reported.</span></p>
<p>"The circuit court's conclusion that [Nestlé's] commercial water bottling operation is an 'essential public service' is clearly erroneous," the judges wrote, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/05/nestle-bottled-water-michigan-osceola-private-public" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> reported. "Other than in areas with no other source of water, bottled water is not essential."</p>
<p>The issue in question is that Nestlé wants to increase the amount of water it takes from the groundwater in Michigan's Osceola County from 250 gallons per minute to 400 gallons per minute. Environmental groups say the 250 gallons per minute that Nestlé takes from the groundwater is already too much. They say the effect is already seen in lower levels of nearby wetlands, rivers and streams, according to the <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/12/03/nestle-ice-mountain-bottled-water-osceola-court-of-appeals-zoning/2598332001/" target="_blank">Detroit Free Press</a>. Nestlé, however, contends that its operation causes no harm. </p>
<p>Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality approved a permit for the increase last year, but that decision is awaiting an appeal. In order to extract so much water, the Nestlé needs a booster pump station along the pipeline that carries water from the well to tanker trucks, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/1ff6658e4e8a47be8257737a51493123" target="_blank">AP</a> reported. </p>
<p>The owner of the property where Nestlé wants to install the booster pump station agreed to the project, but the township said the structure is not allowed in an area zoned for agriculture, according to the <a href="https://apnews.com/1ff6658e4e8a47be8257737a51493123" target="_blank">AP</a>. </p>
<p>For Nestlé to carry out its plan, it has to prove that it provides an essential public service, which the court rejected as implausible. The ruling may have a ripple effect on Nestlé's ambition to privatize water around the country, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/05/nestle-bottled-water-michigan-osceola-private-public" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Guardian</a> reported.</p>
<p>"What this lays bare is the extent to which private water marketers like Nestlé, and others like them, go [in] their attempts to privatize sovereign public water, public water services, and the land and communities they impact," said Jim Olson, an environmental attorney in Michigan, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/05/nestle-bottled-water-michigan-osceola-private-public" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Guardian</a>. Olson, who has previously battled Nestlé, added that any claim that the food giant is an essential public service or a public water utility is "ludicrous."</p>
<p>The Michigan environmental attorney Jim Olson, who did not represent Osceola township but has previously battled Nestlé in court, said any claim that the Swiss multinational is a public water utility "is ludicrous."</p>
<p>Olson said the decision is a huge victory. "In the context of the larger question, 'Who owns the water?' — in this round, the state and public do, because selling containerized water for profit is simply private, not public," Olson said to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/05/nestle-bottled-water-michigan-osceola-private-public" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://apnews.com/1ff6658e4e8a47be8257737a51493123" target="_blank">AP</a> reported that Nestlé argued that the township's denial of the zoning permit was a backdoor way of stopping the company from ramping up its water production. The judges, however, said there was no proof of that. </p>
<p>"Ultimately, the township is attempting to enforce its zoning ordinances," according to the opinion by Judges Cynthia Stephens, Deborah Servitto and Amy Krause, as the <a href="https://apnews.com/1ff6658e4e8a47be8257737a51493123" target="_blank">AP</a> reported. "Enforcing a zoning ordinance is neither exceptional nor forbidden."</p>
<p>The judges' comments about Nestlé not being a water service nor returning anything to water table provided a boon to environmental groups and Native American tribes contended that the permit to increase production to 400 gallons per minute should be overturned. </p>
<p>"[Nestlé] extracting water and sending it to other places where it cannot return to the water table, and, critically, doing so faster than the aquifer can replenish, is an 'irretrievable' depletion unless the pumping is reduced or halted," the judges wrote, as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/05/nestle-bottled-water-michigan-osceola-private-public" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Guardian</a> reported.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Crystal water of Ginnie Springs in Florida.
Colors and shapes of underwater world / Moment Open / Getty Images
Nestlé Waters' proposal to take 1.1 million gallons per day from Ginnie Springs has drawn a backlash from conservationists who say the food giant wants to take publicly owned water and sell it back to the public, as the Guardian reported.
<p>Conservationists fear that if Nestlé's plans go through, there will be considerably less water in Ginnie Springs, which sits in the Santa Fe River and serves as a home for several species of turtles that nest on the river's banks. Environmental groups say the river is too fragile to serve Nestlé's interests since it is already labeled as "in recovery" by the Suwannee River water management district after years of over pumping, as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/26/nestle-suwannee-river-ginnie-springs-plan-permit" target="_blank">Guardian</a> reported.</p>
<p>Residents have also criticized the business practice that allows for taxpayer money to restore the spring, while allowing Nestlé to take water out. The Florida Water Resources Act declared that all the water in springs, rivers and lakes is the property of the state, not the landowners, but it never set a price on water. That means, Nestlé will be able to take the state's water, but not pay the state for it, according to the <a href="https://www.gainesville.com/news/20190824/opposition-grows-to-ginnie-springs-water-bottling" target="_blank">Gainesville Sun</a>. </p>
<p>"[W]e have an ethical issue with our state putting large sums of money into conservation practices and recharge projects on the Santa Fe River and then, at the same time, counteracting this action by fomenting the free extraction of a publicly owned natural resource by a for-profit company," wrote Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson and Jim Tatum, from the conservation group <a href="https://oursantaferiver.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Our Santa Fe River</a>, in a <a href="https://www.gainesville.com/opinion/20190821/merrillee-malwitz-jipson--and-jim-tatum-santa-fe-river-springs-being-bled-to-death" target="_blank">column</a> for the <a href="https://www.gainesville.com/opinion/20190821/merrillee-malwitz-jipson--and-jim-tatum-santa-fe-river-springs-being-bled-to-death" target="_blank">Gainesville Sun</a>. "Essentially, taxpayers are funding replenishment of the aquifer and then allowing Nestlé to take it out and sell it back to us."</p>
<p>That bizarre marketplace has residents teaming up with conservationists to ask the Suwannee River Water Management District to deny renewing Nestlé's permit. </p>
<p>"Ginnie Springs is one of Florida's treasures. It's loved by locals and travelers alike," Julienne Wallace wrote in creating a <a href="https://www.change.org/p/the-suwannee-river-water-management-district-we-say-no-to-nestle-getting-water-from-ginnie-springs" target="_blank">change.org petition</a>, as the <a href="https://www.gainesville.com/news/20190824/opposition-grows-to-ginnie-springs-water-bottling" target="_blank">Gainesville Sun</a> reported. "Nestlé is known for destroying places like Ginnie Springs and its breaking our hearts! PLEASE DON'T GIVE NESTLÉ THE PERMIT TO TAKE WATER FROM GINNIE SPRINGS!!!"</p>
<p>The current permit holder, Seven Springs, has never drawn more than 260,000 gallons per day, but Nestlé has invested heavily in a new bottling plant so it can draw as much water as possible. Nestlé insists that that drawing 1.1 million gallons of water per day is only .05% of the total daily volume there, according to <a href="https://www.wtsp.com/article/tech/science/environment/nestle-wants-to-take-11-million-gallons-of-water-a-day-from-ginnie-springs/67-c1449afb-a34e-4182-8298-c475dd2f8c58" target="_blank">WTSP News</a> in Tampa.</p>
<p>"Springwater is a rapidly renewable resource when managed correctly. Nestlé Waters North America is committed to the highest level of sustainable spring water management at all of the springs we manage," Nestlé Waters North America said in a written <a href="https://www.nestle-watersna.com/en/Nestle-Water-News/Statements/ginnie-springs-florida-seven-springs-permit-renewal" target="_blank">statement posted on its website</a>. "We have worked to be a good neighbor in Florida for decades. Our commitment goes beyond just caring about the water. We value our relationships with Florida residents and community leaders, and always strive to create shared value within the communities where we operate."</p>
<p>That argument did not hold much water with Malwitz-Jipson who said to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/26/nestle-suwannee-river-ginnie-springs-plan-permit" target="_blank">Guardian</a>, "The Santa Fe River is already in decline [and] there's not enough water coming out of the aquifer itself to recharge these lovely, amazing springs that are iconic and culturally valued and important for natural systems and habitats. </p>
<p>"It's impossible to withdraw millions of gallons of water and not have an impact. If you take any amount of water out of a glass you will always have less."</p>
<p>She also pointed to the threat the permit will pose to wildlife. "Few places on Earth have as many turtle species living together and about a quarter of all North American freshwater turtle species inhabit this small river system. A big threat to this diversity is habitat degradation, which will happen with reduced flows," she said to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/26/nestle-suwannee-river-ginnie-springs-plan-permit" target="_blank">Guardian</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Did Nestlé Use the Shutdown for Good PR? - EcoWatch ›
- Settlement Ends Nestlé's Expired 'Zombie' Permit to Siphon Water ... ›
- Nestlé's Plastic Initiative Called 'Greenwashing' by Greenpeace ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Sign placed by volunteers at the Joshua Tree National Park in California on Jan. 3 after the federal government's partial shutdown. MARK RALSTON / AFP / Getty Images
By Miranda Fox
The impacts of the government shutdown on the nation's national parks have been widely reported: overflowing bathrooms, decimated habitat and widespread litter resulted in parks that remained open without staff oversight and management. In response, individuals, organizations and corporations have volunteered to help out with the clean-up. One of these is Nestlé Waters North America, which released this statement last week:
"At Nestlé Waters North America, we believe that even one bottle or can that is not recycled properly is one too many. When we heard about the need in our national parks, we wanted to help."
<p>What Nestlé's press statement doesn't address is that this company's commitment to creating single-use products like <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bottled-water">bottled water</a> makes it one of the largest contributors to the problem. In fact, clean-up audits organized by <a href="https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/" target="_blank">#breakfreefromplastic</a> found that Nestlé's packaging was among the most frequently littered brands in nearly 200,000 pieces of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics">plastic</a> gathered around the world last year.<br></p><p>Parks report that plastic bottles make up to a fifth of their entire waste stream. The bottled water industry has been trying to stop national parks from going bottled-water-free for nearly a decade. In fact, a Nestlé-backed lobby group, the International Bottled Water Association, spent years lobbying Congress and the Department of Interior to rescind the National Park Service's bottled-water-free policy. And, in 2017, the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration finally did—just weeks after Trump's Deputy Secretary of Interior David Bernhardt, who has ties to Nestlé, was confirmed.</p><p>To make matters worse, Nestlé has single-handedly depleted <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water">water</a> supplies around the country to profit from selling bottled water, causing damage to environmental ecosystems—including national forest land in Southern California. We've been working to stop Nestlé's dewatering of the San Bernardino National Forest for four years, where it bottles water that it pays nothing for from public land. Last year, <a href="https://storyofstuff.org/blog/release-settlement-ends-nestles-expired-zombie-permit/" target="_blank">we forced Nestlé to renew its 30-year expired permit</a> to operate legally within the forest, but we continue to fight for greater environmental protections and to end this egregious use of public water.<br></p><p>Nestlé's marketing scheme is clever but transparent. It continues to obstruct policies and laws that would eliminate plastic waste and protect public, natural spaces. Nestlé is trying to present itself as the solution to the very problem that it profits from. Herein lies the danger of corporate-driven solutions: they never address the broken systems that they claim to fix because corporations are invested in safeguarding what benefits their own economic interests—the broken systems themselves.<br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTEzOTc4OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MDc5OTIxNH0.NU5VUk0nyfeXahKSTZ9yvxcilPDju323HBhvIJYbXAc/img.jpg?width=980" id="4c4d9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="85f9391336c991d25196b392891bef04" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Charles Edward Miller / CC BY-SA 2.0</small></p><p>The feud between President Trump and Congress created a 35-day government shutdown—the longest in U.S. history—and reports continue to surface detailing the wide-reaching effects of a government in crisis. Most disturbingly, around 800,000 federal employees missed a second paycheck and turned to food banks, despite expectations that they continued to work. Small businesses couldn't get loans, private companies didn't go public, federal courts were running out of money, and economic losses reached at least 6 billion dollars. Needless to say, these are just a few reasons why a functional government matters.<br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTEzOTc3OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNjQ3ODUxNn0.5cEE1TCSNNHZXBGNflyHRAxTvOrmItF2U1Or4EqwK_c/img.jpg?width=980" id="125ff" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="22d629dd51bdf727de12dae3025f1321" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">AFGE / CC BY 2.0</small></p><p>Functional government also matters because, in its absence, already minimal checks on corporate power become nonexistent. Moreover, broken and dysfunctional government systems open the door to corporations like Nestlé whose interests inherently intertwine with an ulterior motive: increasing their own profits. They offer false solutions to profit from problems much larger than overflowing trash bins in national parks, like taking over crumbling water infrastructure systems in major cities like Pittsburgh.<br></p><p>Corporations leap at the opportunity to perform services for positive PR, inspiring positive brand affiliation, or to participate in a public-private partnership. These allow corporations to build relationships with public institutions that pay them for contractual work or eventually sell their public services to the most well-connected private entity, or highest bidder, when debts become too high to reconcile. When the government shuts down, it creates opportunities for corporations to step in. And once they're in, good luck getting them back out.</p><p>However, ordinary folks have also been stepping up to volunteer their time to keep things running. These selfless acts should be celebrated and demonstrate what's great in America: people coming together for the common good, working to help others and build community. When services are performed for the public good and not for profit, whether by volunteers during emergencies, or (ideally) by functional, democratic governments, real solutions that tackle some of our greatest problems truly begin to take root. Watch our animation <a href="https://youtu.be/cpkRvc-sOKk" target="_blank"><em>The Story of Solutions</em></a> to learn more about real solutions and how to change systems so that they work better for us, and not corporations like Nestlé.<br></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c8c10" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="724H821576662826"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="984077401272483840" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Nestlé's Plastic Initiative Called 'Greenwashing' by Greenpeace https://t.co/iARQUzXHQv @Greenpeace… https://t.co/9bk6jNNeNO</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/984077401272483840">1523457310.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://storyofstuff.org/blog/nestle-shutdown-good-pr/" target="_blank">The Story of Stuff</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Greenpeace activists at the Suwung landfill in Bali, Indonesia. Jurnasyanto Sukarno / Greenpeace
The biggest food, drink and consumer brands—including Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Unilever and H&M—joined a global campaign on Monday to tackle plastic waste.
The "New Plastics Economy Global Commitment," spearheaded by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), was "cautiously welcomed" by some environmental groups, who say the initiative does not go far enough to halt the planet's mounting plastic crisis.
<p>
The pledge was signed by more than 250 businesses, governments and other organizations around the world, under a vision of eliminating unnecessary and problematic plastics, as well as building a circular economy for the material. It sets a 2025 target to make 100 percent of all plastic packaging either reusable, recyclable or compostable.
</p><p>
The announcement was officially unveiled at the start of the fifth-annual
<a href="https://ourocean2018.org/" target="_blank">Our Ocean Conference</a> in Bali, Indonesia. The <a href="https://newplasticseconomy.org/projects/global-commitment#whos-involved" target="_blank">signatories</a>—which also include L'Oreal, Walmart, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pepsi" target="_self">PepsiCo</a>, SC Johnson, plastics producers Amcor and Novamont, the governments of Austin, Texas, the UK, Chile and more—will report on their progress annually. Their targets will be reviewed every 18 months and will become increasingly ambitious over time.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="13558" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="N3X2261576683788"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1056814856513482752" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today we announce the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment. Over 250 businesses, governments and other organisati… https://t.co/f7S0emusdY</div> — New Plastics Economy (@New Plastics Economy)<a href="https://twitter.com/NewPlasticsEcon/statuses/1056814856513482752">1540799271.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
In a
<a href="https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/line-sand-global-commitment-eliminate-plastic-pollution-source" target="_blank">press release</a>, UNEP head Erik Solheim called the global commitment "the most ambitious set of targets we have seen yet in the fight to beat plastics pollution."
</p><p>
The commitment is supported by the
<a href="https://www.worldwildlife.org/" target="_blank">World Wide Fund</a> for Nature (WWF), and is endorsed by the World Economic Forum and The Consumer Goods Forum, which represents about 400 retailers and manufacturers from 70 countries, and 40 universities, institutions and academics.
</p><p>
<span></span>"This Global Commitment is a step-change we urgently need in order to move from a linear to a circular economy. We want to act and lead by example. We will do our part to ensure that none of our packaging, including plastics, ends up in the natural environment," Nestlé CEO Mark Schneider said in a press release emailed to EcoWatch.
</p><p>
<span></span>Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Danone were recently identified as some of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/worst-plastic-polluting-companies-2611144880.html" target="_blank">world's biggest producers of plastic trash</a> in global cleanups and brand audits organized by <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/" target="_blank">Greenpeace</a> and the <a href="https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/" target="_blank">Break Free From Plastic</a> movement.
</p><p>
"While elements of the EMF Global Commitment are moving in the right direction, the problem is that companies are given the flexibility to continue prioritizing recycling over reduction and reuse," Greenpeace Indonesia global project leader Ahmad Ashov said in a statement provided to EcoWatch. "Corporations are not required to set actual targets to reduce the total amount of single-use plastics they are churning out. They can simply continue with business as usual after signing the commitment."
</p><p>
"Our recent report '<a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/19007/a-crisis-of-convenience-the-corporations-behind-the-plastics-pollution-pandemic/" target="_blank">A Crisis of Convenience</a>,' reveals that 11 of the largest consumer goods companies' current plans allow them to increase their use of single-use plastics and none have set clear elimination or reduction targets," Ashov added.
</p><p>
Greenpeace is calling on the signatories to deliver on all of the following actions:
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>Set ambitious and accountable targets to reduce single-use plastics.</li>
<li>Act immediately to eliminate excessive and problematic plastic packaging.</li>
<li>Prioritize investment in reuse and alternative delivery systems.</li>
<li>Embrace transparency and report annually on their plastic footprint.</li>
</ul><p>
<a href="https://oceana.org/" target="_blank">Oceana</a> similarly said that "recycling and vague promises are not enough to solve the plastics crisis."
</p><p>
"I hesitate to even call today's corporate announcements a step in the right direction. Plastic pollution has grown into a major global crisis for our oceans, and it threatens our health. To have an impact, these companies must reduce the amount of single-use plastic at the source—in the factory—before it gets to consumers," Oceana chief policy officer Jacqueline Savitz said in an emailed statement.
</p><p>
<span></span>"It's not rocket science," Savitz continued. "Our grandparents lived without plastic and these companies must discontinue their unnecessary use of plastic. Every company that signed the declaration should commit to a meaningful, time-bound and specific percent-reduction of the amount of plastic it is putting into the market, and to find alternative ways to package and deliver its products. A circular economy is a nice utopian idea, but this crisis is unfolding today, and we need to see meaningful commitments to end the plastics crisis these companies have created."
</p><p>
Pavan Sukhdev, the president of WWF International, commented that "the plastics crisis can only be solved with the combined efforts of all key players in the system."
</p><p>
"WWF therefore endorses the The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment as we consider it an important step forward to join the efforts of businesses and governments around the world towards system-wide solutions," Sukhdev concluded.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="e82c5" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="OLOLHZ1576683788"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1056047917864230912" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Complex and Frustrating Reality of #Recycling #Plastic https://t.co/biv2TMR4WI @PlasticPollutes @PlasticOceans</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1056047917864230912">1540616418.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Coke bottles found on Mull Beach in Scotland. Will Rose / Greenpeace
Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestlé were identified as the world's biggest producers of plastic trash in global cleanups and brand audits, a new report from Greenpeace and the Break Free From Plastic movement reveals.
Over the span of nine months, an international team of volunteers sorted through 187,000 pieces of plastic trash collected from 239 cleanups in 42 countries around the world.
<p>
The
<a href="https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2018/" target="_blank">results</a>, released Tuesday, shows that these multinational food and beverage giants were the top 10 offenders:</p><ol class="ee-ol">
<li>Coca-Cola</li>
<li>PepsiCo</li>
<li>Nestlé</li>
<li>Danone</li>
<li>Mondelez International</li>
<li>Procter & Gamble</li>
<li>Unilever</li>
<li>Perfetti van Melle</li>
<li>Mars Incorporated</li>
<li>Colgate-Palmolive</li>
</ol><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="18ae0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="YO1G951576662680"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1049660885868924928" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: @Coca-cola, @PepsiCo, and @Nestle have emerged as the top corporate polluters from 239 brand audits acros… https://t.co/QuCnYnjbOo</div> — Greenpeace USA (@Greenpeace USA)<a href="https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa/statuses/1049660885868924928">1539093631.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
The organizers behind the effort are calling out these brands for their contribution to plastic pollution.
</p><p>
"These brand audits offer undeniable proof of the role that corporations play in perpetuating the global plastic pollution crisis," Von Hernandez, global coordinator of Break Free From Plastic, said in a press release emailed to EcoWatch. "By continuing to churn out problematic and unrecyclable throwaway plastic packaging for their products, these companies are guilty of trashing the planet on a massive scale. It's time they own up and stop shifting the blame to citizens for their wasteful and polluting products."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODcwMjkxMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1OTE3Mjk3OH0.UN5ZcHfSLoiDXIea7Fjqwzlo43e1gRFILK66FEgedsk/img.jpg?width=980" id="ced9f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="39ad3f2005e7530e6b9597d5655da3fe" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Greenpeace Southeast Asia conducts plastic brand audit activity at Wonnapa beach, Chonburi province on World Cleanup Day, September 15, 2018.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Greenpeace</small>
</p><p>
In the U.S. specifically, a total of 70 cleanups determined that Nestlé, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola were the worst corporate plastic polluters, in that order.
</p><p>
The three companies have each pledged to cut their packaging waste. Coca-Cola has a global
<a href="https://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/the-coca-cola-company-announces-new-global-vision-to-help-create" target="_blank">goal</a> to help collect and recycle the equivalent of 100 percent of its packaging by 2030. Nestlé <a href="https://www.nestle.com/media/pressreleases/allpressreleases/nestle-recyclable-reusable-packaging-by-2025" target="_blank">aims</a> to make 100 percent recyclable or reusable packaging by 2025. PepsiCo has a <a href="http://www.pepsico.com/live/pressrelease/pepsico-to-more-than-triple-recycled-content-in-its-plastic-bottles-to-50-p-in-the-european-union-by-2030?sf196839220=1" target="_blank">goal</a> to design 100 percent of its packaging to be recyclable, compostable or biodegradable and to reduce its packaging's carbon impact by 2025.
</p><div id="17056" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="WK30OX1576662681"><blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-version="4" style=" background:#FFF; border:0;
border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15);
margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px);
width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:8px;">
<div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:50% 0; text-align:center;
width:100%;">
<div style=" background:url();
display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;">
</div></div><p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;">
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BoZcPL6B6_H/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;
word-wrap:break-word;" target="_top">Greenpeace International 🌍 on Instagram: “All around the world, Greenpeace volunteers are hard at work conducting cleanups and brand audits to determine which corporations are the…”</a></p>
</div></blockquote></div><p>
Awareness about the global plastic waste crisis is growing worldwide. Governments around the world have taken steps to
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/eu-plastics-ban-2573215290.html">ban single-use plastics</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/beat-plastic-pollution-2573622594.html">individuals are pledging</a> to reduce their plastic footprint.
</p><p>
However, the organizers of the recent report are asking: Shouldn't corporations that package their goods in plastics shoulder some of this responsibility, too?
</p><p>
<span></span>"We all have a role to play in tackling plastic pollution. But the reality is, individual consumers are already bearing the burden of this crisis," Greenpeace content editor Ryan Schleeter wrote in a <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/18876/these-10-companies-are-flooding-the-planet-with-throwaway-plastic/" target="_blank">blog post</a> about today's report. "We're swapping plastic bottles for reusable glass and metal, ditching disposable straws, avoiding unnecessary packaging in our grocery stores, and cleaning up our beaches as best we can. But there's only so much we can do if companies don't step up and provide more sustainable choices."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="139c3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="CD5HGC1576662681"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1049657287772639232" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Plastic on Remote #SouthAtlantic Beaches Up 10 Fold in 10 Years #PlasticPollutes @plasticpollutes
https://t.co/ig6yeFf5at</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1049657287772639232">1539092773.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
U.S. Allows Nestlé to Keep Piping Water From Drought-Ridden Southern California
28 June 2018
Popular
utt73 / Flickr / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
The U.S. Forest Service offered Nestlé a three-year permit on Wednesday to keep taking millions of gallons of water from the San Bernardino National Forest in California, the Associated Press reported.
The offer has certain restrictions. Nestlé, which sells bottled water under the Arrowhead brand, can continue piping from the Strawberry Creek watershed "when there is water available consistent with the forest's Land Management Plan," according to the AP, citing the Forest Service offer. The watershed is currently rated as "impaired."
<p>
California has suffered from years of recurring <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought">drought</a>. Last year's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-pineapple-express-2191904504.html">record-breaking rains</a> in the state's north brought some relief, but large swaths of the south—where the forest is located—remain in "severe" drought, according to the latest data from the U.S. Drought Monitor.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODEzNDU4Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDQxMTk5OX0.WJrVPY0yZ_w-BMmWFkJEejG37yRE02CWaqdeny2bY7I/img.jpg?width=980" id="f8e95" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c1fff2b98af739c5318b06ad1ea41698" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p>
Nestlé has 60 days to decide whether to accept the terms of the offer.
</p><p>
The Swiss food and beverage giant has been <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-bottled-water-drought-2012310851.html">criticized</a> by environmentalists for depriving the region's plants and animals of water. Additonally, the company had only paid an annual $524 permit fee to siphon off as much as 162 million gallons of water a year from Strawberry Creek and sell it back to the public in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics">plastic</a> bottles. Furthermore, that permit expired in 1988.
</p><p>
In 2015, the Forest Service was sued by environmental and public interest groups, who accused Nestlé of being allowed to operate its Strawberry Creek pipeline on a permit that expired 30 years ago.
</p><p>
The case was <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-water-san-bernardino-2575958681.html">settled earlier this month</a>, and required the agency to decide in 30 days whether or not to issue a new permit for the water pipeline and the company's associated activities in the San Bernardino National Forest.
</p><p>
Nestlé spokeswoman Alix Dunn told the AP the company provided 70 environmental studies during the application process and will "carefully review" the Forest Service offer.
</p><p>
"Californians are passionate about water and so are we," she added. "We take our responsibility as a California water steward seriously and Arrowhead's successful operations for more than a century point to our commitment to long-term sustainability."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c8c10" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="63OQ9J1576662742"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="984077401272483840" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Nestlé's Plastic Initiative Called 'Greenwashing' by Greenpeace https://t.co/iARQUzXHQv @Greenpeace… https://t.co/9bk6jNNeNO</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/984077401272483840">1523457310.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Settlement Ends Nestlé’s Expired 'Zombie' Permit to Siphon Water From San Bernardino National Forest
07 June 2018
Popular
Big Bear Lake is a major reservoir in the Santa Ana River watershed in the San Bernardino Mountains. Darkest tree / CC BY 3.0
Federal officials and conservation groups reached an agreement Wednesday that will finally end Nestlé Corp.'s ability to rely on a permit that expired 30 years ago to siphon water from the San Bernardino National Forest for its massive bottled-water operation. The company's diversion has severely reduced water in spring-fed Strawberry Creek, which forest wildlife and plants need to survive.
<p>This settlement of the 2015 <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pdfs/NestleComplaint_10-13-2015.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> requires the U.S. Forest Service to decide in 30 days whether or not to issue a new permit for the pipeline and Nestlé's associated activities in the San Bernardino National Forest.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>, <a href="https://www.couragecampaign.org/">Courage Campaign Institute</a> and the <a href="https://storyofstuff.org/">Story of Stuff Project</a> agreed to dismiss an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the old "zombie" permit after a new decision is issued. The groups reserved the right to challenge any new Forest Service decision.</p><p>Under the expired permit, Nestlé siphoned off as much as 162 million gallons of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water">water</a> a year from Strawberry Creek. Nestlé, the world's largest water-bottling company, earned $8.3 billion in profits from its water business in 2016. U.S. Geological Survey reports from July 2017 show that, despite heavy winter precipitation across California, Strawberry Creek's streamflow levels were the lowest since the agency began keeping track 96 years ago.</p><p>"This agreement stops Nestlé and the Forest Service from relying on a 30-year-old permit, but Strawberry Creek still desperately needs protection," said Ileene Anderson, a senior biologist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The real tragedy is that Nestlé is sucking the creek dry to bottle water for profit, dooming plants and wildlife that have relied on it for tens of thousands of years. We'll keep fighting to protect Strawberry Creek and our forests from commercial exploitation."</p><p>The groups are urging the Forest Service to deny a new permit to Nestlé to safeguard the public land, water, plants and animals of the San Bernardino National Forest. If a new permit is issued, the agency should ensure there is enough water left in Strawberry Creek to support fish, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> and native plants year round.</p><p>The State Water Resources Control Board is also <a href="https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2017/12/21/california-regulators-tell-bottled-water-maker-nestle-halt-unauthorized-water-diversions-national-fo/928071001/" target="_blank">evaluating</a> Nestlé's water rights on Strawberry Creek, which a board <a href="https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/enforcement/complaints/nestle.html" target="_blank">investigation</a> determined is far less than the corporation claims.</p><p>"We are encouraged that the Forest Service is finally fulfilling its duty to the public by ending Nestlé's unpermitted water taking from the San Bernardino National Forest. Any objective, scientifically rigorous analysis will demonstrate what biologists have been saying for decades: the Nestlé operation is detrimental to the health and vibrancy of our public lands and should be discontinued," said Miranda Fox, campaigns manager at The Story of Stuff Project. "We want to ensure that Strawberry Creek and its ecosystem are properly managed for generations to come."</p><p>"While we are glad to have slayed Nestlé's 'zombie' permit, we fear that the Forest Service's action will ultimately do little to protect this national forest—owned collectively by all Americans—from continued exploitation by Nestlé, one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world," said Eddie Kurtz, executive director of the California-based Courage Campaign Institute. "If the Forest Service issues a new permit that again prioritizes Nestlé's obscene profits over ensuring sufficient water remains to protect this fragile ecosystem—that will NOT be a viable solution. This fight will be far from over."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="ca657" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="WT4QGS1576662829"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="981651419764854784" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Michigan Lets Nestlé Draw More Groundwater for Bottling https://t.co/guRSVgtlhm @WaterAidAmerica @waterforpeople @foodandwater</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/981651419764854784">1522878911.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Freedom Island Beach in the Philippines. Greenpeace
The environmental impact of the world's plastic consumption is profound. Plastic trash and the tiny pieces that chip off it can be found everywhere—in oceans, marine life, land and our bodies, too.
To help solve this planetary crisis, Nestlé pledged Tuesday to make all its plastic packaging 100 percent recyclable or reusable by 2025. The Swiss food giant envisions a world where "none of its packaging, including plastics, ends up in landfill or as litter," it said.
<p style="">
"Plastic waste is one of the biggest sustainability issues the world is facing today. Tackling it requires a collective approach," Nestlé CEO Mark Schneider said in a statement.
</p><p style="">
Nestlé joins a number of major international corporations, such as rival
<a href="https://www.unilever.com/news/Press-releases/2017/Unilever-commits-to-100-percent-recyclable-plastic.html" target="_blank">Unilever</a>, making similar commitments.
</p><p style="">
However, environmentalists say the move is not enough. As the world's largest food and beverage company, Nestlé's wide expanse of products—which includes
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bottled-water" target="_blank">bottled water</a>, chocolate candy bars and instant coffee pods—"helped to create" this plastic pollution problem in the first place, according to a fiery response from <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/" target="_blank">Greenpeace</a>.
</p><p style="">
In a statement provided to EcoWatch, Greenpeace criticized Nestlé's statement for not including clear targets or a timeline to reduce and eventually phase out single-use plastics.
</p><p style="">
"Nestlé's statement on plastic packaging includes more of the same greenwashing baby steps to tackle a crisis it helped to create," Greenpeace oceans campaigner Graham Forbes said. "It will not actually move the needle toward the reduction of single-use plastics in a meaningful way, and sets an incredibly low standard as the largest food and beverage company in the world. The statement is full of ambiguous or nonexistent targets, relies on 'ambitions' to do better, and puts the responsibility on consumers rather than the company to clean up its own plastic pollution."
</p><p style="">
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-pollution-philippines-beach-audit-2488280848.html">During a 2017 beach clean-up</a> on Freedom Island in the Philippines, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/these-5-countries-account-for-60-of-plastic-pollution-in-oceans-1882107531.html" target="_blank">third worst</a> polluter of the world's oceans, Greenpeace volunteers and coalition partners found more discarded Nestlé products than any other brand.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="6c6e6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2MD30V1576662835"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="911095521237901312" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">.@Unilever @ProcterGamble @Nestle named in Philippines plastic pollution beach audit #BreakFreeFromPlastic >>… https://t.co/pO4GkAMgNY</div> — Greenpeace (@Greenpeace)<a href="https://twitter.com/Greenpeace/statuses/911095521237901312">1506057074.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p style="">
Greenpeace's Forbes said Nestlé has the power and resources to phase out single-use plastics and move towards zero-waste in its packaging.
</p><p style="">
<span></span>"A company of Nestlé's size should be setting a strong standard to actually move away from throwaway plastics," Forbes said. "It should know by now that recycling efforts are not going to clean up our oceans, waterways and communities. On the contrary, the company's business as usual will only accelerate plastic pollution."
</p><p style="">
Nestlé's new initiative focuses on three core areas: eliminate non-recyclable plastics; encourage the use of plastics that allow better recycling rates; and eliminate or change complex combinations of packaging materials.
</p><p style="">
"We are working on changing the colors used for our plastic packaging. Lighter colors are easier to recycle," Nestlé sustainability expert Duncan Pollard told reporters, as quoted by
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/nestle-pledges-to-make-all-its-packaging-recyclable-by-2025.html" target="_blank">CNBC</a>.
</p><p style="">
Pollard said the recycling of single-use plastics depends on there being recycling infrastructure in place, particularly in Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.
</p><p style="">
Nestlé was in the center of controversy last week after the state of Michigan granted its bottled water subsidiary <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-water-michigan-2555887499.html" target="_blank">a permit</a> to increase groundwater withdrawal from 250 gallons per minute to 400 gallons per minute from its White Pine Springs well.
</p><p style="">
The approval came despite near universal
<a href="https://actions.sumofus.org/a/nestle-just-doubled-the-amount-of-groundwater-it-can-suck-up-just-120-miles-from-flint" target="_blank">opposition</a> from residents—81,862 comments against the permit versus 75 in favor—who cited Nestlé's nominal $200-a-year fee to pump water from its wells. The fee will not change with the new permit.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d4ab3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1MHPQG1576662835"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="981252284222001152" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#Michigan Lets #Nestlé Draw More Groundwater for Bottling https://t.co/0LvnVqBTOh
#bottledwater @storyofstuff… https://t.co/74O3KrVGNe</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/981252284222001152">1522783750.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p style="">
Nestlé's White Pine Springs well also happens to lie
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-bottled-water-flint-2075968508.html" target="_blank">approximately 120 miles</a> from the lead-poisoned city of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-cage-free-eggs-2505486344.html" target="_blank">Flint</a>. Bottled water companies have drawn <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-pumps-millions-of-gallons-for-free-while-flint-residents-pay-fo-1882175373.html" target="_blank">outrage</a> from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/23/travesty-nestle-outbids-another-town-control-local-water-supply" target="_blank">many</a> communities for <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/10/we-slayed-dragon-community-wins-nestle-drops-water-extraction-plans" target="_blank">privatizing</a> their public water supply in the face of Flint's years-long <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_blank">drinking water</a> crisis, where some residents have been billed <a href="http://www.abc12.com/content/news/End-to-water-credits-brings-protestors-to-Flint-City-Hall-413440233.html" target="_blank">hundreds</a> of dollars for water they cannot drink.
</p><p style="">
On top of that, the Michigan government declared on Friday that Flint's drinking water was now safe and announced it would stop providing free
bottled water to the city's residents.
</p><p style="">
Detroit journalist and
<a href="http://annaclark.net/the-poisoned-city/" target="_blank">Flint water crisis writer</a> Anna Clark remarked that it was "not lost" on Flint locals that the state's decision came just days after Nestlé "won the right to pump more Michigan water for free."<span></span>
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="29716" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="GVF0SS1576662835"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="982404085935693824" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I was in Flint today. The irony of this news coming just days after Nestle won the right to pump more Michigan wate… https://t.co/PyFFIWHYE5</div> — Anna Clark (@Anna Clark)<a href="https://twitter.com/annaleighclark/statuses/982404085935693824">1523058360.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Kate Ter Haar / Flickr
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has granted Nestlé Waters a permit to increase groundwater withdrawal from 250 gallons per minute to 400 gallons per minute from its White Pine Springs well for the purpose of bottling drinking water.
The approval comes despite near universal opposition from residents, who cite the Swiss food and beverage giant's nominal $200-a-year fee to pump water from its wells. The fee will not change with the new permit.
<p style="">
Additionally, Nestlé's White Pine Springs well near Evart, Michigan happens to lie
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-bottled-water-flint-2075968508.html" target="_blank">approximately 120 miles</a> from the lead-poisoned city of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-cage-free-eggs-2505486344.html">Flint</a>. Bottled water companies have drawn <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-pumps-millions-of-gallons-for-free-while-flint-residents-pay-fo-1882175373.html">outrage</a> from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/23/travesty-nestle-outbids-another-town-control-local-water-supply">many</a> communities for <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/10/we-slayed-dragon-community-wins-nestle-drops-water-extraction-plans" target="_blank">privatizing</a> their public water supply in the face of Flint's years-long <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> crisis, where some residents have been billed <a href="http://www.abc12.com/content/news/End-to-water-credits-brings-protestors-to-Flint-City-Hall-413440233.html" target="_blank">hundreds</a> of dollars for water they cannot drink.
</p><p style="">
"Michiganders know that no private company should be able to generate profits by undermining our state's precious natural resources, which is why an unprecedented number of people spoke up to oppose this permit," State Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, who serves on the Senate's Natural Resources Committee, told
<a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/04/02/michigan-oks-nestle-permit-increased-water-withdrawal-bottled-water-plant/479896002/" target="_blank">Detroit Free Press</a>. "Out of 81,862 comments filed by the people of our state, only 75 of them were in favor of the permit."
</p><p style="">
MDEQ
<a href="http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135--465232--,00.html" target="_blank">said</a> the application met the requirements under the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act.
</p><p style="">
"The scope and detail of the department's review of the Nestlé permit application represents the most extensive analysis of any water withdrawal in Michigan history," said C. Heidi Grether, director of MDEQ. "We are hopeful that whether residents agree with the Nestlé permitting decision or not, they will acknowledge and respect the work that MDEQ staff did to thoroughly and conscientiously apply the law in reviewing the permit."
</p><p style="">
"In full transparency, the majority of the public comments received were in opposition of the permit, but most of them related to issues of public policy which are not, and should not be, part of an administrative permit decision. We cannot base our decisions on public opinion because our department is required to follow the rule of law when making determinations," Grether added.
</p><p style="">
Nestlé now must prepare a monitoring plan consistent with the requirements of the permit and submit it to MDEQ for consideration before it is authorized to take more water.
</p><p style="">
The
<a href="http://michiganlcv.org/" target="_blank">Michigan League of Conservation Voters</a> criticized the MDEQ's decision.
</p><p style="">
The group
<a href="https://twitter.com/MichiganLCV/status/980957342106832896" target="_blank">tweeted</a>, "Sadly, the DEQ chose to give the green light to Nestlé to continue pumping our water—hanging a 'For Sale' sign on Michigan's water resources at a time when communities across our state lack safe, affordable access to drinking water."
</p><p style="">
"Folks are struggling to get clean water in Detroit and Flint and having a lot of issues with PFAS contamination," Nicholas Occhipinti, the organization's government affairs director told
<a href="http://michiganradio.org/post/state-approves-nestles-water-withdrawal-permit" target="_blank">Michigan Radio</a>. "It's just a hard, hard road blow to take for Michiganders to see water pumped out of the watershed for other states."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="6bc26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1I995A1576683828"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="966438661159030784" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Report: 64% of Bottled Water Is Tap Water, Costs 2000x More https://t.co/dspQdcufTl @Waterkeeper @foodandwater</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/966438661159030784">1519251907.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less