Are Water Labels Insight?

… In our current environment virtually corporate controlled … WATER labels serve only to promote product …

Current label requirements are illusionary … Corporate can make any claim it choose needing to prove nothing …

Are Water Labels Insight?


By Klaus Reichardt …


In the next few years, if trends continue, we are likely to see more labels and more labeling information on a variety of products we use every day. For instance, the Food and Drug Administration recently announced it is going to require menu labeling at restaurants, specifically fast food facilities. Aware that this trend is in the cards, some fast food restaurants have already started posting labels listing calories and other information in their locations.

Another type of label garnering increased attention is carbon labels. One such program developed by an organization in England indicates the volume of greenhouse gasses emitted by a product during its entire lifecycle. It is calculated by determining such things as the raw materials used to make the product, how it is transported, how and where the product is built, and how it is packaged.


Could water labels be next? This does not refer to what is in bottled water, for instance, or where it comes from. Instead, water labels are designed so that the consumer has an idea of how much water is used to manufacture a product, along with the expansion of such labels that indicate, for instance, how many gallons of water are used per flush of a toilet or urinal.


The ultimate goals behind the concept are simple: First, if two or more products are equivalent, the environmentally conscious consumer will have the option of selecting the one that uses less water. And second, if the product using less water is selected, it will help conserve water.


It is expected that having such information might come as bit of a surprise for many people. For instance:

·         Estimates are that it requires nearly 40,000 gallons of water to build a car.

·         One conventional urinal uses 40,000 gallons of water per year.

·         To grow the cotton in one pair of jeans, 1,800 gallons are used and 700 gallons for a cotton shirt.

Such a labeling system has been discussed in some quarters for a number of years. However, Dr. Brent Clothier of the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd., formally introduced the concept of a water-labeling system such as the one described above at the Australian Society of Agronomy conference held in New Zealand at the end of 2010.*


But Will It Work?The idea behind a water-labeling program is very good; however, the big question is will it change consumer buying habits? After all, many good ideas have come and gone with little impact.

However, it does appear this one might have legs.


For instance, property developers/managers do get involved with the water consumption of restroom fixtures, especially if they have a goal of building/operating a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified facility.


Further evidence: A Harris Interactive survey reported that 72% of consumers purchasing a refrigerator do look for the EnergyStar label before making a final buying decision (as reported March 14, 2011).


Another indicator that can be used as a guide to what might happen are the nutritional labels found on food items in the US. Here, the stats are a bit less favorable, but still positive. Although many people give little heed to nutritional labels, studies indicate that when consumers become exposed to such things as calorie counts and sodium levels, they typically select products that have fewer calories and are healthier (Roberto 2010).

A similar labeling system in the Netherlands not only lists calorie counts and other information on a food label, it suggests healthier alternatives. Here again, consumers have changed their buying habits with this information in hand.


Should we get behind a water labeling initiative in the US? As water becomes a growing concern in this country and around the world, some type of realistic system might prove beneficial. 


* An agronomist is a scientist who specializes in the science of utilizing plants for food, fuel, feed, and fiber for different purposes.


Author’s Bio: Klaus Reichardt is founder and managing partner of Waterless Co. LLC, Vista, CA


… Until “WE” take control of USDA … FDA … the labeling

of any water product will be virtually worthless …

Under the cover of


… Under the cover of the debt ceiling boondoggle “corporate” is having a field day gutting EPA …

EPA Delays Ozone Standards, Postpones Public Health Protections …Huffington Post… Lynne Peeples …


House Warms Up for Debt Vote with Interior-Environment Bill…U.S. News & World Report…Jessica Rettig…


With Default Seven Days Away, House GOP Fixates On Repealing Environmental Regulations…Think Progress… Marie Diamond …


The EPA’s out-of-touch agenda…The Hill… Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)…




… Do your own math and then decide … and while you’re at it  remember you do not have a seat at the table deciding where that magic SAFE cut-off line is …

Can You Trust Your Local

Drinking Water Quality Report…?


A GAO study finds that states are failing to report about one of every four health-based water quality violations, (25%)  and five of every six monitoring errors….(83%)

States failed to report 26% of health-based drinking water quality violations and 84% of monitoring violations at the nation’s drinking water supply plants, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office released last week.

While the GAO still calls the U.S. drinking water supply "among the safest in the world," the violations, found in a review of 2009 Environmental Protection Agency audits of 14 states, show that spikes in contamination levels were not reported in about one out of four instances. And five out of six monitoring violations, which investigators say could well mask additional unhealthy contamination, went unreported. The GAO study, ordered by Congress, was designed to help the EPA improve the quality of data it receives from the states, so that it can assess its success at meeting clean drinking water goals.

But what does it mean for consumers? The Daily Green wanted to know if the same reporting errors and omissions in state reports to the EPA were found in local drinking water quality reports. These reports, mailed to residents (or made available online), are called "consumer confidence reports" and they typically show residents how reliably safe their tap water is. But if the data being reported to regulators is inaccurate, does it also mean that the data reported to consumers is inaccurate?

That’s what we asked David Trimble, the director of the GAO’s Natural Resources and Environment team, which produced the new study. While the main point of the research was not to assess the veracity of those annual drinking quality reports, they are likely to suffer from the same problems, he said.

"The Consumer Confidence Reports are supposed to identify violations that have occurred," Trimble said. "If the state did not designate a certain circumstance (health-based or monitoring) as a violation, then it is unlikely that the (report) would notify the public of that violation. Also, if a ‘missed’ monitoring violation … would have recorded the presence of a certain contaminant, then the utility could not report the presence of that contaminant to the consumers."

The EPA requires drinking water plants to report violations so that consumers aren’t exposed to potentially harmful contamination, and so they can take precautions if contamination levels exceed health-based thresholds. The GAO investigation didn’t assess the severity of the violations that went unreported, Trimble said, and there wasn’t enough data to say, statistically, which types of contaminants were associated with the violations most frequently. But the health-based violations included "a variety of regulated contaminants, including total coliform, lead, disinfectant byproducts, nitrate, radionuclides, and others," he said.

The monitoring violations included "failure to conduct adequate monitoring, failure to report the results of monitoring to the state, failure to report the results on time, failure to meet the requirements for notifying the public about violations, and failure to meet the requirements to provide customers with a Consumer Confidence Report," Trimble said.

Public water systems provide treated tap water to most Americans (all but about 15 million who rely on private wells). The size of these water systems varies greatly, though, with — on one end of the spectrum — about 400 systems each serving populations of 100,000 or more and — on the other end of the spectrum — nearly 29,000 systems each serving populations of under 500. The GAO’s report couldn’t say whether the smaller water systems or the larger systems were more likely to have health- or monitoring-based violations.

The good news is that the GAO report comes with a set of recommendations for EPA to improve monitoring quality and reporting accuracy, and Trimble is confident that the EPA is committed to improving both.

"Water systems are required to report violations to the public in their Consumer Confidence Reports," Trimble said. "Therefore, if EPA and the states are able to improve their ability to identify violations when they occur, that should increase the likelihood that the Consumer Confidence Reports accurately reflect the operations at particular water systems."

In the meantime, consumers have few viable ways to verify the information they receive in annual drinking water quality reports. One can use the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System to "search for their system to learn whether or not violations have occurred" and to compare the data to information in their annual drinking quality reports, Trimble said, but the GAO’s own research found the data in the system faulty.

Trimble emphasized the overall safety of the U.S. water supply. For those interested in filtering their tap water, though, The Daily Green suggests checking out the Environmental Working Group’s water filter buying guide. Depending on the contaminants you want to filter and the technology you want to pay for, options range from the effective and relatively affordable Culligan RC-EZ-Change 4 for under $80) to the comprehensive but expensive.

Read more:

even ble$$ed by Mon$anto & Friends$ …


119524974… But they are declared SAFE by USDA … FDA … AMA … CDC … “big” pharma … and even ble$$ed by Mon$anto & Friends$ …



The Soap You Should Never Use – But 75% of Households Do

Posted By Dr. Mercola | July 27 2011 …


The main compounds in antibiotic wipes, creams and soaps — triclosan and triclocarban — have been added to chopping boards, refrigerators, plastic lunchboxes, and mattresses in an attempt to halt the spread of microbes.

But studies show that these antibiotic chemicals are no more likely than regular soap to prevent gastrointestinal or respiratory illness. In fact, for chronically sick patients, antibiotic soaps were actually associated with increases in the frequencies of fevers, runny noses and coughs.

According to Scientific American:

"What we do know is that the influence of these wipes and salves does not end with our hands, but instead spreads from them down our drains and out into society.

What happens when antibiotic soaps and suds go down drains? To find out, a group of scientists recently made artificial drains clogged with bacteria … and then subjected them to low and high doses of triclosan … Triclosan kills ‘weak’ bacteria but favors the tolerant, among them species of bacteria that eat triclosan … Triclosan may also favor lineages of bacteria that are also resistant to the oral antibiotics used in hospitals".

Additionally, there have been recent concerns about its possible effects on human health — and triclosan has been detected in human breast milk, blood, and urine samples. A study evaluated the effects of triclosan in female rats, and was found to advance the age at which the rats hit puberty.  Serum thyroid hormone concentrations were also suppressed by triclosan.

According to the study, published in Toxicological Sciences:

"In conclusion, triclosan affected estrogen-mediated responses in the pubertal and weanling female rat and also suppressed thyroid hormone in both studies."


clip_image003  Scientific American July 5, 2011 

clip_image003[1]  Toxicological Sciences 2010; 117 (1): 45-53 

clip_image003[2]  Green Med Info 



… SEEDS AND SOIL … our future consolidated …

A massive consolidation of seed companies is under way, and it’s being led by Monsanto and DuPont … Together, they’ve bought up nearly a hundred seed companies over the last several years, consolidating the ownership of seeds and GMOs into the hands of a tiny number of powerful globalist corporations.

Read today’s story by Ethan Huff to see what’s really going on with the world seed supply, right under our noses! …



… But almost daily Arizona’s largest newspaper … Arizona Republic … purports the corner in the Arizona housing market turning for the better …


Almost half of mortgages in Arizona are ‘underwater,’ report says

07-26-2011  •  Anthony DeWitt 

WASHINGTON – Just under half of all Arizona mortgages were "under water" in spring of this year, the second-highest percentage in the nation, according to a report from a private research firm.

might lead to the creation of "monsters".

… Just how much thought have we given to the long term implications of experimentation between humans … animals … plants …?

Scientists warn of ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario


Read complete article and view video here …


Their report calls for a new rules to supervise sensitive research that involves humanising animals.


One area of concern is "Category Three" experiments which may raise "very strong ethical concerns" and should be banned.


An example given is the creation of primates with distinctly human characteristics, such as speech.


Exactly the same scenario is portrayed in the new movie Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, in which scientists searching for an Alzheimer’s cure create a new breed of ape with human-like intelligence.


The report also acknowledges the "Frankenstein fear" that humanising animals might lead to the creation of "monsters".