Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:Any expenditures involving bottled water.

FDA Rules for Bottled Water Are Generally Less Strict than Tap Water Rules

Our in-depth review indicates that, with few exceptions, federal bottled water regulation is weaker than the tap water regulations facing city water supplies. The bottled water industry is disingenuous in pointing out that there are significant flaws in the tap water regulatory scheme, since many more flaws exist in bottled water rules. Although smaller tap water utilities sometimes face less stringent controls than do bigger cities, it still is clear that federal rules for city tap water generally are more stringent than those for bottled water.

For many years, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FDA was supposed to adopt and apply to bottled water all EPA tap water standards within 180 days after EPA issued those standards. [107] FDA was authorized to refuse to apply the EPA tap water standards to bottled water in certain circumstances where it determined and published reasons explaining why they were inappropriate for bottled water. [108] What happened, however, was that rather than affirmatively making such determinations, FDA just could not seem to be able to get around to issuing bottled water standards or making determinations at all.

Historically, FDA has lagged in its obligation to apply the EPA standards to bottled water, having adopted only a fraction of EPA tap water standards and often being severely criticized for its inaction. For example, a 1995 Senate committee report noted:

FDA has been slow to act. FDA took 4 years to set standards for the 8 volatile organic chemicals (including benzene) regulated by EPA in 1989. FDA did not set standards for the 35 contaminants covered by EPA's 1991 Phase II rulemaking until December, 1994. Standards for bottled water have not been issued for those contaminants regulated by the [EPA] Phase V rule for tap water, although it was promulgated by EPA in 1992 and became effective for tap water on January 1, 1994. [109]

monster10 wrote:Don't u dare say cut bicycle paths u freakin piece of bull shit

jay_a2j wrote:unnecessary research like to see how fast katsup pours out of a bottle

jefjef wrote:Every feasibility study.

Millions are paid to research/study the feasibility of doing this or that or some other crap. Often the proposed projects are scrapped/shelved due to not being monetarily feasible.

john9blue wrote:I'm really not sure why I said that, as bottled water is one of the few areas in which the government trounces the private industry. I guess it just came to my mind when thinking of dumb wastes of money. Bottled water is a monument to the stupidity of man. Anyway...

Any money spent fighting against net neutrality.

angola wrote:

john9blue wrote:I'm really not sure why I said that, as bottled water is one of the few areas in which the government trounces the private industry. I guess it just came to my mind when thinking of dumb wastes of money. Bottled water is a monument to the stupidity of man. Anyway...

Any money spent fighting against net neutrality.

You should taste the tap water in West Texas. It is undrinkable and so full of chemicals in a sad attempt to make it drinkable, that cancer rates are sky high in this area.

angola wrote:You should taste the tap water in West Texas. It is undrinkable and so full of chemicals in a sad attempt to make it drinkable, that cancer rates are sky high in this area.

angola wrote:The water comes from two mud pits somewhere out here. The only river that flows through West Texas is the Pecos, which is alkaline and tastes awful - plus I've rarely seen any water in it.

And there is no way whatever crap they put in the water out here is helping anyone, though I can't attest to that, because I use one of those office-type water coolers at my house.

Something the government can get rid of? Tax breaks for the rich.