I was under the impression Gerolsteiner and San Pellegrino were from deep under ground springs where it took the water decades or more to filter down into the source where the bottler draws it from. Are the plastics somehow in the source or are they being introduced in another way, perhaps when the bottles are washed, handled, etc before filling?
> Microplastics may enter drinking-water sources in a number of ways: from surface run-off (e.g. after a rain event), to wastewater effluent (both treated and untreated), combined sewer overflows, industrial effluent, degraded plastic waste and atmospheric deposition. Surface run-off and wastewater effluent are recognized as the two main sources, but better data are required to quantify the sources and associate them with more specific plastic waste streams. Plastic bottles and caps that are used in bottled water may also be sources of microplastics in drinking-water.
The bottles themselves are suspicious and have been implicated [1]. All plastics have been found to leech
chemicals, including PET [2] which is used for bottled water.
If you think that in a typical warehouse or storage facility (before it hits a supermarket or sales point),
bottled water is never refrigerated and that the temperatures it is exposed to are very frequently 'extreme', it should come as no surprise that the plastic can break down and contaminate the water.
A most troubling observation is that even plastics labeled BPA-free or strongly marketed as baby-safe seem to make no difference, in many cases actually being orders of magnitude worse than the plastics they replaced [3].
The precautionary principle should strongly characterize -all- plastics as unsafe but in reality, governments are very slow to respond. Especially, in the US, regulatory capture has made the FDA ignore plenty of scientific evidence and basically treat all chemicals as safe unless proven otherwise. [3]
The precautionary principle should strongly characterize -all- plastics as unsafe
It really bothers me to see people making such rash statements, because they serve more to spread fear and panic more than anything else. Just looking at some of the comments here, it seems this microplastics thing is approaching mass hysteria. There is absolutely no doubt that plastics have contributed greatly to an increasing quality of life over the century or more since they've been invented. If you don't believe me, compare what it was like to live in the early 1800s or before.
The overuse of disposable plastics is certainly problematic, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> and basically treat all chemicals as safe unless proven otherwise.
Shouldn't that be always the case? 'Chemicals' permutations are countless. You and I are a bag of "chemicals", and most of them, even if naturally occurring, are harmful depending on dosage.
There's a difference of degree and a difference of kind.
In Europe, there are standards and tests that are performed before something is deemed to be "safe" enough to be sold to the public. Look at the supplements industry in Europe for instance where there is a standard of proof to be met and contrast to the supplements industry in the USA where anything goes [5].
It is not a coincidence that the contaminated supply of valsartan was discovered in Europe [1].
In the US there are - usually- no standards and for the vast majority of consumables, no tests done. Even for highly sensitive chemicals (e.g. marketed to the baby market), the FDA is visibly in the pockets of big corporations and - when forced to act - is moving at a snail's pace. It is depressing to see the FDA capitulating to the lobbyists [2] until the mountain of evidence grows to the point where it commands attention. Even then, it can be ignored [3] [4].
"Europe has banned many phthalates from use in plastics that come into contact with fatty foods, including baby food, but the FDA allows the use of many phthalates in such materials and classifies them as indirect food additives."
