>>>It's always nice to see a corporation get their feet held to the fire over deceptive marketing --
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/27/pepsico.aquafina.reut/index.html
>>>
>>>Aquifina labels previously said they were bottled at "P.W.S. source".
>>
>>How was that deceptive?
>
>
>PWS is not a commonly used acronym, to say the least. (Maybe PMS blasted that whole part of the alphabet and left nothing standing, LOL). Not many would guess it stood for Public Water Supply. They were complying with food labeling laws that you have to say where the product was made but clearly didn't want to reveal that Aquafina is tap water.

I remember many years ago when bottled water was still sort of a yuppy thing, there was a test shown on TV (done by 20-20 maybe?). They did blind tests on water. first they got the tasters to sign up saying what bottled waters they preferred, and then did the blind tests. The water that won the test was LA Tap water, IIRC. What was really funny though was that so many of the tasters wrote truly derogatory comments about what were supposedly their favourite waters. It was pretty much of a joke.

I do buy bottled water sometimes (whatever is the cheapest at the time) because I like the convenience of just chucking a bunch of bottles in the fridge and hauling one out to take with me when I go somewhere. Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy with Toronto tap water.

The other thing that confuses me a little is the Britta purifier and others like it. My mother has one, but I've never been able to convince myself that a $30.00 Britta will do anything more or better than the multi-million dollar purifying system the city uses.