Bottled Bullshit.

This is the most unethical thing I've seen in years. Taking advantage of consumers, pretending to care about suffering third world children, polluting the environment, and making obscene profits on it all - if you ran this past Enron's upper management, they might have told you it was despicable. It's that questionable.

The side of the bottle reads like this:

Our Mission
To help children around the world get clean water. Did you know that water-related diseases are the leading cause of death among children worldwide? By purchasing a bottle of Ethos Water, you can help solve this problem. Our goal is to donate at least $10 million by the end of 2010 - by contributing 5¢ from the sale of every bottle - to support humanitarian water projects. Already, we are helping to bring clean water to children in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

One of the founders says, "Ethos is more like a mission with a product vs. the other way around." All this might sound fantastic to you upon first glance. I wouldn't think less of you if it did. But if by the end of this article you don't see it differently, you're a gullible fool.

Ethos was founded by Peter Thum (quoted above) and Jonathan Greenblatt in 2002. It was acquired by Starbucks in 2005. I cannot say how many bottles have been sold since then, but a quick look at the math will tell us where they've set their goal: 200 million bottles ($10m / $0.05). If their goal is truly altruistic, we should expect - as we do with charities all over the world - that most of the money collected is passed onto the needy who they claim to serve. So our first question should be: what percentage of the sale price is going toward the needy children? Are you ready for this?

3%
($1.80 / $0.05)

I have rounded up here, because their website states they actually donate up to a dime per bottle in some cases. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. This figure is generous. 

"But, wait, they have costs too! It's unfair just to look at their sale price!"

Wrong. Because every Starbucks in the United States uses a triple filtration system that includes reverse osmosis, and the price of that water? $0.00 w/ free refills. Now, to state what you probably already know, the free water is cleaner on average than the supposedly ethical one (since bottled water quality tends to be lacking.) Which means: instead of donating the entire cost price (100%) of the Ethos Water to charity, you are giving them 3%. Tell me: what is ethical about that?

I considered that the triple filtration thing might be a rumor, so I called Starbucks corporate offices today and they confirmed it. Not only are you starting with US tap water, which is completely safe to drink (though it tastes like crud in many places) but you are putting it through further filtration! I am very picky about water, but I would challenge anyone to compare the taste of the free water at Starbucks to the alternative. It is every bit as good as the bottled. So what exactly are you buying when you buy Ethos? Is it even priced competitively?

There is some good news here: the cost is about right for a single bottle as a convenience purchase. It's not the cheapest around, but it isn't the most expensive either. However, if we are to even entertain the idea that Starbucks is doing this for primarily altruistic reasons, we should expect that their profit margins will be similar to, or lower than, that of other water companies. I cannot say what their production costs are, only that the cost of competing brands' water in bulk packages shows there is plenty of room for a lower price (or to give a bigger chunk of the proceeds to the needy).

Prices (except Ethos) obtained at Ralph's in Pasadena, CA. All sale prices disregarded.

Their goal is primarily to make money, and the image they've crafted to do this includes claiming that they are interested first in helping children. It is impossible to say for certain whether they really believe their own hype, but it is definitely fair to say that there are better structures to help get clean water to children.

We all know that bottled water is a luxury, that to many people (myself included) it tastes better, and that purified water and spring water is not all the same. However, the environmental impact and added cost of manufacturing the plastic and transporting the bottles are in themselves enough so you should, if you are concerned with needy children or the future of the world, bypass the water bottling bologna and donate directly to the charities which help provide clean water to people who lack it. To not be a sucker, you can do that here:

• Action Against Hunger (general - includes much more than water)
• AMREF (general - includes much more than water)
• Water Partners International

I would have listed specifically which charities they donate to, but I can't find this anywhere on their website. Since they're not a non-profit, they don't have to show their numbers or where the money goes. Instead, I chose well-rated, non-religious organizations on Charity Navigator.

The only issue that remains is avoidance of fluoride, which is not added to many bottled waters. If you don't accept that it is good scientific practice to fluoridate the water, you are in the company of many members of the EPA. Of course, if you cook with fluoridated water and/or eat out, you really can't avoid this substance anyway and the point is moot.

So, we can tack one more item onto the list of things to like about the gargantuan coffee company. Not only do they dispatch legal drugs, drive out the local dealers, and homogenize the culture, they also cater to suckers who like to pat themselves on the back for sparing a nickel out of their luxury purchases.

If you buy bottled water, never, ever, do it in a Starbucks!

© 2008 FussyPucker.

drinkyouverymuch@fussypucker.com