Sigh. Journalists who "report" using advocacy group evidence bug me. They complain about companies obscuring things and hiding information, and then they turn around and obscure/slant the evidence themselves.
Said rankings are depressing, to be sure. But if one clicks through to the report in question, it becomes more clear that the low grades are due primarily to failure to disclose, not because of "contaminated water".
The website in question ("Enviromental Working Group") reports the study in question with a long table listing how the various waters did on four criteria:
1. Transparency regarding the source -- did label include info about where the water came from.
2. Transparency regarding purification -- did label disclose the kind of treatment used.
3. Transparency regarding company testing of water -- did label disclose info about how water tested and whether report is available.
For each of these three, the website displays a cute little pie chart icon showing that most companies are less than fully disclosing.
The fourth criteria, which EWS labels "advanced treatment?" supposedly ranks the efficacy of advanced purification techniques. But if you dig carefully into what they say about their methodology, it sounds suspiciously like they are basing their results primarily if not exclusively on what is/what isn't reported on the bottle's label. They're is no mention, at least I couldn't find any, of the EWS doing or citing anyone who actually tested the water unless the reporting was done (a) on the label itself or (b) they got info from the people the label said to contact for test results. And since most water companies didn't provide much for (a) or (b), the majority of the waters got a bad grade.
(Interestingly, these "advanced treatment?" results were reported differently than the other "transparency" results. Where the latter had the little pie icons suggesting precision regarding the degree of disclosure, the "advanced treatment?" results were a simple check mark or absence thereof. Essentially a pass/fail grade rather than a letter grade gradation as the reporter suggests.)
Essentially what the EWG did is invite the "public" to submit labels from water bottles and then analyzed the label content.
As an test of how much companies disclose and comply with, e.g., California's law SB 220 on bottled water disclosure, the EWG report may be fine. As information about the quality of bottled water, it says virtually nothing.
Frankly, if EWG or the author of the article really wants to know what the bottles contain re: contaminants, why don't they just hire a chemist to test the water quality.
Labelling is a wonderful thing. But just because a label doesn't contain certain info doesnt mean the company is trying to hide poisons from you. If I'm in a highly competitive industry (suggested by the number of waters available, if nothing else), I'm sure as heck not going to be inclined to put info on a label that my competitors can use to get your business.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)