Tap, Tap, Tap Water
After years of serving bottled water, Ina's and other Chicago-area restaurants are now thinking 'outside the bottle' and serving only tap water.
While labels may conjure up images of pristine mountain streams, the truth behind the eco-friendly image is that bottled water is bad for the environment.
In 2007, the manufacture of plastic water bottles generated more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions and required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil.
Every year more than 4 billion pounds of plastic bottles end up in landfills or as roadside litter, and while some states have bottle-bill laws that extend to cover bottled water, the recycling rates for bottled water pale as compared to carbonated soft drinks.
For the last three decades, prominent restaurants have been used as a vehicle to promote this sadly wasteful product. And just like consumers, many of us have been lead to believe that what's in the bottle is somehow safer and more reliable than what is in the tap.
But the restaurant industry is now better educating itself, just like so many of our patrons.
At Ina's we now know that Chicago tap is more highly regulated than what comes in the bottle. We know also that as much as 40 percent of bottled water actually comes from the same source as tap water. And most of all, we know that here in Chicago we have some of the best tap water in the country.
And in the same way our restaurant is concerned about the source of the food we serve (i.e. we committed to trans-fat free oil years ago; we use only Davidson's Pasteurized Shell Eggs), our decision to stop serving bottled water derives from a concern about what is happening upstream, so to speak.
In addition to crowding landfills and contributing to global warming, the bottled water industry is threatening local control of public water. To put five dollar bottles of water on tables here, global communities are losing control of what was once considered a basic human right - something you couldn't put a dollar value on.
Here at Ina's we take pride in modeling best practices in the restaurant industry. And to do so, we've never been afraid of controversy. While we opened as a smoke-free restaurant in 1991, in 2006, Dan Rosenthal of Trattoria #10 and I formed a coalition to promote the smoking ban citywide. (We have always been cell phone-free as well!) We joined forces again last year to form the Green Chicago Restaurant Co-op.
Cutting bottled water from the menu was virtually controversy-free.
Caring for the environment isn't always easy. Becoming a better social and environmental steward can be time-consuming and expensive. However, serving tap water is convenient and maintains our commitment to quality. Pledging to Think Outside the Bottle reduces waste, saves our patrons money, and protects the primary resource that allows our business to thrive.
We realize local restaurants play a significant role in how America chooses to eat so that's why we are joined other Chicago restaurants and eateries nationwide, in going bottled water free. I encourage other restaurants and institutions to join Ina's in becoming Think Outside the Bottle certified at www.ThinkOutsideTheBottle.org.
For us the move has been a 'no brainer' and goes very well with our buttermilk pancakes and amazing fried chicken!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
RightWingMarine:
the smashed postings suck... seriously, one letter per line?... HuffPo needs to do something about that.
anyway...
the city council can decide because they are the representatives and are actually looking out for the actual best interests of their people.
restricting new fast food joints may help by allowing healthy food joints an opportunity to come into being. fast food joints tend to have the $ to come right in and beat anyone else to it. If someone wants to open a more healthy food joint, now it's easier for them to do it and the people will benefit from it, as long as it is a well run business.
Whole Foods would first have to consider those communities, then they would weight their options, as it may be profitable there, but not profitable enough when compared to other locations, so, the people loose out on that... I'm sure Whole Foods wouldn't even consider poor communities in the first place... that is how the business world operates. BUT it now allows others who may not be looking for SUPER profits, but modest ones, maybe some local entrepreneurs, to step in... this is a way to set up conditions that allow better options to manifest, rather than allowing junk food shops to dominate the market.
putting a moritorium on healthy restraurants is without reason. There is an actual benefit to the welfare of the community to ban additional junk food shops.
I agree, there is so much space to the right of the comments section.
I'm a grown man, I don't need the city council or anyone else looking out for me. If I choose to eat junk, smoke and drink that is my concern and only mine. If a mere city council can take action for me because they believe I can't take care of myself, where does it end?
Any place there is a profit to be made there will be a capitalist there to make that profit. I live in Fort Worth, TX and there are folks that stand on the side of busy roads selling fresh fruits and vegetables. There are a couple of guys that go door to door selling frozen beef, chicken and pork. There is a market for their product/service and they satisfy that market without the need to have the legislature put burdens on their competition. Now the People's Republic of California most likely has small business license requirements and other hoops to jump through that would prevent these same services that I enjoy (and indeed TX probably as them too) but that is a problem of excessive govt.
part ii
Government can be excessive, however, regulation is necessary to protect people... after all, greed is a powerful influence over monetary decisions and businesses will and have acted in negligent and harmful ways for profit... that is the reason we have an FDA, for example. Government can be slow to modernize and keep pace with human ingenuity, but that's up to us, government is FOR us and BY us, after all.
Nestlé Waters North America appreciates the desire of Ina Pinkney and other restaurant owners to be environmental stewards. Natural resources are used to make various things in a restaurant -- from food to furniture. This is not exclusive to bottled water.
Respect for these resources guides the way we operate our business. This includes science-based management of our spring sources, making our plants more efficient, reducing packaging and advocating for more effective recycling. We’re proud of our achievements (like our Eco-Shape® bottle, with up to 30% less plastic than similar containers) – but there’s more to do.
We aim to produce a “next-generation” bottle made from recycled or renewable materials. We’ve set a goal to double recycling rates to 60% for PET beverage bottles with the help of others, and to reduce carbon intensity by 20% across our operations and supply chain.
We’re equally proud of the bottled waters we produce. FDA regulations for bottled water must be as strong and protective of the public health as the EPA’s regulations for tap water. At Nestlé Waters, we apply a rigorous 10-step quality control and product safety process. Visit our Website to view quality reports for all of our brands.
Nestlé Waters urges people to drink more water - whether from a bottle or a tap - and feels strongly that restaurant patrons should be able to choose from these two options.
Sincerely,
Jane Lazgin, Director, Corporate Communications
Nestlé Waters North America
Restaurants should be serving whatever they think they can make a buck off of, for that is their buisness to make money by serving food and drinks that sell.
Have you thought to get the Kagen or another water system then you would be serving alkaline water.
Check this out.. you will be a head of the curve.. and it would be good for the people and you can get press.. win for all..
http://kagen.house.gov/list/press/wi08_kagen/kagenhealthy.html
Best,
Hillary
Osteria Via Stato serves filtered water and gave up bottled water, many other following suit.
I hope at least this restaurant is filtering the tap water!
I know when I drink tap water I get sick and so does everyone in my family including the dog. Bottled water used to come in glass jugs that could easily be recycled and they really should go back to that. You all talk like TAP water is some kind of standard everywhere in the world but it is not.
In rural areas there are no treatment plants. Well water is pulled right out of the ground and not too far away from septic tanks, then depending on who is doing it, chemicals are either added to the water or not. Doesn't that sound tasty, healthy, and oh so good for you?
There are drinking water standards that your tap water has to meet. If you have your own well, you can and should get your water tested to make sure it meets these standards.
Cleveland, right?
Plus, tap water is better for your teeth. Most bottled water is not floridated. It sounds like a win/win to me.
Fluoride is a TOXIN. You need to get up to speed on the danger of fluoride. My daughter died of bone cancer because of fluoridated water. Europe stopped the practice over ten years ago because the science showed that it is extremely harmful. Read "The Fluoride Deception" by Chris Bryson and learn the truth.
yup,Fluoride catalysis the removal of calcium from bone.
Good for your teeth, bad for your brain. The tap water supply is no place to mass administer medication. Though perhaps a mass dose of psychedelics, as so many revolutionaires sought to do in the 1970s, would be a net benefit to the populace.
You think deciding to stop serving bottled water is good for the environment?
Then what precipitated the decision to "start' serving bottled water?
Let me venture a guess... Greed: they do it, we have to or go under! Convention: they do it, we have to or go under! Lemming like behavior: they want it, we have to provide it or go under!
Get real. An article based on you people finally becoming adults! Bottled water outside of an effective method of transport to areas LACKING potable water, never made any sense.
Of course, I once famously remarked, "DeSanti, AquaFIna, this is a hoot, Coca Cola and Pepsi have decided to remove EVERYTHING from their soft drinks and sell just the water for more money. No one will fall for that!"
And now you know why when I went long, my broker went short, and when I shorted an issue, he went long. I still can't retire and he has a beach house in Bermuda.
Just sayin'
I wish my broker was that smart.
Being a civil engineer, I have taken classes detailing the design and theory behind a water treatment plant and I must say that I am 100% more confident in tap water than bottled water. Bottled water has far too many stops along the way to the consumer, each one providing another opportunity for contamination. If a large bottling plant were ever the source of a contaminant outbreak I would expect to see a much bigger problem than our recent peanut butter scare. In comparison tap water is transported to us via pipes that are pressurized for the expressed purpose of keeping out contaminants in the event of a breach. This is analogous to our own bodies blood supply, which when breached bleeds out in turn helping to minimize opportunity for pathogens (contaminants) to enter the bloodstream. Unfortunately, unless we start to get our act together and really start funding infrastructure improvements this point may become moot.
Peace
I don't know if it still applies, but about 20 years ago, some clever entrepreneur was shipping NYC tap-water out to other parts of the country, in bottles, as some sort of gourmet water deal, since this was before everyone everywhere was drinking bottled water.
It's still very tasty, and my family drinks it exclusively. We keep it in a big Brita filter pitcher in the fridge, although it's perfectly potable right out of the tap. Talk about it's making me thirsty. I think I'll have some right now....Glug!
I've read a number of articles on HuffPo and I've noticed that one of the primary differences between myself and many writers and posters here is the application of force. This writer tells us about her resturant and the policies implemented there from a cell phone ban, a ban on trans-fats in their foods and a bottled water ban and these are all things I can support because they are actions her establishment are taking voluntarily. I can even support her campaign to convince other resturants to give up bottled water.
But then there was the line about forming a coalition to ban smoking in resturants city-wide. Why can't other resturant owners decide on their own if they will permit smoking or not? If the customers don't like it they can eat somewhere else. If the employees don't like it they can go to work somewhere else.
If you can't convince someone to your point of view by means of a thoughtful argument and resort to having your will imposed on others through the force of the legislature; freedom for everyone is diminished.
Why can't other restaurant owners decide on their own if they will permit food poisoning or not?
Why can't other restaurant owners decide on their own if they will permit fire safety or not?
Why can't other restaurant owners decide on their own if they will permit murder or not?
If the customers don't like it they can eat somewhere else. If the employees don't like it they can go to work somewhere else.
This is EXACTLY how stupid right wing thinking is.
so what other restrictions would you put on people? Can we continue to decide for ourselves what we will eat or should we have a food czar? Can people still decide how much physical activity they will get or should we have a excercize czar?
freedom for everyone is diminished?... what, the freedom to poison the people around you?...
sometimes government is needed to make people and businesses not harm eachother...
not all people have the knowledge or consideration to avoid practices that harm others, therefore law.
read the constitution... "PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE"
are you a smoker?
what else would you have the govt protect you from?
Personally I find smoking to be a disgusting habit and I don't permit it in my home. But I don't believe my revulsion gives me the authority to go to the owner of a diner and tell him that he's not allowed to have smokers in his establishment.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin
You would have the government protect you? Who is the government? What if your hated right wing was the government, would you still want protection?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
