Water Bottles: Are They All Safe? Practical Cases and Food Law
THE ARTICLE IN A NUTSHELL
by GoodFood Consulting IT | Mar 10, 2020 | Food law, Sustainability | 0 comments
- not all bottles are compatible with all beverages;
- not all bottles suit the user’s intended uses;
- you must verify that bottles are classified as FCM (Food Contact Materials), regulations listed in the article;
- bottles must be sanitized as they can harbor microorganisms;
- manufacturers who disregard the legislation risk fines from €1,500 to €80,000; details in the article.
Back in 2008, Massimo Cacciari, charismatic mayor of Venice, launched a campaign urging citizens and tourists to prefer “the mayor’s water,” i.e., tap water. The posters—no coincidence—showed Cacciari himself pouring a glass of “his” water. The message, crystal-clear and current:
Tap water generates no waste or packaging; a thousand liters cost one euro; it’s good, safe, tested daily, and comes straight to every home.
Hundreds of carafes and bottles—plastic, yes, but reusable—were handed out to eliminate single-use containers and packaging, the inevitable side-effect of bottled water.
Twelve years ago, the initiative was appreciated but didn’t go viral: the global financial crisis had just begun, the West still felt like the center of the world, and Greta Thunberg was an unknown five-year-old with Asperger’s. Today’s widespread eco-anxiety was then the concern of activists and researchers; the average person didn’t see a bottle of mineral water as a weapon of mass destruction.
Twelve years later, the reasons to prefer “the mayor’s water” are so widely shared as to seem obvious. And so the humble canteen—once the companion of soldiers and hikers—has become an urban totem of post-millennial progress and civility.
Materials, market and FCM rules
Industry has caught the wind and now offers bottles in every shape and color—and, crucially, in many different materials: a variety that makes choice not only a matter of taste, but also of values and food safety. The latter is critical when bottles are supplied by schools, companies or public offices, often for free. In such cases, the worthy aim of reducing plastic waste must coexist with market constraints, first and foremost cost control.
Several schools in Milan, Brescia, Modena, Rome, Florence and elsewhere have provided students with a bottle meant to become part of the school kit, alongside pencil cases and backpacks. The initiatives have been successful, but in some cases the selected product proved unsuitable for liquids other than water—such as fruit juices and soft drinks—or for hot liquids; in others, cleaning instructions were unclear; elsewhere, doubts remained whether the material or its coating—as well as cap and gaskets—would remain non-toxic under all conditions.
A truly “eco-friendly” bottle must last over time and, at end of life, be as recyclable as possible—so as not to pollute the environment; but the person drinking from that bottle must not be “polluted” either: hence the importance of investing in products that are not harmful to health, even if that means turning down the cheapest offer.
There is currently no single rulebook defining in detail how the Perfect Bottle must be made and maintained. What should apply—one hopes—are the laws and standards on the safety of food contact materials, which vary depending on the material in contact with the beverage. Here are the most common cases:
PLASTIC
EU legislation:
- Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, Article 3, Article 11(5), Article 15 and subsequent amendments;
- Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 and subsequent amendments;
- Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 and subsequent amendments;
Italian legislation:
- Ministerial Decree 21/03/1973 and subsequent amendments;
- DPR 777/82 and subsequent amendments.
ALUMINIUM
EU legislation:
- Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004
- Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006
Italian legislation:
- DPR 777/82, as amended
- DM 21/03/73
- DM 18/04/2007
TINPLATE AND CHROMED STEEL
EU legislation:
- Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004
- Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006
Italian legislation:
- DPR 777/82, as amended
- DM 21/03/73
- DM 1/06/1988 No. 243
- DM 18/02/1984, as amended
- DM 4/03/2005
From classroom to backpack: real use and practical risks
A bottle is not used like, say, a carafe or a pot (school/on the go vs. kitchen), nor with the same level of skill and care (child/teen vs. home cook/chef).
It’s normal for a bottle to fall, dent, and rub against bags, books, keys and stationery. It’s normal that it goes a whole day without being washed with detergent—maybe just rinsed with water. It’s normal to pop it in the freezer for half an hour in summer to chill the contents; conversely, in winter, to fill it with hot tea—perhaps with sugar and lemon. It isn’t practical or eco-friendly to have a different bottle for each beverage you want to take from home in the morning.
Any body planning a mass distribution of bottles must factor all this in: if the object is to become part of eco-conscious routines, it must offer maximum functionality and reliability.
Remember: bottle manufacturers, as FCM producers, are legally required to provide buyers with full information on correct use, or face stiff administrative fines. Below are the main violations in the packaging/FCM sector.
Penalties for FCM breaches (Art. 2, Legislative Decree 29/2017)
ART. 2 LEGISLATIVE DECREE 29/2017 – BREACH OF GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
| EU reference rule | Breach | Administrative fine |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 3(1)(a) Reg. No. 1935/2004 | Manufacture, marketing and use of FCM that pose a risk to human health | €10,000 to €80,000 |
| Art. 3(1)(b) Reg. No. 1935/2004 | Manufacture, marketing and use of FCM in breach of overall migration limits or of good manufacturing practice | €7,500 to €60,000 |
| Art. 3(1)(c) Reg. No. 1935/2004 | Manufacture, marketing and use of FCM that cause deterioration of the organoleptic characteristics of foods | €5,000 to €27,000 |
| Art. 3(2) Reg. No. 1935/2004 | Labelling, advertising and presentation of FCM in a way that misleads consumers about safe and correct use | €1,500 to €25,000 |
The Scandicci case and final recommendations
It’s worth recalling the bottles distributed in Scandicci’s schools at the start of the 2019–2020 year and recalled by November because—the story goes—the external enamel tended to flake and the cap degraded quickly. Those bottles were not suitable for acidic liquids—so no fruit juices or sodas, nor even the lemon tea we mentioned—nor for thermal shocks.
The commendable intent of Scandicci’s municipality does not erase the initiative’s core flaw: failing to test market alternatives under real “field” conditions. Such testing would have pointed to uncoated, near-inert materials instead: stainless steel, certainly, but also certain thick, high-resistance polymers used for years without issues in catering and the food industry. A technical consultant could have suggested a different material before purchase, avoiding alarm.
Rising public awareness on environmental issues is fostering new “virtuous” behaviours which, however, are truly virtuous only if all the mosaic’s tiles are considered: eliminating plastic—or rather, single-use plastic waste—requires offering consumers a practical and healthy alternative; otherwise, solving one problem risks creating others.
Nor should we underestimate the paradox whereby, if the eco alternative proves awkward, unhygienic or simply ill-chosen, consumers will revert to old habits—and thousands of “eco-good intentions” will end up in the bin, with no guarantee of proper disposal or recycling.
We must therefore work seriously to inform the public about the most suitable materials—and their limits—so that supply and demand for bottles and other “portable eco containers” are truly aligned, encouraging a virtuous cycle of habit and emulation.
Carmine F. Milone
Food Technologist
