Nestle Makes Billions Bottling Water It Pays Nearly Nothing For (bloomberg.com)

Nestle, the world's largest food and beverage company, has been bottling water since 1843 and has grown into the largest seller of bottled water. But a detailed report on Bloomberg uncovers the company's operation in Michigan, revealing that Nestle has come to dominate in the industry in part by going into economically depressed areas with lax water laws. It makes billions selling a product for which it pays close to nothing. Find the Bloomberg Businessweek article here (it might be paywalled, here's an alternative source).

Comments

So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[King_TJ]

I've heard a lot about how "evil" Nestle is for these practices. But as usual, we're simply dealing with shrewd businesses taking advantage of situations where they can make huge profits because the law of the land doesn't prevent any of it.

IMO, laws can be changed at any time -- so blame the governments for this.

Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, Nestle SHOULD be painted evil in all this after their CEO's statement that he didn't think water was a human right.

Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[megamind]

YOU HAVE TO FIGHT!! FOR YOUR RIGHT!!! TO PAAAAAARRTTAAAAY!! No one has inherited rights to a limited resources and fresh water is the most precious of all. You are all lucky someone is even willing to bottle it up and ship it to your locale.

Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait wait wait - so a company somehow has rights to this resource? A natural resource that is essential to human survival is owned by someone how exactly?

Access to water is a human right. The idea that someone can lay claims to something they didn't create is idiotic.

Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[EndlessNameless]

Yeah - the article paints Nestle as evil but gives the city leaders a total pass for charging only a $200 extraction fee.

It's basically corporate welfare---a handout to a big corporation in exchange for jobs.

If they increase the fee to a significant level, Nestle will just move to another economically depressed area and offer them hundreds or thousands of jobs in exchange for free access to water.

When you have hundreds of communities willing to sell out, it's awfully nice to be the buyer.

Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that someone can lay claims to something they didn't create is idiotic.

OK, so you don't believe in property. Most people disagree, though.

Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[slasher999]

Access to water isn't a right. If you want water, dig a well and get some. Of course you'll need equipment or someone to dig it. And you'll need to own the land to have rights to do that, and in some cases local laws may prevent you from pumping that water or even digging the well. If the land you own happens to have a spring, creek, river or lake that can be your water source, if none of the above you can collect rain water just about anywhere without restriction so long as it's raining.

My point here is most of these methods have some cost associated. Nothing, or virtually nothing is free. If someone provides you water or a source from which to get water there is going to be a cost associated with that.

What we as citizens should be pissed about isn't Nestle taking advantage of a Michigan's generosity, it's that Michigan politicians are so generous with resources that belong to the people of Michigan. If nestle wants to pump water anywhere they should be paying FAIR MARKET PRICE for that water, period. Go after the politicians. Hold them accountable. Demand that your communities resources are sold at a fair price if they are sold at all.

Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[pushing-robot]

You're splitting hairs. Intrinsic rights don't exist; all rights are entitlements.

Thus, anything can become a right; it is up to society to decide which are beneficial to civilization and which are detrimental.

Terms like 'natural rights' are simply rhetorical devices indicating rights which are so fundamental to civil society that denying them would threaten the whole enterprise.

Clean water absolutely deserves to be a right anywhere sufficient infrastructure exists to provide it affordably. It's inarguable that potable water benefits civilization far more than it costs, unless you want to return to an era when cholera, typhoid, and dysentery were leading causes of death.

Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[XxtraLarGe]

You're splitting hairs. Intrinsic rights don't exist; all rights are entitlements.

Only if you live under the "might makes right" law of the jungle. For instance, is the right to free speech an entitlement, because the government is benevolent enough to not kill you before you exercise it?

Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[udachny]

You are wrong obviously, a right is a protection against government oppression, it is not a product or a service or a resource. Government must not be able to prevent a person from drinking, it is not the same thing as declaring that clean water must be made available for a person just because that person is born, whether he does or does not pay for the privilege of *somebody cleaning* the water.

Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, yes?

Free speech is only a right because a sufficient number of us considers it important enough to be described as such, and make our governments enshrine that in legal code. In other places, governments are able to resist that pressure (more or less successfully) and thus free speech is not a right in those countries. Pretty simple really...

Re:So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[Archangel Michael]

what is "Misbehavior? What are you outraged by? What they pay for water? That is none of your business. How much money the make (profit), then don't do business with them. The ethics you have, are yours. Collective Ethics are codified in law.

You say, "I think that this sort of issue affects us all." but then don't elaborate, and I'm at a loss why this matters at all to anyone but the people where the water is, and the people who want Nestle bottled water. You say "ongoing problem for a long time." and yet haven't actually elaborated what the problem is, and why anyone should care.

Are you upset that you can't get the deal for the water? have you tried?
Are you upset that they are making money? Have you tried competing?

You say "I'm not outraged" and " this has been an ongoing problem" which seems a bit related. Don't you think?

Seriously, I have no idea what the "ongoing problem" actually is. You say "But it deserves to be called out." but I have no idea what for. Again, you haven't articulated it.

Re: So.... fix the laws, I guess?

[Pascoea]

So I see some drinkable water but you demand I not drink it because you have a piece of paper that claims it is 'your' water even though you didn't make it.

I don't quite get your point. Are you suggesting that the concept of property doesn't apply specifically to water, because the person claiming ownership didn't make it? Why does that stop at water? I didn't make the dirt my house sits on, are you able to come dig it out?

Sigh.

[ledow]

THEY'RE BOTTLING WATER.

Their biggest expense is probably the bottle, and then moving it to somewhere they can sell it.

This isn't news.

Nor is it news that stupid people will pay again for something that already comes out of their bathroom taps or falls from the sky for free all the time.

Dasani (Coke-owned?) were bottling River Thames water and selling it to Londoners. Everyone bought it UNTIL it made the news. They hadn't even noticed or cared up until then.

Bottled water has its place, sure, but paying for a bottle of water if you live in a huge house with hot and cold running water is like buying a can of air.

Re:Sigh.

[Obfuscant]

Nor is it news that stupid people will pay again for something that already comes out of their bathroom taps or falls from the sky for free all the time.

Unfortunately, many times that I am in need of water I am neither in my bathroom (or even in my house at all), nor is it raining.

Yes, you could claim that it is stupid for people not to carry a refillable bottle of water with them at all times, but you'd be wrong. It's called "convenience", and everyone pays for convenience. Even if you don't use the convenience (and pay for it) of getting a bottle of clean, drinkable water when and where you need it, you pay for the convenience of having someone else make your clothing, build your cars, create your electricity, and almost certainly growing your food. Sometimes, I bet, you even pay for the convenience of not having to prepare your own food or not having to carry it around with you all the time so you can eat it when you need to.

Calling people stupid because they make use of modern conveniences, despite it costing more than doing everything themselves, is just arrogance.

Yeah, maybe using bottled water in your own home is overkill, but maybe it isn't -- if you live in Flint, for example. But using bottled water when you're at some event where it would be INconvenient to carry a water bottle is not.

Disruptive!!!

[jabberw0k]

Shhh, now Everybody who's Anybody is going to have to breathe exclusively canned air, because Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk say so. The truly elite breathe iAir, natchurally.

just like dead tree books

[turkeydance]

the largest expense is transportation. my dictionary costs $0.44 to make.

That describes nearly every soft-drink maker

[JoeyRox]

A 2-liter of Coca Coca cost pennies to make.

Yeah, poor Nestle!

[Rujiel]

It's not, their fault that sociopathic behavior in the buying of our political system is so darn lucrative! I'm having a hard time believing that anyone actually thinks this shit-- Nestle has more power over our political system than any of us individually could ever hope to have, and yet they're the victim?

Re:Yeah, poor Nestle!

[King_TJ]

Why does it have to be so polarized? (EG. Nestle = victim, OR Nestle = evil sociopaths)

I really don't find Nestle as either one. I think they're just taking advantage of the opportunities presented to maximize profits, as they've promised their stockholders all along. If Nestle was really SO evil, they'd be putting highly addictive substances into their water bottles causing you to crave Nestle branded water - or something like that?

Yes, corporations tend to have enough money to buy influence in the political system. That's why I've always felt we need to both pay attention to what's going on and vote in an informed manner, AND reduce government's size and scope. The more power and influence central government has in the first place, the more ability it has to selectively grant businesses specials favors or privileges - despite the will of the people being against it.

I'd love to see political lobbyists outlawed, period. There's no reason someone should get paid just to try to win a politician's favor on an issue when that's the job of the voting public to decide. My elected representatives are supposed to be up there, doing the lobbying for the issues those of us in their district believe should be handled a certain way. Individuals trying to influence them with gifts, dinners, and what-not? They're clearly only there to subvert the process.

Re:Yeah, poor Nestle!

[blindseer]

I'd love to see political lobbyists outlawed, period.

How would that work? First, you'd have to define a political lobbyist. Second, you'd need an enforcement mechanism.

Part of the problem in making political lobbying illegal is that everyone has the right to communicate with their elected officials. Are you going to say that once someone makes a profession of communicating with a politician that they cannot talk to them any more? Okay, define the point at which a person is a professional lobbyist.

For an example let's assume I want clean water for my community. So, I start a little group, Keep My Water Clean. I collect donations, hold fundraisers, and so forth so that I can spend my time traveling through the state and the nation telling those in public office that there needs to be government enforcement on keeping municipal water safe to drink and to fund the creation of municipal water sources for growing communities. You want to ban that?

Let's say there is a ban. How should I be punished if I violate this law and create Keep My Water Clean in spite of the ban? Would you have me jailed? Should I be fined? How do you think that would look in a court of law? Or, the court of public opinion?

I've seen arguments like this before and the typical response would be that non-profit corporations would be exempt. Okay, did you know that the NFL was a non-profit until there was enough public outrage that they changed their legal status? Being a non-profit doesn't mean the entity cannot be very large and make a lot of people a lot of money. Also, suppose a bunch of people got together to make a non-profit that made it no secret of it's affiliation with a large for-profit entity. Let's call this group Pepsico Employees for Clean Water. Every member of the group is a Pepsico employee, and the board is identical to the board of Pepsico. When they hold a meeting they "rent" a conference room at Pepsico headquarters, and Pepsico then "donates" this rent to the non-profit Pepsico Employees for Clean Water, which is then noted on their tax return as a donation to a non-profit.

I say let people say what they want.

I've heard this somewhere before and it comes to mind here, liberals want people to shut up while conservatives want people to keep talking. Go ahead, keep talking. Let the best argument win.

Why is this here?

[duke_cheetah2003]

This has absolutely nothing to do with nerds, technology, internet, or anything even close. It's a food company putting water in bottles. WTF. Not news that matters.

The two biggest scams

[Dracos]

... by which mankind has swindled itself are religion and bottled water.