Bottled Water and the Overflowing Nanny State 39%

By AJ Fluehr71%

2/17/2009, 4:12:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 57.6% saturation with 287 hits. Analysis detected 1,600 faulty-reasoning hits from 498 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.5% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,436 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.40% of the article peer group.

February 17, 2009 11:12 AM ET 
For the past couple decades, bottled water had been growing in popularity as an environmentally preferred choice and as a healthy beverage alternative. 
Yet in recent years, environmental activists have begun attacking its value and quality. 
The activists’ claims do not hold water, yet, based on those claims, they are promoting bans, taxes,and regulations on bottled water—taking the Nanny State to a whole new level. 
The following analysis counters this “new wisdom,” questioning the justifications for this new assault on consumer freedom. 
Some key facts include: 
Bottled water regulation is at least as stringent as tap water regulation. 
Under federal law the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must pass bottled water regulations that are “no less stringent” than Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. 
The law does not allow the FDA to set standards that produce a lower quality product. 
As a result, FDA regulations mirror EPA regulations very closely and are more stringent in some respects because FDA applies additional food, packaging, and labeling regulations. 
Bottled water is substantially different from tap. 
About 75 percent of bottled water is from sources other than municipal systems such as springs or underground sources. 
Much of the bottled municipal water under goes additional purification treatments to produce a higher quality product that must meet FDA bottled water quality standards, packaging, and labeling mandates. 
In terms of safety, tap water has more documented health-related case reports compared to bottled water. 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends bottled water for individuals with compromised immune systems to reduce the risks associated with tap water. 
Bottled water containers are a tiny fraction of the solid waste stream. 
Many people have turned to bottled water to replace other portable drinks containing sugar and calories, producing little increase in total waste. 
In any case, single-serving plastic water bottles amount to just 0.3 percent of the nation’s solid waste. 
Bottles used in water coolers are recycled at high rates and have even less impact on landfill waste. 
Taxing and banning either type of container will not matter much in terms of overall waste. 
Plastic bottles are safe for consumers. 
The chemicals which environmental activists suggest are a problem are not even used in the PET plastic used for single-serving water bottles. 
Bisphenol A, a chemical found in large five-gallon water cooler jugs and other food containers exists at such low trace levels that there have been no reported health problems and the FDA, along with several scientific organizations around the world, have not found any problem with this substance. 
The public has freely turned to bottled water as an alternative to drinks with calories, for convenience, freshness, and whatever other reasons they themselves find worthy. 
Misinformation spread by activists should not determine who can access this product. 
People who do not like the product can make their own choices. 
They should not have any right to make them for the rest of us. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.1%AJ Fluehr: 9.3%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias24.1%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%AJ Fluehr: 4.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic16.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%AJ Fluehr: 5.5%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 7.2%AJ Fluehr: 7.1%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 2.8%AJ Fluehr: 1.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion2.8%This article: 9.8%AJ Fluehr: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.9%AJ Fluehr: 4.1%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%AJ Fluehr: 5.2%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%AJ Fluehr: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 8.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%AJ Fluehr: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem10.8%This article: 10.2%AJ Fluehr: 4.8%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man10.2%This article: 22.7%AJ Fluehr: 3.6%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority22.7%This article: 5.6%AJ Fluehr: 4.9%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 4.9%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.2%AJ Fluehr: 9.3%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization11.2%This article: 3.4%AJ Fluehr: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring3.4%This article: 9.8%AJ Fluehr: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon9.8%This article: 8.0%AJ Fluehr: 6.3%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion8.0%This article: 6.2%AJ Fluehr: 3.3%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question6.2%This article: 5.8%AJ Fluehr: 4.4%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 2.4%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.4%This article: 3.4%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof3.4%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 9.6%AJ Fluehr: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman9.6%This article: 5.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 57.6%AJ Fluehr: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote57.6%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.9%AJ Fluehr: 13.6%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice25.9%This article: 14.9%AJ Fluehr: 4.3%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination14.9%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 2.7%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AJ Fluehr: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

498 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.8%attributed speech449writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageFood and Drug Administration (FDA) • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageCenters for Disease Control and Prevention • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words49% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+41.4 ptsWriter: 58.6%Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.7 ptsWriter: 28.7%Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-16.5 ptsWriter: 16.5%Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.