It’s not quite to the level of geopolitic but selling bottled water is entirely unnecessary in majority of the US. It’s extremely bad for the environment, both for the plastic but of course the transport. When it’s often the same damn thing you get in your sink.

But no idea what’s specifically bad about this brand in particular.

I've yet to visit a country that didn't sell bottled water though. That doesn't seem US specific

Many other countries have tap water that is not potable.

As do some places in the U.S. and many people do fear that their water while technically potable, is full of unhealthy materials like lead. Even for me in a relatively new building, I have no idea about the materials of the lines built into it or the water main in my city. I use a Brita or straight from the tap personally but I can't say I blame people who are concerned (in the U.S.) where infrastructure is quite old and there doesn't seem to be much concern by officials even in the most dire of cases like Flint to fix things.

Not sure what the GP was referring to, but...

There are some serious concerns about bottled water in the US, particularly with how the manufacturers (like Nestlé) often get the water for free or at preferential rates, then sell it with a huge markup, and how some of it is (from what I've read) sourced from places like California, which need the water very badly.

There are also very serious concerns about Nestlé in particular as a company; the big one I always remember (because it's been going on basically as long as I've been alive) is how they aggressively push baby formula on mothers in developing countries despite knowing that the water in their area (needed to reconstitute the formula) is unsafe to drink. There are a number of other problems with their business practices, but I don't recall what they are off the top of my head.

Nestlé also is famous for exausting the natural resources.

Natural resources should be owned by the government and rented to the highest bidder.

It's kinda crazy that we do this with wireless spectrum but not with resources like water, oil, gas, etc.

Even land should probably work like this. Rather than a property tax, you pay a yearly rent on the land, afterall the US gov is spending quite a bit to protect it from forceful seizure by other nations.

Checkout this documentary: https://www.bottledlifefilm.com/about-the-film

It's from 2012 but I suppose Nestlé hasn't changed much since.

add “controversy” to search string - depletion of waterways etc

https://www.mashed.com/717227/nestles-water-controversy-expl...

>They say that by extracting ground water to sell, bottled water companies are actually draining natural waterways.

Okay but people have to drink somehow right? It's not like if nestle stopped operating that the demand for water would evaporate. It'll just cause another waterway to be depleted instead.

The other point raised in the article seems to be that nestle is taking water, which it pays little to nothing for, and charging $1/bottle or whatever. This sounds outrageous on the surface, until you realize that water in a well or whatever isn't really useful. You still need to bottle and transport it, which is where most of the value-add is. If people only needed water they'd get it from their tap, not buying $1 bottles. When they are buying bottles, they're paying for the convenience of water being available right then and there.