now a house hearing on regulating bottled water and comparisons to tap water safety. with testimony from the food and drug administration, the government accountability office, the bottled water industry and public-health group, this is a little under two hours. >> [inaudible conversations] >> this meeting will come to order.

today we have a hearing titled regulation of a bottled water. the chairman and ranking member and chairman emeritus will be recognized for five and opening statements and other members of the subcommittee will be recognized for three minute opening statements. i will begin. free safety is extremely import issue that this committee has held nearly a dozen hearings over the past two years. time and again we hear from individuals who want more information so that to make wise decisions about what they eat, and drink. my constituents are no exception. today's hearing on bottled water my girl district in it michigan contains more chelan than any other district except alaska and we have a keen awareness of water quality issues. michigan is pulled into a large facility in the county that has not been without controversy over the years. in 2008 americans consumed 8.6 million gallons of bottled water. bottled water is a billion

dollars a year industry with sales up more than 83 percent this decade. many americans believe that the water they drink from a bottle is health care than the water that comes from their faucets. the water research foundation found that nearly 56 percent of bottled water drinkers site health and safety as a primary reason they choose bottled water over tap water. as a result, americans are willing to pay top dollar for bottled water which costs up to 1900 times more than the tap water in use is up to 2,000 times more energy to produce and deliver. and over the past several years however bottled water has been recalled to to contamination by arsenic, brown made, click cleaning compounds, mold and bacteria. in april a dozen students at a california junior high school reportedly were second after drinking bottled water from a vending machine. with consumers may not realize that many of the regulations that apply to municipalities responsible for tap water who do

not apply to companies that produce bottled water. i like to put a big chart that outline some of the differences. for example of municipal tap water suppliers are required to tell other consumers within 24 hours if they find dangerous contaminants in that exceed federal levels. but this requirement does not apply to bottled water cos. certified laboratories must be used to test of tap water but bottled water has no similar requirement. and tap water suppliers provide if there consumers customers with annual consumer confidence reports that he tell the sources of their water, any contamination found, the likely cause of contamination, and any potential healthy defects. bottled water distributors are not required to provide this to consumers. instead of bottled water consumers rely on limited information found on labels and in some cases on company web sites. some companies to exacerbate

this problem with buying and exaggerated claims about health benefits of their products. for example, poland springs explains the history of its water pricing: when joseph was revived from his deathbed repeatedly by drinking this brings water and lived another 52 years the waters health benefits became legendary. not valley water company provide similar accounts of its water stating, clinical tests and at hospitals in new york state's backed improvements in the health of patients suffering from kidney and liver disease ended rheumatism as a result of drinking mountain valley water. aqua of mantra, spring water and explains that the words written on its labels such as i am healthy, and i am loved, permeate the liquid influencing the taste of beneficial properties of water. the company also claims that aqua mantra of uses the design

of as little to affect the molecular structure of of water. today the subcommittee will receive two new reports there is questions about why the regulations governing bottled water are weaker than those governing tap water as well as widespread public perception that bottled water is healthier when water from the attack. the first is a report by the government accountability office who requested by our former colleagues and in this report gao examines whether federal and state authorities are adequately insuring the safety of bottled water and the accuracy of claims regarding its purity and health benefits. the second reports of bids by the environmental working group which conducted in 18 months survey of labels of the web sites and concluded that just two of the 180 baja water companies provide with information -- source of their water, the manner in which it is treated in any contaminants

present. given these findings by gao and environmental working group of the subcommittee is sending today to a dozen bottled water company's letters requesting information hot on the source of their water from other treatment methods and results, other contaminant testing for the past two years. even when water is treated and municipal facilities and then called, there still may be questions about contaminants such as pharmaceuticals that may be present in the treated water, and the environmental working group reports suggest that the estimated 25% of bottled water brands that rely on tap water are drawing from supplies that collectively contain 260 pollutants. according to associated press drugs have been found in municipal water samples across the country. officials in philadelphia discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or by product in treated and drinking water. anti epileptic in anti anxiety medications were detected the in

the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in southern california and drinking water in washington d.c. and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals. for these reasons i have introduced h.r. 1359, secure in responsible drug disposal act of 2009, which will provide for proper disposal through drug take back programs of individuals are not simply washing their medications down the toilet into our water systems. i'm proud to be the original cosponsor of the food safety enhancement act of 2009 which pass out of this committee last month and which is getting ready for full board action which provides fda with authority to assessing testing records of food and water suppliers. i look forward to these hearings and i ask for consent of the reports issued today in the other documents in the binder prepared by staff be entered into the official record. without objection they will be

entered in the record and used throughout the hearing. i like to turn to mr. walden from oregon for his opening statement. >> thank you. my home state and the second congressional district is on to a number of water bottlers including those located in the small central organ community of culver want with artesian blue and the northern portion of the district. the successful businesses are in many cases providing much needed job opportunities and in areas of oregon that have been hard hit by today's weak economy. in fact, our and implementers it is second only to yours in michigan. today's hearing racism ballot questions regarding the differences in regulation between the food and drugs fenestration and the epa regarding bottled water. however, i should note concerned with all of the life-threatening health priorities facing the fda including numerous foodborne illness outbreaks of complications with acetaminophen and swine flu pandemic this

issue destiny seemed secondary. in terms of the fda overwhelming workload on other issues. we should also put this hearing in context. the two reports of the focus of today's hearing point out a few noteworthy bindings but do not assess the safety of the bottled water itself. the the the government accountability office nor the environmental working group not conducted any testing of the bottled water or the bottles themselves while completing their report said. the regulations for bottled water to differ from those promulgated for tap water mostly because bottled water is conceded -- considered a food product and is there for regulated by the food and drug administration where as tap water is regulated by the b-2. however, fda does requirement of the standards of quality for bottled water must be no less protective of public health and the standards. and of the fda regulations bottlers must follow current

good manufacturing practices also known as gnp. fda requires more safeguards from water bottlers and other food processors. there are a commodity specific. and reviews bottlers must among other things to test their source of water once a week for microbiological contaminants and test finished bottle water weekly for microbiological contaminants. now some of the water bottlers in my district and followed a practice of testing their water every hour. in order to meet requirements of purchasers of their products so they are doing our leave water testing. i do have a few questions for fda, one discrepancy between fda and epa in the case of chemical substance ehp, this is a valid substance added to plastics to change their physical characteristics and ensure familiar with it. fda is said to establish standards for this contaminant in bottled water even though they did over a decade ago

information surrounding and want to ask the deputy commissioner when of we expect a ruling from your agency. and the question is i will speak to in a minute is about to recycle bottles themselves. i've had some tell me that the use of recycled bottles perhaps produces more leaching or whenever that comes out of plastic the first time use and add features to now that's the case. conducting inspections is one way the fda insurers there are following now the rules and concerns raised on how frequently the plants are inspected and what access fda inspectors have to plant records regarding testing and other port information during the inspection. i'd be curious to know the legislation passed unanimously at of the full committee that expands the inspection process and if that would apply in these cases and therefore you will get new authority of the house and senate act. i like to hear from the deputy

commissioner as well on how the agency can improve inspection process and if you do need additional authority is. congress needs to know exactly what the agency needs and why. currently bottlers to not required to disclose source of their water, the chatman process or the detection of contaminants. the question is should they? i look for to your response on that. mr. chairman, i would conclude by thanking you for this hearing. but i would also like to raise the issue that july 8th is come and gone from a number of us on this side of the aisle have raised questions of sinn fein until protection administration regarding bottled up science and we expect the fda to respond to our reporter is regarding dr. carlin in his report not allowed to be considered in the endangerment finding process and into the epa is unwilling to respond in a timely manner which may well be the case i do hope request in this committee to have oversight hearing on what appears to beam

with the bottling up of science and debate on the whole carbon issue will be granted opportunity for hearing an awful investigation so we will be coming back to you on that issue and i thank you for your time. >> thank you mr. walden. ms. blackburn, opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to welcome our witnesses and think them for being with us today as you have heard, we all are concerned when about bottled water, the product that is there. we're concerned about tap water and the work the epa does there. and i will submit a written statement off that mr. chairman i want to take my time to say i would prefer that we be spending this time to look at other issues that are important, that this epa and fda deal with. there are other committee issues that we could be looking at such as the options for which health care costs for constituents and

looking at how you do that through patient to driven and consumer -- driven patients entered health care. we should be looking at the medicare trust fund and the pressures that on how that trust fund. the ballooning costs of medicaid. if we move to a public auction. as a move into the health care reform or even from my state the lessons should have been learned from tenor who care which was the test case for hillary clinton care in '94, my states still has this, it is the greatest public health failure in the country. that would be a great opportunity for us to look at what is affecting us with health care. certainly there are more pressing issues fell. we are appreciative of your time to be before us today in fall we all are concerned with leaching chemicals that come from plastics into bottled water, we are, indeed, very concerned with

what we see what has suppressed during evidence from a speech to employees and are concerned with what we've seen, health care issues that are affecting all of our constituents and a lack of willingness to address those in in a patient's center consumer driven manner and i yield back my time. >> thank you. let me respond that we had a hearing just before we broke to to go on health-insurance recisions. were company's recent health care to people who have it in next week is scheduled all weekend committee for the healthcare market bill so i'm sure we will have plenty of opportunities to speak of health care. mr. burgess for opening statement please. >> thank you mr. chairman. maybe i should take the second to respond to your response and isn't it a shame that we have a subcommittee on health and energy and commerce and are two

have no markup on what's going to be the greatest change in delivery of health care in america since institution at medicare in 1965. certainly the people who were in congress in 1965 led we could've never foreseen what medicare would become at least as far as the price of that federal program and wouldn't we all be in better shape today perhaps it a little more care was taken back in 1965 and the object lesson for us today is we need to take good care and exercise to caution him as restructure his major fundamental change to american health care. we could have hearing on medical devices and the subcommittee which i have asked for for some time and has yet been forthcoming so there are ways we could have made use of this time to de mr. chairman, but here we are when we're going to talk about bottled water this morning and that's important. normally i have a bottle of water here so if i get parsed in the hour that i have to address

the committee with but now we are stuck with the d.c. water which they're used to be a sign in my office that said do not drink the tap water, i don't know if that's changed but i'm reluctant to drink what is before us today. a pretty broad definition of food would be one that included bottled water when a tremendous debt and debt of the responsibility entrusted to our good friends at the fda is this $11 billion industry known as bottled water. the average american consumer is unlikely to think that this fda would be the pressure regulator of bottled water but it is. the regulatory responsibility of bottled water is split between the epa and the fda cosmetic act over seen the process of taking public water in its natural form and the environment to a convenient plastic container for sale to the american consumer. and as much as i appreciate the collegiality and intelligence and a willingness to appear today as representative of the

fda will it does seem odd to only have the fda here to answer tough questions and to not have the epa to answer questions that would fall into their jurisdiction about the standards for municipal water versus bottled water. currently bottled water requires higher threshold of testing in the municipal water, required to be tested every four years, bottled water every year. in fact, bottled water is currently one of the few standalone industries with his own code of federal regulations regarding their manufacturing process. from the definition of water to the testing and sampling of products for the length of time records kept currently two years and how they should be available to the fda as well as the role of the epa, state and local government agencies to ensure the safety and sanitation of water, this burgeoning industry has seemingly existed in compliance oriented minute fraction system now rarely if ever producing bad actors. it would seem this industry is example of ingenuity and

innovation of the marketplace to create products which has an unquenchable albeit one need for convenient water hawaii and this good idea has been met with significant market success. we must ensure that trust and faith of consumers as well as the government places bottled water industry are not misguided. more americans drink bottled water canaccord your combined so there's a new step in this process to deliver this product with the trust of with his misallocated then certainly i look for to having the science point resolution. furthermore any deficiencies in the regulation of bottled water and potential fraud in the process of producing bottled water than in the alleged environmental issues of draining natural resources and the bredesen transportation costs of moving the product we will certainly look for to see what is sure to be her voluminous evidence your approval. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back the balance of my

time. >> no problem, i didn't want you to get parched. as you know in the house subcommittee you guys did hold a hearing on medical devices last month in the five approval process, so those hearings are being taken. this hearing -- >> at some of the investigatory part of that hasn't been at least to my satisfaction and the subcommittee would be the proper place to have that and in addition the whole question of bias and where's that will probably roll into this health care bill and we've not had the fda to talk about the science of bio similar since other stuff they we could be doing. >> absolutely and this committee has been active for the last two years and retold many hearings and this one with the two reports released today, it really dovetails in everything we've been doing for the last couple years in food safety whether the epa or the pet we talk about or as mr. walden brought up this dehp 15 years without regulation for that, certified labs test results is

contained in this hearing so it's not a strictly bottled water. false advertising -- and that's what this whole thing is about, wraps up everything for the last few years and we have reports coming out today so we thought it was a proper to have a hearing today. mr. burton, opening statement please. >> think is due month. i get my prepared statement how much i personally appreciate your so don't take, but i'm about to say to personally. given this serious issue remember walden that today's hearing doesn't drink at the top of that death list and shows when you look at your side how much support there is. they may all be here but they're disguised as m2 shares if there are. >> most of the committee is in

the consumer protection because we're putting new administrator in and, in fact, as why we started because i'm also on that committee. >> we will take over if you want to go down there. [laughter] >> can we have a vote on that? >> anyway mr. chairman today's hearing does examine several interesting questions surrounding the differences between bottled water and tap water. use how ricin regulatory approaches as well as in process and treatment one. several of the witnesses including the gao, fda will discuss and possibly debate ways in which bottled water regulations should be changed and possibly improved. other witnesses including the environmental working group and bottle water association will discuss the ways they can be transparent and responsive to consumer inquiries. i don't have a problem with transparency and, in fact, and pushing it in the upcoming health care debate and as you well know i'm certainly pushing transparency at the epa where

mr. walden and i have asked them to release their documents concerning their suppression of the epa report within his agency. it debating whether there really is engagement finding with regards to co2. when so those of us on the minority are concerned whether this particular hearing is the best use of our limited oversight hearing times. we have confronted the issue of swine flu pandemic, confronted safety of products like tylenol as i said a minute ago mr. chairman this one doesn't seem to be up to that standard of excellence which you have established for your oversights. i hope after this hearing will consider supporting mr. walden and myself on getting information about of the epa suppression of the document which we call carbon gate of regarding the co2 and endangerment finding. we hope that you'll work with us as i talk with you yesterday

informally about doing more hearings and doing some action items on the automobile dealer closure issue. i know that's important to you personally. we await your response in this and mr. waxman's response so mr. chairman we always appreciate when you hold a hearing and we a participate and we're looking for to going onto a little more intense issues in the future but again thank you for holding this hearing. >> thinks mr. burton and you know, one reason we're having this hearing is as we have seen on your side a little bit, maybe we assume because it's been a bottle like this it's healthy, it's clean, it's pure, and it's an assumption i think we run leslie are making so we're doing a hearing to try to get to her the issues here. i don't think we have to wait for a deadly outbreak of disease in a bottled water like salmonella peanut butter last. we can say there is zero risk

here between 2002, at the rear 23 calls of bottled water, that's about one every quarter. most of it stems from elevated level of contaminants such as arsenic and brown made which cause cancer. for the past six years the bottled water -- the fda issued him with violating safety regulation and that's in addition to dozens of other problems found in the epa inspections of water bottling facilities. 2007 that the fda issued a press release against drinking mineral water imported from armenia because there are some level was 50 times greater than the federal standard. and that if -- black as a last month in southern california we had gross ticket and high-school for buying bottled water at of a vending machine. so these are problems in the fda has uncovered and they only have two or three employees devoted to it and i think just because it comes in a bottle we assume

it's healthier for us and that's what most americans assume, we find is not the case and that's the reason for the hearing. all the other hearings would have done this year on salmonella, institutional review boards, so we have got a lot going on here. >> mr. chairman, two points. i didn't mention in my testimony but i know that water is also an ingredient in many other health drinks. i guess the question i would have for our panel as well is just because it's clear in those bottles how is that treated him one on traverses it is colored and sugared. and perhaps carbonated and. did somebody check the water that goes into that as well? other different standards there? the second point out made by santa clara junior high students, my understanding is the fbi may involve an investigation so it might be more of a tampering issue, is that correct? >> that are involved with but now has reached a conclusion

whether it was tampering. >> i understand, i was trying to jump to a conclusion. thank you mr. chairman. >> that's a good segui to our first panel that the introduce mr. stevenson director of natural resources and are meant accountability office, we have dr. sourcing principle commissioner at the u.s. food and drug administration. the senior vice president for research at the environmental working group, mr. joseph inbox, president of international bottled water association. the policy of the subcommittee is to take all testimony under oath. please be advised that you have the right and to the rules of the house to be advised by counsel during your testimony. do you wish to be represented by counsel? mr. stephenson? >> no. >> then i will ask you to please rise and raise you're right hand and take the oath. do you swear or affirm the

testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth in the matter pending before this committee? let the record reflect the witnesses have replied in the affirmative, you're now under oath. we will hear from an opening statement from our witnesses. you may submit a logger salmon for the record and with the inclusion in the record. mr. stephenson. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. lawson. that a priest to be here to discuss the quality and safety of bottled water and its and run until impacts. over the past decade the per capita consumption of bottled water in the u.s. is more than doubled to 13.4 gallons per person in 1997 to 29.3 gallons per person in 2007. that's over 200 bottles a year for every man, woman and child in and 11 plus billion dollar market. with this increase, several questions and concerns over bottled water quality and safety. my testimony is based on the reports issued to the committee which will be publicly released.

in summary we found that fda consumer protections are less stringent for bottled water than comparable epa protection for tap water. wallace fda standards generally near the standards for the nearly all 88 contaminants covered by epa national primary drinking water regulations, there's one notable exception -- dehp -- which is a plasticizer used to soften plastic which has been in to reproduction liver problems and increase cancer risk. it has been regulated by the epa in tap water since 1992 but fda deferred action on dehp in a role published in 1996 and has yet to be either adopt the standard or publisher for reason for doing so even though the statutory deadline for acting was more than 15 years ago. ..

>> fda does not require bottled

water company to provide similar information. in a study mandated by the 1996 amendments to the safety drinking water, fda concluded the bottle water industry to provide the same type that public water systems must provide. the agency was not required to act on it's findings. and it has yet to do so. a survey in the states, showed that consumers have misconceptions about bottle water believing it's safer and healthier than ever. we also water systems are required to provide was able for only a small percentage of the bottle water we examined, companies we contacted, our company web sites we reviewed. we believe that consumers would benefit on better labeled bottle water. in examining the environmental effects of bottled water, we found that only about 25% of

water battled are recycled the remaining 25% are disguarded into landfills. while this is 9,000 plastics, it's represented 1% of municipal waste. another study estimated the energy used at 5.8 megatools for leader. at the current rate of consumption, this is the equivalent of the energy used per year. it is 1,000 to 2,000 times the energy use for tap water. we also found that ground water extraction for bottled water in selected areas and michigan has passed causes to minimize the contact on wetlands. finally, i would note the oversight problems designated it a high risk area in january 2007

and again in 2009 when we called for the fundamental re-examination of the federal food safety system. believe bottle water regulation should be part. mr. chairman, that consumes my statement. i'll be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. would you like the opening statement? >> thank you very much. you might want to pull it up more. >> thank you, we appreciated the report. i appreciated that we finished with two seconds left. i was watching. i've never seen that before. good morning, i'm joshua sharfstein, the principal deputy of the food and drug administration. i want to thank the committee for your work on a wide range of health issues and for the opportunity to discuss fda's regulation of bottled water today. as have been mentioned, bottled

water and tap water are regulated by two separate agencies, fda regulated bottle water or epa has tap water or drinking water. epa has the distribution, including operation of drinking water systems, contaminate levels, and reporting. the food, drug, and cosmetic act, manufacturessers are responsible for producing safe, wholesome, and truthfully labeled products. it's a violation of law for misbranded products. fda has established specific codes. these regulations include standard identity that define different type such as spring water versus minimal water and allowable levels for chemical,

physical, raise logical contaminants. they have established good manufacturing for the processes and bottling of the bottled drinking water. labeling and dmp regulations for foods in general also apply to bottled water. federal law requires fda to set similar standards for bottled water as exists or explain why they should not apply. fda has established such standards for more than 90 and in some cases such as for led or copper, they are stricter for bottle than municipal water. another point to make, in the way that the testing is done is different. for example, a municipal, any test that is high is done on bombed water. municipal is only a percentage of the sample is above a certain level. the water failed at there.

it's different approach. they monitor products and inspections occur once every one to three years. fda's field offices follow up on consumers and trade con employments and probablily bottled water products. as for other types of food, fda collects and analyzes camp samples of bottle water. it maybe collected and bested to determine if they are in compliance with the laws and regulations. at last, they can test the bottled water. most recently, they published a

final rule for water and finished bottle water products for the total forms and prohibit distribution of products containing the e. coli indicator. fda is also requiring that before a bottler can use from the source that has tested positive for e. coli, the bottler must take measures to recollect fie or eliminate the cause. in general, fda's oversight of bottled water can be described as successful. the agency is away of no major outbreaks of illness over the past decade. fda is aware that goa report highlights a number of issues that the agency faces in regulating bottle water. they work to provide information and assist with their investigation. let me address some of the issues that goa has raised. while i do believe that the fda oversight has successful, i also believe there's room for improvement 37 this was

contemplated. we are now revisiting and intend to pursue as under the law. bottled water prosided the sources for the system. however, the food drug and cosmetic act does not provide to require bottlers to make that information available. this is a fair point. and a part of the oversight of water and food in general that should be strengthened.

in fact, it would be strengthened by the food safety legislation that the committee has shown so much leadership on. fourth, goa will express the specific authority to mandate the use. this is also a responsible point. and fda has require the use of methods that at least as sensitive as fda's method. but the food safety legislation would also be extremely helpful here. also the preventive controls that will complement for bottled water and food. for foreign-produced position water, it will require them to register for ffda and we will continue to work with this committee on the legislation which we think is important.

i'm pleased to be here. i look forward to the question. >> thank you. would you pull the mic over. >> mr. chairman, i'm jane houlihan, we're a nonprofit research and advocacy organization. thank you for holding this hearing. today we're releasing 18 month survey of labels and web sites for 188 bottles of water. here's what we found. consumers spend about 1900 times more for bottled than tap. yet, they often have no way to learn special facts about what's actually in the bottle. only two of 188 bottled water made public routinely disclosed by local tap water utility. these are the specific name and location. purification and chemical pollutants that remain in the water after treatment. they are ultrapure if id water,

the only two of 188 doing so. bottled water companies are not required to make these basic facts public. they enjoy the holiday under the federal food and cosmetic with near complete latitude on what if any information to share with consumers. in contrast, they produce an annual water quality report. giving it's water source as required under the safe drinking water act. epa calls the reports the center piece of consumers right to know about water quality. it's unfair to consumers who have a right to know what's in the water they buy. surveys show that over half choose it because they are worried about the safety of their tap water, they believe it's free of contaminants. they do it for their health. so many cases, they no way to check the purity is when they are getting. where does the water come from.

they provide no information whatsoever about their water source on the label. but 37% pull ifly divulge both the name and location. and the remaining 33% give generic information like spring or deep aqua. this is a great value. it's a smaller brand. it's not in the top ten. it is distributed by walmart. you'll see on the label, municipal supply. so you know where the water comes from. you'll also see the treatment, reverse osmosis. on this label you'll see the product is pure and crisp. and it has a fresh taste. but nowhere on the label will you find the source of that water. dasani is one of the 30% of the

brands not giving any source. how is bottled water purified? bottle water companies are not required to disclose what if they method, but most of them do it. 30% provide no treatment, 1/3 provide no information on labels or web sites. if you look at figure two in your packet, you'll see a label for nestle for ozarka. it's further treated by reverse osmosis. now for con restaurant, let me read to you what you'll see on the fiji label. that is all the the information that you'll see on treatment.

fiji is one the 60% that print marketing claims from among those waters that don't label their treatment methods. consumers have no way to no if the claims are true. but only 18% of bottled water do the same. those that do, include all of the nestle brand. those that don't include ac what fin that. and finally aquamontra.

when you pay a premium price, you deserve more than just claims. we recommend that water bottled and web sites disclose the same information that the law requires at the municipal water. and this be mandatory. consumers have a right to know where they bottled water comes from, how or if it's treated and the the pollutants it pertains. thank you for your time. [inaudible conversation] >> bottled water whether in retail size packages or in larger containers used, safe, healthy, and convenient beverage. comprehensive on the federal and state level. and other packages made bottle water must meet fda general regulation which includes for

name and places, product net weight, and it required to place -- in addition, the fda has identity. including the requirement that's identified in the bottled water. federal law requires fda bottled water residents to state public health and epa standards. and to that end the bottled water for more 90 supplements. most fda bottled water are the same as epa public water system. the few differents is such. because they are not bottled water or they are resonated such as the fda's 2000 act. this must by law -- failure of

bottled water containing the quality. and so they should be called by the company and by fda. the bottled water product source using public water and within the bottled water product does not meet the fda standard and the product label must disclose the factor. it's also important to note the reports of health and beverages extents not only to the interstate commerce but those products sold if they are using packages materials in the commerce such as bottled, tapped, and others. that is to tell you almost all of the bottled water sold in the united states. in addition, congress has concluded the statutory with bottled water.

[inaudible conversations] >> ibwa reports a risk base that would require inspections all throughout the facilities. granting fda authority of serious health consequences or death. they need clear about bottled water they purchase. all are subject to extensive fda labeling requirements that provide consumers with a great deal of product wallet information. in addition, virtually all bottled water products include a phone number on the label that consumers can use to contact the company. in fact, ibwa petitioned fda to

require all to include phone number on the label. ibwa believes the most feasible way to get the information not on many label is the web site. to obtain contact information or water quality information for all ibwa member brands. consumers have many options when choosing which bottled water to drink. if they do not provide them with the information they want, they can choose another brand. that is not the case with tap water. consumers cannot choose which public water system. we don't see it that way. that's a good thing. consumers should be see to choose.

75% who drink bottled water also drink tap water. and with the increase of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease rates, any actions that would discourage are not in the public interest. throughout the years, bottled water always responded to the need for clean, safe drinking, such as hurricanes, floods, and forest fires and an emergency situation such as terrorist attacks and boil alerts. however they cannot exist for disaster response. the vast majority in the united states are primarily family owned and operated small businesses that depend on the resources necessary. in summary, bottled water is safe, healthy, convenient food product that regulated at the federal and state level.

ibwa stands ready to assist as it considers the important issue. thank you for considering our views. >> we'll start with your questions and thank you for your comments. let me ask you this, is it true 80% of the water bottlers are part of your organization? about 80% of the? >> i'm sorry. >> water bottlers in this country, they belong to your organization? >> i would say we probably represent 75% of the actual facilities. >> okay. >> is dasani or coca cola are they are part? >> no, they are not. >> nestle? >> they are. >> how about aquafina? >> no. >> those are the three biggers. >> okay. so two of the three are not. >> correct. >> your standards bitch track many of the things thawier

recommended and the others, that's voluntary standards. we have a man tour requirement for our members. if they don't meet the standards, they cannot be a member. >> do you do anything on the advertising then? >> no, that is not an issue that we deal with. that's a case-by-case situation. that would allow companies to be brought against them for misleading advertising. so we don't do anything in that regard. >> they penetrate the structure of the water? you guys don't condone any of that? >> the association does not deal with advertising issues. that's something that would be left to the state and federal authorities. >> you used to work consultants that's what it said on the web

site. with dr. emoto who wrote a book called "hidden messages in water" he showed us the basic principals of quantum theory where it was changed by a zen buddhist monks thought. based on this, it used the design to affect the molecular structure to make it more refreshing and wholesome? is there any water study that a zen monk can change the molecular structure of water? >> i can't speak to what the company has found. i don't know that they are a member of ibwa. but i can't comment on what information they can't have about what they say on their label or other materials. >> okay. dr. sharp -- sharfstein, do you think that would be part of the labels of bottled water?

zen buddhist monks thoughts that can change the structure of water? but you know we've seen in the couple of others sort of fantastic claims, are they legal? can they do it underneath the misbranding or false advertising. >> well, you will definitely look in this case. in general, misbranding pertains to whether people are claiming to treat disease. that's the big -- >> so he's lived for 52 years for liver and kidney diseases. but the other one where you said

used in clinical tests -- >> yes. clinical tests. >> that one, i think we'd like to see. that strikes me as pretty worth our evaluating. i'm not familiar with that. i think that would fall into something we'd want to look closely on. how about the other ones claim that they play music and sounds that charge the water with specific frequencies? would that be? >> um. >> misadvertiseing? >> i'm not a musician. but i still express skepticism. i think that we have -- in this branding provision is really about things that are lethal. we really think they are going to pose the public health threat. the issue about whether that treats kidney or liver really does raise that issue.

>> you might want to put the chart back up on the board. in the environmental working group that talk about the regulations, and you mention a little bit in yours too. the bottlers discover dangerous contaminants. they don't have to alert the public. they are not required for test results, sources or products. take dasani. i-them, i have the bottle that's put on the airplane that i fly back and forth. i grabbed it with me. i was looking at it. when i read it, their claims aren't too outrageous. it's enhanced with minerals for a pure fresh taste that can't be beat. go to www.makeyourmouthwater.com. that's out there.

it said bottled by cca waters, llc, millersburg, pennsylvania. underneath they have ct992, 173l -- but ct, would that be connecticut nv, nevada, it doesn't say anything about sources? you don't know where the water came from, nevada, connecticut, new york, or pennsylvania? >> i couldn't desuper -- decipher that for you. >> i couldn't say for sure. i'm not familiar with the brand. it maybe that all of the states require the products to be registered like other food products do within the state. if you are going to sell, i think all food products tend to

have the registration information on the bottles. >> so you'd have to -- so you'd have to figure out probably the last one is probably the lot. figure out the lot number to figure out where it came from. nevada, connecticut, new york or were pennsylvania or coca-cola in atlanta, georgia. because that address is on here too. really the consumer has no way of knowing. this is one of the big bottlers. >> again, i can only tell you i that think that's what it is referring to. >> thank you very much. just like any food product regulated by the fda, if dangerous contaminanted are in the bottle the water, it's considered adulterated by the fda? >> correct. >> and it violated the law if it's sold. >> people can go to jail if they do it. >> okay. if we're worried about some of the claims on the label, isn't that really also under the jurisdiction of the ftc?

the federal trade commission on false advertising and labeling? >> i'll have to get back to you on that. i think we do have certain jurisdiction. i'm not sure about the ftc? >> i would human that they would. i don't know that. it's something that we have to look at. it'll be helpful if they were here today and epa and perhaps somebody from coca-cola as well since they are not represented but we are singling them out. >> one thing i want to mention is just a couple of months -- >> is your mic on? >> yeah. sorry. in a couple of months they are going to launch the food registry. >> right. >> and when that happens, we're anticipating september, companies will have to notify fda if there is a product release that could pose a risk to -- serious risk to health. so some of the gap will be filled by that. but we think, you know, the passage of the food safety legislation is hard to close

that. >> yeah, we're hopeful that that can be brought up. has that been considered for house consideration yet? >> not yet. we're still working on it. trying to get the final touches. >> okay. in your testimony, doctor, you discuss new fda testing requirements for bottled water to include testing source water for total cull forms and establishes lee zero tolerances for e. coli. do they require testing and the epa establish water levels? >> give me one with second. i have a good -- i have some information on that right here. >> sure. >> i was curious about that also. >> because i think you made the case on led. that you have zero tolerance for led in bottled water. but epa allows a certain. >> i think it illustrates the point that it's just a little different. the systems. my understanding is that public

water systems are required to collect monthly total samples throughout the distribution. and that if they are positive, they must be tested for e. coli. if your system is collecting more than 40 samples per month, if more than 5% are positive that triggers a violation. if it's less than 40 samples per month then one positive triggers a violation. you know, for fda, bottled water, if there's any violation, that kicks in for municipal if it's a lot of test and there has to be a certain percentage of the test. i hope i was able to explain that. they do a whole bunch of test? there are they more extreme than regulations or epa? or is it just different? >> it's just different. i know here in the district of columbia, i think i'm correct in

saying this. we all went many years drinking the tap water believing it to be safe, only to discover that hadn't disclosed the amount of led that was coming in through the water through the pipes. i don't know if you ran into that in baltimore when you were health commissioner there. but as i call, you advocated to be safer to drink bottled water. >> well, not in -- not for the population of baltimore. because the municipal water supply we welt comfortable. but public school children, that's right. in fact, we adviced the school superintendent to turn off all of the drinking found fountains because of problems that they were having with led. >> and to go to bottled water. >> and to go to bottled water. it turned out to be cheaper also given the expense of testing the municipal water because of the old buildings and the problems with the pipes in the school. so i certainly -- as a health commissioner, i think there's certain scenarios where, for

example, after certain types of disruptions of water supply, the water can be unsafe for a period of time. you recommend the people. >> all right. thank you. mr. doss, a question about this notion that consumers are wanting to know what's in their bottled water and all. well, i want to know that it's safe when i drink it. as long as i know it's safe. how many inquiries do you get for your association and all of the people that you say? when i take water out of my place here in d.c., there's no label on the tap that tells me all of this stuff. i wouldn't know where to go in the d.c. system to find out. as long as it's safe, i don't care. how much of this is the case? how many people are rushing and calling the folks?

>> ibwa the association has hardly gotten any comments, any questions from consumers. i have talked to some of my members including our large members and our small and mid sized member. they get very few request. >> how do they handle those? >> if they want testing or resource information. whatever they ask for were that's what they should provide. that's our bottle line. if a consumers have a question, we believe they have the right to have that information. the real issue is how best provide that information. that's the distinction here. that's what was with related just a minute ago. these are two different systems. bottle watered is packaged in a very different distribution system than tap water. so there are necessarily some differences in the way you might want to provide the information

-- again, they both have to be safe. there are different ways you get to the goal. >> i don't think in a soft drink they disclose where the liquid source comes from. they put water in cola beverage. is that right, doctor? somebody. isn't that the number one ingredient is water in these beverages we all drink. the last time i checked, nobody is saying tell me where the water came from this there. it's not required to be on those labels is it? >> and that's why in many cases -- >> bottled water is a food product. so we foul the rules. >> isn't cola is a food product? >> it is a food product. it's not subject to manufacturing processes for bottled water. >> so is there less oversight on our soda drinks? >> i wouldn't used -- >> from the fda -- >> maybe i wouldn't use oversight.

there's definitely more regulations -- >> on which? >> on bottled water. >> than on cola products? i'm not picking on cola versus uncola versus the new cola. i'm talking soft drinks. so there's less oversight, i'll use the term oversight, but in terms of food safety? >> right. there are good manufacturing factors that applies to foods that apply to colas. someone tell me if i'm getting this wrong. they have regulations for bottled wait. and that relates to the fact that -- commodity specific. >> right. >> regulations which don't exist for soft drinks? >> okay. can i also say that one difference between bottled water and soda is people choose bottled water because they think it's healthier and safer. that's not the reason they are choosing colas. so i think -- >> whether they choose it or

not, the question that i thought is consumers have the right to know the source of the ingredients in the bottle and labeling all all of that. i want to know if -- i may think a soda product is better than bottled water. i mean -- >> water is very different from other kinds of food products. it makes up more than half of our body. we're adviced to drink it at least -- >> right. because it helps remove toxins and everything else. >> exactly. people are choosing bottled water in particular. not colas. because there's a perception that it's safer and healthier. that's why it's being singled out. because of the special place that it's holds in people's minds. also because it's 2,000 times for >> how much more expensive is a soda drink? >> maybe a similar amount. but people are making tough choices right know about their budgets. bottled water -- >> i have almost doubled my time. >> that's all right.

we'll come back another time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go over the contaminate disclosure issue again. according to report today, consumers have a lot more information than they do in contaminants of the bottled water. on the current law, municipal water authorities have to notify the public within 24 hours of the contaminants such as e. coli above prescribed level. is that correct? >> that's right. >> they have to send public -- that notice over broadcast media or warnings posted in conspicuous locations? >> yes, there's very specific requirements on how to report those? >> if the bottled water and found the same level of e. coli, a level of both epa and fda say it's dangerous, they don't have

to tell the fda or epa or -- >> or the state. some states requires, but -- >> generally they don't have to report it. >> generally, they don't. >> under current law, municipal water systems are required annual consumer confidence reports that disclose any products with the contamination and information about the systems susceptibility of the future contamination; correct? >> yes. >> but bottled watered companies are not requiring to make similar to the public. >> that's true. don't have the authorities. >> dr. sharfstein this is striking to information available to consumers. we learn about it in our tap water, and we may never learn about the dangerous con no,

ma'am gnats in bottled water. did you say you supported a requirement to have the bottled water companies disclose test results showing contamination above the federal level? >> actually, starting in september we think that requirement will take effect for con no, ma'am nation that poe poses a risk for the public. >> okay. is it sufficient to have the companies report their lab reports? or should there be certificated labs? should the labs be required to tell the fda when the positive result is found? is that more reliable? >> i think that's a more important question. i think there are two questions there. the certified labs. because of the broad preventive

authority that -- the -- this new legislation that's been moving through the house would give. we would be able to do that. the second question of requiring labs to report to fda is a little bit more complex. there are so many test that are done. >> just a positive one. >> right, no, i understand. the concern is that expressed is whether or not it inhibits the private sector from testing at all. if they have a good testing program in place where they are identifying and keeping things out of the system, you know, should they be reporting every single positive? which ones? those are questions that i think it's -- it's a little bit more complex. because you could be drowning in -- if you are thinking not just water but all of the different foods. all of the different tests. we don't want to inhibit companies. we want to not be missing the forest or trees in terms of all of the information coming to us. that question is how much to

require? where to get it from is sort of a more complex issue that we would probably look at it, and, union in particular industry or particular situation. like certain types of test we should would want to know. because they would be so serious. >> uh-huh. okay. earlier this year the subcommittee held two oversight hearings on poisens and peanut products that causes illnesses. we learned that the peanut corporation had received positive test and was not required to disclose them. fda didn't have the access. they couldn't access them until people felt ill. and so the same legal loophole applies to bottled water companies. although the municipal water are required to disclose the test results. they cannot compel bottled water companies to disclose. if the bottled water companies

tested water and finds the e. coli. >> as far as i know they do not have to report that. we think 100% of companies should be doing it online and letting people know right away about contamination issues. >> and -- yeah, i'm not really -- even though i made a reference to the peanut butter, i'm not suggesting that this -- the water issues is similar. but one important lesson is that we with learned the companies have signs before the federal or state officials have access to that testing data. they might be able to flag small problems before they come big ones. your organization, mr. dos,

represents i think about 75% of the bottled water industry. do you support a requirement that bottled water company make their test records available to the fda during routine inspections? >> we do. >> and i'm sure dr. sharfstein, he already answered that question. how much more -- i guess i'm out of time. i will hold for a second. >> thank you. >> mr. burgess, questions? >> thank you. i apologize for being gone for the earlier testimony. can anyone tell me, bottled water has a certain standard. what about our cola drinks, are they held to the same standard as bottled water? >> cola drinks are considered food. and their food manufacturing practices that they are held but. but cola drinks are not held to the bottled water manufacturing

practices which are in addition to the general good manufacturing practices. >> so the best of anyone's knowledge there's no difference in the way any of the compounds would leech out the plastic whether it be water or cola drink; is that correct? >> yeah, i don't know if i could -- if i know enough to answer that question. i think the point that is there is from a food, safety perspective. water has a whole let of regulations. if republican depends on bottled water. then there are certain disclosures. so it's sort of your advantage point. from the food safety, there is a

whole set of regulations that apply to bottled compared to cola. >> what about the water that's manufactured and sold with caffeine added to the water? does that fall under the food? or is that a water? >> that's not a water. >> that's not a water. >> i think -- and somebody is going to tap me if i get this wrong. i'm pretty sure it's not a water. >> we'll probably both hear; right? >> it depends. people maybe offering to market them. they are marketed as the separate discussion. they aren't considered the water of if you put extra caffeine in it. >> it just underscored the complexity of the process that you have to deal with. now let me ask the goa on the report that two people to inspect the $11 billion water industry and four years ago the

fda changed the risk assessment from bottled water to low risk to high risk. the question is how many inspectors should be required? if two is not enough, what is the limit? we're be doing the agriculture appropriations bill which will have the funding for the food and drug administration. how do we know that we have the right number of inspectors so we can know we have the right appropriations? >> that's a good question. we don't have a precise number for that segment. as being said in designated food safety a high risk area over the past two years that the resources are inadequate to do the job. we have pointed out from broader stand point that food safety is spread over agencies. of those agencies, fda seems to get the smallest proportion of the budget. yet it has 80% of the responsibility. so i don't know whether two is

right or four is right or six is right. just bottled water all we are doing is stating a fact. that's how many are currently dedicated. >> and that does not seem to be sufficient number? >> that does not seem to be sufficient. given the number of bottled water facilities. >> also, your testimony you note that 3/4 of the water bottled produced in the u.s. in the year 2006 were recycled. do we know about the rates of recycle for over beverages? >> i think it is probably similar for all plastic bottles. bottle waters are a growing share of the market. there are more bottled dedicated to water than soda. >> so neitherically, there are more in the environment by the bottled water? >> right. this isn't a volume problem. it's less than 1% of what's going into a land fill. they never decompose.

recycling is a good thing in general. >> i would agree with that. mr. sharp -- starr of of sharfstein, how many should be assigned as it relates to bottled water? >> i'm not sure that's right. that we changed it to high risk. i don't think that in general, compared do other foods, we consider bottled water on the lower risk side. i think that there is -- there are two issues. one is the infrequency of inspection. the other is all of the things that go with inspections. knows who's making bottled water. we have a hard time under the current food understanding that. because by law, people with

register in paper and the category is called softies and water. everyone is thrown in together. we don't have a very good idea. we don't have as good as we would like to have or -- that's sort of the first step to have a solid system. then we'd like the ability to require the plans and, you know, all of the key basic steps there. and then you put inspections as part of that strategy. but just the inspections alone with the rest of the way it is. it's probably going to be -- it's still going to leave some opportunities for strengthening the system off the table. which is why we'd like the parts of the law giving us access to records, giving fda the ability to require preventive, certify labs. >> let me ask you the question of the time. it's not fair to ask you this. but i'll do it anyway. we're going to vote on the

agriculture appropriations bill today or tomorrow. is the number we have in the bill or food and drug administration is -- do we have the right number there? >> yeah, the president's budget and what came out of committee is historic. you think there's no question the administration responded very strongly to goa finding this would be a high risk and putting a lot more resources into food safety. if we get that combined with additional authority, i think we will be able to strengthen the system. >> just for the record, the beautiful campus that they occupy is part of the budget. none of your food safety dollars are going to build that lovely campus which we are also proud of. i'll yield back. >> thank you. let's go around the questions. if we do testing and if they have to report their positive results, wouldn't after a while if you see the continued positive results for e. coli from a plant indicate that you

have a problem? that we have to get there? or at least increase inspections? like the pca with the peanut butter. we had report after report, problems. but no one ever received the report, no one ever knew what was going on there. >> i agree with you. fda has to respond and be able to follow up manufacturers that aren't meeting standards and if necessary shut them down. in recent weeks we have taken action against some firms. >> but you wouldn't know unless you received positive results. unless you receive results. somewhere they have to receive results and look at them; right? >> it could be that we get a complaint. it could be testing that the fda does. it does do some testing on the 100 samples in the last couple of years. we can find out problems, we can have somebody call us and say there's a problem with the company. so that leads us to investigation. once we find the problem, i

think it's important to really follow up until that problem is clearly resolved. >> how about for those bottlers who use municipal water as their source? wouldn't it make sense to require them to post a link to the required epa testing results? because they have to do is once a year. that makes sense to require them -- well, 25% i think is the -- it was in your report. 25% of the bottlers use tap water. so why wouldn't we require them to post the web site? >> i think it's -- i could totally understand why that would make sense. if the point of comparison is municipal water. the thing for fda is standard that we have for putting something on the label is that it would have to be misleading without it. and so we -- we can't -- we use that to say that something has to be there or it's misleading without it. that's a hard thing to put that -- you know, to kind of file that in that category. that's not to say we wouldn't support it.

but whether we could do it under our misleading authority that we think is questionable and that it might require a different look. >> and the misbranding authority? >> and the misbranding authority, the basic. if we were to do it. what standard would we have to meet? we would be misleading without it? we don't require for other types of foods. would we -- it really be misleading consumers not to have that. there might be a better way to achieve that. >> if i may, on page 22, you refer to the poll conducted approximately 56% of bottled water drinkers site safety and health as a primary reason they sought an alternative to tap water. so it is fair to say that the number one reason they are buying is because they think it's safer and healthier? >> there's that poll and several other research studies that have concluded that.

although convenience is a top reason as well. >> okay. what bothers me about the perception that bottled water is healthier and many instances it's nothing more than tap water. the natural resources defense council they estimate as i said 25 percent of the bottled water is just tap water in a bottle. sometimes it's treated, sometimes it's not. i think you sited in your report, 25% is tap water in a bottle? >> those are the number that is are publyically available. at last question as to whether it's more than that. in so many cases we don't have the source of the information on what it is. almost 1/3 of the bottled water have no information. >> if they take it from tap water, then they have to claim it's tap water? >> that's right. there is a provision that

requires that bottled water if they have not undergone any additional treatment. but any treatment that is according to fda, quote, suitable, allows that bottle managers not to use that label and just to call it purified water without giving people information on what the treatment processes actually were. >> well, like you said, i got this on the airplane yesterday. does coca-cola use municipal water? >> there's no information at all. >> how about pepsi? they use aquafina? does that come from municipal source? >> we have that label on one the examples if you could pull that up. yeah. so on the label it is labeled as from a municipal supply. it doesn't name it, which is

what so many other bottled waters are choosing to do. >> do we know if they do any further treatment or anything of it? >> well, -- would it have to be on there? >> it doesn't have to be labeled at all. we found that 44% don't provide any information. >> aquafina, i understand it's not part of your organization, would they have to? >> no, they wouldn't. i think the issue here is one one -- maybe misunderstanding. purified bottle water, which is what dasani is is not just tap water in a bottle. when the water comes in from the municipal source it goes through reverse osmosis, uv light, and then in a sanitary conditions is placed in the bottle. now those purified waters must meet the u.s. standard for

purified or sterile water. if it does not, then that label must disclose that it comes from a municipal source. so in that case, that water, because it doesn't list it from a municipal source, meets the u.s. standard for purified or sterile water. and that's the big difference here. that goes to the sourcing of the water. it would be not to list this source of the dayton county whatever county whatever, that water is quite different than once it gets in the bottle than where it started out. that's the distinction here. >> okay. let me ask you this, let's go back to dasani then. i'm reading the label. noncasher mated, crisp, fresh taste. dasani is filtered through a state-of-the-art system and enhanced with minerals for pure, fresh taste that can't be beat.

the other side of the label it says, purifyied water, sulfate, salt, adds an amount of sodium. minerals added for taste, purified by reverse osmosis. so to get that clean, crisp taste, are the chemicals they are adding then salt and sodium? or other chemocams? >> i can't speak. it is sometimes done. the water comes in from a municipal source, it's purified in the treatments, and then minerals are added back for taste. that what they are disclosing. i can't speak to the specific label. but in general that's often times what happens. >> okay.

i guess my time is up. mr. walden questions? >> okay. thank you. first of all, what the chairman sited, are those minerals or chemicals? >> i believe they are minerals. they meet the labeling requirements they are making sure they are informing those who buy it with purified water with minerals added back. :

dr. sharfstein, do your folks know of that is correct? >> i will need help with that question, the question is which were allowed to put back in? >> that which you put back in the you have to disclose on the label? and the envelope, the answer is. >> yes, it is required and. >> is already required, if i'm a bottler of water and i go through reverse osmosis and the you be at all that and then add things back in i have to put that back on the label? >> that's my understanding.

>> okay. i want to ask about the dehp issue. in your testimony you state the fda decided to move forward on making a decision on dehp. can you elaborate on this and tell us when we can expect a ruling? that's what i hear if i hear anything about bottled water is about this new discussion about what's in the plastic. >> this is where it gets a little bit to confusing, but basically 1990 -- mid-90s when this was originally done in this particular chemical was deferred, the reason it was deferred because it was marketed prior 21958 and had especial grandfather like provision as a food additive and it was thought it was in the plastic and therefore this provision of the law we're talking about an afflicted with another provision of the law. what is our understanding that's changed and, in fact, we don't

believe it is being used in the water bottles or water caps right now. and as a result of that, the concern and that existed and i appeal attrition and not a lawyer, but basically the legal conflict that was of concern in the mid 90's is not of concern now and that we can move forward and and basically assess whether or not there's a reason -- id has to be an affirmative reason not to have the same standard as municipal water. my assumption would be we will move forward with the standard for dehp like we have for all the other contaminations, but really a grandfather legal issue and i think that may not apply anymore and we can move forward. >> but i want to get to the heart of the matter that matters the people i represent. you were telling me the plastic in the cap year, they don't have that?

>> we haven't -- >> dehp. >> our communications with the industry at understand we do not believe this is regularly used. >> mr. doss, can you speak to this issue? >> is my understanding that none of the classic in taters use contained dehp, not the polycarbonate so none of the bottled water containers used -- contained any dehp however bottled water, the international bottled water association for purposes of parity several years ago prior 21999 and this goes maybe to the historic reasons that mr. stephenson was talking about, we have a standard in our model code exactly the same as the epa moral purity reasons but none of the plastic containers used for bottled water contained dehp. >> this may be outside your association -- does that same apply also to dr. burgess pepsi

bottle there and other bottles used for soda? >> if they are using pt which i believe most of us or polycarbonate were the three primary uses for all beverage products than there is no dehp in them. >> the dehp is in the water separately just because it's in the environment. >> is there and never use for dehp in light pt is a number one and that's what this one is but there's usually a symbol. is there a symbol reviews dehp in a plastic? >> i will get back too. >> i actually have another question i want to get to. >> the contact notifications that epa shows a least 100 different kinds of plastic additives that could leach into the water so this is a problem much bigger than dehp. >> good to know. i just wanted to get to another point because we're so focused and i realize the focus is on

bottled water and where that water comes from and all of that but if i buy one choose in a carton and that is made from concentrate what percent of that is water? there has to be a huge percentage of, right? because we're adding water and then concentrate. if the issue here, the quality of water and the source of the water going into what we consume than it seems to me we are kind of my yawping, looking at bottled water because of a dozen white bottled water are presumes it has a higher threshold in our minds about purity. i would suggest that a lot of us drank orange juice thinking that's better than perhaps bottled water because you get other other things with it -- no offense -- and yet of thinking 80 or 90 percent of what i'm getting in the orange juice of us is as fresh squeezed only not from concentrate is probably water. and so from the fda standpoint you look at the water?

>> well, that's part of what makes food safe is the water and mean food safety requirements. >> that's the same thing applies to the bottled water? >> more because -- so i think as i was saying before a lot of this is compared to water. comparing bottled water to other foods that contain water there are additional regulations that apply. if you are comparing to municipal water and then there is more disclosure bottled water i guess the question would be where is that disclosure. i've never even -- and least there's something on this label. i would know where to go in my hometown out of a spring but i don't get a notice of my tap or my water bill or in the district of columbia for heaven's sakes. what it runs through that comes out of the tap is scary. which is why i put a filter and then we filter in another deal and all that.

in any way, i'm over my time, and done. >> even from a municipal water supply you don't get notice every year? >> we get a letter every year. >> probably and i rushed out to my mailbox to read it to. >> it's like this you were noticed that tells me when it rains in the ladies' of playable things to keep the sewage from rushing into the potomac unless it rains too much and then deflate because it causes too much to release of all but that's a whole other issue. >> no, we don't want releasing untreated sewage in our waters as for sure. this christensen. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. stephenson, i know in your return to the service are done in 50 states of the district of columbia, any reason why the territory is not included or are they generally not included in surveys by gao? >> just the methodology we

chose. >> but there are not generally excluded? >> no. >> just that in this particular -- >> limit to the amount of resources and time dictated 50 states and the district of columbia. >> dr. sharfstein, in your testimony broad authority over a delivery into interstate commerce so if it is just within estate or thin a territory fda doesn't have any jurisdiction or do work with the states then? in the territories? >> actually is a pretty broad statement because of the bottle comes from outside the state or the cap outside the stadium is sold within the stated counts as interstate and there's a presumption nine understand. it would be interested, but in theory there might be products that would be challenging authority over them although i'm

not aware for water we have heard about a problem we haven't been able to get through directly or through the state. >> okay. did you want to add something? >> mr. stephenson, we've talked about of bottled water is safe or healthier and there's disagreement, but there's no disagreement on the fact that bottled water uses more energy to produce and deliver. on page 26 of your reports, it's quite amazing statistic where you refer to a study by the pacific institute which examine how much energy it takes to bring bottled water from several locations throughout the world to l.a.. and in your report this is what it says -- the institute estimated the total energy required to bring a typical 1 liter bottle of water weighing about 38 grams to consumer in los angeles would range from about 1,100 and, 2000 times energy cost of producing tap water.

>> that's true of. >> so if i drink a single bottle of evian or fiji or some other bottled water which i may never drink again but from overseas, i could be using up to 2,000 times more energy than if i walked over and filled up from the tap? >> the import accounts were very small percentage of the total bottled water but that is, true. >> i see, okay. well, that's astonishing. the study cited in the gao report describe how transporting the bottles could be the single biggest cost. according to that transportation energy could be as high as 67% of the total energy cost for a spring water, transport and overseas bipartisanship and transported by rail from the eastern u.s. to los angeles. >> that is, correct. >> you're report has some other findings related. for example, you concluded that most plastic water bottles aren't discarded rather than recycled of.

>> estimated 25%, are recycle 75 percent discarded. >> so ms. houlihan, how do we get here? where do we pay so much 100 times more for bottled water and takes thousands times more energy to produce? >> we heard some of the marketing claims used by the industry and i think a lot of people are under misperception that bottled water it must be safer than tap water. a lot of people believe it is free of contaminants. in fact, by lot it's not required to be any safer than tap water. when we tested 10 major brands of bottled water we found 38 different pollutants. everything from disinfection byproducts to radioactive isotopes to even traces of tylenol and fertilizer residues. so one thing that we need when it comes to the bottled water industry is just more daylight, information for consumers on where the water comes from, how it is treated and what's in its.

>> i think is really important for the information to be there so that people can make knowledgeable judgment. i certainly understand the bottles are convenient but if we're going to use them isn't there a better way of cost going back two not recycling by going into the landfill the? in this bottle of water from the cafeteria is transported just a few miles to the capital and is biodegradable. mr. doss, you represent the bottled water companies. how many of them are using biodegradable bottles? >> i'm not sure exactly how many are using them but i will say as a general statement that bottled water companies like other food industry companies are trying to do whatever they can to produce -- reduce the footprint, going to bottle such as the ones that what we've made significant efforts of light with bottled water containers as and when you

drink bottled water knows there much lighter weight which uses less plastic and we also have some of our companies using recycled content to use less virgin material of so bottled water is trying to do what it can to reduce the environmental footprint but i think is important to recognize that bottled water is one of thousands of food products on the market in plastic. and, in fact, we are only one-third of 1% as reported in the gao report of the entire waste in the united states so i think any efforts to reduce environmental impact has to focus more broadly on all consumer goods. >> absolutely, thank you for your answers. >> thank you very mr. burgess, let's get five incendy or groce. >> thank you. dr. sharfstein, just following up on what mr. walden was talking about of the lawsuits with the dehp. that has been held up. i think it was referenced 16 years in the making.

you are now prepared to issue a ruling in september, i'd understand that correctly on dehp? >> the fda is prepared to go with that ruling now? >> there are questions whether we set a standard for bottled water and i intend to proceed with the setting standard for bottled water. it's a just a matter of preparing the standard, getting a gallon. if we come across some reason why this doesn't apply to bottled water at all we are permitted to make the statement that doesn't apply to bottled water who but it's not obvious to us there is such a compelling reason at this point so we would anticipate the unborn and setting standards. at that point its as long as it takes to do. it's in the law and there's 180 day standard in the law that is if epa sets the standard fda needs to set a standard, and least 180 days before so it can

take a fact at the same time as the epa standard but with this one when they waited so long because of the legal think that's out the window and doesn't apply because epa wanted to address a long ago so we would just like to do it in a reasonable time frame. >> at this point in a preview or look had as to what the standard may be? >> if we were to do it would be the same standard epa had unless we have a good reason otherwise but that would be the assumption just like we have done for almost all the other contaminants the same standard as epa. over a couple set lower like lead and copper. but i would anticipate it would be the same because that's really what the law sets up unless we could figure out of there was something unique which at this point is not apparent. >> mr. chairman on the issue of the high risk low risk apparently there was a really big issue in fda in 2005 risk assessment and i will get a copy with that and with your permission will make that

available to the committee for consideration of adding it to the record. up and then finally let me ask a question mr. wald and asked a rhetorical question about recycling and really this is for anyone in the panel about plastic compounds leaching out of the plastic in greater amounts in recycle materials and then in native or fresh drawn materials. so is that a real concern for us to have? other went to be different standards for recycle bottles or should there be different standards? will consumers -- do they need to be aware of any difference between recycled bottle and pressure on a bottle? >> we look dad fda reviews of additives in plastic and found that there are some 100 different compounds that could reach out of plastic so the question you raised is very important and we think that only to recycle bottles need to be more closely inspected and tested with regard to that but

also new bottles, was coming out of the plastic into water and that testing is not required. we fully support greater rates of recycling in the industry. that's a smart move overall. >> is there another secondary use for the recycled plastic water bottle of the senate recreating another plastic water bottle? can they be used in building materials or any other use for these bottles? >> that's a fabulous question and i think we are driven out in this country to come up with other use is that don't involve direct contact with water if that's needed. >> mr. doss, do you have an opinion? >> i don't know specifically about the issue you just raise but i know that epa has to clear all the food contact packaging material so if fda clears the than the manufacturer is able to use it and they've made the determination that they're the same to use. >> so we come to a dr. sharfstein para [laughter] >> there's got to be a standard

of safety whether recycled or not there's got to be a standard of safety and so that's what fda and the forces. understanding in line of new evidence that comes out about particular substances and the latest science and the different concerns people have is fda job to weigh that but at the end of the day is that to be a standard of safety and got to apply the matter what's in the package. >> where are we right now with the issue of recycling? is there -- should consumers be concerned about buying bottled water it is recycled products? >> are you testing these products curly or are they available? >> we test the water, you know, it can be from recycle bottles or not, but i am not aware of any special concerns were recycled plastic. but i think if there are concerns people have they should share with the agency and we will look.

>> i don't even know enough to know whether these recycled materials are then broken down and reconstituted or do we simply wash of the bottle and put any attack on a? but obviously the push is to recycle and so we will see more of the products on our shelves and in our stores. >> i think your illustrating why the job is so challenging because products change different and fda has to be up on them and enforce the same basic safety standards and so the food is protected. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. burgess. one last question and will close the hearing. mr. stephenson, in your gao report you talked today the consumer confidence reports and in 1996 congress directed the fda to assess the feasibility providing bottled water consumers with the functional equivalent of consumer confidence report and according

to your gao report released today on august 20th, 2000 fda concluded it would be feasible to provide consumers with some of the information contained in consumer confidence reports directly on a bottle label. access the remaining information to address or phone number. and that's tab number three in the documents. is that correct? >> that's, right. >> mr. doss, any reason which your organization object or should we have consumer confidence report for bottled water? >> as i think was reported in their study, they did say it was feasible, they didn't exactly say what was feasible to put on and were quite skeptical of putting some of the contaminants etc. on the label because it would clutter the label. now as i said before i think that the bottom line for us is consumers ought to be able to get information and we think telephone number to call the company and request information is the best way and almost all bottled waters currently as of their food products have a phone

number at least a consumer could call the company and sank you send me the information and that should be sent in if it isn't as they go on another product to buy. >> so you don't find a phone number but no other information? >> we don't. fda requires a phone number for all products in 2001 for bottled water so we support that as giving consumers in touch to share information. >> mr. chairman the news to be specificity and was required in this report. when we were checking labels and websites it was difficult to get the kind of information. >> you're report it and say put the whole report on the bottle. some information should be on an unlisted phone number. >> up if you want further information. >> massaleit. >> i want to thank our witnesses were coming in for your testimony from the committee rose provides the have 10 days to submit additional questions and that concludes the meeting of the subcommittee. we are adjourn. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

yesterday's kansas governor mark parks and deliver his first state of the state address. he took office last april after his predecessor kathleen sebelius joined president obama's cabinet as health and human services secretary. from topeka, this is half an hour. >> mr. sargent in arms,. >> mr. speaker, the governor of kansas awaits without. >> please submit the honorable marc perkins and, governor of the great state of kansas. >> [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] thank you all very much, thank you very much. thank you all, very much. bois mr. speaker, mr. president, minority leaders hensley and davis, cabinet officers, mr. chief justice and your colleagues, elected officials, honored guests, and my fellow kansasans. almost 150 years 45 governors have had a great honor to report to this body on the state of the

state. now, during that time and we've had all kinds of crises. behalf financial booms and busts, we've been through two world wars, and we have faced countless natural disasters. and yet despite that, every pryor governor has declared that the state of our state was strong. they did so because they understood that you don't measure the state of a staged by the price is that it's in at the time. instead you measure the state of a state by the character and the quality of the people that live in a. are they willing to pull together during tough times? steer down any challenges and lend a helping hand to those that are in need? mr. speaker and mr. president, i'm happy to report that all though this recession has once again tested the quality and character of the kansas people, we have once again passed every test on every measurement that matters, the state of the state of kansas has never been

stronger. [applause] now, this doesn't mean that we don't face any more challenges. this was session has been burgled. and it continues to fight against us. but my message to the kansasans tonight is clear, we will not let this recession defeat us. [applause] in order for us to succeed we have got to pull together and continue to fight, but we have to do it because it to give up in what i believe are the waning moments of this recession would cause incalculable damage to what we have built up in kansas. i'm so proud of our founders of our state and the vision that

they had for the states. those founders and the leaders that followed them executed on that vision and created the greatest state in the country. what i'm calling on a 165 of you to do tonight is to protect what our founding fathers and those leaders have built over the last 100 and 80 years. now, you've heard me brad time and time again about our founding fathers, about the obstacles that they faced, the struggles that they overcame a and it's truly amazing. they shared a vision. if you go back and study the history of our state you'll see that they shared a vision of outstanding public schools, the great universities, save communities, and an economic climate that would allow all kansans to prosper. early on they understood the importance of great universities. in 1863 just two years after we became a state a former kansas state university and this wasn't a onetime commitment. this was a commitment to higher

education that has lasted throughout our history. we went on to build a six additional great universities, 19 community colleges and seven technical schools. the vision of our daughters was clear. if you want to retain the best and brightest in kansas you must build great universities. if you want to attract the best and brightest from other states you must build great universities and if you want to build a labor force that will propel us into the future, you must build great universities. and they were right. hundreds of thousands of kansans have graduated from the schools and make kansas what it is today.

scored were the guys that were supposed to score. steckel did get on the board. they weren't overly offensive and we have to depend on them to play well and the defense has to step up. >> you mentioned offense and defense and we will talk about special teams as we just passed the midway point of the season it is time to give a few games about the wash capitals. joe and craig will be joining us momentarily from down in the forum in tampa and we will get their thoughts. allen why don't we begin the grading procedure.

we will start with the capitals offense, can you give them anything but an "a." >> they are leading the league in goals scored and the second most powerful goals and 21 power play goals and they have done everything they need to do offensively and not just with semnin and ovenchin. >> are we giving them an "a" plus as a combined allen and allen grade. >> yes. it is not fair to give them anything but. they have mad a few stinkers but they are top of the division and dominated and there is no reason they shouldn't have an "a" plus. >> and they are certainly putting together great performanceles from all comers and guys you don't expect to have the goals are starting to chip in like matt bradley. we are giving the offense thanks

to my partner and "a" plus. let go to tampa with a couple of tough graders, joe and craig. i'm guessing guys you will have to give high marks to the offense. >> i think you are right, al, what the caps do on offense is what the opponents do the highlights. >> i won't be a pushover, i will give them an a.m. -- "a" whether it is offense or defense. balance it back with nine guys with ten plus goals and two more than anyone else in the hockey league. tremendous offense. >> if you are not paying attention on d you will get burned so how should we grade the caps? >> we will see a few highlights and because of defensive break

downs we will give them a "b" minus. not so good in their own zone, when they are battling and getting pucks they are at their best on the defense but defense to offense that is when they can burn games three men have arranged the game. the highest gaa and lowest they presented, 5 and 4 and farley 12, 1 and two, how can you beat those numbers when he is healthy, he's the number one man. they need consistency from their three headed goalie situation. >> fellas it is the most hotly debated topic among caps fans, where do you weigh in on the washington d? flooie think we are kind of at the same spot as i bring my partner allen may in and you had what joe and craig had to say about going goaltender out. i think if we look at it like a school year the last couple of exams they have done a pretty good job so far and i think they

have gotten better as a team and i will put them in that solid "b" category. >> i'm with you. the goals they gave up were the games they actually won, 5-4 up goals. in the last games beating them 5-1, 6-1 ant few games they have lost they let goals in the games. the big thing they have to work is keep the puck off of the wall and i think the defensive play as a team and group has gotten better in their own end. just a matter of those lacy goals at the start of the season. >> getting brian pottier back brought a balance. we have see what jeff schultz is starting to do. in that regard the overall performance of the guys on the whether you line with help from the forwards gives them a p.m. now you and i have a little bit

of disagreement about the special teams. you love the washington cap power play should be the most goals, the percentage should be higher. i am giving the special teams a "b" minus and you are more generous. >> it is an "a" as far as the power play is concerned. spend too much times with craig locklan over the years. the numbers don't matter percentage wise, the thing is getting your goal in the power play. they have done just that. they can use so many different players and so many different looks and not dependent on three or four guys. they have ten to 12 games and still be successful. >> but can they always generate the attacks, they seem to go in the slumps, i know the cumulative total is there. i look at the penalty kill, i think there are too many guys they have on the team that don't seem to be night in-night out

great all of the time and being all aggressive. you are giving it a "b" and i'm giving it a "b" minus and my partner wins a "b." as we go to tampa, guys we have disagreement in a studio and a shot at p ont he er. >> how do you rate the specialistness. >> the power play because of their jab it moves up but the multiple choice and i'm talking about penalty killing is inconsistent and better lately on the road not so great. killing off 75% of the power play and the bottom three in the nhl allowing 23 power play goals against when they are playing against from verizon center, they get a solid "b," the guys back in the studio, joe, i'm right around an "a." >> you review it all, the studio

guys and the remote guys are in agreement. >> well for the defense we all say the goalies have to play better and the special teams solid "b." >> we have work to do. let's send it back to the studio for more capitals pregame live. >> we are giving you guys an "a" for your performance. we want to know should we giving a b for beniato? >> i went shopping. i love it. i did not pick the collar. >> no, we can tell. looks good and we are giving you an "a" even though it is a j ovi e look. >> joe and craig, we appreciate it at the forum in tampa. as we look at the capital team as they roll up the grades and numbers, they are effective in the southeast division is ridiculous. look at the size of the league

past the midway point. >> the largest, the 16 point spread as far as the division and they can go five hundred the rest of the year and they can win one out of every four and will win the division. the reason the division match up, you get a spot in the top three spots. that is why it is so important. that is how they were able to get in the playoffs. they are important games. >> the capitals have a 16 point lead as they approach an almost insurmountable lead. >> i don't know what insurmountable is but obviously every chance you get you want to put as much room in between you and the next team. you don't want to give them any opportunities if you can help it. >> we want to start to bury the teams. we want to get in their minds that they will be a tough

opponent to beat. >> they are great in divisional games but our goal doesn't enif win the division, we are going to view these, view divisional games different. there will always be tough games. >> there's a bigger picture besides the division, to keep playing for the conference and try to keep as many teams as you can. once you get around it, you win. >> so, michal neuvirth the newcomer. allen, may, you got to take care of business within the division and since bruce boudreau has taken over the capitals it is amazing how they have dominated every team inside of the division maybe with the exception of carolina. >> the carolina team is surprising but this year lit take a beating. as far as taking care of business in your division it is a testament to bruce boudreau and how hard he has played.

the teams are dependent on sitting back and playing hockey and keeping goals out of the net and the capitals are filling that. and i like bruce boudreau against the team. >> guys like semin have destroyed the canes. we know what al ovenchin has done. when you have guys that tear up and the entire team has obliterated the lightning. it is pick them. no matter who they play the capitals have an answer to be a team against the southeast. >> they have more depth than any team in the division and you look at the goaltenders. no team has any type of depth like this and the capitals can win games against the teams when they don't have ovenchin and semin and a back strum or a green. they are still winning the games and someone is coming through for them every single time.

>> we are just getting started on caps pregame live. when we come back we will talk about an incredible offensive explosion. and how about the tampa bay lightning weekend? they came back to back to back thanks to a power outage in a new jersey. we will talk about that coming up on capitals pregame live.

>> coming up. jeff schultz and the capitals trying to make it 13 in a row over the tampa bay lightning, they are in tampa and we will get the game for you in a moment. what a weekend for the lightning. friday night in new jersey the lightning stormed out to a 3-0

lead. but then the power went out at the prudential center and the game was delayed almost two hours and postponed until sunday so vinnie and company had other work to do, they traveled to philadelphia where they would take on the philadelphia flyers and things wouldn't go so well. they lose 4-1 and tampa only able to get 17 shots on goal and back to jersey on sunday to finish up the postponed game and steven stan kos goes seconds of the game and first of the day because he scored on friday night. the lightning go on with a 4-2 win over the devils. i guess you can say, allen may, the lightning finished on a high note. but what a weird weekend. >> they got 75% of the roster played in the hockey league. they didn't have to travel by bus all weekend is the good thing. that was certainly a bizarre

weekend. the funny thing is that new jersey changed goalies for the 3rd game. mark deneir over mark bonier. >> the last game very quiet night vinnie and steve st amkos is rounding back into form. >> steve stamkos did what he did what he did last season. the player they drafted. vince lecavalier is at a point of game -- everybody is saying he is not playing that well but the capitals have so many guys putting the puck in the net and in tampa they are depending on a few games. >> the lightning has all over the map. you see what the capitals have done since the 23rd of november

back in '07 45 goals with only 24 given up, the penalty killing has been much much better against a team like tampa although mr. percentage, al copylan says the power percentage. >> you just like the fact that alex ovenchin has gotten his goals, 18 points in 12 games. >> how many power play goals they do have, there could be more than the percentage. you and your numbers. it is goals win games not percentages and percentages might win a play in the corn are but the goals in a game ultimately will get you your victory. >> so the capitals will get ready to see if they can make it 13 in a row. one of the guys that has to be feeling good about himself, he is new to this all capitals battle, that is jason schemera, heshisfirw

lllar at'sg up

pregame live. >> later tonight check out joe's blog. we want to know your thoughts, check it out at csswashington.com. enter the keyword blog. we bring you back to allen may and al copylan and we are joined by lisa hillary, you had a chance to talk to jason chimera. usually you get traded when a team needs a boost but they are playing hot. >> jason chimera has been a welcome addition. the 30-year-old left winger is

younger than clark. his speed with grit make him a good fit. jason, it is a world wind, you got the call and you came to dc and get a physical and board a plane with pretty much a bunch of strangers and head off to the west coast. what was your initial react to the trade? i was pretty shocked. i was in columbus five years. you get in the routine, you know your places and your world gets turned upside down with a phone call. you get excited and you feel like your 18 again coming into the situation and getting to know guys and stuff. it feels -- it was pretty unique experience for sure. >> and you went from a last place team to a first place organization here in washington. had to give you a bit of a boost. >> anytime you get -- it's contagious, the guys want to win every night and it is great.

the situation in columbus was a good team but we couldn't find a way to win. it was a rough situation. they got a team down there too, we just couldn't find a win and here they find ways to win every night. it is a new lease on l

expect from the capitals.

>> cap fans you never have to miss a goal again. you can get the scores sent to your cell phone for free. go to csswashington.com and enter the keyword mobile standard and text rates will apply. we will get you right back down to the st. pete's forum and joe and craig will have the call of

the caps and tampa bay lightning. what about the number one goalie? >> the fact that goal tending has been so bad in tampa, that helps. he moves the puck well and he can get erratic but the biggest thing is stopping the puck and when tampa plays shut down hockity helps him than the stuff they were playing last year. when the team plays good defensive round he steps up to the plate. >> any goaltender the capitals face has to worry about alex ovenchin. without a goal in an 8 game performance in atlanta. as we saw the numbers earlier ten goals and 8 assists in the last 12 games against the tampa bay lightning. would you expect for him to come out and say i'm not going two games without scoring. >> i know he will.

goal scores love to score every game. when your team has a big blow up, he will be pound that puck and make sure that he weeks out of this game with at least two goals tonight. >> at least two. you are hearing on caps pregame live. who would put it against alex ovenchin, the new capital captain. we will be back here tomorrow night for another edition of capitals pregame live on comcast sports net but right now we want to get you ready on comcast sports plus to get you down to st. peat forum in tampa forum. joe and craig are standing you by and bringing action as the capitals go 13 straight against the lightning. thanks for being with you and we'll see you tomorrow night when the caps take on the

florida panthers. >> this young net minder has a handle on it quickly. marks to atlanta at high speed and practically untouched and delivering a pick perfect performance and now they need to slip past the lightning bolts. their gun hits the target on

comcast sports net. >> since when is it chilly in florida? the capitals come in from the col in tampa to face a lightning strike that hasn't jolted them in a long time. it is nice to see you i'm joe ben natti. this team can produce a lot of excite. like saturday night. >> called crazy 8, they dominated the atlantic thrashers. let's get shortie, sem into the roof and nick backstrom and mike knuble and steckel a nice drive and cody on the power play and rick a nice pass and jason chimera is first as a caps. all caps against atlanta.

>> the whole team took part and everybody has a kick. cody and jason chimera on the board. everybody chips in but two and an 8 spot doesn't happen every day, only 6 times in the last ten years. in the capitals history. hockey has a bunch of statistics that we keep track of and one of them is plus-minus and jeff schultz is gaining there. >> plus ten against at h a ball blue liner and one behind alex ovenchin. confidence, composed and consistent. >> he is very steady and bruce boudreau explained why he is performing so well. >> he's not making mistakes. he's doing the right things and things that people don notice that he does. he has such a big body that he gets in people's way. he doesn't bowl them over but he is there. he is like a pest for a big guy in our zone and help gets the

puck he make the first good pass. with our guys if you make the first good pass they are ready to go. >> didn't quite catch these guys over the last decade. brian ponthier when the caps struck florida 12-2 january of 2003. 8 of the plus minuses are semin. the caps will play a plus 6 when with the senators. >> staying on the offensive side of michal neuvirth is giving the capps solid goal continuing and his last outing was nearly perfect. >> it really was. atlanta did everything in front of this guy to try to make him budge from his goal tending. it didn't happen, 38 saves in atlanta held the caps early in the game when he was -- had 18 shots in the first 20 minutes and calm and cool. he started 0 and 2 but he has played great since.

>> the coaches have chose ton stay with the hot hand tonight. >> 2.15 stopping over 92% of the shots and last season and good memories in mid february in his debut he posted a 51 victory over the tampa bay team. >> stair long enough into steven stamkos eyes a shooting star. learning more every day as the ing the ls

next on comcast sportsnet. >> coverage of capitals is being brought to you by geico. it could save you 15% or more. visit them at geico.com or call 1800947 auto. by sport automatic chevrolet and honda. visit sports automatic.com and by poppa john order your pizza online at poppa johns.com. >> ed rodriguez finishing up the national anthem. it has been cold here.

the capitals are set against the lightning. >> the young goaltender goose for the capitals, michal neuvirth gets it, 5, 4, 268 and a 9, 10 percentage. mike smith has been hot for the tampa bay team gets the 10, 11 and 6, the last six starts, joe, he is 4, 1 and 1. >> joe: just dynamite the last time they took the ice. michal neuvirth racking up 38 and looks to build on it in a rink that will be special. he picked up his first win in this barn. tampa bay is no easy out. the guys in the dark jerseys have been solid from the opening of the campaign in this rink. our opening face useful is presented by poppa johns as we get you set for meeting number two of six in this southeast rivals. the nhl on comcast sportsnet.

glad you tuned in. mike green and shaone morrisonn will get it started for washington. in the white after a couple of days off they will be busy boys. they will be in florida tomorrow as alex ovenchin spoil is deflected high in the safety netting. the onice officials referees are showing it off of the lines man miller. >> tampa bay is 0, 5 and 5. however five hundred at

euvirth and he will squeeze. >> across the blue line

lateralry is a defenseman a nightmare. here is the shot by brian ponthier. james right on brian ponthier. he was hoping for an interference penalty and it should have been because that gave the tampa bay lightning their best scoring chance. joe: remarkable stuff from michal neuvirth. he made the smear with a very active gloved hand. he showed that off against the flashers. jason chimera and washington meeting up with tampa on nhl sports net and smith will melt it. gives us enough time to clue you in for the ford keys of the game. >> the caps have got to reverse the flaw. this is a highly skilled offensive team, tampa bay when they have the reversal wave. overloaded and gets three guys in against the d for tampa bay. they don't have a lot of shots and vince lecavalier. joe: he has to be a catalyst he is playing hard and well, they

have a better chance to win. >> i'm amazed to say that he has scored just two times at home this year. joe: headman. downy putting on pressure and one hand off of the outside of the cage and the pad of michal neuvirth. >> downnie developing nicely. he has come in to his own not takingdum penalties and play aggressively. >> he has 220 game -- suspensions under his belt. one in the nh and the american hockey league. joe: he has the reputation of being a bad boy. the capitals do not get of their own zone. green will play and loops one to

alex ovenchin. cupped away by smith. washington was here five weeks ago and alex ovenchin had two and in a 3-0dc win. vince lecavalier drags it down and that's allen conrad. tampa bay has shuffled up the line formation for the southeast division matchup. >> hefer not in the midding, he will play the flange in alex tanguay's line. joe: it is alex tanguay. don't go back to the old pronunciation. >> i talked to him this morning. joe: and it is lanco as well. stan cost to the head and knuble waiting off of a two goal performance. down the win comes brooks laich and that is secured by smith and

he will vacuum it up. washington has been bulletproof. >> one loss to the hurricanes, boston, right on their heels and la doing a nice job in the spank and chicago, new jersey and they are at the top when you look at divisional records. joe: washington 60 points for bruce boudreau and with a mark of 27, 11 and six pacing the way in the southeast. a division of which they are the two times defending charges. scoreless on nhl comcast sportsnet and alex ovenchin sweeps out of the corner. cody loops it in. >> nice 5 game street for tom bodiy. his career best, his 6th game which he has accomplished twice the last time in '03.

joe: jeff schultz on the back end. a save from michal neuvirth and away comes washington, flesh man is on target for semin, he waits at the line and turns. tom fleischmann fires and a good hustle by james wright, the 19-year-old rookie. >> little mishue by tampa, they went with tom fleischmann, that opened up a little bit of a channel for semin, a good block. joe: brian ponthier lets it fly. tyler sloan keeps it on the board and foster will lob it over brian ponthier's head. shots on goal at three apiece. michal neuvirth with a stop. he robbed stephanie veilleux. >> eric fehr marching ahead. may shuffles it around. helps comes from jason chimera. he will get the center strike

and sprinkle it in the corner. downing after brian ponthier. this pass will get away from zenon konopka. downey has been winning the battle. he has become better on the wall and better in traffic. when he wins the pucks, that garnishments the ice time. >> somewhere land is packed by smith. no score in this first six minutes. >> everybody is frozen. joe: they are expecting the heat to turn up as the heat goes along. vince lecavalier brings it back and they score. that is one of the best goals i have seen to draw the goalie out

of the net. that turnover at the dock by the capitals, there's the puck but it doesn't come out of the zone. they have come out, the caps have a nice passing play down low. vince lecavalier burries it and bad clear for mike knuble. there's the turnover and what a pass by alex tanguay as he sets up vince lecavalier. alex tanguay, right? >> now i got myself confused. joe: correct. 11 on the year for vince lecavalier. 634 is the time and just his third. >> we were talking about that. it is amazing and that's why the team needs him and one of the keys was there. tampa bay jumps to the lead because of vince lecavalier. i know we are all getting old

when we say vince lecavalier is a 12-year-old pro. brooks laich to dump it in. matt walker hustles back for it and now on for stanco. 19-year-old center playing. trickle to michal neuvirth so washing is washed out. tom gate and vince lecavalier on the viers tampa bay goal. one nothing for the capitals. >> the rink wise pass from knuble to backstrom did not hook up. joe: viktor headman will wait. another promises young star in this tampa bay lineup. steckel for the breakup for washington. bradley a step late. brian ponthier booms one in from center. >> the team completing line change as the head man is torn

by steckel. brian malone, wing towing for downy. not going far and shaone morrisonn was ready. the capitals look to counterattack. boyd gordon was knocked. deflected by green off extangvinc lierat tcag 0tp csn.

joe: vince lecavalier taking a breather. it is his goal that has the locals over the capitals by one in this first period. toyota wants to watch hard shooting right-handed players. >> a point per game tied with 17 and steven stamkos for tampa bay. a goal leader with 23. joe: headman blocked and that will go off of the rink and viktor headman turned 19. it allows him to spend more time on the left side where he is more comfortable especially being a young guy like you just mentioned playing on your off sides. he is able to control the left side. joe: that last bullet point on that graphic won't to the ice

time for hillary clinton man over meyers gets more. brendan morrison morrison waits by jason chimera and he just missed the mark. in full strength approaching the nine minute mark. 1-0 for tampa bay. kicks it to jeff halpern. out there with vince lecavalier for the moment. eric fehr was in early. >> good opportunity for jason chimera. nicely set up by morrison on the transition. the tampa bay lightning coughed it up in the

crease. 1-0 tampa bay. joe: capitals have catching up to do. it is 1-0 tampa bay with the nhl on comcast sports net. verizon wireless says to make the call. brooks laich goes to the net. he can't run over the goalie. he didn't bring the puck along. 420-pound collision. mike smith just getting up. getting to his sense. remember last year he had all of the concussion problems and missed a big chunk last year and the tampa bay lightning hoping he will fine after that collision. this guy is 6'4", 220 and brooks, 6'4", 200 and big

collision in the paint. joe: referee mark shanet giving approximate a leash as he remains with him in the crease. adjusting the gloves as he stays put and his teammates go to the power play. tampa bay already on the lead thanks to a goal from vince lecavalier. puts the power play on ice and steven stamkos leads in power plays. 7 and the lightning have to chase. >> just a bit more than nine minutes to go. tampa bay, 20th in the nhl in respect to the power play and washington has to pick up the pace penalty killing away from home. joe: tampa bay the last 16 games, 7 of 58 and they need more shots. foster can bring it. vince lecavalier, he is out there has to get shots through if they are going to have more

success with the extra man. andrej meszaros breezes through. washington wins the battle and tom fleischmann doing so in won swoop. smith waiting for the trapezoid and now steven stamkos through the center. >> angled well by semin. didn't get it out however. bo cheney he lost a handle and got it back. michal neuvirth got the pads and foster walks the line. tampa bay top point producer, foster steps in. deflected and scores! a brilliant back hand from steven stamkos. >> i made the point they got to have some guys for the in