Proving once again that there's a trade association for nearly everything, the International Bottled Water Association has initiated a major media campaign and have started by taking out full-page ads in The New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle in order to counter all the bad press they've received of later.

From an article in the Chicago Sun-Times:

No one should dissuade consumers from drinking water in a country where diabetes, obesity and heart disease are threatening public health, said Joe Doss, chief executive of the International Bottled Water Association.

''It's not a bottled water vs. tap water issue,'' Doss said. ''Water is a very healthy drink that shouldn't be discouraged.''

Seriously, is this the best they can do? Drink bottled water or you'll be a fat diabetic with heart disease?

Here's a thought - instead of attacking the "activist groups and a handful of mayors who have presented misinformation and subjective criticism", why not address the issues that these activists and mayors have put into the public domain? If the International Bottled Water Association have a reasonable position, the public will back them.

But by attacking these folks by saying things like they are offering "misguided and confusing criticism", it makes the International Bottled Water Association appear is if they are obfuscating the point that these "activists" are making.

So let me ask directly - Why do we need to pay one to three dollars for a bottle of water that cost maybe 10 cents (per bottle) to make? What are the profit margins on bottled water? And why should anyone drink Dasani, Aquafina, Volvic, or any other bottle of water when many of them are within 200 steps of drinkable water, especially when the bottles are adding refuse by the millions?

Until these folks at the IBWA actively and respectfully address these questions, they're simply going to come across as industrial marketers.

Which is, of course, exactly what they are.