Brita is not Brita when it comes to water filters, well sort of with the local manufacturer of Brita filters moving to differentiate their Brita filters from the Brita branded filters sold in the USA after a recent legal action was filed against the US operator.
Brita filters above sold in Australia are not part of the action in the USA
The US lawsuite accuses the US manufacturer of Brita filters Clorox/US which is a different Company to the Australian operator, of violating California laws concerning unfair competition, false advertising, and breach of contract in the sale and marketing of their filters.
The individual who has filed the case is seeking damages and other remedies.
Recently we wrote a story about the US class action only for the local operator to respond claiming that not all Brita water filters are equal or even the same filter. (See here)
he Australian distributor of Brita filters claims “We, Brita SE, are aware of the class action lawsuit against the Clorox/US brand “Brita”.
“Water filters with the brand “Brita” in the United States and Canada are manufactured and distributed by Clorox, a U.S. conglomerate that purchased the “Brita” trademark in the Americas in 2000 and has been the exclusive owner of the trademark in the Americas ever since”.
Products manufactured by Brita SE, headquartered in Taunusstein, Germany, are sold under the “BRITA” brand in the rest of the world. Brita SE manufactures its filters mainly in Germany, but these products are not related in any way to those of Clorox.
“The two companies, Clorox and Brita SE, operate completely independently.
They concluded “We as Brita SE, a responsible family-owned company, communicate with our products in a very clear, research and test-based way”.
The question now is who has the best Brita filter?
The issue it appears is polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS which are an issue in both the USA and Australia.
Back in 2019 Australian Government set up a task force to investigate PFAS in Australian waters.
Depending on the type of filter, Brita products which we have just leant are different around the world, are pitched to consumers as being certified to reduce or remove contaminants such as chlorine, lead, mercury, asbestos, some particulates, zinc, copper and select pesticides, herbicides and pharmaceuticals, in some Countries but not Australia it appears.
The lawsuit comes at a time of increasing concern over drinking water contamination.
Researchers claim that some water in Australia is contaminated with one or more PFAS chemicals, and that drinking-water exposures may be more common in some areas where Brita water filters are sold.
PFAS contaminates are often referred to as forever chemicals because they don’t degrade naturally in the environment, PFAS has made their way into rivers, lakes, aquifers and people’s blood streams.
Exposure to high levels of some PFAS has been linked to adverse health effects such as decreased fertility, increased risk of high cholesterol, obesity, high blood pressure, certain cancers, and liver and immune-system damage.
The lawsuit accuses the US manufacturer of Brita filters company of violating California laws when it comes to removing dangerous chemicals.
Depending on the type of filter, Brita products are certified to reduce or remove contaminants such as chlorine, lead, mercury, asbestos, some particulates, zinc, copper and select pesticides, herbicides, and pharmaceuticals, according to its website.
The lawsuit comes at a time of increasing concern over drinking water contamination.
Brita SE makes no mention of dangerous chemicals instead they refer to ‘Full flavoured tea and coffee” “Less limescale’ with their site focused on the benefits of owning one of their filters Vs a breakdown of the contaminates it takes out of water.
In the USA researchers recently estimated that at least 45% of the nation’s tap water is contaminated with one or more PFAS chemicals, and that drinking-water exposures may be more common in urban areas across Central and Southern California.
A visit to the Federal Government site states on the issue of PFAS contamination that “Because PFAS have been used in a wide variety of applications over time and they do not fully break down naturally, they are present in low levels almost everywhere in the environment. Increased levels of PFAS can be found near sewage treatment plants, landfills, and places where fire-fighting foams have been used (e.g., mining operations, fuel refineries and storage facilities, airports, fire-training grounds, and transport infrastructure). Consequently, these chemicals are found in many places and are not just limited to Commonwealth-owned sites”.
They also admit that they make their way into dams where drinking water is sourced.
The lawsuit argues that claims on the labels and packages of certain Brita water filters sold in the USA, pitchers, and dispensers — such as “Cleaner, Great-Tasting Water for Over [20, 25, or 30] Years,” “The #1 FILTER” and “Reduces 3X Contaminants” — are false and misleading.
Other claims like “Better water for you. Better water for the planet” and “Fresh filter = Fresh water” reinforce consumer beliefs that the products remove or reduce to below lab detection limits common hazardous contaminants, the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit also claims that numerous Brita products have not been registered with the California State Water Resources Control Board since they’ve been marketed and sold, and that none of their products have been certified to remove or reduce health-hazardous contaminants, making it unlawful to market and sell them in the Golden State according to the LA Times.
In Australia the local operation claim that the lifetime of a filter cartridge depends on the local water quality.
If your mains water contains a carbonate hardness of 10 -12°dH, the filter cartridge should be replaced after approximately 100 litres to 150 litres of water. If the water is harder or consumption is greater, the lifetime of the cartridge reduces accordingly.
The cartridge should be replaced at least every month.
