Someone Owns Tuesday · Episode 4
200× tap, sewerage excluded: what ‘natural’ water must mean
Sources for the mineral-water episode: the French Senate's inquiry, the European Commission's audit of France, Nestlé Waters' own statements, the rules on 'natural' water in the EU and the US, and the price data.
Sources read 30 Oct 2026 · updated 7 Nov 2026 · Watch the episode
In short
- EU law bans disinfecting natural mineral water. Nestlé says it used carbon filters and UV that don't comply with French rules. 11:30
- EU auditors said accepting 0.2 micron filters “is not in line with European legislation”. France has since ruled them out. 11:41
- The company's own figure, backed by the prosecutor for the Vosges. The minerals were as labelled. The Senate says that in 2021 Nestlé claimed the water's composition was unaffected “without evidence”. The Vosges case settled with no finding of guilt. Perrier isn't in it. 11:51
- Our arithmetic. The Senate's 200 leaves sewerage out. One shop, sewerage included: about 211. 12:09
- Our reading. ‘Natural’ is checked at the source, not the bottle. US-bound bottles could follow other rules. 12:17
- Not published. Whether US-bound Perrier is still treated, what Perrier alone is worth, and what the filter study will say. 12:25
- The minerals, says Nestlé, were as labelled. The ‘natural’ was the part the tests couldn't see. Case open. 12:34
Worth knowing
- The Senate's findings are parliamentary conclusions, not court findings. The Commission's audit is an administrative finding and names no company.
- The only court outcome is the settlement in the Vosges, which carries no finding of guilt.
- French quotes are verbatim; the English under them is our translation.
- The shop price is one anonymised example, not an average, and the shop isn't named. The desk scenes and diagrams are illustrations.
Sources
European Commission, DG SANTE audit 2024-8144, final report (PDF)
Also: European Commission, audit 2024-8144, details page; French Senate, inquiry report no. 628 (2024–25), vol. I (PDF); Épinal prosecutor, press release on the CJIPE (copy hosted by foodwatch)
EU audit (on site 11–22 Mar 2024; final report dated 18 Jul 2024, published 24 Jul 2024): accepting 0.2 µm filters “is not in line with European legislation”
“In the absence of harmonised rules on the use of microfiltration, the competent authorities accept the use of microfiltration with filters with pore sizes down to 0.2 µm, although at such a size, it cannot be excluded that a change occurs in the viable colony count of natural mineral waters. This is not in line with European legislation.”
How long it lasted. The operator's own study said UV had been used "for several decades", and the authorities suspect the same for carbon. The DGCCRF found UV units bought from 2005 and carbon used since at least 2010. The criminal settlement covers 2016–2022
EC audit §52: “prohibited treatments (UV) were in place for several decades”; fn 4: “It is therefore suspected that granular activated carbon has been in use for several decades.”
Our translation: “ultraviolet units had been bought by NSWE [sic] from 2005, and activated carbon filters had been used since at least 2010”
The EC audit's own breakdown: two operators had prohibited treatments; the 30% was mainly microfiltration below 0.8 µm; concealment during official controls
“Based on the IGAS report, two operators had in place prohibited treatments (including UV and active carbon). 30% of the NMW packaged in France were subject to unauthorised treatments (microfiltration was the main treatment used with pore size filters below 0.8 µm).”
The operator's case for 0.2 µm, as quoted by the EC: the filters let part of the flora through, so they are not disinfection
“should not be considered as water disinfecting treatments thus in line with the European legislation”
EC audit §58 in full: the operator's study argues the 0.45 and 0.2 µm filters let part of the flora through
“Recent analytical techniques demonstrate that 0.45 μm or 0.2 μm filters allow part of the flora to pass and therefore should not be considered as water disinfecting treatments thus in line with the European legislation;”
EU audit: the water kept being sold as NMW with the authorities' knowledge. The report does not name the operator
“…while the treatments were still in place and with the knowledge of CAs, the water produced continued to be marketed as NMW, although, it could no longer be considered as such.”
EU audit, overall verdict
“neither designed to detect nor to mitigate fraud in the natural mineral waters and spring waters sector nor is it correctly enforced”
French Senate, information report no. 42 (2024–25), synthesis (PDF)
Also: European Commission, DG SANTE audit 2024-8144, final report (PDF); French Senate, inquiry report no. 628 (2024–25), vol. I (PDF); French Senate, information report no. 42 (2024–25), full report (PDF)
The Senate's chart: tap water (excluding sanitation) 0.0023 €/L, spring water 0.15 €/L, NMW 0.46 €/L. "200 times" is framed as the producers' sales argument
« Ces éléments fondent le discours de vente des exploitants justifiant le prix 200 fois plus élevé de l’eau minérale naturelle et 65 fois plus élevé de l’eau de source »
Our translation: “These elements underpin the producers' sales pitch justifying the price of natural mineral water being 200 times higher, and spring water 65 times higher”
The Senate's 200× uses a tap price that excludes sewerage: the chart labels say so
Chart labels: « Eau du robinet, hors assainissement » · « 0,0023 €/L » (and « Eau minérale naturelle » · « 0,46 €/L », « Eau de source » · « 0,15 €/L »)
Our translation: “Tap water, excluding sewerage” · €0.0023 a litre (natural mineral water €0.46, spring water €0.15)
31 Aug 2021: at its own request, Nestlé Waters told the industry minister's office that it used prohibited treatments, and asked for approval of an alternative under a "transformation plan"
« Le 31 août 2021, lors d’un entretien à sa demande avec le cabinet de la ministre de l’industrie de l’époque, Nestlé Waters (NW) reconnaît avoir recours à des traitements interdits »
Our translation: “On 31 August 2021, in a meeting at its own request with the office of the then industry minister, Nestlé Waters (NW) acknowledges using prohibited treatments”
Hidden upstream of the official sampling points
Senate, synthesis p. 2: « Les procédés de traitement au niveau des robinets des captages sur le site Perrier étaient tellement bien dissimulés qu’il était impossible de les voir, même pour un expert en hydraulique. »
Our translation: “The treatment equipment at the wellhead taps on the Perrier site was so well hidden that it was impossible to see, even for a hydraulics expert.”
2022 official results: 99.8% of analyses compliant at the bottling point; 0.22% of NMW analyses non-compliant. These were measured downstream of the hidden treatments
« seules 0,22 % des analyses des EMN et 0,07 % de celles des ES au point de conditionnement étaient non-conformes »
Our translation: “only 0.22% of the analyses of natural mineral waters and 0.07% of those of spring waters at the bottling point were non-compliant”
The Senate itself places the treatments upstream of the control points, and says the State services told it the practices could not have been detected without a report
p. 3: « […] traitements placés en amont des points de contrôle, les services de l’État ont indiqué à la rapporteure qu’en l’absence de signalement, ces pratiques n’auraient pas pu être décelées et auraient sans doute perduré. »
Our translation: “[…] treatments placed upstream of the control points, the State services told the rapporteur that without a report these practices could not have been detected and would probably have continued.”
The 99.8% is the share of analyses within the regulatory quality limits at the bottling point in 2022 (mineral and spring water together)
« 99,8 % » « Part d’analyses conformes aux limites de qualité règlementaire au point de conditionnement de l’eau en 2022 »
Our translation: “99.8%” · “Share of analyses within the regulatory quality limits at the water's bottling point in 2022”
The wider industry, as relayed from IGAS: about 30% non-compliance, and 85% of producers microfilter. The two documents relaying IGAS describe the 30% differently
Senate no. 42, synthesis p. 3: « des pratiques non-conformes aux arrêtés d’autorisation dans près de 30 % des cas, un taux que l’Igas estime probablement sous-évalué »
Our translation: “practices not complying with the authorisation orders in nearly 30% of cases, a rate IGAS considers probably understated”
Open: the IGAS report itself could not be opened; the 30% and 49% are as relayed by the EC auditors (and the Senate).
The tolerated standard drifted: 0.8 µm accepted since a 2001 opinion, then 0.45 µm became general, then Nestlé's plan used 0.2 µm
« le seuil de coupure de 0,8 micron était considéré comme acceptable par les autorités depuis un avis de l’Autorité française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (ex-Anses) de 2001 »
Our translation: “the 0.8 micron cut-off threshold had been considered acceptable by the authorities since a 2001 opinion of the French food safety agency (now ANSES)”
An inter-ministerial e-consultation on 22–23 Feb 2023 let prefects authorise microfiltration below 0.8 µm at Nestlé's Vosges and Gard sites
« Une concertation interministérielle dématérialisée des 22 et 23 février 2023 a validé cette décision »
Our translation: “An online inter-ministerial consultation on 22 and 23 February 2023 validated this decision”
Banned treatments stopped at the end of 2022 in the Vosges and in Aug 2023 in the Gard. The Gard date differs: 10 Aug vs 9 Aug
Senate no. 42, synthesis p. 4: « l’arrêt des traitements interdits est constaté le 10 août 2023 sur le site de Vergèze »
Our translation: “the end of the prohibited treatments is recorded on 10 August 2023 at the Vergèze site”
In Oct 2024 the Senate noted that microfiltration as such is not banned (but)
« Ce traitement n’est pas interdit, mais la règlementation européenne ne précise pas le seuil […] »
Our translation: “This treatment is not banned, but European regulation does not specify the threshold […]”
At Vergèze, microfilters went in "except for products for export to the US, for which disinfection is authorised"
« à l’exception des produits destinés à l’exportation aux États-Unis pour lesquels la désinfection est autorisée »
Our translation: “except for products intended for export to the United States, for which disinfection is authorised”
OFB, water services observatory press release, 25 Jun 2026 (PDF)
Latest official tap price (France, 1 Jan 2025): €4.89/m³ incl. VAT for 120 m³ a year, of which €2.50 is drinking water and €2.39 sewerage
« Le prix global moyen de l’eau TTC au 1er janvier 2025 (pour une consommation annuelle moyenne par foyer de 120 m³) est de 4,89 €/m3 (contre 4,69 €/m3 au 1er janvier 2023), dont 2,50 €/m3 pour l’eau potable et 2,39 €/m3 pour l’assainissement collectif. »
Our translation: “The average overall price of water incl. VAT on 1 January 2025 (for an average annual household consumption of 120 m³) is €4.89/m³ (against €4.69/m³ on 1 January 2023), of which €2.50/m³ for drinking water and €2.39/m³ for collective sewerage.”
EUR-Lex, Directive 2009/54/EC (OJ L 164, 26.6.2009)
Also: ANSES, note 2025-SA-0049 (EN), 2 Apr 2026 (PDF)
Directive 2009/54/EC of 18 June 2009 (recast) on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters, OJ L 164, 26.6.2009, p. 45
Bibliographic data from the EUR-Lex document header: Directive 2009/54/EC of 18 June 2009 (recast) on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters, OJ L 164, 26.6.2009, p. 45.
At source, only the listed treatments are allowed
“Natural mineral water, in its state at source, may not be the subject of any treatment other than:”
Banned: any disinfection, bacteriostatic additions, and any treatment likely to change the viable colony count
“Any disinfection treatment by whatever means and, subject to paragraph 2, the addition of bacteriostatic elements or any other treatment likely to change the viable colony count of the natural mineral water, shall be prohibited.”
Definition: natural mineral water differs from ordinary drinking water by its nature and its “original purity”, both kept intact because the underground source is protected from all risk of pollution
“‘Natural mineral water’ means microbiologically wholesome water, within the meaning of Article 5, originating in an underground water table or deposit and emerging from a spring tapped at one or more natural or bore exits. Natural mineral water can be clearly distinguished from ordinary drinking water: (a) by its nature, which is characterised by its mineral content, trace elements or other constituents and, where appropriate, by certain effects; (b) by its original purity, both characteristics having been preserved intact because of the underground origin of such water, which has been protected from all risk of pollution.”
Allowed (a): filtration or decanting of unstable elements such as iron and sulphur, only if the essential constituents are unchanged
“(a) the separation of its unstable elements, such as iron and sulphur compounds, by filtration or decanting, possibly preceded by oxygenation, in so far as this treatment does not alter the composition of the water as regards the essential constituents which give it its properties;”
Allowed (b) to (d): ozone-enriched air (iron, manganese, sulphur, arsenic); other undesirable constituents only under conditions set by the Commission and notified to the authorities; physical removal of free CO2
“(b) the separation of iron, manganese and sulphur compounds and arsenic from certain natural mineral waters by treatment with ozone-enriched air […]; (c) the separation of undesirable constituents other than those specified in points (a) or (b) […]; (d) the total or partial elimination of free carbon dioxide by exclusively physical methods.”
Nothing may be added except carbon dioxide
“Natural mineral water, in its state at source, may not be the subject of any addition other than the introduction or the reintroduction of carbon dioxide under the conditions laid down in Annex I, Section III.”
The Directive does not apply to NMW exported outside the EU
“This Directive shall not apply to natural mineral waters intended for export to third countries.”
Nestlé France, “Point de situation sur nos eaux minérales naturelles”
Nestlé's own words: it used activated-carbon filters and UV that do not comply with French rules
« Par le passé, pour garantir la sécurité alimentaire de nos produits, nous avons utilisé des filtres au charbon actif et des traitements ultraviolets qui ne sont pas conformes à la réglementation applicable en France. »
Our translation: “In the past, to guarantee the food safety of our products, we used activated carbon filters and ultraviolet treatments that do not comply with the regulations applicable in France.”
Nestlé: it removed the non-compliant treatments under state oversight and kept microfiltration
« Sous le contrôle des autorités françaises, nous avons retiré les traitements non-conformes à la réglementation applicable en France (traitements ultraviolets et filtres au charbon actif) et conservé la microfiltration. »
Our translation: “Under the supervision of the French authorities, we removed the treatments that did not comply with the regulations applicable in France (ultraviolet treatments and activated carbon filters) and kept microfiltration.”
Nestlé: the mineral composition was always as stated on the label
« Nous réaffirmons que la composition minérale de nos eaux minérales naturelles a toujours été telle qu'elle figure sur nos étiquettes. »
Our translation: “We reaffirm that the mineral composition of our natural mineral waters has always been as shown on our labels.”
French Senate, information report no. 42 (2024–25), full report (PDF)
Also: French Senate, inquiry report no. 628 (2024–25), synthesis (PDF); ANSES, note 2025-SA-0049 (EN), 2 Apr 2026 (PDF)
Inputs: IGAS averages of 0.46 / 0.15 / 0.004 €/L, where 0.004 includes sanitation; the water service costs 2.34 €/m³ and sanitation 2.37 €/m³ (2023, national observatory)
« un prix moyen au litre de 0,46 € pour les EMN, contre 0,15 € pour les ES et 0,004 € pour l’eau du robinet. Ce dernier prix inclut néanmoins le coût de l’assainissement. »
Our translation: “an average price per litre of €0.46 for natural mineral waters, against €0.15 for spring waters and €0.004 for tap water. This last price does, however, include the cost of sewerage.”
The “so well hidden” quote comes from local authorities, as told to the Senate rapporteur
« […] il a été indiqué à la rapporteure par des autorités locales que « les procédés de traitement au niveau des robinets des captages sur le site de Perrier étaient tellement bien dissimulés qu’il était impossible de les voir, même pour un expert en hydraulique » […] »
Our translation: “[…] the rapporteur was told by local authorities that ‘the treatment equipment at the wellhead taps on the Perrier site was so well hidden that it was impossible to see, even for a hydraulics expert’ […]”
IGAS inspection: launched 19 Nov 2021, report delivered 19 Jul 2022, published 23 Feb 2024, updated 16 Sep 2025
Senate no. 628, synthesis p. 2: « lancée le 19 novembre 2021 »
Our translation: “launched on 19 November 2021”
INSEE, BDM series 000641370 (last 8 observations)
INSEE's "pack of 6" series has its last numeric value in Feb 2020 (€2.59), then "NaN" from Mar to Jul 2020; last updated 28 Aug 2020. The €2.59 is not used (the pack size is not stated)
TITLE_FR="Prix moyens mensuels de vente au détail en métropole - Eau minérale en pack de 6 - Série arrêtée" … LAST_UPDATE="2020-08-28" … TIME_PERIOD="2020-02" OBS_VALUE="2.59" … TIME_PERIOD="2020-03" OBS_VALUE="NaN" (also NaN to 2020-07)
Our translation: Title: “Average monthly retail prices in metropolitan France – Mineral water in a pack of 6 – Series discontinued”. The €2.59 is not used (the pack size is not stated).
ANSES, note 2025-SA-0049 (EN), 2 Apr 2026 (PDF)
The Directive's definition of the “viable colony count” that Art. 4(3) protects
“Within the meaning of Article 5(1), the normal viable colony count of natural mineral water means the reasonably constant total colony count at source before any treatment, the qualitative and quantitative composition of which, as taken into account in the recognition of that water, is checked by periodic analysis”
22 May 2025: a DGS (health ministry) instruction bans 0.2 µm. Anything below 0.8 µm needs notice to the prefect and proof of no effect on the viable colony count
“the use of MF devices with cut-off thresholds of 0.2 µm is not permitted” · “Any NMW/SW bottling company wishing to use MF devices with cut-off thresholds below 0.8 µm must notify the Prefect and duly demonstrate […] that this has no impact on the natural viable colony count of the water […]”
Open: the instruction itself was not opened; it is quoted here as ANSES quotes it.
3 Dec 2025: the Commission closed the 2024 audit, satisfied with the follow-up
“The audit team is satisfied with the measures taken to act on the recommendations and with their implementation.”
ANSES (2 Apr 2026) set no threshold and called for an EU-level discussion
“ANSES therefore proposes that the results of this expert appraisal provide input for a European discussion”
ANSES set a method, not a number: a qualitative, case-by-case impact scale and national methodological guidance
“ANSES is issuing methodological guidance at national level for the assessment of MF devices with a view to regulating their use.” · Table 8: a qualitative impact scale “ranging from ‘very unlikely’ to ‘proven’”
French Senate, inquiry report no. 628 (2024–25), synthesis (PDF)
Also: Commission letter Ares(2024)2481077, 4 Apr 2024 (copy hosted by its addressee, foodwatch)
Plants and brands: the Vosges and Gard sites (Vittel, Hépar, Contrex, Perrier), using activated carbon and UV
« […] dans ses usines des Vosges et du Gard (Vittel, Hépar, Contrex, Perrier) de filtres à charbon actif et de traitements ultraviolets qui sont des mesures de désinfection, strictement interdites »
Our translation: “[…] at its plants in the Vosges and the Gard (Vittel, Hépar, Contrex, Perrier), of activated carbon filters and ultraviolet treatments, which are disinfection measures, strictly prohibited”
The Senate inquiry adopted its report on 14 May 2025, after 73 hearings, with 28 proposals
« Le 14 mai 2025, la commission d’enquête sur les pratiques des industriels de l’eau en bouteille […] a adopté le rapport […] »
Our translation: “On 14 May 2025, the committee of inquiry into the practices of the bottled-water industry […] adopted the report […]”
Why treat at all: IGAS gave three hypotheses; the Senate adds that microfiltration may mean fewer cleaning shutdowns
« une dégradation des ressources, un vieillissement des installations et la sécurisation du processus industriel »
Our translation: “a degradation of the resources, ageing installations and securing the industrial process”
The Senate inquiry says its work confirmed IGAS's three hypotheses and added a fourth; a degraded resource was confirmed, for example, at some Hépar boreholes and at Perrier
« Ces hypothèses sont confirmées par les travaux de la commission, qui en ajoute une quatrième. La dégradation de la qualité de la ressource en eau en raison de pollutions anthropiques ou naturelles est une première hypothèse, confirmée par exemple pour certains forages Hépar ou pour Perrier. »
Our translation: “These hypotheses are confirmed by the committee's work, which adds a fourth. The degradation of the quality of the water resource because of human-made or natural pollution is a first hypothesis, confirmed for example for some Hépar boreholes and for Perrier.”
The Commission was not told until press reports in Jan 2024
Senate no. 628, synthesis p. 4: « Entre le 31 août 2021 et le 29 janvier 2024, la Commission européenne n’a jamais été mise au courant des pratiques de Nestlé Waters »
Our translation: “Between 31 August 2021 and 29 January 2024, the European Commission was never informed of Nestlé Waters' practices”
The Senate calls the State's concealment a deliberate strategy (a parliamentary conclusion, not a court finding)
« Cette dissimulation, y compris à l’égard des autorités locales, relève d’une stratégie délibérée »
Our translation: “This concealment, including from local authorities, was a deliberate strategy”
Heading: « La dissimulation par l’État des informations et décisions concernant Nestlé Waters. »
Our translation: “The State's concealment of information and decisions concerning Nestlé Waters.”
7 May 2025: the Gard prefect served Nestlé Waters formal notice to remove its 0.2 µm filters
« […] mette en demeure Nestlé Waters de retirer ses filtres à 0,2 micron. »
Our translation: “[…] serves formal notice on Nestlé Waters to remove its 0.2 micron filters.”
The Gard prefect's formal notice came on 7 May 2025
« Mais il aura fallu attendre le 7 mai 2025 pour que le préfet du Gard, en quelque sorte « piégé » par les résultats de la concertation interministérielle dématérialisée (CID) de février 2023, mette en demeure Nestlé Waters de retirer ses filtres à 0,2 micron. »
Our translation: “But it took until 7 May 2025 for the Gard prefect, in a way ‘trapped’ by the results of the online inter-ministerial consultation (CID) of February 2023, to serve formal notice on Nestlé Waters to remove its 0.2 micron filters.”
Senate valuation of water sold as NMW that should not have been: Vosges about €220M, Gard about €375M, at €0.5/L
« pour un total évalué à environ 440 000 m3, le tout pouvant être valorisé à environ 220 millions d’euros à raison de 0,5 €/litre »
Our translation: “for a total estimated at about 440,000 m³, all of which could be valued at about €220 million at €0.5 a litre”
The Senate disputes Nestlé's framing
« Nestlé Waters fait valoir, sans preuve, que ces traitements n’ont pas affecté […] la composition de l’eau »
Our translation: “Nestlé Waters argues, without evidence, that these treatments did not affect […] the composition of the water”
« Le 31 août 2021, Nestlé Waters rencontre, à sa demande, le cabinet de la ministre déléguée chargée de l’industrie […] Lors de cet entretien : […] Nestlé Waters fait valoir, sans preuve, que ces traitements n’ont pas affecté […] la composition de l’eau »
Our translation: “On 31 August 2021, Nestlé Waters meets, at its own request, the office of the minister for industry […] During this meeting: […] Nestlé Waters argues, without evidence, that these treatments did not affect […] the composition of the water”
Nestlé France, press release, 10 Sep 2024
Nestlé on the CJIPE: the former treatments did not alter the mineral composition, and everything has complied since 2023
« Depuis 2023, toutes les activités de NWSE respectent le cadre réglementaire en vigueur »
Our translation: “Since 2023, all NWSE activities comply with the regulatory framework in force”
Épinal prosecutor, press release on the CJIPE (copy hosted by foodwatch)
Also: Nestlé France, press release, 10 Sep 2024
Scope. It covered two investigations: the OFB one (9 of 130 boreholes, 2013–2019) and the DGCCRF one (deception through UV and carbon, 2016–2022). The deception concerns "natural", not "mineral". It covers the Vosges company only (Vittel, Hépar, Contrex), not Perrier in the Gard
« La tromperie porte sur le caractère « naturel » de l’eau minérale, mais pas sur la qualification d’eau « minérale ». »
Our translation: “The deception concerns the ‘natural’ character of the mineral water, but not its qualification as ‘mineral’ water.”
For the Vosges waters, the prosecutor says the treatments did not alter the mineral composition and only affected the product's regulatory classification
« Ces traitements, qui n’ont pas affecté […] ni altéré la composition minérale des eaux produites, ont seulement eu pour conséquence d’affecter la qualification réglementaire du produit. »
Our translation: “These treatments, which did not […] alter the mineral composition of the waters produced, only had the consequence of affecting the regulatory classification of the product.”
The prosecutor credited NWSE with reporting itself and cooperating
« la société NWSE a pris l’initiative de révéler l’utilisation de traitements non autorisés aux autorités françaises dès l’été 2021 »
Our translation: “NWSE took the initiative of revealing the use of unauthorised treatments to the French authorities as early as summer 2021”
The CJIPE was concluded on 2 Sep 2024 between the Épinal prosecutor and Nestlé Waters Supply Est (NWSE) and validated on 10 Sep 2024 by the president of the Épinal court
« […] a validé la convention judiciaire d’intérêt public en matière environnementale (« CJIPE ») conclue le 2 septembre 2024 »
Our translation: “[…] validated the public-interest judicial agreement on environmental matters (‘CJIPE’) concluded on 2 September 2024”
Open: the official copy of the prosecutor's release or the validation order was not located; the copy used is hosted by foodwatch.
Terms: a €2M public-interest fine within 3 months, €1.1M of ecological restoration over 24 months under OFB supervision, and €516,800 to 7 associations
p. 3: « au paiement d’une amende d’intérêt public de 2 millions d’euros dans un délai de trois mois »
Our translation: “payment of a public-interest fine of €2 million within three months”
The recipients include consumer groups, not only environmental groups
« L’association Union Fédérale des Consommateurs-Que Choisir pour un montant de 180.000 euros » (and UFC-Que Choisir Vosges, 40.000 euros)
Our translation: “The association Union Fédérale des Consommateurs-Que Choisir, for an amount of €180,000” (and UFC-Que Choisir Vosges, €40,000)
No declaration of guilt: the validation order is not a conviction
« l’ordonnance de validation n’emporte pas déclaration de culpabilité et n’a ni la nature ni les effets d’un jugement de condamnation. »
Our translation: “the validation order does not amount to a declaration of guilt and has neither the nature nor the effects of a conviction.”
French Senate, inquiry report no. 628 (2024–25), vol. I (PDF)
Also: French Senate, inquiry report no. 628 (2024–25), synthesis (PDF)
Investment in the plan: about €95M in the Vosges and €150M at Vergèze over five years (figures from Nestlé Waters' CEO, recorded by the Senate)
« près de 95 millions d’euros qui ont été investis au cours des cinq dernières années sur le site des Vosges et 150 millions d’euros sur le site de Vergèze »
Our translation: “nearly €95 million invested over the last five years at the Vosges site and €150 million at the Vergèze site”
The Senate's fourth hypothesis: less time spent cleaning pipes and tanks
« Ces hypothèses sont confirmées par les travaux de la commission qui en a analysé une quatrième, la réduction des temps de nettoyage des tuyauteries et cuves. »
Our translation: “These hypotheses are confirmed by the committee's work, which analysed a fourth: reducing the time spent cleaning pipes and tanks.”
UV and carbon were removed at the Perrier boreholes except for US-bound output. The Gard plan of 3 Nov 2022 kept them "permanently" for the US
vol. I, p. 154: « sauf pour les productions d’eau minérales naturelle Perrier destinée à l’exportation vers les Etats-Unis »
Our translation: “except for Perrier natural mineral water production intended for export to the United States”
About half of Vergèze's output went to the US, per two statements quoted by the Senate (c. 2023)
A former Gard prefect, vol. I, p. 63: « à l’exception de ceux pour le marché américain représentant la moitié de la production »
Our translation: “except for those for the American market, which represent half of production”
No public document found as of 30 Oct 2026.
Préfecture du Gard, press release, 19 Dec 2025 (PDF)
19 Dec 2025: the Gard prefect authorised "Source Perrier" NMW from Romaine VI and VII only, with these conditions: Romaine IV, IVbis and VIII disconnected and their pipes dismantled; 24 months of reinforced official control; daily analyses by the operator shared monthly with the health agency; and a study of the 0.45 µm microfiltration within one year
« une étude complémentaire de l’impact de l’effet du traitement de microfiltration à 0,45 µm sur le microbisme de l’eau minérale »
Our translation: “an additional study of the impact of the 0.45 µm microfiltration treatment on the mineral water's microbial flora”
eCFR, 21 CFR 165.110
US bottled water of every type, "mineral water" included, may contain antimicrobial agents
“with no added ingredients except that it may optionally contain safe and suitable antimicrobial agents.”
US "mineral water" requires ≥250 ppm TDS from a protected underground source, with no minerals added. The rule has no "natural", "original purity" or no-disinfection condition
“not less than 250 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids (TDS)” · “No minerals may be added to this water.”
US “mineral water” also needs a protected underground source
“The name of water containing not less than 250 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids (TDS), coming from a source tapped at one or more bore holes or springs, originating from a geologically and physically protected underground water source, may be ‘mineral water.’”
eCFR, 21 CFR 129.80
US manufacturing rules list UV and filtration as ordinary product-water treatments
“All treatment of product water by distillation, ion-exchanging, filtration, ultraviolet treatment, reverse osmosis, carbonation, mineral addition, or any other process shall be done in a manner so as to be effective”
Nestlé, ad hoc announcement, 23 Jul 2026 (via GlobeNewswire / MFN)
Also: Platinum Equity, press release, 23 Jul 2026
Peranel is a 50:50 joint venture of Nestlé and Platinum Equity for Nestlé's whole waters and premium beverages business (30+ brands, 120 countries: S.Pellegrino, Source Perrier, Acqua Panna, Nestlé Pure Life…)
“Nestlé and Platinum Equity announce a plan to create Peranel, a 50:50 joint venture for Nestlé’s waters and premium beverages business” · “Spanning more than 30 brands with products sold in 120 countries”
The deal sets an enterprise value of EUR 4.9bn (CHF 4.5bn, USD 5.6bn); Nestlé receives about EUR 3.0bn in cash at closing
Nestlé: “It assigns an enterprise value to Peranel of EUR 4.9 billion (CHF 4.5 billion), implying cash proceeds at closing for Nestlé of approximately EUR 3.0 billion (CHF 2.8 billion).” · Platinum Equity: “assigns an enterprise value of $5.6 billion (EUR 4.9 billion) to Peranel”
Expected to close in H1 2027, subject to employee consultation and approvals
“is expected to close in H1 2027”
Peranel is an announced plan, subject to consultation and approvals
“The transaction is subject to employee consultation processes and applicable regulatory approvals and is expected to close in H1 2027.”
European Commission, Daily News MEX/26/2149, 13 Oct 2026
EU merger clearance on 13 Oct 2026, case M.12596, simplified procedure
“Commission clears acquisition of Nestlé Waters by Platinum Equity Group and Nestlé” … “under the case number M.12596” (simplified procedure)
Our own arithmetic and reading
Our example: one French shop's online price for Perrier natural mineral water, six 1-litre bottles at €6.20, shown as €1.03 a litre (30 Oct 2026). One shop, not an average.
“6.20 €” · “(1,03 €/LITRE)” (Perrier natural mineral water, 6 × 1 L)
Our example against tap: €1.03 a litre against France's average all-in tap price (€0.00489 a litre, 1 Jan 2025) is about 211×; against water only, about 413×. Dates and scopes are mixed.
How we worked it out: 6.20 ÷ 6 = €1.0333 a litre · against €0.00489 a litre (water + sewerage, 1 Jan 2025): ≈211× · against €0.0025 (water only): ≈413× · one shop on 30 Oct 2026 against national averages on another date: an example, not an average
How the Senate's multiples are built
How we worked it out: 0.46 ÷ 0.0023 = 200 (the chart); 0.46 ÷ 0.00234 = 196.6 (the 2023 water-service price) · with sewerage: 0.46 ÷ 0.004 = 115 (IGAS's own all-in figure), or 0.46 ÷ (0.00234 + 0.00237) = 97.7
Perrier is sold as NMW with a 0.45 µm microfiltration step, and the study falls due around Dec 2026 (notification date unknown)
Reasoning: The Gard prefect's order of 19 Dec 2025 asks for the 0.45 µm study within one year of notification; the notification date is unknown, so “due around Dec 2026” is our estimate. Our search on 30 Oct 2026 found no published study.
Treating US-bound water is not unlawful under the EU Directive
Reasoning: Art. 15 says the Directive doesn't apply to exports to third countries; the Senate says disinfection was authorised for US-bound products. So treating US-bound water is not a breach of the Directive.
The US label means something different: US rules allow treating bottled ‘mineral water’ (allowed, not required)
Reasoning: 21 CFR 165.110 and 129.80 as read allow antimicrobial agents and list UV as a treatment; they set no ‘natural’ category and no ban on treating US ‘mineral water’. The Senate's “may, or even must” is not supported by the CFR text read, so the episode says “allowed”, not “required”.
What we couldn't find
No current official national average shelf price for bottled mineral water was found. INSEE's "pack of 6" series is discontinued (last data 2020)
« Eau minérale en pack de 6 - Série arrêtée »
Our translation: “Mineral water in a pack of 6 – series discontinued”
Reasoning: No current official national average shelf price for bottled mineral water was found. INSEE's “pack of 6” series is discontinued.
The EUR 4.9bn is not a value for Perrier or for French NMW; no brand-level value is published
Reasoning: The €4.9 billion is the enterprise value of Peranel, Nestlé's whole waters and premium beverages business (30+ brands, 120 countries), not of Perrier or of French natural mineral water. No brand-level value was found published.
The companies' side
Nestlé Waters' own statements that the episode quotes are in the sources below. If it responds to this episode, we'll add the reply here in full.
Corrections
None so far. If we get something wrong, the correction goes here with its date.