Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Technology

Designer Creates a Water Bottle That You Can Eat 171

Posted by samzenpus
from the eating-trash dept.
Diggester (2492316) writes "Rodrigo García González has been working on the Ooho water bottle for the past few years. The bottle is made out of edible materials, looks like a jellyfish, and has the potential to put an end to the bottled water industry. Inspired by the juice-filled pearls added to bubble tea and the mad-cuisine creations of chef Ferran Adriá, who uses a technique known as sheperification (encasing liquid into edible membranes), García is on his way to revolutionizing the bottled water industry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Designer Creates a Water Bottle That You Can Eat

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Pointless? (Score:5, Informative)

    by shadowrat (1069614) on Monday April 28, 2014 @09:04AM (#46857923)
    I think edible implies that it's rapidly biodegradable. You are not commanded to eat it. You can throw it away, and if some enterprising sea turtle eats it, it's not big deal.
  • by Junta (36770) on Monday April 28, 2014 @09:21AM (#46858113)

    The current concept is extremely far from being even slightly practical..

    -It's uselessly tiny
    -They can't make a video where someone manages to drink from it without spilling it all over the place.
    -It's so fragile that it can't reasonably be used on its own.
    -It costs 33% the cost of a gigantic bottle to produce, but contains far less than 33% of the volume of water. Cost per unit of water is way high before ignoring how a plastic bottle can be re-used.

    Basically the only thing it has going for it is that it will break down nearly instantly in trash. The problem is we already have materials from which we *can* make a water bottle from that in fact would probably work better than this concept that already can be friendly enough to the environment. The problem is they still aren't practical and can't be used because they lack the durability.

    This concept is a warm fuzzy with zero value over the current possibilities. It doesn't merely have 'kinks' to work out before it can be used, it's just fundamentally flawed as a concept.

    Bottled drinks are a problem, but this is not going to provide a solution.

  • Re:Contamination (Score:5, Informative)

    by KingOfBLASH (620432) on Monday April 28, 2014 @09:35AM (#46858245) Journal

    From TFA the technique is already in use with some yogurt. You buy a box of yogurt "balls" that are edible, flavored, and filled with yogurt. When you pack your lunch for school or work you simply grab a ball of yogurt out of the box instead of a yogurt in an individual plastic container. Presumably the box is easier to recycle then the plastic containers.

    This is interesting in the sense that it generates LESS waste and the waste it generates is biodegradable. The "container" is something from brown algae so I guess you could just compost the thing, much like an eggshell...

  • Re:Pointless? (Score:3, Informative)

    by kruach aum (1934852) on Monday April 28, 2014 @09:46AM (#46858357)

    Salt is edible but not bio-degradable.

  • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by causality (777677) on Monday April 28, 2014 @11:49AM (#46859917)

    BPA is harmless. It's toxic at levels far above normal intake and concentration in the blood. BPA-Free polycarbonate now uses BPS, which is exactly as toxic as BPA but leaches at a rate 20 times that of BPA. It breaks the toxicity barrier with gusto, so enjoy your new toxic world.

    Water bottles are most often PET or LDPE. These plastics aren't made with BPA or any analog.

    It's not just humans. You may find this interesting [opb.org] to read, as well as this [nih.gov]. Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.

    As far as humans are concerned, you may find this an interesting read [sciencedaily.com]. It indicates that humans may be more susceptible to such endocrine disruptors (like BPA) than previous studied using rodents initially indicated.

    So then we're back to what constitutes good decision-making. Fact: I have no overriding reason why I absolutely must use containers made with BPA. Fact: not only are alternatives to such containers readily available, I also happen to like them better for aesthetic and durability reasons. Conclusion: exposing myself to BPA is an unnecessary risk.

    Still, if you think it's harmless you are free to continue using it. At one time people were told (by doctors no less) that cigarettes were beneficial. Now if I had some dire need (as in my life and well-being absolutely depended on it) to use BPA-containing plastics, perhaps I'd take my chances. But I don't.

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Working...