Brad Pitt drinks it, Barack Obama has been photographed with it and Paris Hilton sips it through a straw to save her lipstick.
Fiji Water is one of the world's top selling bottled aqua brands, recognised as the epitome of chic by the rich and famous.
Americans and Europeans consumed 240 million litres of the Pacific product last year to get their taste of paradise.
But the famous product, drawn from an aquifer in Fiji's remote Yaqara Valley, has come under fire for helping to legitimise the Pacific nation's repressive military regime.
The radical US magazine Mother Jones has claimed that while not actually abetting the dictatorship, the US company allows the junta, in control since a 2006 coup, to use the Fiji Water image for positive PR spin.
The country's self-appointed prime minister Frank Bainimarama and his ministers have fallen heavily out of favour with world powers in recent months for breaches of human rights and refusal to hold elections any sooner than 2014.
In the magazine, journalist Anna Lenzer says she believes "Fiji Water is a major source of global recognition and legitimacy" for the junta at this time.
At the heart of her argument is that the bottle brand has positioned itself "squarely at the nexus of pop-culture glamour and progressive politics", even closely aligning itself with the Democrats in the US.
But "nowhere in Fiji Water's glossy marketing materials will you find reference to the typhoid outbreaks that plague Fijians because of the island's faulty water supplies; the corporate entities that Fiji Water has set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg; or the fact that its signature bottle is made from Chinese plastic in a diesel-fuelled plant and hauled thousands of miles to its eco-conscious consumers".
To this barrage of criticism, the company responded that it was working in the best interest of Fijians, employing 350 locals and paying royalties to help build schools.
On top of that, when Californians Stewart and Lynda Resnick bought the company back in November 2004, Fiji was governed by a democratically-elected government.
But the issue has captured the media's attention in the US and Europe, probably because, as one writer put it, Fiji Water has become the "world's most hyped drink".
This sexy uber-cool image was initially the product of incredibly smart placement in hit TV shows like Ally McBeal, The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives and The West Wing.
It has also had a huge boost from co-owner and marketing genius Lynda Resnick, who told Britain's Observer in 2005: "Of course I know everyone in the world. Every mogul, every movie star."
Thanks to Resnick's political connections, Fiji Water was given away in box loads at last year's US Democratic Convention, and these days everyone from Al Gore and Maria Sharapova to Tom Cruise and Scarlett Johansson are seen drinking it.
It costs more than most other brands but that didn't stop it from knocking French brand Evian from the top spot as America's leading imported water.
But Fiji Water has started feeling the heat as countries thousands of kilometres from the source question the ludicrousness of importing water when the local product is cheap, clean and easy to access.
In Scotland, World Wildlife Fund director Dr Richard Dixon told the local Sunday Herald it was "simply bonkers" to be importing Fiji Water.
"This is a prime example of an unnecessary luxury with an unacceptable cost to the planet," he said.
But Dixon was also uncomfortable about the political situation, saying: "It is particularly sad that this supposed epitome of cool helps prop up a repressive military dictatorship."
This too is Lenzer's problem. In her article she writes that a UN official, in a recent commentary on why Obama should stop drinking the product, "singled out Fiji Water as the one company with enough leverage to force the junta to budge".
Fiji expert Dr Steven Ratuva, a University of Auckland academic formerly based in Suva, said it was a "big ask" to expect a large corporation to pull rank to force political change.
But he said Fiji Water did have responsibilities to the people of Fiji that many locals felt it wasn't fulfilling, largely because it has a long-standing arrangement under which it avoids paying taxes.
The company paid $US1.3 million ($1.5 million) in royalties last year to support schools, health clinics and the provision of clean water.
But Ratuva said there was a feeling that it got a good deal, and was not paying nearly enough for the product, probably because it suited the government interests to have the company there.
"I would say the two entities are making use of each other," Ratuva said.
"The government lets Fiji Water stay and get a pretty cushy deal because it's great for Fiji's public profile at a time when the regime could do with help.
"It's a matter of mutual exploitation of each other while the Fijians themselves lose out on both counts."
But Fiji Water fiercely argues against any suggestion that it should take any responsibility for the political situation just because it does business in Fiji.
"We cannot and will not speak for the government but we will not back down from our commitment to the people, development, and communities of Fiji," the company spokesman said in response to the Mother Jones article.
"We consider Fiji our home and as such, we have dramatically increased our investment and resources over the past five years to play a valuable role in the advancement of Fiji."
