Of course the company has a moral obligation to protect their consumers, which is why the company warns against using tap water in the first place. The question

Of course the company has a moral obligation to protect their consumers, which is why the company warns against using tap water in the first place. The question isn't whether or not it's worth it for the company to try and save lives, it's whether an additional explanation will actually save more lives. The fact that there's a real potential image hit to the company makes the case that much more difficult to make to decision makers.