c


 



    



In February, we released a study on pesticide residues in bottled water being sold in the market. We reported
how we found ÷
÷  pesticides in bottled water. In other words, the norms for regulating pesticide levels in
these bottles were so designed that pesticide residues would not be detected.

We had no intentions of following up this study with investigations in other products. Then our readers wrote to
us. They wanted to know: if what we had to say about the bottled water industry was correct, then what about
soft drink manufacturers? After all, they all used water as a raw material. They also sourced their water largely
from groundwater. We had, they said, a responsibility to tell.

By May, it was also evident that government was prevaricating on legislating the amended, stringent norms for
bottled water. Industry pressure, we were told by wags, was enormous. Stakes were high.

Something was fishy. Most of the big players in the bottled wa ter industry, we knew, had the capability to treat
and clean the water. They also catered to hapless consumers with little choice but to pay more for water, than
for milk. Municipal supplies were unreliable. Theirs was a thriving business. Nothing, not eve n a little pesticide,
would hold it back. Then why the opposition?

Could it be that the stakes were even higher than we had imagined? Suppose, what was really at stake was not
the bottled water industry and its Rs 1000 crore business, but the soft drink industry and its estimated Rs
6000-7000 crore business. Indians drink on an average 6.6 billion bottles of soft drinks each year and business
is flourishing. Suppose, just for a minute, that this industry has skeletons, which would come tumbling out if
the bottled water industry was further regulated.

No, we told ourselves, this could not be true. After all, this mega industry of the beautiful people is well
established. It is old. It is reputed. Giants of the corporate world control it, who swear by responsi bility and
4citizenship.

But we were stunned. All bottles of soft drinks analysed at the Centre¶s pollution monitoring laboratory had
pesticides, in much higher quantities than considered safe for humans (see: Colanisation¶s dirty dozen). The
sum of all pesticides in the PepsiCo brands added up to 0.0180 mg/l, 36 times higher than the European
Union¶s limit (EEC) for total pesticides. Coca -Cola brands had 0.0150 mg/l of all pesticides, 30 times more than
the same EEC limit.

Even more startling we found that this human health-impacting industry is more or less unregulated. The
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) had, at least, some kind of mandatory standards for the bottled water
industry. In comparison, nothing exists for this µfood¶ industry. It is regulated under a plethora of agencies and
standards but most are meaningless or plain ridiculous. It gets licensed under the Food Products Order and
further regulated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The BIS standards, set for it roughly 10
years ago, are voluntary. In other words, this massive industry has been massively let off. Worse, none of the
pieces of legislation even mention the fact that raw water ² over 90 per cent of the finished product ² needs
scrutiny. The limit for deadly arsenic and lead in soft drinks has been set 50 times higher than the allowed
standards for bottled water or drinking water. Did the regulators just forget t hese facts? Or was it deliberate
amnesia?

Let us be clear, this is not a case involving little companies struggling to make ends meet, that regulators know
cannot be regulated. This involves only two large companies, which incidentally also control the wor ld markets.
More importantly, this involves an industry that is a food industry. It impacts our health. Directly.

But there are even bigger stakes at hand. The study on pesticides in bottled water brought us some predictable
responses. Industry argued it is unfair to ask for stringent regulation on pesticides. We cannot afford it,
industry said, and these norms are unnecessary because the pesticide residues found are in such small
quantities that they are harmless. Amazing. What wisdom from such wise people. Pesticides are deadly in small
quantities. They accumulate over time in our bodies. Increasing evidence shows that some pesticides ² such
as chlorpyrifos, a popular insecticide in India ² are deadly even if the exposure is tiny. The other, I consider
facetious, argument is why only target bottled water. The food we eat, say these great critics, is far more
contaminated. Indians eat much more than their daily dose.

But they are missing the point. Pesticide, not bottled water or soft drinks, is the point. I t is imperative to have
a policy for safe use of pesticides. A policy for safe pesticides. It is clear that once our soil, food and water is
contaminated, it will be prohibitively expensive to clean. We have no choice but to work on the basis of the
precautionary principle. For this we need seriously stringent regulations, to curtail use and to work towards
new strategies for µsafe¶ substances. We cannot afford to clean up after the poisoning. We have no antidote.
Whatever the industry and government may believe.

I do not know how the two corporate giants will receive our findings. But for me, the more important matter is
if you, our readers, believe that we have done justice to the question you asked us. The consumer in the free
world, they say, is king. So let the king pass sentence.

·
 

c







Adopting dual standards is a practice large multi national corporations follow especially when it comes to
developing countries. Soft drinks industry is a classic case of this as the Centre for Science and Environment
(CSE) discovered way back in 2003. A laboratory report prepared by CSE detailed some astonishing facts
about the extent of pesticide contamination in soft drinks sold in India.

CSE found high levels of toxic pesticides and insecticides, high enough to cause cancer, damage to the nervous
and reproductive systems, birth defects and severe disruption of the immune system. Market leaders Coca-
Cola and Pepsi had almost similar concentrations of pesticide residues. At the same time CSE also tested two
soft drink brands sold in the US, to see if they contained pesticides. They didn¶t. This only goes to show the
companies were following dual standards.

These startling facts forced the government constitute a Joint Parliamentary Committee, only the fourth in post
independent India and the first on health and safety of Indians. The committee was tasked to find out whether
the findings of the CSE regarding pesticide residues in soft drinks are correct or not and to suggest criteria for
evolving suitable safety standards for soft drinks, fruit juice and other beverages where water is the main
constituent. The JPC report vindicated CSEs findings and said it is prudent to seek complete freedom from
pesticide residues in sweetened aerated water.
All this did not stop Coke and Pepsi from launching a vicious campaign to get discredit our findings. Cases were
filed and threats issued. But these pressure tactics did not work. CSE stood its ground and the cases were
withdrawn.

Fast forward to August, 2006. CSE undertook a nation wide study of nearly a dozen soft drink brands and
found little had changed. The study found pesticide residues in all samples. This after JPC had asked for
standards for carbonated beverages.

It took the health ministry a good three more years to notify standards for pesticides in carbonated water.
Even these standards are meaningless as their is no methodology available to test for pesticides. CSE is
currently engaged with Bureau of Indian Standards to put in place a methodology for testing pesticides.

2

   
p
pp 
 p
p
p p

p

†p p

p



p

†p p

p



p

†p 



p



p



p



pp p
p
p
p


 p 

p p p
p

p p
 p 
p
 ppp


p

p 
p
 pp
p   pp

p



p
p

p



p 
p
p
ppp
 pp  p 

p
p

pp
p
ppp  p
 p
p

p p
pppp  p
p

p
p
p

pp

pp
 p
p
p
pp
 p
 p
p
p


 p
p
p 
p

p
p
p 

p p 
p


p
p p
 p

!p"
p
pp
p


p # p$p

p



pp p
pp
p#

pp


p 


p
p


 p 
pp  
p
 %p
pp

pp
p 
pp

p



p
p&p
p

 pp

p



p
p
p 
p 
p
"
 p

p
p p
p
p pppp
p
p
 p

&p
p
p
p

ppp p
pp
p

pppp

p p
 ppp
p
p
pp



p
p

p
pp 

p
p



p
p
p
p'p
p
ppp
p
p p 
pp p

p 
p p 
pp

p
ppp

p

p  
 p
 p pp 
p p
p
p pp

pp   p




p

& 

p

p



p(
 p

& 

p

p



pp
p

pp
pp

p
p p 
p


p

 p 
pp 
p



pp p
p
p
pp 
p p
p
pp


p

p
p
p


p p p

p 
p
 p


p  
p
p p


p
p  p
p

pp
p


p
p
 p
p 


p
 pp p 
p'p
pppp
pp
pp
p ppp

pp
p

p
pp
p
p
pp
pp
p
p

p
 p

p) 
p
 pp 
p
p
p
p
 p  p

pp
p
p
 pp 
p
 p
p
 
p
pp ppp
p

p
p
pp

p p p
p

p

p) p*
pp
pp)
+p
 p

p
p

pp
p


p#
pp  p'p p 
p
p
p
pp
p
p
p p
p

p
p
p
p  pp
p p
p
p
p
p



 p
p

, p
p
pp


 p p

p  pp
p
 p
ppp
 p

p
p 
p
p
 p
pp 
p
p p"
pp
p
pp
 ppp 
pp
p

p
 p


p
p
pp- 
p-pp
p


 p 
p  p,
p

pp
p 
p 
!p"
p

pp

 p
p

 p p
 p
 p
p./p
p
p

p0

p1p

p p
 p p
 p

pp
p
p
p
p
p

p
 pp
p 
p

2 
3"
pp 
p 

p



 p

243
"
pp 
p



 pp
p 

p

pp
p  
p
 p 
pp,
p
p
p 
p
 p
 
p

p 253p
p
p

p
p


p
p



pp


p
p



p  


pp
p


 p



p p 
p
p
p
 %p


p

p
 p

pp



p
p 
p



p

pp
pp
pp 
p
p