Pepsi, Coke contain pesticides: CSE

Close on the heels of a major health scare on finding

pesticides in bottled drinking water, a non-
government organisation claimed that the bottled
soft drinks owned by two multi national companies --
PepsiCo and Coke -- also failed the same health
standards testing positive for pesticides.
"12 major cold drink brands sold in Delhi and around
contain a deadly cocktail of pesticide residues,"
Centre for Science and Environment said in New
Delhi.

Officials of both PepsiCo and Coke declined to

comment on the tests saying the two companies will
be holding a joint press conference later.

According to the tests conducted by the Pollution

Monitoring Laboratory of CSE, all samples contained
residues of four extremely toxic pesticides and
insecticides: lindane, DDT, malathion and
chlorpyrifos.

The PML team involved in the tests was Dr H B

Mathur, Dr Sapna Johnson and Avinash Kumar.
Three samples each of the 12 brands purchased from
markets across the city, analysed in and found to
contain pesticides residues are Pepsi, Mountain Dew,
Diet Pepsi, Mirinda orange, Mirinda Lemon, Blue
Pepsi, 7-Up, Coca Cola, Fanta, Limca, Sprite and
Thumbs Up.

Mathur said these pesticides included potent

carcinogens which can cause cancers and reduce
bone mineral density.
Johnson said the basic inference drawn from the
tests is that groundwater used for making soft drinks
is infested with pesticides. She said organochlorine
pesticides, 12 organophosphorous and four synthetic
pyrethroids -- all of which are commonly used in India
as insecticides.
CSE chief Sunita Narain said in all the samples, levels
of pesticide residues far exceeded the maximum
residue limit for pesticides in water used as "food",
set down by the European Economic Commission.

Both Pepsi and Coca Cola had almost similar

concentrations of pesticide residues
.
In all PepsiCo brands, total pesticides on an average
were 0.0180 mg/litre, 36 times higher than the EEC
limit of total pesticides at 0.0005 mg/l.
In Coca Cola brands they averaged at 0.0150 mg/l,
30 times higher than the EEC limit.
Mirinda Lemon topped the chart among all the tested
brand samples with a total pesticide concentration of
0.0352 mg/l.

Coca Cola and PepsiCo brands sold in the United

States were also tested and found not to contain
pesticides.

Narain, however, said in India, these companies

cannot be taken to court since the norms that
regulate manufacturing of cold drinks here are a
"meaningless maze."
August 05, 2006
Coke and Pepsi told to spill secrets or face ban
From Ashling O'Connor in Bombay
INDIA’S highest court demanded that Coca-Cola
should reveal its secret formula for the first time in
120 years.

The Supreme Court ordered the US soft drinks

maker, along with its rival PepsiCo, to supply details
of the chemical composition and ingredients of their
products after a study released this week claimed
that they contained unacceptable levels of
insecticides.

Justice S. B. Sinha and Justice Dalveer Bhandari

directed the companies to file their replies within four
weeks, the Press Trust of India reported. “If they
don’t comply, then the court has the authority to
suspend sales,” Shreyas Patel, a lawyer at Fox
Mandal Little, India’s oldest law firm, said. “But no
one is going to give away a 120-year-old secret,
especially in a country like India. Someone would go
and make it themselves.”

Coca-Cola’s original recipe, according to company

policy, is kept in a bank vault in Atlanta where only
two executives — banned from travelling on the
same aircraft — know it.

The court order followed the release of a report by

the Centre for Science and Environment, a non-
government body, which contended that 11 brands
sold by the two soft drinks makers contained high
levels of pesticide residues. The organisation said
that samples from 12 states showed that Pepsi
products contained 30 times more pesticides than in
2003, when a similar study was conducted. Coke
samples had 25 times the

amount of pesticides as three years ago.

The report, caused a row in India’s lower house,

where MPs from across the political spectrum
brandished its findings as reason enough to ban the
sale of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. “These companies are
playing with the lives of millions and we can’t ignore
such warnings any more,” said Vijay Kumar Malhotra,
from the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party,
which staged a walkout over the issue .

It is not the first time Coca-Cola and Pepsi have

found themselves mired in controversy in India. They
are regular whipping boys for politicians who regard
Western food products as a threat to Indian heritage,
although sceptics suggest that their opposition has
more to do with the companies’ virtual monopoly of
the market than genuinely held feelings of cultural
protectionism.

The US companies joined forces through the Indian

Soft Drink Manufacturers’ Association to reject the
findings of the study. “Consumer safety is paramount
to us,” they said. “The soft drinks manufactured in
India comply with stringent international norms and
all applicable national regulations.”
The Bureau of Indian Standards, the highest
government body to maintain product quality
certification, has set a pesticide standard for bottled
water but not for soft drinks.

In 2003, at the time of the last report, pesticide

claims provoked a backlash. Schools banned colas,
and fruit juice sales boomed as yoga gurus reminded
people of the value of healthy drinking. Coca-Cola’s
sales dropped by as much as 11 per cent in the
subsequent financial quarter

KILLING ME SOFTLY WITH HIS COKE ...

Twelve popular soft-drink brands have been found to

contain dangerously high levels of pesticides and
insecticides. Delhi-based NGO Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE) tested brands of market leaders
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. It found that Coke contained
30 times and Pepsi 36 times the amount of
pesticides considered acceptable by the European
Economic Commission (EEC). The NGO also tested
one bottle each of Coke and Pepsi bought in the US.
They were both free of pesticide residue. Coca-Cola
and PepsiCo have threatened legal action against the
NGO. At a press conference their officials said the
allegations should be disregarded. They said the CSE
did not have the expertise to conduct such
sophisticated tests.
Coke now accused of causing women to abort
(Kerala), August 8

Coca Cola Company, under attack for containing

pesticides in its bottled drinks, has more problems in
its hand. It is now accused of contributing to the
production of 'poisoned fruits' and thereby causing a
lot of miscarriages among pregnant women in a
Kerala village.

According to Kerala's Perumadi panchayat president

A Krishnan, the company has not been disposing off
its toxic wastes properly. "Instead they are selling it
off as manure to our farmers!" "The Kerala Pollution
Control Board has confirmed that the wastes have
cadmium and lead content well above the
permissible limit. This can cause cancer, kidney
failure and delivery problems among women if it
enters into the food chain," says Green Peace activist
Ameer Shahul.

The company has already disposed off 5000 tons of

toxic waste as manure to farmers in the area.
"Already we foresee a major health problem. We
have information that there were seven spontaneous
abortion cases in the past one year alone in the area.
A state health team is shortly visiting the tribals to
make a detailed study,"

Krishnan is also outraged by the fact that while the

panchayat gave the plant permission to dig only one
borewell, the company went ahead and dug six.

"So even water in Plachimada has become scarce,"

Krishnan said.
The 250 odd bore wells in the 15 kilometer radius
area have become almost dry and what is more
terrifying is that many of them have turned brackish
and putrid, and so unfit for drinking. However, Coke
officials deny these allegations. "The technology of
our waste water treatment is the best in the world.
The investigations by the Kerala Pollution Control
Board and the Kerala State Ground Water
Department (KSGD) have given us a clean chit," a
Coke spokesperson said

Pepsi, Coca Cola now accused of causing cancer in

west Bengal-- Press Trust of India
Kolkata, August 8

Fresh on the heels of charges that its soft drinks

contain high levels of pesticides, Coca-Cola and
PepsiCo are now being accused of causing cancer,
miscarriages and kidney failure in Kerala and West
Bengal.

The West Bengal Government said its Pollution

Control Board (PCB) has found high levels of toxic
metals in waste released from Coca-Cola and
PepsiCo plants.

The announcement comes two days after the Kerala

Pollution Control Board made a similar claim
regarding Coca-Cola's Plachimada plant.
The West Bengal PCB, which collected sludge from
six Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola bottling plants in the
state for testing, discovered that cadmium levels in
the effluent of at least two of the plants at Taratala in
Kolkata, and one in Dankuni in Hoogly district, were
above the hazardous level of 50 mg per kg, West
Bengal's Environment Minister Manab.

the PCB has also found lead, another toxic metal,

above permissible limits in the liquid effluents of
Coca-Cola's Dankuni plant. The West Bengal
government, has asked both the MNCs to explain the
process of production which led to sludge containing
a high level of cadmium. The development took place
barely two days after a country-wide panic following
detection of pesticides by the Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE) in at least 12 soft drink brands
produced by these MNCs. Meanwhile, the Calcutta
High Court today addmitted a public interest
litigation by an environemntalits praying for direction
to ban all soft drink brands in which pesticides were
found in CSE tests.

Petitioner Subhas Dutta in his submission before the

division bench of Chief Justice A K Mathur and Justice
Asim Banerjee stated that since the supply of these
soft drinks in Parliament premises had been
discontinued, by the same logic these should be
banned for the general public. The Kolkata Municipal
Corporation, which collected samples from the
bottling plants of the two cola majors, threatened
that it would cancel the trade licences of soft drinks
companies if tests on samples confirmed the
presence of pesticide.
"We are awaiting the report of the tests before
deciding on cancelling trade licences," city Mayor
Subrata Mukerhee said while admitting that the civic
body had no authority to shut down the plants of
MNCs.

The sale of the two leading cola brands had

substantially dropped in the metropolis over the last
two days, according to Mayor in-Council (Health)
Pradip Ghosh.

"There has been panic after the study by CSE found

pesticides in soft drinks," Ghosh said. He also
announced that the municipal body would collect
samples of non-cola drinks and mineral water sold in
the metropolis to determine whether they contained
any hazardous substance.

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation, which collected

samples from the bottling plants of the two cola
majors, threatened that it would cancel the trade
licences of soft drinks companies if tests on samples
confirmed the presence of pesticide.

"We are awaiting the report of the tests before

deciding on cancelling trade licences," city Mayor
Subrata Mukerhee said while admitting that the civic
body had no authority to shut down the plants of
MNCs

Afraid to Keep It,

Afraid to Burn It
Alabama Town Wary as Army Begins Destroying
Weapons Stockpile
Coke Pepsi and the Politics of Food Safety

In a democracy, a ban on harmful products and

activities is an expression of citizens' freedoms and
rights. Bans protect citizens from hazards to health
and the environment. That is why smoking has been
banned in public places. That is why ozone-depleting
substances were banned under the Montreal
Protocol. That is why the Basel Convention banned
the trade in toxic wastes and hazards.

Government control
Why and where has coke and pepsi banned…?

Coke and Pepsi have firmly joined the group of toxic

and hazardous products that need to be banned to
protect the health of citizens and to protect the
environment. On 22nd August, the "Coke Pepsi Quit
India" campaign intensified its movement to ban
Coke and Pepsi "with a ban Coke Pepsi" day of
actions. Kerala has banned Colas. Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan have banned Soft Drinks
in educational institutions and Government
Canteens. And Coke Pepsi Free Zones are spreading
across the country.
Stealing Water, Creating Thirst

There are strong environmental and human rights

reasons to ban the production of soft drinks in India.
Each plant of Coke and Pepsi extracts 1 - 2 million
litres per day. If each plant is extracting 1 - 2 million
litres per day and there are 90 plants, the daily
extraction is between 90 - 180 million litres. This
could meet the daily requirement of drinking water of
millions of people Each litre of soft drink destroys
and pollutes 10 litres of water. And the toxic sludge
generated has been found to have high levels of
Cadmium and Lead (Pollution Control Board, Kerala,
Hazard Centre).

Long term exposure to Cadmium has the potential to

cause effects like kidney dysfunction, damage to
bone, liver and blood. Lead affects the central
nervous system, kidney, blood and cardio-vascular
system. Women in a small hamlet in Kerala
succeeded in shutting down a Coca-Cola plant.
"When you drink Coke, you drink the blood of
people," said Mylamma, the woman who started the
movement against Coca-Cola in Plachimada. The
Coca-Cola plant in Plachimada was commissioned in
March 2000 to produce 1,224,000 bottles of Coca-
Cola products a day and issued a conditional license
to install a motor-driven water pump by the
panchayat. However, the company started to illegally
extract millions of liters of clean water. According to
the local people, Coca-Cola was extracting 1.5 million
liters per day. The water level started to fall,
dropping from 150 to 500 feet below the earth's
surface. Tribals and farmers complained that water
storage and supply were being adversely affected by
indiscriminate installation of bore wells for tapping
groundwater, resulting in serious consequences for
crop cultivation. The wells were also threatening
traditional drinking-water sources, ponds and water
tanks, waterways and canals. When the company
failed to comply with the panchayat request for
details, a show-cause notice was served and the
license was cancelled. Coca-Cola unsuccessfully tried
to bribe the panchayat president A. Krishnan, with
300 million rupees.

Not only did Coca-Cola steal the water of the local

community, it also polluted what it didn't take. The
company deposited waste material outside the plant
which, during the rainy season, spread into paddy
fields, canals, and wells, causing serious health
hazards. As a result of this dumping, 260 bore wells
provided by public authorities for drinking water and
agriculture facilities have become dry. Coca-Cola was
also pumping wastewater into dry bore wells within
the company premises. In 2003, the district medical
officer informed the people of Plachimada their water
was unfit for drinking. The women, who already knew
their water was toxic, had to walk miles to get water.
Coca-Cola had created water scarcity in a water-
abundant region by discharging waste sludge
contains large quantities of lead, chromium and
cadmium.

The women of Plachimada were not going to allow

this hydropiracy. In 2002 they started a dharna (sit-
in) at the gates of Coca-Cola. To celebrate one year
of their agitation, I joined them on Earth Day 2003.
On September 21, 2003, a huge rally delivered an
ultimatum to Coca-Cola. And in January 2004, a
World Water Conference brought global activists to
Plachimada to support the local activists. A
movement started by local adivasi women had
unleashed a national and global wave of people's
energy in their support.

Today the plant is closed and movements have

started in other plants.

The Cola giants are aggravating the water crisis

already experienced by people in rural areas.

There is only one standard and measure in the issue

of water use - the fundamental human right to clean,
safe and adequate water cannot be violated. And
Coke and Pepsi are violating this right. That is why
their extraction of millions of litres of water needs to
be banned. In the Plachimada case the High Court of
Kerala had ruled -

"that underground water belongs to the public. The

State and its instrumentalities should act as trustees
of this great wealth. The State has got a duty to
protect ground water against excessive exploitation
and the inaction of the State in this regard will
tantamount to infringement of the right to life of the
people guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Ground water, under the
land of the 2nd respondent, does not belong to it.

The underground water belongs to the general public

and the 2nd respondent has not right to claim a huge
share of it and the Government have no power to
allow a private party to extract such a huge quantity
of ground water, which is a property, held by it in
trust."

This principle of water as a public good and common

property is what led to the ban on extraction of water
in Plachimada. This is the principle which led local
communites at 55 plants of Coke and Pepsi to serve
notice to the corporations on 20th January, 2005 that
they were stealing a community resource.

Stealing Health, Creating Disease

The struggle against Coke is also a struggle for

health. Pesticide residues have been found in Coke
and Pepsi. However, soft drinks are hazardous even
without pesticides.

Soft drinks have zero nutrition value compared to our

indigenous drinks such as nimbu pani, lassi, panna,
sattu. The soft drink giants have succeeded in
making the youth of India ashamed of our indigenous
food culture in spite of its nutrition and safety
through their aggressive-advertising. They have
monopolized the market for thirst, buying up
indigenous companies like Parle and displacing
indigenous cold drinks make at home or in the
cottage industry. But what Coke and Pepsi sell is a
toxic brew colours, with anti-nutritive values.

The Health Minister of India had asked film stars to

not endorse Coke and Pepsi because of the hazards
of sugar in soft drinks, implicated in the obesity and
diabetes epidemic among children. Marion Nestle has
called soft drinks a quintessential "junk food", high in
calories but low in nutrition. The Centre for Science
and Environment in the Public Interest has called soft
drinks "liquid Candy". A 12 ounce can contain 1.5
ounces of sugar.

Increasingly the soft drink giants are shifting to High

Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Yet the Health Minister
has not addressed the issue of health risks of HFCS
and health risks of GM foods if the corn used is GM
corn. If the Government wants citizens to have safe
sweeteners it should ban High Fructose Corn Syrup
and encourage sugarcane farmers in India to go
organic. The Central Government is clearly failing in
protecting the health of the Indian citizens.

The nutrient-composition of soft drinks, per 12 ounce

serving in comparison to orange juice and low fat
milk.

Contents Coca Cola Pepsi Orange Juice Low-fat milk

%Calories 154 160 168 153Sugar, g 40 40 40 18Vit.
A, IU 0 0 291 750Vit C, mg 0 0 146 3Folic acid, mg 0
0 164 18Calcium, mg 0 0 33 450Potassium, mg 0 0
711 352Magnesium, mg 0 0 36 51Phosphate, mg 54
55 60 353Ref: Marion Nestle, Food Politics The sugar
in soft drinks is not natural sugar, sucrose but high
fructose corn syrup. Plants for making corn syrup
have started to be set up in India, and if strict
regulations are not put in place, the Indian diet could
go the way of the US diet, with high fructose corn
syrup causing insulin resistance. Unlike sucrose,
fructose does not go through some of the critical
intermediary breakdown steps, but is shunted toward
the liver, where it mimics insulins ability to cause the
liver to release fatty acids into the bloodstream.
Studies have found that fructose diets have 31%
more triglycerides than sucrose diets. Fructose also
lowers the rate of fatty acid oxidation, P.A. Mayes, a
University of London scientist has concluded
that,Long-term absorption of fructose causes enzyme
adaptions that increase lipogenesis fat formation and
VLDL (bad cholestrol) formation leading to
triglyceridemea (too many triglycerides in the blood)
decreased glucose tolerance, and hyper insulinemia
(too much insulin in the blood).Scientists at the
University of California in Berkeley have also
confirmed that overuse of fructose was skewing the
American diet towards metabolic changes
encouraging fat storage.

India cannot afford these high health costs of a

fructose diet which also has other nutritional costs as
side effects. When corn is used for high fructose
syrup, the poor are denied a food staple. Already
30% corn is going for raw material for making
industrial cattle feed and fructose, and is diverted
from human food. In addition, the displacement of
healthier sweeteners derived from sugar cane such
as gur and khandsari robs farmers of incomes and
livelihoods. The impact of the Colas on the food chain
and economy is thus very large and does not stop
with the bottle.

But what is within the bottle in any case is not fit for
a healthy diet.
 Consumption of soft drinks is well known to
contribute to tooth decay

and adolescents who consume soft drinks display a

risk of bone fractures 3 to 4 fold higher than those
who do not drink soft drinks are becoming the
greatest source of caffeine in children's diets, with
each 12 ounce can of cola containing about 45
milligrams of caffeine.

And there are other ingredients in the toxic brew, an

anti-freeze compound - ethylene glycol for lower
freezing, phosphoric acid to give it a bite. People are
consuming 4 kg of chemicals a year per person on
the basis of 20.6 million tonnes of chemicals in the
form of artificial colours, flavourings etc. (Prashant
Bhushan "Soft drinks - A toxic - brew). It is therefore
not just pesticides we should be concerned about,
but the toxic brew our children are being made
addicted to by the Cola giants.

The other violation of Coke and Pepsi is the violation

of the right to health.

making
Phosphoric Acid and Carbon dioxide make soft
drinks

highly acidic which is why they are effective as toilet

cleaners. We would not approve toilet cleaners as
drinks for our children, yet industrial soft drinks,
which have the same acidic properties, are being
freely sold.
It is because of these hazards that schools in the U.S
have banned soft drinks. It is because of these
hazards 10000 schools and colleges in India have
declared themselves Coke Pepsi Free Zones. It is
because of these hazards, the Kerala Government
has banned the Colas. It is because of these hazards
the canteen in the Indian Parliament does not serve
Coke and Pepsi. And it is because of these hazards
Pepsi representatives admitted their drinks are not
safe for children.

However, the Union Government is faltering under

the pressure of the Corporations and the pressure of
U.S. The Union Health Minister has questioned the
Centre for Science and Environment study on
pesticide residues in Coke and Pepsi citing verbatim
from a study commissioned by Coca Cola. Clearly
citizens health cannot be put in the hands of
Government who set arbitrary standards which
guarantee safety to Coke Pepsi for making super
profits but do not guarantee safety for the health of
citizens.

The Health Minister has announced that by January

2007 they will have safety standards in place for
Coke and Pepsi. However, Coke and Pepsi will not
become safe after January 2007. There are two
reasons why depending on standard setting alone is
unreliable for guaranteeing that citizens are getting
safe and healthy products. Firstly, centralized
Government decisions can be easily influenced by
corporate interests, as we witnessed in the
Government response to the debate in Parliament.
There is a corporate science and there is a public
science. In times of corporate rule, corporate science
will rule. Secondly, standards by their very nature are
reductionist. Standards will be set for pesticide
residues only based on levels allowed for ingredients
such as water and sugar, without looking at the
harmful affects of the product on people's health and
the environment. We need holistic food safety, not
reductionist manipulated pseudo safety standards
which protect corporations not people.

The Health Ministers own remarks make it clear that

reductionist "safety standards" do not make Coke
Pepsi "safe". While he declared that pesticide
residues were "within safe limits" in bottles tested in
Mysore and Gujarat, he also stated that Colas were
junk foods and were not safe for health. Safety is
more than standards for pesticide residues. And as
we have witnessed different labs are giving different
results.

To ban or not ban Coke and Pepsi cannot and should

not depend only on whether a particular lab does not
find particular levels of particular pesticide residues
in the soft drinks above permissible limits. The
problems with Coke and Pepsi creating a water crisis
and a health crisis are separately enough reasons for
a ban. Jointly, they make a ban imperative. These are
crimes against nature and people. Crimes are
determined by their impact, not the "standard" of
instruments used for committing a crime. Coke and
Pepsi are engaged in the rape of the earth's aquifers
and slow poisoning of our children. And, there is no
"safe standard" for rape. No "safe standard" for slow
murder. That is why we must ban them from our
lives through actions as free and sovereign citizens
of a free and sovereign India.
Reason of banning
Coke, Pepsi banned in India over harmful levels of
aspartame, pesticides and other chemicals

NaturalNews) A spokesman for the administration of

the largest state in India announced Friday that
Rajasthan would be banning the sale of PepsiCo and
Coca-Cola products after the Indian Supreme Court
gave the companies one month to reveal their
products' ingredients.

A report from the Center for Science and

Environment (CSE) claimed on Thursday that the two
companies sold beverages containing unacceptable
amounts of pesticide, spurring Federal Members of
Parliament to call for a nationwide ban.

"The ban will be in force in all educational institutes,

including medical and technical colleges and
universities, and offenders would be punished," said
spokesman K. Tiwari. "Manufacturers are required to
print not only 'dangerous for human consumption,'
but also the quantity of the residues, if any, on each
label."

Both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola renounced the CSE

report, stating that their customers' interests were
their primary concern.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, announcing

their ultimatum after a public lawsuit was brought
against both companies. The suit asserted that the
soft drink giants' products contained high levels of
harmful chemicals such as phosphoric acid, caffeine
and aspartame.

In addition to the Rajasthan ban, the Northern state

of Punjab has said it will no longer provide its
lawmakers with soft drinks, as of Friday.

"Rajasthan is right to question the safety of Coke and

Pepsi products," said Mike Adams, a consumer health
advocate and holistic nutritionist. "On their own,
many of the chemicals found in these products would
be considered extremely toxic. But somehow, when
they are added to a popular beverage, all the health
experts in the world suffer a consensus trance and
agree to look the other way," he added.

effects
India threatened by business interests: Sell Coke and
Pepsi, or your economy will suffer

NaturalNews) After a Center for Science and

Environment study found 24 times the acceptable
level of pesticides in soda sold in India, a few state
governments acted quickly to ban the big name soft
drinks -- Coca-Cola and PepsiCo -- but the country's
top business groups warned Thursday that the move
could hurt India's economy.

Both the Confederation of Indian Industry and the

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and
Industry say that decisions to ban Coca-Cola and
PepsiCo products from schools, colleges and
hospitals run by the government are likely to hurt the
country's broader economy, slowing the investment
climate. Representatives reported being particularly
disturbed by the total ban on the soft drink brands by
the Southern state of Kerala, where both companies
run plants.

"Government actions have to be driven by rule of law

and in the overall public interest," said R.
Seshasayee, president of Confederation of Indian
Industry, who noted that the standards used by CSE
were part of a government "proposal" that has not
yet passed into Indian law. "We are concerned that
the apparently arbitrary decisions have been
taken ... without going through the due process of
law."

Both Seshasayee and FICCI President Saroj K. Poddar

assert that the states should have followed up the
CSE study with their own tests, and then sent notice
to Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, in keeping with proper
procedures.

"It is amazing to observe the legal and regulatory

contortions these pro-business Indian politicians will
go through to keep selling pesticide-laden products
to their own people," remarked Mike Adams, a
consumer health advocate and critic of the
marketing practices of soft drink companies. "And
claiming that the banning of soft drinks containing
unsafe chemicals would be harmful to India's
economy is preposterous. Why do they not consider
the potential of harm to India's people and their
health?"
While India-based Coca-Cola and PepsiCo officials
have declined to comment to the media on the issue,
Kari Bjorhus, a U.S.-based spokesperson for Coca-
Cola, said they were "disappointed that the (Kerala)
government would make a decision like that based
on inaccurate information."

"Our products are perfectly safe, and there is no

reason to take them away from consumers," she
said.

India has brought similar charges against both Coca-

Cola and PepsiCo before; three years ago, a CSE
study caused allegations of excessive pesticides to
be leveled at the companies, and their sales
suffered. A few months later, the sales figures
recovered.

"For three years we have looked very hard at this

and engaged the best scientific minds in the world,"
said Dick Detwiler, a spokesman for PepsiCo's
international division in New York. "All of the data
and all of the science point to the fact our products in
India are absolutely safe, just as they are elsewhere
in the world."

This is a small comfort for Indian parents, many of

whom think the ban is a great idea.

"It is a good decision," said Molly Kurian, a housewife

in Kerala's capital, Cochin. "My children have been
addicts of Pepsi and Coke. Now I can teach them how
to drink water."

"In my opinion," added Adams, "even without the

presence of pesticides, these beverage products are
harmful enough on their own to ban their sale in
schools and government institutions. The link
between sugary beverages and diabetes or obesity is
well established in the scientific literature."

"I am impressed that India is doing what the U.S.

government refuses to do: protect its own people
from harmful products marketed by unethical
corporations," Adams said.

Bush administration pressures India to reinstate

Coke, Pepsi sales regardless of pesticide content

Indian government to reinstate sales of Coke and

Pepsi, which have been restricted or banned in many
Indian states for high pesticide content.

Delhi-based Center for the Science and Environment

warned that a number of potentially harmful
pesticides were found in high levels in samples of
Coke and Pepsi. "The levels [of pesticides] in some
samples -- for instance, Coca-Cola bought in Kolkata
-- exceed the BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) norms
by 140 times for the deadly pesticide Lindane," the
report says. "Similarly, a Coca-Cola sample
manufactured in Thane contained the neurotoxin
Chlorpyrifos, 200 times the standard."

Pal claims that public outcry over the government's

initial report and a later report that galvanized the
findings of the first caused many Indian states to ban
Coke and Pepsi from government schools, colleges
and hospitals. The state of Kerala has completely
banned the sodas, Pal says.
Franklin Lavin, the U.S. Undersecretary for
International Trade, told Agence France-Presse, "In a
time when India is working hard to attract and retain
foreign investment, it would be unfortunate if the
discussion were dominated by those who did not
want to treat foreign companies fairly."
When on August 2, 2006, Sunita Narain, the fiesty
Director of Centre for Science and Environment
(CSE), returned to the media limelight after three
years with a fresh "pesticide in cola" report, Outlook
Business had already been working on this story
concerning the seamy side of Coca-Cola India’s
affairs. The "pesti-cola" issue has since catapulted to
become one of the hottest topics in the country with
state governments competing with each other to
impose full or partial ban on manufacturing and sales
of carbonated drinks

But even before the controversy appeared—and

knocked back cola sales by over 10% in just a week—
Coca-Cola India was a troubled company. Its sales
have been falling drastically over the last two years
(the 12% drop during April-June made it the eighth
straight quarter of slide). A number of litigations
across the country have shattered the credibility of
the company—the charges levied against it include
selling substandard drinks with high levels of
pesticide content, polluting ground water and soil
around bottling plants, causing severe water
shortages in communities and distributing toxic
waste as fertiliser to farmers. In its effort to fix these
problems, Coke has run into a still-worse trouble—it’s
losing key talent left, right and centre (some say the
company witnessed 70% attrition over the last one
year).

It was a year ago, in July 2005, that Coca-Cola

initiated a major shake-up in India by splitting the
bottling operations into a separate business unit. John
Ustas, then heading Coca-Cola’s bottling operations
in Norway, was brought is as the CEO of bottling
operations with a mandate to turn around the
company’s bottling operations here. A 23-year
beverages industry veteran known for turning around
Coke’s fortunes in Latin American markets, Ustas
looked the right man for the job.
worlds no1 pesticide drink

300 Times More Pesticide Than Tap Water

Fizzy drinks sold by Coca-

Cola in Britain have been found to contain pesticides
at up to 300 times the level allowed in tap or bottled
water.

The research team called on the Government, the

industry and the company to act to remove the
chemicals and called for new safety standards to
regulate the soft drinks market.

The industry denies children are at risk and insists

that the levels found by researchers based at the
University of Jaen in southern Spain are not harmful.
The chemicals detected included carbendazim,
thiabendazole, imazalil, prochloraz, malathion and
iprodione.

A total of 19 products were bought in the UK, all

made by Coca-Cola.

Two orange drinks bought in the UK contained

imazalil at 300 times the limit permitted for a single
pesticide in drinking water.

The average level of the total pesticide

contamination of the British drinks was 17.4 parts
per billion — 34.6 times the EU maximum residue
level for water.

Coca-Cola GB insisted the products are safe.

No maximum limits for pesticides in fruit juices

Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Jonathan Leake | The

Sunday Times

Fruit juice drinks sold in Britain contain larger

amounts of pesticides than products sold elsewhere
in the world, according to new research.
A study sampling more than 100 drinks from 15
countries found those in Britain had the highest
concentrations.

The levels were on average more than 34 times

greater than those permitted in drinking water, with
some up to 300 times.

There are, however, no maximum recommended

limits for pesticide residues in fruit juices.

Peter Melchett, of the Soil Association, said: “The

government fails to protect people from pesticides.
There needs to be more work on the cumulative
effect of residues and this report provides further
evidence of a laissez-faire approach.” The
researchers bought 102 drinks from countries
including the United States, Russia, Italy, Germany,
France and Switzerland. In Britain the drinks were
bought in London, Cambridge and Edinburgh.

The concentrations of pesticides were compared with

the levels permitted in drinking water in the
European Union. These are 0.1 micrograms per litre
for each pesticide and 0.5 micrograms per litre for
the total concentration.
The average concentration of pesticides was the
highest in Britain at 17.4 micrograms per litre, ahead
of 12.3 in Spain and 4.9 in France. Drinks bought in
the United States, Russia and Morocco had
significantly lower levels of pesticide, according to
the report in the journal Analytical Chemistry.

Georgina Downs, of the UK Pesticides Campaign,

said: “Children should not be exposed to these
chemicals. This research should act as a serious
alarm bell to the soft drinks industry.”

Criticism on the health effect of Coca-Cola:Coke-

Mentos experiment video
A common criticism of Coke based on its allegedly
toxic acidity levels has been found to be baseless
by researchers; lawsuits based on these
criticisms have been dismissed by several
American courts for this reason.

Most nutritionists advise that Coca-Cola and other

soft drinks can be harmful if consumed
excessively, particularly to young children whose
soft drink consumption competes with, rather
than complements, a balanced diet. Studies have
shown that regular soft drink users have a lower
intake of calcium (which can contribute to
osteoporosis), magnesium, ascorbic acid,
riboflavin, and vitamin A.The drink has also
aroused criticism for its use of caffeine, due to
the possibility of physical dependence.

There is also some concern regarding the usage

of high fructose corn syrup in the production of
Coca-Cola. Since 1985 in the U.S., Coke has been
made with high fructose corn syrup, instead of
sugar glucose or fructose, to reduce costs. This
has come under criticism because of concerns
that the corn used to produce corn syrup may
come from genetically altered plants.Some
nutritionists also caution against consumption of
high fructose corn syrup because of possible links
to obesity and diabetes.

In India, there exists a major controversy

concerning pesticides and other harmful
chemicals in bottled products including Coca-
Cola. In 2003, the Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE), a non-governmental
organization in New Delhi, said aerated waters
produced by soft drinks manufacturers in India,
including multinational giants PepsiCo and Coca-
Cola, contained toxins including lindane, DDT,
malathion and chlorpyrifos — pesticides that can
contribute to cancer and a breakdown of the
immune system. Tested products included Coke,
Pepsi, and several other soft drinks, many
produced by The Coca-Cola Company. CSE found
that the Indian produced Pepsi's soft drink
products had 36 times the level of pesticide
residues permitted under European Union
regulations; Coca-Cola's soft drink was found to
have 30 times the permitted amount. CSE said it
had tested the same products sold in the US and
found no such residues. After the pesticide
allegations were made in 2003, Coca-Cola sales
declined by 15%. In 2004, an Indian
parliamentary committee backed up CSE's
findings, and a government-appointed committee
was tasked with developing the world's first
pesticide standards for soft drinks. The Coca-Cola
Company has responded that its plants filter
water to remove potential contaminants and that
its products are tested for pesticides and must
meet minimum health standards before they are
distributed.In the Indian state of Kerala, sale and
production of Coca-Cola, along with other soft
drinks, was initially banned, before the High Court
in Kerala overturned the ban ruling that only the
federal government can ban food products.

In 2006,responding to concerns by certain

 section, the FDA stated that it "believes that the
results indicate that (carcinogen)benzene levels
are not a safety concern for consumers."
Company Must Follow Recommendations of
Company Funded Study:
Shut Down Kala Dera Bottling Plant
San Francisco: It is said that those who don't learn
from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat
them.
It seems that the Coca-Cola has not learnt any
lessons from Plachimada - a village in the state of
Kerala in India where the community-led campaign
has shut down its plant since March 2004.
The manner is which the Coca-Cola company has
decided to deal with another community-led
campaign in India - in the village of Kala Dera in the
state of Rajasthan - is indicative of the arrogance and
impunity of the company that has landed it in trouble
before.
And Coca-Cola in India is in for a rude awakening,
again.
Kala Dera - Thirsting from Coca-Cola
Kala Dera is a large village outside the city of Jaipur
where agriculture is the primary source of livelihood.
Coca-Cola started its bottling operations in Kala Dera
in 2000, and within a year, the community started to
notice a rapid decline in groundwater levels.
For farmers,
loss of
groundwater
translated
directly into
loss of income.
For women, it
meant having
to walk an
additional 5 to
6 kilometers
just to fetch Unusable Well in Kala Dera Showing
water to meet Depleted Water Level
the basic daily
needs of the family. For many children in Kala Dera,
it meant leaving schools to provide a much needed
helping hand doing household chores since the
women had additional burdens.
The community in Kala Dera organized itself to
challenge the Coca-Cola company for the worsening
water conditions - through extraction and pollution -
and demanded the closure of the Coca-Cola bottling
plant.
The company, in usual fashion, denied any
wrongdoing, blaming "outsiders" for the increasing
local community opposition.
Forced Assessment Validates Community Concerns
The community of Kala Dera, as well as the villages
of Plachimada and Mehdiganj in India that are
opposing Coca-Cola bottling plants, have enjoyed
significant international support. And most notable in
lending support have been college and university
students across the globe, and in particular, the US,
UK and Canada - some of Coca-Cola's larger markets.
One of the successful campaigns was at the
prestigious University of Michigan in the US, which,
after a sustained student-led campaign in which the
India Resource Center represented the India issues,
placed the Coca-Cola company on probation on
January 1, 2006. The university also mandated that
Coca-Cola agree to an independent assessment of its
operations in India if it ever wanted to do business
with the university.
The assessment, paid for by Coca-Cola and
conducted by the Energy and Resources Institute
(TERI), only looked at six bottling plants in India and
was released in January 2008.
The assessment was a scathing indictment of Coca-
Cola's operations in India.
Validating the concerns of the communities
campaigning against Coca-Cola, the assessment
noted that Coca-Cola approached its operations in
India from a "business continuity" perspective that
ignored the impacts on the community.
Stop Using Groundwater in Kala Dera
Some of the most disturbing findings in the
assessment concerned Coca-Cola's bottling plant in
Kala Dera.
Confirming that Coca-Cola's bottling plant in Kala
Dera operated in an "overexploited" groundwater
area and the Coca-Cola's bottling plant had
"significant impacts", the assessment noted that "the
plant's operations in this area would continue to be
one of the contributors to a worsening water
situation and a source of stress to the communities
around."
The assessment made four recommendations with
regard to the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Kala Dera,
making it clear that Coca-Cola could no longer utilize
the overexploited groundwater resource in Kala
Dera:

1. Transport water from the nearest aquifer that

may not be stressed
2. Store water from low-stress seasons
3. Relocate the plant to a water-surplus area
4. Shut down this facility

The community in Kala Dera, needless to say,

welcomed the recommendations.
Unfortunately, they still wait for Coca-Cola to make
good on the recommendations made by the
assessment that Coca-Cola itself paid for.
Coca-Cola's Response - Unethical and Dishonest
Coca-Cola has had seven months to respond to the
findings on Kala Dera. We have not seen much action
on the part of Coca-Cola that address the concerns
raised in the assessment. In fact, what we have seen
much of, is an unethical and dishonest campaign by
the Coca-Cola company in an attempt to
misrepresent the issues.
Continued Misery in the Face of Certainty
Kala Dera lies in an overexploited groundwater area
and access to water has been difficult. Summers are
particularly intense in the area, and summers are
when water shortages are most acute.
Ironically,
summer
months are also
when Coca-Cola
reaches its
peak
production, and
it is in the
summer
months that the
Coca-Cola
bottling plant in
Kala Dera
extracts the
most water,
making already Farmer in Kala Dera Shows
existing water Increased Electric Bill from Pumping
shortages even Water from Depleted Groundwater
worse.
At the very
least, the Coca-Cola company could have stopped
extraction of water this summer, knowing very well
the conclusions of the assessment.
With facts in hand, the Coca-Cola company has
chosen to continue its operations, knowingly
contributing to the misery of thousands of people.
On the one hand, Coca-Cola talks a good talk about
being a good corporate citizen.
Yet, it continues to deplete groundwater causing
undue hardships to the community even after it has
been told to stop doing so, that too by a study
funded by the company itself.
Criminal Negligence or Straight Incompetence?
Prior to locating a bottling plant in Kala Dera, Coca-
Cola is supposed to have conducted an
Environmental Impact Assessment that looks at a
variety of current conditions and potential impacts if
the plant is built and operated.
The Coca-Cola company has refused to share the
environmental impact assessment it conducted for
Kala Dera (or any other plants in India), citing "legal
and strategic confidentiality" reasons.
However, the Central Ground Water Board of India
had already assessed the groundwater in and around
Kala Dera to be "overexploited" in 1998.
The Coca-Cola company started operations in 2000 -
two years after the Indian government agency had
already found it to be "overexploited".
Did the Coca-Cola company know that the
groundwater was overexploited and still built and
operated its plant?
If the company knew that the Kala Dera groundwater
area was overexploited, then starting a water
intensive plant borders on criminal negligence, if not
criminal negligence itself.
And how could the company, which describes itself
as a "hydration" company, not know that the Central
Ground Water Board of India had already assessed
the groundwater as overexploited?
Misrepresenting Facts
In reaching out to the media and the public regarding
the scathing TERI assessment, the Coca-Cola
company has misrepresented the facts on several
occasions.
Coca-Cola Forced to Agree to Assessment
The Coca-Cola company says that it "voluntarily
participated" in the assessment even though the
University of Michigan insisted that Coca-Cola agree
to an assessment if it wanted to do business with the
University of Michigan.
The company goes on further to state that "our
voluntary participation in the TERI assessment
reflects our commitment to transparency and
continuous improvement."
If Coca-Cola were committed to transparency, we
would suggest they make a good start by sharing the
Environmental Impact Assessment that they
conducted for Kala Dera and rest of the bottling
plants in India.
And as for their commitment to "continuous
improvement", Coca-Cola should start with
implementing one of the four recommendations
made by the assessment in regards to the Coca-Cola
bottling plant at Kala Dera.
Coca-Cola Fails to Mention Shut Down Plant
Recommendation
In its letter to the University of Michigan after the
assessment, the company fails to mention the fourth
recommendation made by the assessment - to shut
down the bottling plant.
Coca-Cola Does Not Meet its Own Standards
In the same letter, the company states that their
plants "on an overall basis are meeting our own more
stringent internal standards."
One of the shocking findings of the assessment was
that of the six plants surveyed, in not one did the
plant meet the Coca-Cola company standards for
waste management, known as the TCCC standards!
What is the point of having Coca-Cola company
standards if not a single plant meets them?
Coca-Cola Not in Compliance with Government
Regulations
In the same letter, the company states that "its
bottlers are in compliance with the standards of
relevant India government and regulatory agencies."
Again, the assessment found that the treated
effluent discharge at none of the six plants surveyed
met all the standards of the relevant Indian
government and regulatory agencies. The
assessment states that the treated effluent discharge
at the plants "mostly met the effluent discharge
requirements".
Mostly, at least from the last definition we checked,
does not mean all.
Corporate Social Responsibility - A Scam?
While there have been no genuine initiatives on the
part of Coca-Cola to correct its mistakes in Kala Dera,
the Coca-Cola company has stepped up its corporate
social responsibility spending to announce to the
world that it is a green and socially responsible
company. Such an effort, however, rings hollow when
it comes to India.
Rainwater Harvesting - Dilapidated and a Bluff
With great fanfare, the company continues to
announce its rainwater harvesting initiatives in India,
even going as far as to announce that the company
will become "water neutral" in India by 2009.
 Coca-Cola Sign - "Kala Dera - A Dream" Next
to Dilapidated Rainwater Recharge Shafts

There are some serious concerns about Coca-Cola's

claims on rainwater harvesting.
In Kala Dera, the company has announced that it has
recharged five times the amount of water it has
used. When asked to back it up with numbers, Coca-
Cola does not provide any. In fact, in the letter to the
University of Michigan, Coca-Cola states that they
"will install measuring devices that will verify the
amount of water recharged."
If they do not have measuring devices installed to
verify the amount of water recharged, how can they
make a claim of recharging five times the water that
they have extracted?
People across Rajasthan are well versed in rainwater
harvesting, and many communities have been
harvesting rainwater long before Coca-Cola started.
In fact, the Coca-Cola company started rainwater
harvesting initiatives in India as a response to the
growing campaigns against its water
mismanagement.
The community in Kala Dera has long maintained
that Coca-Cola's rainwater harvesting structures do
not work.
Even the TERI assessment, which looked at Coca-
Cola's CSR initiatives in Kala Dera, notes that "all the
recharge shafts that were randomly visited were
found to be in dilapidated conditions."
"Coca-Cola is bluffing people with its rainwater
harvesting. The problem is that the rainfall in the
area is too low, and the amount of rainfalls fluctuates
a lot from year to year and within every year. We get
a maximum of 30 days of rains every year, and
eighty percent of those rains come in just two or
three days. Rainwater harvesting is simply not
efficient," says Dr. M.S. Rathore, a prominent natural
resource expert with the Institute for Development
Studies in Jaipur whose work was also referenced by
the assessment.
Finding dilapidated water recharge shafts, an
intermittent, low and unpredictable rainfall pattern, a
prominent hydrologist from the area saying it won't
work, and Coca-Cola not even having installed water
recharge meters yet claiming that they have
recharged five times the water they use - surely
something is out of order.
And it is based on their rainwater harvesting
initiatives that the Coca-Cola company has
announced that they will become water neutral in
India by 2009- that they will recharge more water
than they use from the groundwater resource.
Thanks, but no thanks. Coca-Cola's rainwater
harvesting systems are shoddy, their intentions even
more suspect, and their claims preposterous.
Indeed, if they are so confident about their rainwater
harvesting initiatives, let them use just the rainwater
to meet all their production needs in India.
Coca-Cola must follow the recommendations made
by the TERI assessment with regard to Kala Dera and
immediately cease tapping any further into the
groundwater resource.
Until then, the community of Kala Dera and the
International Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola
Accountable will continue to increase the pressure on
the Coca-Cola company.
Amit Srivastava is the Director of India Resource
Center, an international campaigning organization
based in San Francisco, USa…
………………………………………………………………………

This case is about Coca-Cola's corporate

social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in India.
It details the activities taken up by Coca-Cola
India's management and employees to
contribute to the society and community in
which the company operates.

Coca-Cola India being one of the largest

beverage companies in India, realized that
CSR had to be an integral part of its corporate
agenda. According to the company, it was
aware of the environmental, social, and
economic impact caused by a business of its
scale and therefore it had decided to
implement a wide range of initiatives to
improve the quality of life of its customers,
the workforce, and society at large.

However, the company came in for severe criticism from activists and environmental
experts who charged it with depleting groundwater resources in the areas in which its
bottling plants were located, thereby affecting the livelihood of poor farmers, dumping
toxic and hazardous waste materials near its bottling facilities, and discharging waste
water into the agricultural lands of farmers. Moreover, its allegedly unethical business
practices in developing countries led to its becoming one of the most boycotted
companies in the world.

Notwithstanding the criticisms, the company continued to champion various initiatives

such as rainwater harvesting, restoring groundwater resources, going in for sustainable
packaging and recycling, and serving the communities where it operated. Coca-Cola
planned to become water neutral in India by 2009 as part of its global strategy of
achieving water neutrality. However, criticism against the company refused to die down.
Critics felt that Coca-Cola was spending millions of dollars to project a 'green' and
'environment-friendly' image of itself, while failing to make any change in its operations.
They said this was an attempt at greenwashing as Coca-Cola's business practices in India
had tarnished its brand image not only in India but also globally. The case discusses the
likely challenges for Coca-Cola India as it prepares to implement its new CSR strategy in
the country.

ISSUE ON WATER -coke

This case is about the global water
sustainability initiatives undertaken by The
Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola). It details
the activities undertaken by Coca-Cola's
management and employees to contribute to
the benefit of the society and community in
which the company operated by pledging to
return all the water it used in its operations
back to the environment. On June 5, 2007,
Coca-Cola and the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) launched a global project that focused
on water conservation.

Coca-Cola being one of the largest beverage

companies in the world had water
sustainability initiatives as an integral part of
its corporate agenda since water was an
important element for the company to run its
business.

According to the company, it was aware of the environmental impact caused by a

business of its scale and therefore it had decided to implement a wide range of initiatives
to improve the quality of life of its customers, the workforce, and the society at large.

While Coca-Cola's water sustainability initiatives earned accolades from its collaboration
partners, it came in for severe criticism from activists and environmental experts for
allegedly depleting groundwater resources in India. The company was also accused of
dumping toxic and hazardous waste materials near its bottling facilities, and discharging
wastewater into the agricultural lands of farmers. Moreover, Coca-Cola was one of the
most boycotted companies in the world for its alleged unethical business practices in
developing countries.

Notwithstanding the criticisms, the company championed various water sustainability

initiatives such as rainwater harvesting, restoring groundwater resources, efficient water
resource management, watershed protection, community water initiatives, and global
awareness and action initiatives for educating the underserved communities the
significance of water. The company was also criticized for spending millions of dollars to
project a 'green' and 'environment-friendly' image, while failing to take care of the basics
to operate its business in an ethical manner. The critics felt that this was an attempt at
greenwashing as Coca-Cola's business practices in India had tarnished its brand image
while its sales had taken a beating. However, the company intended to become a water
neutral company by 2010.