“If We Can Drink Them, We Can Test Them, Says CSE”
New Delhi, August 14, 2006: Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE) has said that Coca-Cola’s recent claim that a London-based
laboratory has tested its products and given them a clean chit is
completely untenable. “Moreover, the company’s contention that only
a foreign laboratory can test its products is patronising and borders
on racism,” said CSE. The implication is that the CSE Pollution Monitoring
Laboratory is not capable of testing its products and therefore, its
results are wrong: CSE refutes this emphatically.
The CSE laboratory
CSE would like to make it clear that its laboratory is fully equipped
to test soft drinks. It has used an internationally established and
accepted methodology for its analysis; its equipments are state-of-the-art
and include the GC-MS, which is used to reconfirm the tests for pesticide
residues. The CSE laboratory was scrutinised by the Joint Parliamentary
Committee (JPC), which had found its findings to be correct. The Indian
government laboratories, which had tested the products in 2003, also
found pesticide residues in the drinks.
It is also being said by Coca-Cola that CSE’s laboratory is not NABL-accredited
and therefore, its analysis is not correct. But it had been accepted
by the JPC that as very few laboratories in the country are NABL-accredited
for pesticide residues in water, it is more important to get certification
for quality control. CSE laboratory has -- since then -- been certified
under ISO 9001. It has also improved its capacity to test by procuring
a GC-MS, as recommended by JPC.
The London lab report: a few questions
It is not CSE’s intention to raise issues with the UK-based Central
Science Laboratories (CSL). However, a few clarifications are due:
One, the samples have been provided by Coca-Cola and therefore, these
cannot be compared to the CSE study, which collected samples from
the open market. Would such a study, which has been sponsored and
funded by Coca-Cola, be used for regulatory purposes in the UK?
Two, the data provided by Coca-Cola is for samples provided in June
2005. Why is this report being released now? Has the laboratory not
tested samples regularly?
Three, the laboratory uses the name of the UK government’s department
for environment, food and rural affairs. But will the UK government
allow contamination beyond stipulated levels in its own country? Recently,
it recalled beverages from the market when these were found to exceed
the non-existent domestic benzene standards by just 1 ppb. In this
case, the government used WHO drinking water standards to say that
these products were unsafe and must be recalled. In our case, we have
found drinks to exceed the final (but not notified) standards by 10-50
times. Would the UK government have allowed this? Or is our life cheaper?
Four, the laboratory says that it did not find any pesticide residues.
What is the laboratory’s limit of detection? Laboratories can only
check above their limits of detection and quantification, which specify
the sensitivity of their equipment.
We ask this, because in 2003, this same laboratory tested one bottle
for Coca-Cola and gave the product a clean chit. CSE confirmed that
this laboratory’s limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.5 to 2.5 ppb.
Therefore, it could only detect and quantify pesticide levels in soft
drinks if these levels were 5-25 times higher than the EU limit (or
the BIS’s final but not notified standard). In other words, it could
not detect pesticides because its equipment did not have the sensitivity
to find them. In comparison, CSE’s laboratory equipment’s LOQ is 0.01-0.2
ppb for pesticides detected in soft drink.
Validating the test methodology
The two soft drink companies have argued that there can be no regulations
because their products are multi-ingredient and therefore, cannot
be tested. CSE asks: how then are they now claiming to have tested
their products? Or are they saying that their products can only be
tested by a UK laboratory? Then it may be appropriate to say that
only the products should also be sold in UK.
It is clear that Indian laboratories have the equipment and capacity
to test this ‘complex’ – sugar and water – product. CSE has used the
methodology laid down by the USEPA and used by governments across
the world, which is for testing liquid matrix -- any complex multi-ingredient
product, which has water and other substances. All laboratories are
trained to distinguish between molecules of pesticides against the
interferences of the product: we do not a British lab to tell us this
fact. CSE, in fact, used a GC-MS to reconfirm the presence of pesticide
Also, if these products are so clean and meet the EU standards (and
also the BIS final standards), then why are these companies opposing
the setting of regulations? Do they have something to hide?
Awaiting government response
The ball is clearly in the court of the government, says CSE. The
companies will use any tactics – foreign or strong-armed – to pressurise
us to believe that they are clean and that they should not be regulated.
The government regulations have been finalised but not notified, because
of pressure from the companies.
The question now is, will the government cave in to threats by the
US government to delay and prevaricate on this matter which concerns
our health? Or will it do what is right: notify the BIS standards
The FDI bogey
Let us be clear that raising the threat of stopping foreign direct
investment (FDI) is a shameful act of desperation. This is a case
of how large and powerful corporations are misusing their power to
pressurise our government not to notify standards, which have been
finalised by our own committee of top scientists. This is a case of
corruption and abuse of power. The fact is that FDI needs regulated
environments and rule of law, not corporate cronyism and weak regulators.
- UK lab data on soft drink tests is biased; the samples were
provided by the company. Would the UK government accept data,
paid for by the company for regulation?
- Indian labs and CSE capable of testing for pesticide residues.
If we can drink their products, we can certainly test them.
- If Coke products are so clean, then why is it resisting standards?
- Government should not succumb to foreign arm-twisting. The issue
is about regulations and the fact that these companies cannot
work outside Indian law.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. India Resource Center is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of corporate accountability, human rights, labor rights, social and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.