Home--News
Colas Cornered
By AMAN SETHI
Frontline
August 25, 2006
A report revealing dangerous levels of pesticides in Coca-Cola and
Pepsi prompts State governments to ban the sales of these soft drinks.
SHORN of its customary gloss, glamour and celebrity promoters, the
latest Pepsi advertisement in leading papers across the country is
driving home just one message, "Pepsi is one of the safest beverages
you can drink today." The motivation behind this unusually austere
advertisement is a report published by the Delhi-based non-governmental
organisation (NGO) Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), which
found a "cocktail of between three to five different pesticides" in
samples of Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and the entire range of aerated water
products sold by the two companies. The average residue levels were
24 times European Union (E.U.) standards for bottled water. The report
comes three years after a similar report by the same organisation,
titled Colanisation's Dirty Dozen, which first indicated the presence
of trace amounts of pesticides in soft drinks.
While Pepsi has issued advertisements refuting the findings of the
report, representatives of Coca Cola told Frontline that they would
issue a "comprehensive response" in the coming week.
In the meantime, the CSE report has kicked up a minor political storm;
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh
have banned the sale of soft drinks in all educational institutions
and government offices. The Punjab Assembly has banned their sales
on its premises, the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) in Kerala
hasbanned production and sale in the State, and the State wing of
the Communist Party of India (CPI) in Tamil Nadu has demanded that
Pepsi and Coke be expelled from India. In a statement to the Lok Sabha,
Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare Anbumani Ramadoss said
that his Ministry was "committed to protecting the health of consumers",
and had commissioned a pilot study to determine appropriate standards
for the carbonated drinks industry.
The laboratory report published on the CSE website states that 57
samples of 11 soft drink brands were analysed for 15 organochloride
and 13 organophosphorus pesticides including Lindane, Heptachlor,
DDT, Chlorpyrifos and Malathion. Believed to affect the liver, kidney,
and neural and immune systems, Lindane was the most commonly found
pesticide, present in 100 per cent of the samples. The minimum concentration
of Lindane detected was in Pepsi Caffechino at 1.48 parts per billion
(ppb), nearly 15 times the proposed Indian norms for individual pesticides
in soft drinks, while the maximum concentration was detected in a
Coca-Cola sample in Kolkata at 14.06 ppb, 140 times the proposed standard.
The results of the CSE report have raised several important questions.
Where have the pesticides come from? How are the pesticide levels
so high? And crucially, how are pesticide levels formulated?
Most colas consist of approximately 90 per cent water, 8 per cent
sugar, and 2 per cent flavouring. While groundwater drawn from borewells
is considered to be the chief culprit, Chandra Bhushan, associate
director of the CSE, says that both companies already sell bottled
water that is well within standards. "If they can purify water for
their bottled water products, they probably can do they same for aerated
water," he says. Sugar too has cleared most pesticide residue tests.
This leaves the secret recipe - a jealously guarded commercial secret
that the Cola companies have refused to share. It is known that the
recipes contain high amounts of caffeine, a natural product that could
contain high amounts of pesticide. Taking notice of this view, the
Supreme Court on August 4, 2006 directed Coca-Cola and Pepsi to reveal
their recipes for the first time in 120 years.
However, at present the court is powerless to rule on the issue. In
India, the absence of notified standards has made regulation of the
soft drink industry impossible. In spite of CSE's report, Coca Cola
and Pepsi can legitimately claim to be on the right side of the law.
The presence of pesticides and insecticides in food is regulated under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but does not regulate
bottled water or beverages. Regulations for the bottled water industry
were notified in 2004 after a 2003 report by the CSE that found pesticides
in bottled water. The government of India adopted E.U. standards for
bottled water at 0.1 ppb for single residues and 0.5 ppb for multiple
residues. New regulations for carbonated soft drinks issued by the
Health Ministry in the same year mandated that water used by soft
drink companies as an input for their products must meet bottling
water standards. However, the Ministry did not notify standards for
the final products. Many people pointed out that the enforcement and
regulation of standards for inputs was impractical. Thus the Bureau
of Indian Standards (BIS), along with several top scientists, the
CSE and representatives of both Cola companies, were charged with
formulating end-product standards for the soft drink industry.
"These standards were formulated and finalised at 0.1 ppb for individual
pesticide residues and 0.5 for total pesticide residue, but were scuttled
at the last minute by the Health Ministry under pressure from the
soft drinks industry," said Chandra Bhushan. As evidence, Bhushan
cites a letter (published on the CSE website) written by the Secretary
of the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the Union Ministry
of Consumer Affairs on March 29, 2006 - the day that the formulated
standards were to be finalised. The letter asked the BIS to defer
a decision on end-product standards as a national-level expert committee
on pesticide residues in sugar was to meet to discuss its report.
"Thus, after testing 1,200 samples for pH, 50 samples for caffeine
content, close to 300 samples of sugar and 20 meetings over 3 years,
the standards were put off by one letter on the last day."
The three-way battle between the CSE, the Health Ministry and the
Cola companies is primarily centred on what constitutes a "good standard".
On the face of it, the setting of standards seems to represent the
epitome of empirical scientific research. However, it is also a deeply
political and negotiated process. While the World Health Organisation
(WHO) has published common global standards for many years, most countries
have modified these to suit their own populations. Ravi Aggarwal of
Toxics Link, an NGO that works on industry regulations and standards,
said, "A standard is a negotiated figure arrived at on the basis of
the best acceptable technology in relation to an acceptable cost."
That cost is monetary and social and determines the idea of an "acceptable
risk". Thus, the United States, E.U., and Australia and New Zealand
have negotiated standards that are significantly more stringent than
WHO standards.
The starting point for standards formulation is the pragmatic acceptance
that there is a trade-off between toxicity and nutrition. While pesticides
are known to be lethal and toxic compounds, they also play a crucial
role in improving yields by killing pests. The first step is the calculation
of an Acceptable Daily Intake, or ADI. An ADI is the amount of a particular
pesticide that a human being of a particular body weight can consume
on a daily basis for the rest of his or her life without adverse effects.
It is calculated by testing pesticides on animals, and calibrating
the sensitivity for humans.
The second component of a standards regime is a draft Maximum Residue
Level (MRL), which is defined for a particular crop for an individual
pesticide, and gives an indication of the acceptable amount of pesticide
in the crop. It is arrived at by studying crop samples and determining
the pesticide residue. This is then multiplied by the amount of the
food item consumed daily (obtained from dietary data) to arrive at
the Theoretical Daily Intake (TDI). The TDI is then compared with
the ADI. As long as the TDI is below the ADI, the MRL can be considered
to be a "good standard." Thus, a population's exposure to pesticide
is measured by considering a standard consumption basket based on
dietary patterns, multiplied by the corresponding MRLs of each component
of the basket.
However, as can be seen, a good standard is dependent on both what
a society deems "acceptable" in terms of pesticide intake and on the
dietary patterns of a given population. As a CSE report points out,
"the Joint Meetings on Pesticide Residues (an autonomous body associated
with the WHO) in 1999 set an ADI for chlorpyrifos at 0.01 mg/kg of
bodyweight. That for the U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency],
set in the same year, is 100 times lower: 0.0001 mg/kg of body weight.
ADI set by the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, set a decade
before, is 30 times lower: 0.003 mg/kg of body weight." Thus, the
same chemical compound has three different acceptable values for three
different agencies.
At present, the proposed BIS norms for soft drinks are on a par with
E.U. norms for bottled water. While the stringency of these norms
must be applauded, their applicability in a country like India must
be questioned. The argument put forward by the CSE and its supporters
has been that if the Cola companies can match E.U. standards in Europe,
why they cannot do the same in India.
A senior scientist working at a reputed government laboratory commented
that, "pesticides are better managed in Europe than in India. Most
of the raw materials have far less residual pesticide than those in
India." And this is the crux of the debate. Colas form a minor part
of the Indian diet, and even at the concentrations detected by the
CSE, are unlikely to cause major pesticide-related health complications
unless the consumption increases many fold. While Coca-Cola and Pepsi
are useful ideologically-charged targets for a number of reasons that
could be valid, they are on the fringes of the pesticide debate.
The bigger story is India's unregulated use of pesticides in general,
and their seepage into fresh fruits, vegetables, foodgrains, tea,
milk and meat. A standards regime makes sense only when it is uniform
and universal. Hence excessively stringent regulations on one commodity
and lax regulations on another are unlikely to improve public health
as a whole. Unfortunately, standards debates tend to focus on how
contaminated raw materials are cleaned up, and not on how the raw
materials were contaminated in the first place. Thus, stringent standards
should be complemented by a clearly thought-out toxin management policy.
The Colas have been caught for now, but a longer shadow looms.
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.
|