26aug06teh1

The CSE study has left the cola majors stuck for answers to explain pesticide residue in their beverages. But food contamination is a larger concern

Cola consumers watch quietly as the cola majors and Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) slug it out over whose lab report gives a correct picture of the alleged presence of pesticides in soft drinks. Underneath the war of numbers lie the politics of foreign investment, the government’s hesitancy in setting possibly unwelcome safety standards for multinational companies, and the eternal query of whether multinationals make convenient scapegoats. Within these multiple layers, a question arises: are the real questions about contamination and pollution in our lives being forgotten? Are public health concerns being swept aside in the cola debate, or could this be the first step in a larger battle against contaminants that are omnipresent in our lives?

We live in a world where chemicals, pesticides and toxin-laced products are everywhere. So why just talk about soft drinks? Sunita Narain refuses to be drawn into this debate, arguing the cola contamination issue cannot be ignored just because there are other contaminated products. Be it milk, cabbage, meat, oil, cheese, or perhaps most importantly, tap water, there is a larger issue of contamination and indiscriminate use of pesticides.

Dr CM Ghulati, editor, mims (Monthly Index of Medical Specialities) India, says: “India is home to water-borne diseases. Sugar contains pesticides due to its excessive use in sugarcane crops. If you offer me tap water and Pepsi, I will prefer Pepsi, because it is far less contaminated than normal tap water. We don’t target Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Jal Board for providing us substandard water despite charging us. Why not check dms milk? Are there more diseases due to soft drinks or potable water?”

The CSE says the Central government is hand-in-glove with cola companies and is adopting dilatory tactics

While Ghulati may have this grouse, the fact is a large number of people in the country consume colas. Adds Dr VV Pillay, head, Department of Analytical Toxicology, Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences and Reasearch, Kochi: “The CSE has given us a small portion of the larger story. You cannot eliminate pesticides. During our research, we find pesticide residue in every consumable item. I have also read about pesticides in breastmilk. I feel the more important issue is that of the presence of phosphoric acid which weakens the teeth. I find the presence of caffeine worrisome. Many people are addicted to cold drinks due to caffeine.”

According to the Toxics Link Pesticide Handbook (2000), an Indian Council of Medical Research study found that 51 percent of tested food commodities were contaminated with pesticides and 20 percent of the samples had levels of pesticides exceeding maximum permissible limits. In another study by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 60 percent of tested samples were found to be pesticide contaminated, of which 14 percent showed very high contamination levels.

The handbook adds that drinking water treatment plants are not equipped to decontaminate water. It states that in vegetable and fruit samples collected from 16 states, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh showed over 80 percent samples contaminated with pesticides. Haryana, West Bengal, Punjab, Orissa, Delhi, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra had pesticide contamination in 50 to 80 percent of tested samples.

Returning to the pesticide controversy, the new study has come three years after the first CSE report. But the results arrived at after analysing 57 samples of 11 soft drink brands have again come as a shock.

The companies, for sure, were caught on the wrong foot as the numbers came out, though it took them no time to flex their muscles. First, the CSE claimed that their website was hacked, though the companies described an attempt to link them with “supposed hacking of the site” as “farcical”. Then, US government issued a thinly veiled threat that the controversy and the banning of soft drinks by states (like Kerala) could affect foreign investment flow into the country.

India Inc. too came down heavily on the ban on the soft drinks. Said a FICCI spokesperson: “We are trying hard for bringing in fdi. Such illogical and indiscriminate steps hamper our efforts. Instead of carrying out further tests on their own, state governments took the easy and populist route of banning the soft drinks.”

The slanging match between the two sides has worsened. The cola companies are waving the results of “the highly respected independent laboratory” Central Science Laboratories in the United Kingdom which “confirms that there are no pesticide residue problems.”

It’s still not clear why companies of the stature of Coke and Pepsi oppose setting standards for final products

The CSE has shot back calling the tests “biased” since “the samples were provided by the company”. They ask, “would the UK government accept data, paid for by the very company it was testing for regulation? If we can drink their products, we can certainly test them”.

The charges against the cola companies are serious. The most common pesticides detected by the CSE in the samples were Lindane, Chlorpyrifos, Heptachlor and Malathion. Lindane accumulates in fat tissues and damages the liver, kidney, neural and immune systems, and induces birth defects and cancer. Exposure to Chlorpyrifos adversely affects brain cell development. Malathion causes dna abnormalities at all doses.

According to CSE, the United States has restricted the use of Heptachlor to underground termite control. If the results are to be believed, therefore, they could have serious health implications for people.

Why should a global company which provides quality products globally provide a substandard product in India? Equally importantly, will our government give more importance to the threat of reduced investment vis-à-vis a possibly very real health threat to the public at large?

The CSE alleges the government is hand-in-glove with cola companies when it comes to setting standards to regulate the product and is adopting dilatory tactics. The example cited is that of Health Secretary P. Hota’s letter to the Consumer Affairs Ministry secretary L. Mansingh dated March 29, 2006, which says that the “scientific and technical data hasn’t been disclosed in respect of proposed limits for Ph, caffeine and pesticide residues.” This, the letter says, is required “to formulate a clear opinion in this matter.”

When contacted, P. Hota refused to comment. Health activists say the issue has been lost in committees and sub-committees. However, Dr Ghulati asks, “How will anyone prove the companies are preventing the government from setting standards? It reflects poorly on the government if a few companies prevail on it.”

The multinationals don’t want the government to notify standards for cola drinks. Says Viraj Chouhan of Coca-Cola India: “it’s not a battle of science, but of perception.” He says that, “the soft drink is a complex product, whose scientific results cannot be reproduced after it is re-tested due to a lot of variations. We are not against standards, but there are no testing protocols worldwide.”

He was at pains to explain that there is no difference between an American and an Indian product. “CSE’s lab is not accredited by the National Accreditation Board of Laboratories. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) said that the results need to be validated by a peer lab, which wasn’t done.” If setting norms for colas wasn’t a serious issue, why would the matter have been raised in Parliament and a JPC formed? To this, a Coca-Cola insider shoots back: “Parliament is not always known to do right things.”

After all this, it’s still not clear why companies of the stature of Coca-Cola and Pepsi oppose setting standards for final products. Adds the Coca-Cola insider: “Officials say they don’t know how to deal with the issue. Accepting the presence of insecticides would expose them to allegations of lying to the public. Another reason could be that it would require a huge investment, which would raise the low product prices, affecting demand.”

Critics say if the company has the technology to provide clean bottled water, what’s stopping them from providing clean soft drinks? Says Upasana Choudhry, senior coordinator with NGO Toxics Link: “There also seems to be an attitude problem with the companies, as in, why should we follow rules?” Clearly, the fight has to go beyond taking stated positions.

TEHELKA, NEW DELHI 26 AUG 2006