After the fizz

in New Delhi

ON August 5, the New Delhi-based independent environment watchdog, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), claimed that 12 brands of soft drinks manufactured by Pepsico and Coca-Cola contained "a deadly cocktail of pesticide residues" capable of causing cancer and birth defects and reducing bone density. While the average pesticide content in Pepsico brands was revealed to be about 36 times higher than that allowed by European norms, Coca-Cola brands exceeded the safety limit by about 30 times.

All the brand samples were found to contain residues of four toxic pesticides and insecticides: Lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos. At 0.0352 milligrams/litre, Mirinda Lemon tops the charts in pesticide concentration out of all the brands included in what CSE calls `colanisation's dirty dozen' - Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Diet Pepsi, Mirinda Orange, Mirinda Lemon, Blue Pepsi, 7-Up, Coca-Cola, Fanta, Limca, Sprite and Thums Up.

Moreover, both Pepsi and Coca-Cola were criticised for the different-strokes-for-different-folks policy that they have followed. "We tested the two soft drink brands sold in the United States to see if these contained pesticides. They didn't," said Sunita Narain of the CSE. This is the CSE's second expose, after an investigation six months back revealed the fudging of safety standards in the bottled water industry. However, the CSE asserts that the latest revelation is even worse than that about the bottled water industry, in which case at least mandatory norms exist. In the instance of soft drinks, the massive and influential sector is virtually let off because of a feeble and ambiguous legal framework.

IN the developed world, legally enforceable norms check the quality of water that goes into the cola. The `raw water' used to make bottled water is monitored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Water consumed in this form is a `food'; hence water used as an ingredient in beverages - also an item of food - must meet the same standards as bottled water. European countries too have similar norms.

However, the CSE report reveals that "the norms that regulate the manufacture of cold drinks in India are a meaningless maze". For example, Rule 65 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act regulates the presence of insecticides and pesticides in food, but excludes beverages. It also sets standards of quality for non-alcoholic beverages, but has nothing to say about pesticide residues.

Similarly, the Fruit Products Order (FPO) states that "sweetened aerated water with no fruit juice or fruit pulp or containing less than 10 per cent of fruit juice or fruit pulp" should use potable water, without defining what is "potable water". A couple of voluntary Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) rules vaguely mention water as an ingredient in soft drinks, but leave it at that. The CSE probe also reveals that the soft drink sector is exempted from the provisions of industrial licensing under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. After securing a one-time licence to operate from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, it gets a free hand. In fact, different standards offer differing degrees of freedom to the industry, even in the case of heavy metals such as lead and arsenic. While the permissible arsenic content is 50 times higher in soft drinks than in drinking water, lead levels are 50 times higher. Cadmium is not even legislated upon.

Meanwhile, arch-rivals Pepsi and Coca-Cola came together at a joint press conference to dismiss these "absolutely wild allegations". While Pepsco India chief Rajeev Bakshi said they were "prepared for an internationally accredited laboratory to test their products", Coca-Cola India president Sanjiv Gupta hinted at legal action against "attempts to tarnish the image of the companies and the industry".

Considering that over 6.5 billion bottles of soft drinks was consumed in the country in 2001, the findings have angered citizens and legislators. Coca-Cola and Pepsi have been banned in the Parliament House complex, and agitated Members of Parliament have been demanding a country-wide ban on the colas. The Health Ministry is expected to take a stand after a comprehensive investigation.

Meanwhile, the governments of West Bengal, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala governments have announced independent laboratory tests to check for their toxic content. The Kerala government passed an order to ban the drinks from government guesthouses and canteens and suggested amendments to the Food Adulteration Act so that a State-level authority could be set up to exercise tighter control. Citizens' bodies and activist groups across the country voiced their protest, and several schools and colleges have banned the colas from their cafeterias.

Meanwhile, Pepsico and Coca-Cola assured the public about meeting the most stringent standards. A Pepsico spokesperson said: "It's the safest drink you are likely to drink today." They have also taken the matter to court, with Pepsico filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking to freeze government action until the CSE report is verified. Coca-Cola has filed a petition challenging the Maharashtra government's raid of its Pune plant and official restraint on the sale of its products.

The CSE, however, welcomed the government's initiative to conduct independent tests and asked it to scrutinise the soft drink samples for the presence of heavy metals such as cadmium and lead. The CSE also dissociated itself from the smashing and burning of Coca-Cola and Pepsi bottles, stressing that the toothless and vague regulatory framework was more to blame than the soft drink giants per se, who are only meeting "the virtually non-existent government norms and not the global ones".