Cold war : The controversy that isn't

A testing laboratory presents new test results conducted this July reporting the presence of hugely elevated pesticides levels in carbonated drinks prepared by Coca Cola and Pepsi. Pallavi Majha looks into the entire controversy and its after effects

Thanda matlab Coca Cola! Something official about it! These two slogans represents India's two most popular soft drinks i.e., Coca Cola and Pepsi which have lately been embroiled in an ingredient controversy.

Presently both the brands are going through tough times as a result of tests conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based testing centre which presented the results of its latest tests conducted in the month of July 2006. The report suggested a hugely elevated pesticide levels in carbonated drinks made by Coca Cola and Pepsi. Both the companies have denied the charges as these products are the same as those in the US and Europe and which have not been subject to similar charges by the respective governments.

The advocacy group that made the charge explains that it did not want the colas to be banned, rather the group highlighted the supposed problem and wanted to try to get India's health regulations streamlined and strengthened. Both the companies together accounted for an overwhelming 94 per cent of the Indian soft drinks market, valued at around Rs 6,000 crore, according to industry sources.

Round II of allegations

Ms Sunita Narain, Director, CSE, comments, “We think soft drinks are unsafe because they contain very high levels of pesticide residues in them. We want the government to notify the norms for soft drinks so that this industry and its products can be regulated.” She further elaborates, “In 2003, we carried out our first study on soft drinks and found high levels of pesticide residues in them. We decided to re-do the study in 2006 to see whether these companies had cleaned up their products and find out whether the government had set up regulations to govern the industry.”

Mr Atul Singh, CEO, Coca Cola India counters with, “Given our long standing commitment to safety, we are deeply concerned by the report. We take the allegations very seriously and we recognise and respect CSE’s concern for public health and safety. However, based on our ongoing analysis, employing independent outside experts and the most advanced Indian and international laboratories we respectfully disagree with CSE’s findings and conclusions.”

Aftermath of the allegations

When asked about the impact of the controversy on sales, Ms Narain informs, “We do not have the figures. We are not a consumer organisation, and we are not concerned in whatever way sales are affected. But, we do understand, going by media reports, that sales have been affected negatively.”

Here is a run-down of the situation after the CSE report was made public.

Impact on sales: Sales were affected by 10 per cent as compared to over 20 per cent drop even after months of controversy in 2003.

Banned in some states: Several states have banned the drinks from government canteens and schools while Kerala has thrown out two cola brands altogether.

Damage to country's reputation as a retail destination: Groups are concerned that the state bans imposed on Pepsi and Coca Cola could harm the country's attraction as an investment destination for foreign businesses. Such an act passes the wrong message to investors at a time when there are vast opportunities for businesses.

Impact on consumers: Consumers are more confused than scared unlike last time. Industry sources point out that a confused consumer is better than a scared one.

Ms Narain opines, “The Indian consumer is free to do what s/he wants. We have made our report and study public in the larger interest of public health, and the consumer can now decide. We feel that the Indian consumer is mature enough to decide what's good for her/him. It is being reflected in the falling sales of these products.”

Brands tested in 2003

CSE tested 12 brands of soft drinks, including Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Diet Pepsi, Blue Pepsi, 7-Up, Coca-Cola, Fanta, Sprite and several local brands. The outcome of the tests were made public and the following results were noted about the amount of pesticides present:

28 pesticides and four other chemicals

All brands contained at least 0.0008 miligrams per litre of the pesticide

Lindane was present at least eight times the healthy limit as defined by European health regulators.

DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos in most samples, including Coke, but not Diet Pepsi.

Overall Pepsi brands had an average of 36 times the European limit for all pesticides. Coke had 30 times the limit.

What and who is right?

Definitely, if the companies have been negligent, they deserve to be punished. But so far it appears that they have been singled out because they are foreign-owned. This becomes more evident because no Indian soft drink makers have been tested for similar violations, even though many people believe that pesticide levels are even higher in Indian-made milk and bottled tea. “We are continuously challenged because of who we are,” laments Atul Singh.

And, while pesticide residues are present in virtually all groundwater sources in India, the centre has largely ignored the problem.

Role of the government

When asked about the role of the government in avoiding such adulteration Ms Narian said, “It's not adulteration, strictly speaking. The companies are not cleaning up their products. The first thing that the government needs to do is notify the standards that have been set by the Bureau of Indian Standards.”

Justifying their positions multi-nationals are of the opinion that they need not react at all as it is better to remain quite and let the issue die a natural death. Being aggressive could be interpreted as a typical MNC arrogance. The approach, they believe, should be of fact-finding rather than finger pointing.

The pesticide issue is not just one of residues, toxicity and the safe or unsafe debate. It is a battle of perception. How Coke and Pepsi react will decide whether consumers will stick with them or move on to 'safer' drinks. Communication is, perhaps, the only intelligent solution to this problem.

Nullifying  the  ban on Coca Cola

In a positive development for Coca Cola the Kerala High Court, recently,  quashes the ban on Coca-Cola in Kerala, and has set aside the illegal orders of the Government of Kerala and the State Food (Health) Authority banning the manufacture and sale of Coca Cola in the state.

This order protects the interests of big and small retailers, local entrepreneurs and employees which have been affected by this illegal ban.

Measures taken by MNCs

While Pepsi published advertisements in major newspapers, claiming pesticides levels in milk and tea were far higher than those found in the carbonated drinks, Coca Cola advertisements asks directly, “Is there anything safer for you to drink?” 

Meanwhile, the Central Science Laboratory, an Executive Agency of the UK Government Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, announced the results of tests on soft drinks made by the Coca-Cola Company in India on August 14, 2006. “We detected no residues of the four pesticides allegedly found in the products by the CSE,” said Professor John Gilbert, Science Director (Food) at Central Science Laboratory.

After issuing the mandatory ‘we are safe’ declarations, Coke retreated, waiting for their own test results from laboratories in India and London. Coca Cola then brought in its experts, senior scientists from London's Central Science Laboratory (CSL) and Coca Cola's own global quality director, who addressed the media in India assuring that Coke's products met EU standards.

Unlike the last time, i.e., joint press conferences and joint statements, Coca Cola and Pepsi are now responding through the Indian Soft Drinks Manufacturers Association. By joining hands it makes it seem less of a company problem and more an Indian problem.

If we are to generalise the controversy, then everything today is contaminated, from coffee and tea to milk and water, so why single out soft drinks, and that too foreign-owned ones?