EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
Popular content
Today's Top News
Coke Faces New Charges in India, Including 'Greenwashing'
LOS ANGELES - The Coca-Cola company has been charged with illegally seizing lands communally owned by small farmers and indiscriminately dumping sludge and other industrial hazardous waste onto the surrounding community. This comes as the multinational beverage giant announced a new effort Tuesday to protect rivers on four continents.
The San Francisco-based India Resource Center, an environmental health non-profit, further charged Coca-Cola with releasing untreated wastewater into surrounding agricultural fields and a canal that feeds into the Ganges River in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.
The charges are based on the results of a fact-finding mission led by the group to a Coca-Cola bottling plant in the region.
"Access to potable water is a fundamental human right," said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center.
"The Coca-Cola company must acknowledge that it is part of the problem of water unsustainability in India and elsewhere," he added.
This is not the first time environmental groups have criticized Coke's operations in India.
In 2003, in response to a growing campaign against Coca-Cola, the Central Pollution Control Board of India surveyed eight Coca-Cola bottling plants in the country and tested the sludge at all these facilities. The Board found all the sludge at all the Coca-Cola bottling plants it surveyed contained high levels of toxic heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and chromium. At the time, it ordered the Coca-Cola company to treat its sludge as industrial hazardous waste.
Those toxic problems, coupled with allegations Coke has been complicit in the murders of union organizers at bottling plants in the South American nation of Colombia, have been increasingly troublesome to the Atlanta-based company.
In the last six months, 25 universities from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, including the University of Michigan, the University of Guelph in Canada, and the University of Manchester in England, have all taken actions to remove Coca-Cola from their campuses.
On May 29, the president of Smith College in Massachusetts, Carol T. Christ, barred Coke from participating in the school's upcoming soft drink bidding process. Coca-Cola's seven-year contract with Smith College expires on August 31.
"In light of Coca-Cola's business practices in Colombia and India, Smith will preclude Coca-Cola from the list of approved bidders when we enter the contract renewal process later this summer," Christ wrote in a letter.
Coke vehemently denies the charges.
"The allegations that led to this decision are based on Internet rumor and myth, and have been proven false time and again," Coke spokesperson Diana Garza Ciarlante told New Dehli-based Indo-Asian News Service.
"While our business relationship with Smith College is important, the integrity and reputation of our company is more important," she said.
On Tuesday, the soft drink giant announced its own environmental plan, pledging to spend $20 million to conserve seven of the world's most critical river basins.
Right now, it takes 2.5 liters of water to make and bottle 1 liter of Coke, and 250 liters to grow the sugar cane in the mix.
"We are focusing on water because this is where Coca-Cola can have a real and positive impact," Coca-Cola Chairman and CEO E. Neville Isdell told a gathering of environmental advocates.
The pledge was announced at the annual meeting of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Beijing. Over the life of a multiyear partnership with WWF, the company pledged to focus on "measurably conserving" China's Yangtze, Southeast Asia's Mekong, the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo of the southwest United States and Mexico, the rivers and streams of the southeastern United States, the water basins of the Mesoamerican Caribbean Reef, the East Africa basin of Lake Malawi, and Europe's Danube River.
"We call this 'greenwashing,'" said Srivastava of the India Resource Center. "An attempt by the Coca-Cola company to manufacture a green image of itself that it clearly is not, as their practice in India shows."
Coke's announcement did not mention any measures to conserve water basins in India, a decision that did not surprise Srivastava.
"The Coca-Cola company and WWF did not dare to include India in this initiative (because) the public in India is increasingly becoming aware of the Coca-Cola company's disastrous relationship with water, and would have to see it for what it's worth -- a drop in the bucket," he told OneWorld.
The deal also rubs U.S. critics of Coke the wrong way.
"In itself it's a good thing, but we see it as largely a tactic to divert attention from other areas," Patti Lynn of the watchdog group Corporate Accountability told OneWorld.
"Coke is just trying to get some public relations points. They're using this as a diversionary tactic," she added.
Lynn and other U.S.-based consumer advocates are angry because of the foray that Coca-Cola has made into the bottled water market.
From the 1970s to 2000, Corporate Accountability says, the annual volume of bottled water purchased and sold in the United States has increased by over 7,000 percent. Yet the bottled water industry operates with little or no regulation.
"Tap water is better regulated, and often safer," said Lynn, adding that bottled water costs 3,000 percent more.
Lynn pointed to a 1999 study by the National Resources Defense Council on bottled water sold in the United States, which found traces of arsenic, chloroform, and other impurities; chemicals that would be illegal if found in tap water.
Coca-Cola spent $1.7 billion on advertising last year. In North America, Coca-Cola distributes three bottled water brands: Dasani, Dannon, and Evian.
According to the Washington, DC-based Earth Policy Institute, consumers spend about $100 billion on bottled water each year. By comparison, experts estimate that just $15 billion per year, above and beyond what is already spent, could bring reliable and lasting access to safe drinking water to half a billion people worldwide -- fully half of those who lack it.
"The way that Coke, Pepsi, and Nestle have marketed bottled water has had the effect of undermining people's confidence in tap water and contributed to a broad societal shift," Lynn said. "Instead of buying bottled water, we need to be investing in our shared, public water systems."
Copyright © 2007 OneWorld.net.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
14 Comments so far
Show AllWhat the hell is IN coke, that it's production creates toxic sludge???
think I'll stick to whiskey
I don't buy water from this company, but tap water here in the A.E. is full of chlorine and fluoride, both of which are very bad for human health. Water should not be privatized, but the government has to not only provide safe but chemical free and health-preserving water.
http://www.dreamingearth.net
You'll find other interesting things about "Killer Coke" at www.killercoke.org
Some corporations deserve to die.
Here is more background on this issue which I researched last October.
There have been 2 studies in India (2003 and 2006) regarding the pesticide content in Coke and Pepsi. Both these studies are consistent and the gist of the report is reproduced below:
The 2006 CSE ( Centre for Science and Environment) study tests 57 samples of 11 soft drink brands, from 25 different manufacturing plants of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, spread over 12 states. The study finds pesticide residues in all samples; it finds a cocktail of 3-5 different pesticides in all samples — on an average 24 times higher than BIS norms, which have been finalised but not yet notified. The levels in some samples — for instance, Coca-Cola bought in Kolkata — exceeded the BIS standards by 140 times for the deadly pesticide Lindane. Similarly, a Coca-Cola sample manufactured in Thane contained the neurotoxin Chlorpyrifos, 200 times the standard. "This is clearly unacceptable as we know that pesticides are tiny toxins and impact our bodies over time," says Sunita Narain, director, CSE.
In response, several public protests were held in India after the study's release. Cola sales are being restricted.
So simple issue, right ? The high levels of pesticide found in the drinks are a direct threat to the health of the local population. So makes sense for the local governments to severely restrict sales of the drink and care for it's population, right ?
Dead wrong. Instead here is what we get:
Here's what Undersecretary for International Trade Franklin Lavin has to say. "This kind of action is a setback for the Indian economy. In a time when India is working hard to attract and retain foreign investment, it would be unfortunate if the discussion were dominated by those who did not want to treat foreign companies fairly."
In simple language, Lavin is saying "I don't care if your citizens die if it cuts into profits". According to Lavin, it doesn't matter that the Indian govt. is actually listening to demands of the public (something that rarely happens in the US). Lavin believes only in his version of "democracy", namely unrestrained corporate power at any cost, peoples lives be damned. Apparently, its OK to murder people as long as foreign companies are treated "fairly".
Kiran Pasricha, the US head of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) says "I see it as local politics in the Indian context. Investors have to see the bigger picture. We hope that better sense will prevail". So, people's justifiable reaction to high pesticide content is "local politics" !
And what does Coke say ?
1) Coca-Cola India has questioned the reliability of the studies. "The CSE is not an accredited laboratory," said Asim Parekh, vice president (technical). Wrong !
From the CSE site, here is the truth:
The current study was conducted by the same Pollution Monitoring Laboratory of CSE, which had tested samples in 2003. It will be recalled that the two soft drink companies had raised numerous issues regarding the veracity of the CSE study and the capabilities of its laboratory staff, which were scrutinised and debunked by JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) in its report. The JPC endorsed the methodology and the findings of the 2003 CSE study. This time, further improvements have been made. Firstly, the laboratory is now accredited with ISO 9001:2000 quality management system. Secondly, the laboratory has confirmed the presence of the pesticides using an expensive and state of art equipment — the GC-MS. "We have fully complied with the JPC directions and are even more confident about our findings," says Chandra Bhushan, associate director at CSE.
2) Another argument presented by Pepsi-Cola
Pesticide levels in Indian tea and milk are far higher than those in their products.
This is a meaningless comparison because Pepsi has consistently failed to disclose any test results to prove the safety of its own products. So we're supposed to believe their comparisons ? Moreover, what exactly does Pepsi mean by its statement ? Essentially, Pepsi is saying "You're filthy, so you deserve filthy products". That sounds pretty wrong to me. The core issue in my opinion should be that regulation is required in this matter and colas are just one aspect of the issue. The CSE does not selectively target colas only. The issue is one of rampant corruption at all levels. Moreover, the CSE has indicated that Pepsi's comparisons are based on selective data.
At the risk of sounding stupid, I will admit I don't know where A.E. is...but about the clorine and flouride. Here in Hillsborough County, FL, they purposely put both of those chemicals in the public water. If you take a tour of the water plants they have to wear hazmat suits when putting it in the water it's that dangerous. I personaly say the best thing to do is get one of the best water filters you can find and use that on your tap water.
Chlorine is a disinfectant. Asking for chlorine-free water that is also safe to drink is asking for a miracle, like demanding a perfectly safe airplane or motor vehicle.
"I personaly say the best thing to do is get one of the best water filters you can find and use that on your tap water."
LOL! A filter is not going to get chemicals out of the water, except maybe big ones like proteins. Definitely not halogen salts. Save your money.
Floride makes you stupid. Thats what the studies show.
"Chlorine is a disinfectant. Asking for chlorine-free water that is also safe to drink is asking for a miracle, like demanding a perfectly safe airplane or motor vehicle."
No, there actually are organic processes which will remove any e-coli, etc. from water without adding chemicals to the treatment process. Chlorine, like antibiotics, are also harmful because they kill off the healthy, beneficial bacteria inside our stomachs in addition to any harmful strains, so really isn't ideal. Personally, I feel safer with the Mt. Shasta water I drank today then I would drinking tap water.
A.E. = the american empire, which unfortunately is in more places than you'd think (coming soon to a regime near you!)
I am fascinated by the response of Coke and Pepsi, which is to defend itself with a tremendous PR effort rather than addressing the health concerns of Indians. Can it really be better business practice to try to get away with poisoning an aware public? Surely, it would be a better decision in the long term to earn the goodwill of the consumers by giving them a drink that is NOT laced with poisons. I am completely baffled that in this age when corporations are fiercely concerned with how to build BRAND LOYALTY, not killing the consumer doesn't rank somewhere near the top of the list. I thought cigarette companies behaved with reckless disregard for the lives of their customers because of the peculiarly deadly nature of the product, but here we have soft drink manufacterers trying to emulate the cigarette business model in the strangest of all possible ways.
I started to boycott all of Coke's products years ago.
Our tap water is safe, but it does not taste good. I drink it as much as possible, but I also carry bottled water. Coke is off my list along with other soft drinks. It is bad for the body and every other healthy thing.
Chlorine is used as a disinfectant for its residual effect at low levels - carbon filtration at the tap can help remove some. If there is a better way to ensure a safe supply at the tap after traveling through aging infrastructure i would like to be made aware. Otherwise get yourself a well and be sure to get a chemical analysis because there is plenty in there that you may not want to be drinking.
As for fluoride - depends on what side youre on and you can find a suitable study to support your argument. As far as im concerned at low levels youre safe.
Corp takeover of public water supply is probably the worst thing that could ever happen - there are always complaints about municipal water no matter where you go but if someone has there own well "youve never tasted anything like it". Just see what happens after its privatized and upgrades are needed - youll be footing the whole bill plus profit. Not many appreciate the true value of safe tap water for pennies a month.
I recommend "Blue Gold" by Maude Barlow for anyone interested in just how scary it is when BIG BUSS takes over public water supply anywhere in the world and mix in the World Bank in the developing world and you ll realize just how scary this topic is.