KALA DERA, INDIA­: Every day that it’s open for business, the local Coca-Cola bottling plant in this parched corner of India draws about 200,000 litres of underground water from four wells.

Coke’s annual bill for 36 million litres? Zero.

Like many Indian states, Rajasthan doesn’t charge for taking water from groundwater reservoirs because free water has been considered a fundamental right in India for decades.

Yet water conservation advocates say that principle needs to be rethought at a time when economic growth and population pressure are expected to double demand over the next 25 years.

With 16 per cent of the world’s population, India has only 4 per cent of global water resources. And in rural areas, more than 80 per cent of water comes from fast-dwindling aquifers.

India’s 26 states have jurisdiction over water issues and in many places, including Rajasthan, heavy users of water such as brewers, mineral water bottlers and multinationals like Coca-Cola don’t have to pay.

The rampant use of water throughout India is a crisis in the making, critics and lawmakers say. The country is split into 5,723 blocks. Of those, 839 are overexploited and 226 are deemed critical because they are drying out so fast, according to government figures.

The predicament has sparked a debate throughout India: should the country begin to charge for water?

Pawan Bansal, minister for water resources with the governing Indian National Congress Party, says companies like Coke must be stopped from extracting water for nothing.

“We have to address the issue of (water) pricing,” he said in an interview, describing his comment “very explosive.”

“We have to take care of that . . . where water is really scarce, as in places like Rajasthan. If you have any industry that extracts water and sells it in any form as mineral water or a cold drink at a much higher cost, that’s a concern for the people.”

Bansal said the government is circulating a draft bill that would ensure more uniformity over groundwater issues.

“It’s like Mahatma Gandhi said, there is enough for everybody’s need but there is not enough for everybody’s greed,” he said, adding water “for the poor, shouldn’t be costly and for poorest of the poor it shouldn’t cost anything at all.”

Some Indian states seem to have already employed successful multi-tiered tariff systems.

The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board introduced a program that starts with the metering of all legal water connections. As consumption rises, so does the rate of billing.

A residential customer who uses up to 8,000 litres a month pays 6 rupees (13 cents Canadian) per litre. For users who draw more than 100,000 litres, the per-litre rate is 36 rupees. Companies like Coca-Cola pay as much as 60 rupees a litre.

A lot is riding on whether India can introduce an equitable system that prevents its already scarce water resources from being completely tapped out ­ without scaring foreign investors and employers

In Kala Dera, several companies are heavy users of water, including a distillery and a pulp and paper factory. Coca-Cola, a company spokesman said, is just the most visible.

The Coca-Cola plant here opened in 1999 and it has polarized the local community ever since.

As a hushed crowd gathered around a rickety roadside barbershop on a recent weekday, Mahesh Yogi reflected on the slogan used by Coke to win customers in India, a fast-growing market: “Don’t worry. Just open happiness!”

“How can I be happy? Life doesn’t run on Coke,” mused Yogi, who raises wheat and groundnuts. “We need water for our crops. If we have it, we prosper. But each year, it’s harder to find water, and that’s because of Coke.”

Other villagers make similar complaints and some shopkeepers here hang signs declaring their stores “Coke and Pepsi-free zones.”

Yogi and others say they’re frustrated that the company won’t close its plant after an energy think tank in New Delhi concluded recently that Coca-Cola was contributing to the severe water shortage in the region. Among the think tank’s recommendations was the closure of the Coke plant.

Even the cola giant agrees water here is vanishing. In 1999, farmers and companies in Kala Dera had to drill down 12.1 metres to reach water. Six years later, in 2005, the depth-to-water mark was 21.85 metres.

But Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, a Coca-Cola spokesperson, said Yogi and others don’t understand the positive impact the company is making on in Rajasthan, an area famous for pink sandstone fortresses. Coke’s factory in Kala Dera is among 24 in India that are owned by the Atlanta-based company. Twenty-three others are franchises.

Sharma said the company is helping farmers learn to use drip irrigation so they just ensure the roots of their crops are moist without having to flood entire fields, he said. The company is also making rooftop rainwater harvesting systems for schools and drilling wells through clay-covered riverbeds, so water can more easily make its way to the aquifers below.

“Most people probably think we have a hundred bore wells and keep them running all the time,” Sharma said, adding Coke’s production here is seasonal and the company makes soft drinks just six months of the year. “The truth is we employ a few hundred people at the plant and the others feel left out.”

Instead of blaming India’s water woes on a company like Coca-Cola, Sharma said, people should focus on government mismanagement.

“The city of Delhi gets 60 hours of rain a year and 11 hours are contained while the rest is wasted,” he said. “How criminal is that? Every monsoon you see flooded underpasses and buses floating by.”

Sharma pointed out that Coca-Cola still has a water bill, even if it is a meagre one.

The company, which produces about 18 million litres of Coke a year in Kala Dera (based on its own estimate that it uses 2.11 litres of water for each litre of soft drink produced), still has to pay charges for the waste water it discharges. In 2002, the fee was $111.

“We pay what the government asks of us,” Sharma said.

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.

San Francisco (July 8, 2010):  Beverage companies in India, led by Coca-Cola and Pepsico, have formed an alliance to counter the growing campaigns against the beverage industry.

The Indian Beverage Association (IBA) has been formed to “create a singe point of interaction with the Indian government” and will serve as a lobbying organization modeled after the American Beverage Association (ABA), according to media reports.

“Whether it is health issue or the pollution issue, soft drink companies are the softest targets right from activists to government regulators. So it’s high time they that they came together,” Arvind Varma, secretary-general of the IBA told the India Today group.

The IBA is expected to work on a number of critical issues facing the beverage industry currently in India, including the growing challenge from farmers objecting to water use by beverage companies, particularly in water stressed areas, water pricing, pollution, food safety, public health issues, marketing to children, labeling, misleading claims in advertisements and taxes.

Campaigns across India have forced regulators in India to take positions on these issues, and regulators are often ill prepared to regulate the industry. As beverage companies expand their markets and production, conflicts are rising and demands for strict enforcement of regulations continue to grow.

Coca-Cola and Pepsico have been the target of campaigns accusing the companies of depleting water resources and pollution. One of Coca-Cola’s largest bottling plants in India has been shut down by the government since March 2004. Pepsico was ordered in March this year to reduce its water usage at its plant in Kerala by 65% because of depleted water resources.

The companies and their products have also come under attack by activists in India and globally for the adverse public health impacts, particularly obesity and related health problems. The India Resource Center is gearing up with allies to challenge the nutritional double standards of the food and beverage industries in India.

“While Coca-Cola and Pepsico products are being regulated out of the marketplace in the US and Europe for health reasons, these companies are aggressively marketing the same products in India and China. Such a double standard must be challenged. The health of Indians and Chinese are as valuable as the health of Americans and Europeans,” said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center, an international campaigning organization.

The formation of the Indian Beverage Association does not bode well for the Indian public, especially if it is modeled after the American Beverage Association.

The New York Times reported on July 2, 2010 that the “American Beverage Association spent $9.4 million in the first four months of the year to oppose New York’s soda tax.” “All but $120,000 went to Goddard Claussen,” a public relations firm which ran a slick media campaign “ignoring academic studies showing that sugar-sweetened beverages are a big source of excess calories in the American diet.”

The state of New York had proposed a penny-an-ounce tax on soft drinks to offset the public health care costs from obesity.

“The Indian Beverage Association is a lobbying group that will influence the government to lower standards for protecting our communities, our environment and our health. Instead of India having the highest standards to protect the public interest, the IBA will push for the lowest standards. This is not a good thing for India,” said R. Ajayan of the Plachimada Solidarity Committee, a statewide organization in Kerala campaigning against Coca-Cola.

Dabur, Tetra Pak, Pearl Drinks, Bengal Beverages, Red Bull, Jain Irrigation Systems, Bisleri International, Parle Agro, Amul and Godrej are other companies expected to join the IBA, according to the Economic Times.

For more information, visit www.IndiaResource.org

Contact:
Amit Srivastava, India Resource Center +1 415 336 7584 (US)

—ends—

New York (July 2, 2010):  In a major step towards holding Coca-Cola accountable for damages it has caused in India, the state government of Kerala decided on Wednesday to move forward with the formation of a tribunal that will hear and award compensation claims against the Coca-Cola company.

The Kerala state cabinet’s decision is based on the report and recommendations of a High Power Committee which released a report on March 22, 2010 holding Coca-Cola responsible for causing pollution and water depletion in Plachimada in the state of Kerala in south India.

Using the “polluter pays principle”, the High Power Committee had recommended that Coca-Cola be held liable for Indian Rupees 216 crore (US$ 48 million) for damages caused as a result of the company’s bottling operations in Plachimada.

The Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada has remained shut down since March 2004 as a result of the community-led campaign in Plachimada challenging Coca-Cola’s abuse of water resources.

The tribunal will consider claims of compensation from the Coca-Cola company relating to “water and air pollution, loss of agricultural crops and animals, diseases affecting human beings in the surrounding area due to the excess drawal and pollution of groundwater and surface water by the Company,” according to the report accepted by the state government. The tribunal will also consider claims related to “loss of wages and loss of educational opportunities.”

The report noted that the suggested figure of $48 million was “indicative in nature” and “should not be treated as the outer limit of compensation.” The report also stated that the “actual compensation will have to be calculated by an Authority duly set up for this purpose.”

Local activists engaged in the campaign to shut down Coca-Cola’s bottling plant and hold the company accountable for the damages it has caused welcomed the move by the state government. They also called for pursuing criminal charges against Coca-Cola for the various laws it had violated, a course of action also supported by the High Power Committee.

“The Kerala government’s integrity and decisiveness can be demonstrated only when it follows up on the other recommendations of the High Power Committee which unequivocally stated the compensation is not to be viewed as a quid pro quo for not initiating criminal charges,” said R. Ajayan of the Plachimada Solidarity Committee, a statewide organization that has been instrumental in moving the compensation process forward.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence implicating Coca-Cola in Plachimada, the company denies any wrongdoing in Kerala. Coca-Cola has also questioned the legitimacy of the High Power Committee, a body set up by the state government of Kerala that is one of the highest possible empowered committees to be set up in the state.

Recent reports also suggest that the company will use legal maneuvers to tie up the compensation process in courts.

“Coca-Cola has been forced to shut down its operations in Plachimada since 2004, and no amount of legal maneuvering will help it recover its disrepute or change the final outcome. The best thing Coca-Cola can do is to accept the will of the people and the state – pack up, pay up and leave,” said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center, an international campaigning organization.

The recommendations of the High Power Committee are here.

A list of the members of the High Power Committee is here.

For more information, visit www.IndiaResource.org

Contacts:
R. Ajayan, Plachimada Solidarity Committee +91 98471 42513
C. R. Bijoy, People’s Union for Civil Liberties +91 98431 72584
Amit Srivastava, India Resource Center +1 415 336 7584 (US)

—ends—

San Francisco (June 27, 2010):  Three workers were killed and at least five others seriously injured at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Khurda in the state of Orissa in India on Friday.

The workers were engaged in the maintenance of a boiler in the factory which exploded.

Company officials in charge of the boiler operations were out to lunch when the explosion occurred, according to reports from local media and groups in the area.

Local groups have also reported that the boiler was “old” and that a new boiler was undergoing tests before it was to replace the boiler.

The bottling plant is operated by the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited, a subsidiary of the Atlanta based Coca-Cola company.

The workers killed were contract workers and not permanent employees of Coca-Cola India.

In the summer months, when production is at its peak, Coca-Cola India hires nearly three times as many contract workers as employees.

Contract workers receive the minimum daily wage of the state and minimal benefits. In the state of Orissa, the minimum wage per day ranges from Rupees 90 ($1.90) for unskilled labor to Rupees 129 ($2.75) for highly skilled labor.

The workers killed by the explosion were identified as Ranjit Mohanty, Madhusudan Behera and Bana Behari Behera. Injured workers were identified as Ramesh Mohanty, Dandua Behera, Rabindra Mati, Satya Narayan Mohanty and Pradip Mohanty.

The police have arrested three officials from the Coca-Cola bottling plant who were in charge of the maintenance operations, according to media reports. Company officials had requested police protection after the explosion, according to local reports.

The state government has initiated an investigation into the cause of the explosion and additional police have been ordered into the area to protect the factory and its officials.

For more information, visit www.IndiaResource.org

Contact:
Amit Srivastava, India Resource Center +1 415 336 7584 E: info@IndiaResource.org

—ends—

by Amit Srivastava
India Resource Center

June 4, 2010: Last month, in a bid to preempt any binding government action, sixteen food and beverage companies announced a pledge to reduce 1.5 trillion calories from their products in the US by the end of 2015 – ostensibly to fight obesity in the US.

Indeed, the growing obesity epidemic in the US has caught the attention of the White House, and Mrs. Michelle Obama in particular.

The announcement by the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation – comprising some of the largest food and beverage companies in the US – came just five days after the release of the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President, part of Mrs. Obama’s Let’s Move campaign designed to address the growing obesity epidemic in the US.

The White House Task Force report and its recommendations suggested that unless the industry made significant changes in the way it markets unhealthy junk food to children in the US, government policies could be introduced to make them do so.

Whether the announcement by the companies – which is short on the details – is a genuine commitment to reduce obesity or a public relations maneuver to appease Mrs. Obama and the White House remains to be seen.

What is significant, however, is that the fast food industry in the US and its role in marketing and selling unhealthy junk food to Americans is being widely accepted as a big part of the problem of the obesity epidemic in the US.

New York City Campaign Against High Sugar Beverages

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two-thirds of American adults and 15 percent of American children are overweight or obese, and consequently, at high risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

The obesity epidemic has become so alarming in the US that it led to more than 130 retired generals, admirals and senior military leaders to frame the issue as a national security threat, writing that, “Obesity rates threaten the overall health of America and the future strength of our military.”

Consumers in the US are slowly becoming more nutrition-savvy – increasingly reading food labels and rejecting high-fat, high-sugar and highly processed products. Much more needs to be done however, to contain the abundance of cheap and empty calorie intake which is ubiquitous in the US food landscape today.

Mrs. Obama’s focus on the food and beverage companies is not the first. It bolsters the efforts of New York city, which has been a leader in campaigning against trans fat, then high sugar beverages, and now sodium. And California has not been far behind, banning the sale of high sugar products and other junk food in public schools, for example.

So it comes as a major disappointment that while companies like Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Nestle, Kraft Foods and the like have pledged commitments to reduce calorie intake and fight obesity in the US, these very companies are extremely busy ramping up their presence in the developing world, and China and India in particular.

Pepsico just announced a $2.5 billion investment in China to increase its beverages and snacks industry. Earlier this year, Pepsico announced a $200 million investment in India to expand operations. Coca-Cola announced an additional $250 million investment in India in 2008 to build more bottling plants and increase its market share. McDonalds just announced an additional $20 million annually to open 30 outlets each year in India.

Rapid expansion in the emerging markets may make good business sense from the perspective of these companies. Consumers in the US and other mature markets are becoming increasingly savvy to the negative health impacts of these products. And these companies are struggling to grow in the developed economies.

But if high-fat, high-sugar and highly processed foods are bad for the health of Americans, are they any good for people in India and China?

The answer, obviously, is a clear no.

Increasing investments in the developing world by these peddlers of junk food is a clear case of double standards. While these companies are pledging to reduce calories in the US to tackle obesity, they are simultaneously expanding their markets – with junk food – in the developing world.

Junk food is the last thing that China and India need – both countries are already experiencing startling growth in obesity and related health problems.

A recent government survey in India found that more than 20 percent of urban Indians are overweight or obese. And India was, until recently, the diabetes capital of the world, according to the International Diabetes Federation, only to be overtaken by China.

China is also experiencing a rapid rise in obesity. 30 percent of Chinese adults are overweight or obese today, compared with 25 percent in 2004. “More than 92 million Chinese adults suffer from Type-2 diabetes, caused mainly by a high-calorie diet and sedentary lifestyle, according to a study in the March 25 New England Journal of Medicine. Based on this data, the International Diabetes Federation in Brussels estimates close to half a billion Chinese will have the disease in 2030.”

Although one cannot blame the rise in Western junk food as the sole or even primary reason for the alarming rates of obesity and related diseases in China and India, it is clear that adding more high-fat, high-sugar processed foods in these markets will significantly worsen the problem.

It also makes absolutely no sense for already overburdened public health systems in India and China to be inundated with more junk food related illnesses as the result of an expanded western junk food regime that have been found to be central to the growing obesity epidemic in the West.

If these food companies were serious about the social responsibilities that they so often tout, they would approach the growing obesity rates in India and China just as they have pledged to do in the US – by not adding any more calories and in fact, reducing calories in the developing countries.

It will be the right thing to do. People’s health and people’s lives in developing countries are as valuable as in the US.

So why the double standard?

Amit Srivastava is the coordinator of the India Resource Center, an international campaigning organization based in the US and India.

Atlanta (April 21, 2010): It is only a matter of time before the Coca-Cola company will be held financially and criminally liable for their operations in water-stressed areas in India, Coca-Cola shareholders were told today at the company’s shareholder meeting in Atlanta.

“The company management is being seriously derelict in its duties by not acknowledging the real extent of the liabilities Coca-Cola has incurred and continues to incur in India,” said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center, an international campaigning organization, at the shareholders meeting.

Srivastava referred to a March 22, 2010 announcement by a government initiated high-level committee in the state of Kerala which has recommended that Coca-Cola be held liable for US$48 million in damages to the community and the environment around its bottling plant in Plachimada.

The Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada has been shut down since March 2004 as a result of government orders, spurred by a strong local community opposition.

In spite of a series of studies and investigations, including government studies, that have found Coca-Cola guilty of water depletion and pollution, the company has refused to take responsibility for its negligent operations in Plachimada.

“The report is very clear that Coca-Cola is responsible for damages in Plachimada, and the committee was appointed by the state government. What else does Coca-Cola need to admit its wrongdoing in Plachimada and compensate for the damages it has caused?” asked R. Ajayan of the Plachimada Solidarity Committee, a statewide group that has been key in pushing the state to move forward on compensation.

The High Level Committee comprised of very senior representatives from the state government, including directors from the departments of Agriculture, Health, Animal Husbandry, Groundwater Board and the Pollution Control Board.

The High Level Committee also reinforced the campaign demand that Coca-Cola should be held criminally liable for the damages it has caused in Plachimada as a result of over-extraction of water and pollution of water and land.

The Coca-Cola company is also embroiled in controversy in Kala Dera in the north Indian state of Rajasthan. Kala Dera is in a desert area, and the area’s groundwater resources were declared as “over-exploited by the government in 1998. Yet, the Coca-Cola company built a new plant in 2000, leading to severe water shortages for at least 40 villages in the vicinity of the plant.

In the nine years prior to Coca-Cola’s bottling operations in Kala Dera, groundwater levels fell just 3 meters. In the nine years since Coca-Cola has been operating in Kala Dera, the groundwater levels have dropped 22.36 meters, according to government figures.

A study paid for by Coca-Cola and conducted by the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in 2008 confirmed that Coca-Cola was a significant contributor to the water crisis in the area. The study recommended that Coca-Cola shut down the plant, relocate the plant, bring in piped water from outside the area, or use the rainwater it harvests to meet its water needs.

Coca-Cola has refused to implement any one of the recommendations, and the company continued to extract groundwater even in the summer of 2009 when Kala Dera was declared a drought hit area.

“Coca-Cola has no business operating in Kala Dera when children, women and even farmers don’t even have enough water to drink and to make a living,” said Mahesh Yogi of the Kala Dera Sangharsh Samiti, a local group spearheading the campaign against Coca-Cola.

“It is difficult to fathom why Coca-Cola located some of its plants in water stressed areas in India. It was either sheer incompetence on the part of the company or sheer arrogance. Experience tells us it is a lot of both,” said Amit Srivastava.

“It is only a matter of time before Coca-Cola will have to shut down its plants in water stressed-areas and pay compensation for the damages it has caused. Arrogance and incompetence are not traits suited for long term sustainability, and that is where the company has gone wrong.” said Srivastava.

For more information, visit www.IndiaResource.org

Contact:
Amit Srivastava, India Resource Center +1 415 336 7584 E: info@IndiaResource.org

—ends—

Coca-Cola Co. increased its stake in the popular U.K. smoothie maker Innocent Drinks to 58%, gaining majority ownership of a British brand known for its healthy ingredients and social awareness.

The purchase comes a year after Coca-Cola bought an initial 18% share in Fresh Trading Ltd., Innocent’s parent, for £30 million, or about $46 million, a deal that valued the London-based smoothie maker between £150 million and £300 million at the time. Terms of the deal to increase the stake to 58% weren’t disclosed.

Founded in 1999, Innocent has become the most popular smoothie maker in Britain in part by publicizing its natural ingredients and ethical pledges. In addition to giving 10% of its profit to charity, Innocent uses 100% recycled-plastic bottles and exclusively sustainable ingredients.

The smoothie maker has nursed an eccentric image in the U.K., where it operates trucks covered in artificial green grass and has devised quirky descriptions of its products. Innocent’s headquarters is called “Fruit Towers,” and the three founders—Adam Balon, Richard Reed and Jon Wright—are referred to as “the boys.”

In 2008, Innocent’s closely held parent company reported a loss of £7.5 million on sales of £105 million, according to its most recent filing with the U.K. company registry. The previous year, the company posted a profit of £6.15 million on sales of £113.2 million.

Coca-Cola acquired the bulk of its new shares from American businessman Maurice Pinto, one of the company’s original investors, who put in £250,000 when Innocent launched 11 years ago. Shares were also bought from a second seed investor and Innocent’s three founders.

Under the stipulations of the deal, the three founders retain operational control of the business so long as they remain shareholders. “It’s business as usual,” a spokeswoman for the company said. She said the founders intend to stay at the business and continue running it.

Coca-Cola is looking to learn from Innocent’s unique branding exercises and roll out its products to more customers in Europe. “We have long admired their brand and their products and believe in the business’s long-term growth potential,” said James Quincey, Coca-Cola business-unit president for Northwest Europe and the Nordics. “We will do all we can to help Innocent make its products available to more consumers in Europe.”

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.

If you’re looking for a scapegoat in the obesity epidemic, look no further than soda. It’s the single greatest caloric source in the world, accounting for somewhere between 11 and 19 percent of all the calories consumed worldwide. It’s cheap, addictive, and readily available, which generally means that it will take some willpower to avoid. But don’t despair, as we at Beachbody® are here to help. We present: our top 10 reasons to give up soda. Drumroll please . . .

1. Soda may cause cancer. According to a report in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, consuming two or more soft drinks per week increased the risk of developing pancreatic cancer by nearly twofold compared to individuals who did not consume soft drinks. As reported, the study “followed 60,524 men and women in the Singapore Chinese Health Study for 14 years. During that time, there were 140 pancreatic cancer cases. Those who consumed two or more soft drinks per week (averaging five per week) had an 87 percent increased risk compared with individuals who did not.”

Then why, you’re probably asking yourself, is this number ten on our list and why is soda even still on the shelf? Not that I’d challenge the ability of such large corporate power to hide such a thing but, in this case, the study slit its own throat. As one of the researchers noted, “soft drink consumption in Singapore was associated with several other adverse health behaviors such as smoking and red meat intake, which we can’t accurately control for,” meaning that we have no way of knowing, for sure, if soda was the culprit. Still, it doesn’t hurt to know that when you drink soda it lumps you into a fairly unhealthy user group.1

2. It’s not just about calories. Calories grab headlines, but recent science is showing that diet soda users are still in the crosshairs. A 2005 study by the University of Texas Health Science Center showed that there’s a 41 percent increased risk of being obese—and a 65 percent increased risk of becoming overweight during the next 7 or 8 years—for every can of diet soda a person consumes in a day. Admittedly, this one should be higher on the list, but I wanted to make sure the article-skimming crowd knew the score up front: that diet sodas are very much a part of the problem.

3. It’s the water . . . and a lot more. Okay, so that was a beer slogan, but soda is also made up mainly of water, and when you’re slinging as much of it as they are, and you need to sling it cheap, sometimes you can’t help but run into problems with your supply chain. In India, Coca-Cola® has found itself in hot water, and not the kind they thought they were purchasing rights to. Two of their factories have been closed, but one continues to run amok. According to a report in The Ecologist, “They accuse the company of over-extracting groundwater, lowering the water tables and leaving farmers and the local community unable to dig deep enough to get to vital water supplies.”

“Since the bottling plant was opened in 2000, water levels in the area have dropped six metres, and when a severe drought hit the region earlier this year the crops failed and livelihoods were destroyed.”2

4. BPA: not just for water bottles anymore. Nalgene® and other water bottle companies took the heat when the dangers of bisphenol A (BPA) were made public a couple years back. While these companies went to great lengths to save their businesses, the soda companies somehow flew under the radar and continue to use it in their products. A recent Canadian study has found that BPA exists “in the vast majority” of the soft drinks tested. Most of these were under the national limits set for toxicity, but some were not. And remember how much soda the average person consumes, meaning odds are most soda consumers are at some risk.

“Out of 72 drinks tested, 69 were found to contain BPA at levels below what Health Canada says is the safe upper limit. However, studies in peer-reviewed science journals have indicated that even at very low doses, BPA can increase breast and ovarian cancer cell growth and the growth of some prostate cancer cells in animals.”3

5. Can convenience. As in the 1950s colloquial: can it. Speaking of the 1950s, those were the happy days when most of our soda was consumed at soda fountains, obesity was a term hardly anyone had heard of, and the most feared epidemic was one of atomically mutated insects taking over the world. Now instead of hoofing it down to the corner confectionery for one soda, we fill out trucks with pallets of shrink-wrapped cans or bottles and quaff the stuff by the six-pack. Not to mention how out of balance this ensures our diets will become, it wreaks havoc on the world around us. The bottled-water industry (which is mostly owned by the soda industry) famously uses 17 million barrels of oil a year, and the aluminum industry uses as much electricity as the entire continent of Africa. Not only that, aluminum mining accounts for a ton of toxic chemicals that is left behind for every ton of the metal produced.4

6. The Frankenfood factor. Whether you consume diet or regular soda, you’re getting all of the genetically modified food you need and more, via high fructose corn syrup or aspartame. Both of these are under plenty of scientific as well as anecdotal scrutiny. Findings aren’t pretty but, so far, this multibillion-dollar industry has kept these sweeteners on the shelves while alternative sweeteners meeting cost requirements are explored. Since it’s almost impossible to read health headlines without finding one of these ingredients in some type of controversy, I’ll just use one example:

“The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition and food safety advocacy group, called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to review the claims, which stem from research conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation in Italy.

The foundation reported that rats who consumed aspartame in exceedingly large quantities were more likely to develop cancer. CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson considers this an important finding that should not be overlooked.” 5

I know, there I go again with the cancer. But some people need to be shocked in order to take action. For me, seeing the Diet Coke® and Mentos® experiment was all I needed to swear off the stuff.

7. Foreign news cares how much soda we sell in our schools. How bad is your country’s problem when the whole world is watching its daily actions? “Nearly one in three children and teenagers in the U.S. are overweight or obese and health experts say sugary drinks are part of the problem.” Yep, bad. The world is well aware of the problems soda is causing and is looking to us to lead. And we certainly are trying. Are you with the program?

“Under the voluntary guidelines, in place since 2006, full-calorie soft drinks were removed from school canteens and vending machines. Lighter drinks, including low-fat milk, diet sodas, juices, flavoured waters and teas, were promoted in their place.”6

And, while great and all, it appears that no one got the memo about diet sodas.

8. Diet? Um, that’s just like your opinion, man. When it comes to soda, treat the word “diet” as a slogan. A study at Boston University’s School of Medicine linked diet soda with increased risk factors for heart disease and diabetes. To be more specific, the study “found adults who drink one or more sodas a day had about a 50 percent higher risk of metabolic syndrome,” which is a cluster of risk factors such as excessive fat around the waist, low levels of “good” cholesterol, high blood pressure, and other symptoms that lead to heart disease and/or diabetes. And, for those of you only concerned about how you look in the mirror, “Those who drank one or more soft drinks a day had a 31 percent greater risk of becoming obese.”

9. Soda outkills terrorists. A study out of the University of California, San Francisco, shows that soda has killed at least 6,000 Americans in the last decade.
From ABC News: “The new analysis, presented Friday at the American Heart Association’s 50th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention, offers a picture of just how horrifying the damage done by excess consumption of sugary drinks can be.

Using a computer model and data from the Framingham Heart Study, the Nurses Health Study and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, researchers estimated that the escalating consumption between 1990 and 2000 of soda and sugar-sweetened beverages, which they abbreviated as ‘SSBs,’ led to 75,000 new cases of diabetes and 14,000 new cases of coronary heart disease.

What’s more, the burden of the diseases translated into a $300 million to $550 million increase in health care costs between 2000 and 2010.”7

10. It’s the “real thing” . . . not exactly. Should having the number one caloric source in the world come from something that’s entirely manmade be a metaphor for a dying world? It doesn’t have to be this way. After all, there’s nothing in soda that we need. In fact, there’s nothing in soda that even comes from the earth except caffeine, and that’s optional. It’s a mixture of altered water (injected with carbon dioxide gas), artificial flavors (yes, “natural flavor” is artificial), artificial color, and phosphoric acid, along with its sole caloric source that is a by-product of genetically modified corn production and offers virtually no nutritional value. It’s about as real as The Thing.

Sources:
1 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-02/aafc-sdc020310.php
2 http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/373906/cocacola_just_part_of_indias_water_freeforall.html
3 http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/03/05/popcans.html
4 http://www.pacinst.org/topics/water_and_sustainability/bottled_water/bottled_water_and_energy.html, http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/eco/eech6_ss3
5 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/story?id=3317079&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
6 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8557195.stm
7 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/study-sugary-drinks-lead-early-grave/story?id=10019518 

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.

NEW DELHI: Shrawan Nayak’s journey home from work each day is marked by sadness and frustration. Now a day wage labourer, Mr Nayak’s route back to his house in the town of Kala Dera passes by a mineral powder factory that occupies the land where he and his father once had a 7-hectare farm.

That was 10 years ago, before a Coca-Cola bottling plant opened up nearby and, critics say, exploited the existing water supplies to such an extent that the surrounding farmland dried up.

“The level of groundwater dipped too low and it made farming nearly impossible. Like many other farmers in Kala Dera, we were finally forced to sell the land to a mineral powder maker eight years ago,” said Mr Nayak, 41, whose farm produced wheat, millet and vegetables. He also had to sell his cows and buffaloes.

Not long after Coca-Cola opened its plant in the already semi-arid and Kala Dera, in Rajasthan, in a locale surrounded by farmland, the water table in the area dropped significantly, leaving farmers unable to access it and reducing their land to dust.

Their claims are supported by studies by India’s Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), which found that the water table in Kala Dera has fallen by 22.36 metres since the factory opened, including by six metres between 2007 and 2008 alone.

Amit Srivastava, the director of the India Resource Centre, which campaigns against several Coca-Cola plants in India that have been accused of depleting groundwater and polluting the environment, pointed out that in the nine years prior to the Kala Dera plant being opened, groundwater levels there fell by just three metres.

“Coca-Cola has located many of its bottling plants in India’s drought-prone areas which they should never have done,” said Mr Srivastava. “It is exactly in these areas where the communities have seen their access to water – a fundamental human right – significantly hampered by the arrival of Coca-Cola.”

Mahesh Yogi, a farmer turned activist, called the situation in Kala Dera a “disaster”.

“In a region mostly dependent on groundwater, the plant has brought disaster for 10,000 families in a five-kilometre radius of the plant. Coca-Cola is looting our natural resources, resources that belong to the public,” said Mr Yogi, a member of the Jan Sangharsh Samiti, a local group that advocates for the closure of the Kala Dera plant.

However, Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd (HCBPL), Coca-Cola’s Indian subsidiary, said the accusations were baseless because the plant used only a tiny fraction of the available water – about one per cent – for its operations. “Kala Dera plant has improved its water-use ratios by more than 25 per cent in the past five years. We are continuously focusing on reducing and recycling the water used for our bottling operations,” said an HCBPL spokesman.

It is not only in Kala Dera where Coca-Cola is accused of sucking the land dry. Identical community campaigns have targeted plants belonging to Coca-Cola and its rival Pepsi across the country in recent years.

A Kerala state government-instituted committee said last week that HCBPL was responsible for depleting groundwater and dumping toxic waste around its bottling plant in Palakkad between 1999 and 2004, before it was forced to close down by protesting activists and locals. It recommended that the soft drinks giant be asked to pay compensation of US$47 million (Dh173m) for the environmental damage.

A statement by HCBPL disputed the committee’s claims. “It is unfortunate that the committee in Kerala was appointed on the unproven assumption that damage was caused, and that it was caused by Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages,” it said.

Last month, also in Kerala, PepsiCo came under fire over exploitation of groundwater. A Kerala Assembly panel called on the company’s plant in Puducheri to cut down its use of water by 60 per cent.

PepsiCo also refuted the panel’s findings, and a spokesman said: “The charges against the plant are not true. It is a model plant and is one of the most water efficient units in the PepsiCo system.”

Mr Srivastava, the India Resource Centre director, accused Coca-Cola of operating with “complete arrogance and impunity” in India and said its operations did not respect the rights of local communities, farmers and the environment.

“Water shortages are commonplace in India already, and numerous studies point towards an even more difficult water situation with climate change, inefficient farming practices, as well as rampant industrial pollution and extraction,” he said. “Whether they like it or not, Coca-Cola will have to accept that communities, farmers and livestock have precedence over water.”

For Mr Nayak, however, who now works on a day-to-day basis, the damage has already been done.

“From the crops and milk, our family once earned upwards of 1.5 lakh [150,000] rupees [Dh 12,260] annually. But as a day wage labourer, today I strive very hard to make even one-fourth of that income.”
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.

A study has indicated that high consumption of soft drinks may be the cause of reduced sperm quality in men.

Young men who want to become fathers may want to cut their cola consumption, according to new Danish research results recently published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Doctors and scientists at Rigshospital and at the University of Southern Denmark have found a probable correlation between high soft drink consumption and poor sperm quality.

The study was carried out to determine whether there was a correlation between caffeine intake and sperm quality.

But project leader Tina Kold Jensen, professor of environmental medicine, said that the results of the study – which examined 2,554 men at or around the age of 18 to determine their fitness for military service during the period of 2001–2005 – clearly showed that their fertility was inversely related to the amount of soft drinks they consumed.

National research has shown that the consumption of soft drinks has increased significantly over the past decade, as has the intake of fast food – mostly by the younger generation.

Jensen did say that because the consumption of soft drinks and fast food is invariably linked, the lower sperm quality may be down to the overall poor diets of the men rather than the soft drinks alone.

However, she pointed out that the sperm quality of those subjects who drank more than 14 half-litre bottles of cola per week was significantly worse than those who consumed less. Caffeine was probably not a factor, the study determined, because coffee consumption levels did not show the same variations in sperm quality.

Not surprisingly to the researchers, the study additionally showed a link between high soft drink consumption and too little exercise – a deficiency that also has been shown to have a detrimental effect on male fertility.

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.