Soft-drinks, pesticides and the 'banning' drive

The recent revelation by the Stockholm Water Prize 2005 winner, Sunita Narain, that soft-drinks in India exceed the safe dissolved pesticide levels by as much as 50 times has ruffled lots of feathers all around.

It is true... The soft-drinks available in India have "huge" quantities of pesticides. And while other food material also have these pesticides clinging to them, the question finally boils down to - "While other things offer some nutrition, are we also ready to accept "junk" loaded with pesticides?"

But, is it fair to "ban" soft-drinks, just because they have pesticides, when almost everything that most of India drinks/ eats, is laden with (possibly higher quantities of) pesticides. Should it not be left as a choice to the consumer? Also, is banning the solution to the pesticide problem? Why are many non-profit organizations supporting the ban? Are there other issues involved? What are they? But then, can those issues get resolved with a ban? Can there be some solutions to those issues (other than the ban - if banning is a solution)? The note attempts to look into some of these questions - that a common Indian - like you and me - is asking!!!

I think wether a person wants to have pesticide laden food/ drinks or not is a personal choice. That choice exists also in food - in the form of organic food - and obviously in drinks etc - in form of nariyal-paani etc. So, to ban soft-drinks because they have pesticides doesn't at all sound justified. We may take much higher levels of pesticides in our food daily. So, this can not and should not be the reason to ban soft-drinks. This should be left as a choice to the consumer.

And banning soft-drinks is clearly not a solution to the problem of pervasiveness of pesticides. Pesticides are everywhere - in the water that we drink, in the food that we eat, in the fruit peels that we throw away. Wishing away pesticides by banning soft-drinks is to behave like an ostrich - to put one's head in sand and (then since the ostrich can't see anyone) believe that no one can see it. The problem exists, we are just hiding behind ourselves.

But then why are many non-profit organizations supporting the ban vehemently? What profit are these non-profit organizations getting out of it? Does someone have an axe to grind?

While I don't know about others, I personally am happy that the soft-drinks are being criticized and that bans have been imposed on them at different places in the country. I am trying to list down some of the reasons below.

• I will start with relating an incident. We were organizing a painting competition on World Environment Day (June 5), a few years back. On their way back, we were offering children a can of coke and some other soveniers. One mother abruptly stopped us from giving the can to her child. She revealed that her son really loved soft-drinks and that the doctors have strongly adviced him against it. We asked in unision, "Why?". She asked her son to show his teeth and as soon as he smiled, we knew the answer. The teeth were all gone. She explained that the soft-drinks are highly acidic in nature. They contain phosphoric acid - and it dissolves the bones and teeth of human beings. We were shocked to realize that bones and teeth - which survive the on-slaught of pyre after death - don't stand a chance against the soft-drinks. So, the first reason because of which I support the ban is the fact that they are "unhealthy" and can lead to life-long problems - like osteoporosis or dissolving teeth and bones. Children should be prevented from consuming soft-drinks at all costs. It should not be a matter of choice for them.
• While I considerably reduced my consumption of soft-drinks after the incident, I had still continued drinking them. (Just like, people know that smoking is bad, but still smoke.) It was when I came to know about the plight of farmers due to soft-drinks that I quit drinking them. Soft-drink manufacturers set up (or scale up) bottling plants in areas that are nodal to distribution. The area may be a desert also (like Coke plant in Kala Dera) and it may be luckily lush with greenery and huge water reserves (like the plant in Plachimada). These bottling plants extract "huge" quantities of underground water to make soft-drinks. (This is also the source of pesticides in soft-drinks). Farmers in the surrounding regions are also dependent on the same water. As water level recedes farmers don't get any water and their crops die. The company doesn't suffer, it can always dig a deeper well (when the present one dries up), but the farmer who has to spend Rs.20,000/- to dig a tube-well looses all profitability. However, many farmers still bore deeper wells - hoping that they will at least get some earnings over the coming years (if not this year). The next year even this well is dry and another well is needed. The poor farmer now doesn't have food to eat at home, where will he manage Rs.40,000/- (inflation + increased cost of deeper well) now. So, while the plant got water at Rs.0.50 a litre, the cost of this water was actually borne by the villages surrounding the plant. The profits of these soft-drinks are coming from at the cost of lives and livelihoods of thousands of farmers in surrounding areas. So, when we drink soft-drinks, we are in some way, adding to the plight of those farmers who don't have any means of livelihood left.
• To add to this plight, the sludge generated in the bottling plants was given to farmers under the garb of fertilizer. This sludge actually contained heavy metals and acids. When the farmers applied this so called "fertilizer" on their fields, the standing crop died. The fields became barren. Now, they can't grow anything even after boring a deeper well. Unethical practices like this don't allow me to drink coke.
• What adds on to the irony is also the fact that the purification processes that these bottling plants use, waste about 80-90% of water. So, to make 1 litre of Pepsi or Coke, about 9-10 litres of water is extracted from the underground aquefier. So, even if one drinks 1 litre of Pepsi or Coke, he/she is in fact, hitting the farmers 10 times harder. Drinking soft-drinks also means promoting this inefficient use of the most precious and life-giving resource - water. This is absolutely unacceptable to me.
• In other countries (like Saudi Arabia), bottling plants use desalinated sea-water to make soft-drinks. This water is not only distilled, it also does not adversely impact the surrounding areas. We don't have single such plant (that does not impact underground water levels) in India. Why?
• Why has it been that Coke consignments from India have been rejected by US FDA at least 10 times since January 2005 - on the grounds of poor quality? Doesn't this imply that quality of soft-drinks produced (and therefore sold) in India is not of the same standards as in other countries?
• In addition to all these issues, Coke management has also been 'allegedly' involved in killing of trade union leaders in Columbia. Such allegations were also levelled against Coke in India in March this year. Knowing legal system of India, I don't have high hopes of justice being meted out to the family of the poor trade-union leader.
• And last, but not the least, Coke (and many other soft-drinks) contain caffiene. It is addictive in nature and therefore the idea of getting addicted to something that involves detrimental impact on livelihoods of thousands of farmers and 'alleged' killing of enthusiastic community leaders doesn't gel well with me.

But then is banning the solution? Yes, at least to the problems that I mentioned above, banning will solve almost all of them.

So, lets change the question to - Is banning the only solution? Possibly "No". We can work towards a framework of better regulation and implementation and simultaneous promotion of alternatives. For example,

• While coke may not be ready to share the exact formula of their soft-drinks, they should definitely have some such figures as pH of the drink, amount of acids, and calorific value on each pack of the soft-drink.
• There have to be stringent standards on pH and other parameters which should be strictly adhered to. Absence of any quality standards for the soft-drinks is the first loop-hole that needs to be plugged.
• Soft-drink manufacturers should clearly state in their advertisements/ promotions etc. that drinking soft-drinks is injurious to health of growing children.
• Sale (and consumption) of soft-drinks should be banned in schools, colleges and hospitals.
• We have to regulate consumption of groundwater by bottling plants. All new bottling plants should be "fresh-water-neutral" to the ecology (like using sea water).
• If fresh-water neutrality is not achieved in the local area, then skill-based training should be given to local farmers to take up other occupations and support their families.
• Organic food and sustainable agriculture should be promoted. Presently the government offers subsidies for fertilizer and pesticide manufacture - but no promotional schemes exist for organic farmers. Therefore, organic food looses out to non-organic food in terms of pricing. The subsidy regime should subside (so that pesticide consumption etc. is automatically controlled) and sustainable agriculture techniques should be promoted.

The focus has to be public health and not private profit.

At another level, individuals like you and me should promote alternative / traditional Indian drinks. That will not only offer local employment generation opportunities (like jaljeera, neembu-paani, fruit juice, sharbat etc. used to be sold on thelas earlier). The onset of soft-drinks and packaged drinks have meant dying down of these employment opportunities locally. This will not only ensure that lesser water is extracted by the bottling plants, but also that we enable local livelihood generation activities. Lets pledge to serve one of these traditional and local drinks and not soft-drinks to guests at our homes and make it a matter of personal pride to give up soft-drinks.