Write the author
Despite this legal position, the contamination of the rivers and
of water resources is continuing unabated. The industries which are mainly
responsible for this contamination are doing yet another wrong by using huge
quantities of underground water for selling the bottled water or soft drinks and
making profits on it at the cost of deprivation of water in the surrounding area.
It is a curious situation where those who are responsible for the contamination of
water resources are now telling the people that the water available outside is not
safe for drinking and that the safe water is available only in bottles.
Notwithstanding the means, the multi-national companies are making all efforts to
monopolise water, which is essentially in the public domain. They are selling this
water as being safe for consumption either in the form of bottled waters or soft
drinks. The question, however, is whether the drinking water in bottles or in the
soft drinks is safe for consumption. "It is not", is what the report of the Joint
Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on soft drinks points out.
The CSE Report
The debate regarding safety standards for soft drinks had actually started when
presence of pesticides - organochlorines and organophosphorus - were noticed in
bottled water. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) had collected samples
of bottled water from Delhi and Mumbai and of ground water in and around the
bottling plants. These samples (as many as 17 brands) were tested in their own
laboratory. The total pesticide residues in the samples collected in Delhi were as
high as 36.4 times of the European Standards. This led to a report in February,
2003 being issued by the CSE on bottled water. The exposure by CSE compelled the
Government to issue a Notification on 18th July 2003 setting standards for packaged
drinking water. The limit now is "not more than 0.0001 mg/litre" pesticide residues
considered individually and "not more than 0.0005 mg/litre" the total pesticide
residues.
The logical corollary of this first step was that soft drinks use the same water
and, therefore, what about safe standards for the soft drinks? The CSE in its study
of the samples of soft drinks found the same pesticides as in the bottled water,
namely, DDT, lindane, chlorpyrifos, malathion. The question raised was should the
MNCs manufacturing carbonated soft drinks not follow safety standards to protect
public health? The further question was, why they should not use the same standards
as they follow in developed countries - USA or in Europe? Obviously, MNCs like
Pepsi Co took advantage of the absence of regulations and there being no check in
law to sell such soft drinks in spite of the heavy presence of pesticides posing a
long term health hazard. Whether the MNCs can be permitted to sell their
beverage/food items without following any standards and caring least for the human
health thus became the precise issue. The assumption by the MNCs like PepsiCo that
such acts are usually tolerated in the under-developed and developing countries is
a slur on our system.
In view of the report of the CSE, the big claims made by PepsiCo and Coca Cola
shattered. PepsiCo filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court asking, among
others, that directions be issued to the Government/Government agencies not to
publish the report of CSE. Significantly, it was stated in the Petition that they
are adhering to the strictest standards followed by EU:
"Petitioners adhere to the strictest standards in respect of Pepsi Beverages. The
requirements which are self-imposed as regards content of traces substances in the
nature of impurities are far more stringent than those prescribed by the Directive
issued by the European Union (EU), World Health Organization (WHO) norms as also
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Food and Drugs
Administration (FDA) of USA. It is further stated that the standards set by
Petitioners are global in their application and apply as fully to their products
manufactured in India as in all other countries."
Pesticides Found
Joint Parliamentary Committee
Meanwhile, a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was constituted on "Pesticide
Residues in and Safety Standards for Soft Drinks, Fruit Juices and Other
Beverages". While the JPC was debating on this issue, PepsiCo decided to withdraw
the Writ Petition from the Delhi High Court. May be one could reason it out because
of the results of Government laboratories going against the statements of PepsiCo
in the Writ Petition that their products are as per the EU standards.
The JPC submitted its report to the Lok Sabha on 14.2.2004. The terms of reference
(TOR) of the Committee were (i) to know whether the recent findings of CSE
regarding pesticide residue in soft drinks are correct or not; and (ii) to suggest
criteria for evolving suitable safety standards for soft drinks, fruit juices and
other beverages where water is the main constituent.
On the first TOR, inter-alia, the conclusions drawn by the Committee was as
follows: - "1.96 The Committee, however, find that the CSE findings are correct on
the presence of pesticide residues in carbonated water strictly in respect of the
36 samples of 12 brand names analySed by them. The Committee also appreciates the
whistle blowing act of CSE in alerting the nation to an issue with major
implications to food safety, policy formulation, regulatory framework and human and
environmental health." {See Annexure VIII of the Report}
Before going into the conclusions drawn by the JPC and recommendations made on the
soft drinks, what was said on water is extremely important: -
i) That water is an elixir of life and its importance as an item of food needs
hardly to be spelt out. It is, however, most disconcerting to note that even after
50 years of the enactment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA
Act), the necessity of including it under the definition of "Food" has not been
felt. The Committee recommended that section 2(v) of the PFA Act which defines
"Food" should be amended without further loss of time.
ii) Due to the absence of any prescribed standards, the manufacturers took full
advantage of unregulated regime by charging heavily for the water which, according
to the admission of the BIS itself, was being sold after filling the bottles from
the municipal water without any processing.
iii) The Committee recommended that norms for drinking water should be formulated
based on scientific studies and should be such which are achievable. At the same
time it is very essential that these standards are made legally enforceable.
Earnest efforts in this regard must be initiated immediately.
iv) Finally, the Committee recorded their displeasure on the weakness of the
enforcement system which has resulted in the appearance of spurious brands of
packaged drinking water in the market. This menace has to be dealt with on the
lines of the sure (none is spared), swift (fast processing of case) and severe
(deterrent punishment) approach proposed by the Mashelkar Committee to curb the
spurious drugs menace in the country. The PFA Act, as recommended in the last
Chapter of this report, should be suitably amended. Surveillance of drinking water
quality has to be a continuous exercise.
Recommendations of the JPC
The conclusions/recommendations drawn by the JPC on soft drinks and related aspects
are significant. Some of those recommendations are discussed below: -
i) The Committee noted with deep concern that the soft drink (Carbonated
water/Sweetened Aerated water) industry in India with an annual turnover of Rs.
6000 crores is unregulated. It is exempted from Industrial Licensing under the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and gets a one time licence to
operate from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries under the Fruits Products
Order (FPO) 1955 and a no objection certificate from the local government and the
State Pollution Control Board.
ii) The Committee recommended that the standards should be fixed after proper
consultations involving experts, scientists, farmer representatives, consumer
organizations, trade and industry etc. The Committee also emphasized the need for
taking the opinion of the Central Committee on Food Standards (CCFS) which is a
statutory body under the PFA Act, 1954.
iii) The Committee recommended that standards for carbonated beverages, which are
best suited for the Indian conditions need to be fixed in the overall perspective
of public health. These standards should also be stringent enough. The reason that
the other countries have not fixed such limits, should not dissuade our law makers
in attempting to do so, particularly when a vulnerable section of our population
who are young and constitute a vast national asset are consuming the soft drinks.
In Committee's view therefore, it is prudent to seek complete freedom from
pesticide residues in sweetened aerated waters. `Unsafe even if trace' should be
the eventual goal.
iv) Extraction of ground water for commercial use by the soft drink manufacturing
companies or bottled water manufacturing companies be properly regulated,
particularly when water levels in many parts of the country are getting depleted
alarmingly. This regulation should prevent indiscriminate use of water for
commercial purposes. The Committee strongly recommended that provision should be
made in the relevant Act making it mandatory for those who use water for commercial
purposes to recharge ground water to the maximum extent possible.
v) The Committee desired that option should be made available to the consumer to
choose between caffeinated and non-caffeinated soft drinks and that there should be
no difference in the quality of products being marketed in India as compared to
those which are being sold in the USA or other European countries. The Committee
also recommended that use of caffeine be regulated/ restricted based on best
practices followed globally regarding caffeine and its effects on human health.
vi) The Committee made a further important recommendation that whether PepsiCo and
Coca Cola are doing manufacturing directly in their own bottling units or through
franchises, it is the absolute responsibility of the brand owners - who select the
bottlers, provide the processing technology, quality know-how, the concentrate and
finally market the end-products - to ensure that consumers get a product which is
in conformity with the prescribed norms of quality and safety. The Committee,
therefore, recommended that the onus for maintaining the quality should lie with
the parent companies/brand owners and its compliance should be ensured.
These recommendations speak volumes about total lack of concern on public health by the Government and absence of safety standards. This is the unfortunate phenomenon which has been noticed in various other issues related to the protection of human health and environment. Where there is lacuna, it is exploited for making profits and even where law exists, it is not implemented which creates chaotic situation and corruption flourishes at the cost of permanent damage to the human health and environment. PFA Act requires drastic amendme nts not only with regard to packaged drinking water and soft drinks but also in several other areas keeping in view the present liberal market situation where all kinds of imported food items are being dumped for human consumption. The PFA Act,1954 has to adopt stringent norms on "food", which are in no way less than any international standards.
Sanjay Parikh
Sanjay Parikh is an advocate practising in the Supreme Court, and a civil rights activist. Write the author Volume 3, Issue #2, Combat Law Water Public health Feedback : Tell us what you think of this page. |