I Want My DDT.
I’ve been following the current fracas between the Centre for Science and Environment and soft drink makers with a growing interest. For two reasons. One, I really really like my Coke. Two, it’s in my line of work.
What I find odd is that the two companies are being held to blame for the high pesticide residues that were apparently found in the samples they tested. This is not a result of the addition of pesticides to the water by the companies in question but because we have very polluted ground water. There is still a large variance between the results quoted by the CSE and those by the manufacturers. And this is something that is a reality, the same sample tested by different labs using the same method of analysis can give you differing results. And you’d have to be very cynical to believe that these companies are intentionally poisoning us, for profit at that! And why have they chosen only soft drinks to target, why not bottled water too? The answer, of course, is obvious; it's far easier a target to tarnish.
Anyway, I don’t mean to say that soft drinks are good for you. They aren’t. That much is established fact. But then again, so too with cigarettes. A fat tax might be a good idea. I’ll miss my Coke, and my KFC and my Fillet-O-Fish…
But what I find galling, is that people are blissfully unaware or blind to the problem of similar pesticide residue in our food chain. Imagine, if you will, the same groundwater being used to irrigate our vegetable and fruit crops, quench the thirst of our livestock and joining the seas where fish swim in the excrement of our cities. This affects a far greater number of people than pesticides in soft drinks but why is everyone silent on this front? Why I’d worry more about what we eat is because the pesticide residue is concentrated in the tissue of the vegetables/fruit/meat/fish, which makes it far more dangerous. Do MNC’s make for easier targets of our vitriol?
Take a look at this data from a study conducted in the United States.
What I find odd is that the two companies are being held to blame for the high pesticide residues that were apparently found in the samples they tested. This is not a result of the addition of pesticides to the water by the companies in question but because we have very polluted ground water. There is still a large variance between the results quoted by the CSE and those by the manufacturers. And this is something that is a reality, the same sample tested by different labs using the same method of analysis can give you differing results. And you’d have to be very cynical to believe that these companies are intentionally poisoning us, for profit at that! And why have they chosen only soft drinks to target, why not bottled water too? The answer, of course, is obvious; it's far easier a target to tarnish.
Anyway, I don’t mean to say that soft drinks are good for you. They aren’t. That much is established fact. But then again, so too with cigarettes. A fat tax might be a good idea. I’ll miss my Coke, and my KFC and my Fillet-O-Fish…
But what I find galling, is that people are blissfully unaware or blind to the problem of similar pesticide residue in our food chain. Imagine, if you will, the same groundwater being used to irrigate our vegetable and fruit crops, quench the thirst of our livestock and joining the seas where fish swim in the excrement of our cities. This affects a far greater number of people than pesticides in soft drinks but why is everyone silent on this front? Why I’d worry more about what we eat is because the pesticide residue is concentrated in the tissue of the vegetables/fruit/meat/fish, which makes it far more dangerous. Do MNC’s make for easier targets of our vitriol?
Take a look at this data from a study conducted in the United States.
- “Pesticides were found on 79 percent of the potatoes tested and there were 29 pesticides found on potatoes.”
- “Pesticides were found on 83 percent of the spinach tested and there were 36 pesticides found on spinach.”
If this is the case in the US, what do you suppose we eat? And organic farming isn’t really a solution; it is far too land intensive and precarious for the farmer.
I think I’ll go get a Coke now…
Update 1:
Arjun Swarup has an interesting piece posted at The Indian Economy Blog.
Update 2:
I think I’ll go get a Coke now…
Update 1:
Arjun Swarup has an interesting piece posted at The Indian Economy Blog.
Update 2:
I decided to take a look at the maximum pesticide residue limits defined by the Codex Alimentarius and compare them with the limits that the Draft Indian Standard for Carbonated Water (Third Revision of IS 2346) specifies. [Warning: PDF link.] The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.
The results are most surprising, if for no other than the fact that we apparently place a higher premium on a product that is consumed by a fraction of the population and primarily in urban centers at that, rather than on products that are consumed by a larger proportion of the population such as milk. I don’t mean to suggest that soft drinks are better than milk, they are not. But in India, they very well might have lower pesticide residues. The CSE claims [Warning: PDF link.] that this is not germane to the discussion as there is some nutritive value derived from milk and hence it is an inherent trade off but that ignores the fact that if milk is consumed in larger quantities and is more polluted than soft drinks, you are still going to be poisoned! Which is a ludicrous position to put forth.
Without further ado, the numbers below (I have not compared them all, only some of them. Click for a larger view.):
The Draft Indian Standard for Carbonated Water states that pesticide residues considered individually cannot exceed 0.0001 mg/litre and the total pesticide residue cannot exceed 0.0005 mg/litre.
The Codex does not list MRL’s for Alachor, Atrazine, Butachlor, Ethion, Isoproturon, Methyl Parathion, Monocrotophos or α, β and δ -HCH.
In some cases, there is a 100% difference between the draft standard for soft drinks and the current standard for products. Makes no sense.
To me, it looks like a classic case of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt and appealing to consumers fears.
The results are most surprising, if for no other than the fact that we apparently place a higher premium on a product that is consumed by a fraction of the population and primarily in urban centers at that, rather than on products that are consumed by a larger proportion of the population such as milk. I don’t mean to suggest that soft drinks are better than milk, they are not. But in India, they very well might have lower pesticide residues. The CSE claims [Warning: PDF link.] that this is not germane to the discussion as there is some nutritive value derived from milk and hence it is an inherent trade off but that ignores the fact that if milk is consumed in larger quantities and is more polluted than soft drinks, you are still going to be poisoned! Which is a ludicrous position to put forth.
Without further ado, the numbers below (I have not compared them all, only some of them. Click for a larger view.):
The Draft Indian Standard for Carbonated Water states that pesticide residues considered individually cannot exceed 0.0001 mg/litre and the total pesticide residue cannot exceed 0.0005 mg/litre.
The Codex does not list MRL’s for Alachor, Atrazine, Butachlor, Ethion, Isoproturon, Methyl Parathion, Monocrotophos or α, β and δ -HCH.In some cases, there is a 100% difference between the draft standard for soft drinks and the current standard for products. Makes no sense.
To me, it looks like a classic case of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt and appealing to consumers fears.
29 comments:
Gautam,
Great stuff. I think we need to stop assuming that India gets dumped with low standards and trash products from the "rich nations".
Will try and post on this later tonight.
Could you send me (arjunswarup@gmail.com) the link to the studies you have quoted from for the US ?
profit motive is a key insight, food products companies need to be especially strict about their quality standards so as to ensure profits. India is big market with a potential for growth for companies like Coke and Pepsi. Unlike our politicians MNCs know that the public is not dumb and will reject their products if they arent satisfied. Last time an India Today cartoon (maybe it was outlook) captured it best with their caption: Mausam garam hai, publicity ke liye hum besharam hai.
Arjun: I agree with you. It's an assumption that does the Indian consumer a great injustice. They're not stupid.
Aditya: No news is local anymore. All news is global. Companies would do well to remember that. That said, I hate how the CSE is furthering a definite agenda in the guise of consumer protection.
Brother your point on 'There is still a large variance between the results quoted by the CSE and those by the manufacturers' is very loose.
Your link says:
...Coca-Cola, Thums Up, Sprite and Limca – and concluded that no detectable pesticides could be found...
Now the real question is what is the limit assumed as detectable? Till that time, to assume a large variance is at best naive, and rather presumptous.
Moreover, charged topics like these require numbers as well as objectivity.
The nutrition-pesticide tradeoff is a valid one. The assumption that colas are central to our lives is at best fallacious. Their utility is only as a lifestyle product. So should they have enough pesticides, I see no reason to have them. If I must have some pesticides, might as well have some nutrition too bro.
And the data sheet while full of numbers doesnt illuminate. Could you do up the numbers? Like proving the 100% difference instead of alleging it.
Sorry to say, you're responding to CSE rhetoric with more of their own. Their report itself is so full of this-that and not straight calculations. I do agree that targeting colas is sexy and attention grabbing but that still doesnt justify most of your other points!
Anon: As of today, there is no mentioned limit for carbonated water as there is no standard that has been notified. The only limit that exists is for Mineral Water [Appendix B, A. 32.1 of the PFA Rules, 1955] and sub-section (4) (37) states that the requirement for “Pesticide Residue” shall be “below detectable limits.” Which begs the question, what limit did the CSE assume as the baseline value?
As regards the nutrition vs. pesticide tradeoff, it is valid but only up to a point. If you receive far more pesticide residue from a product that you consume far more often and in greater quantities, logically, you’d want to regulate that with greater urgency than a product, which you’ve admitted is a lifestyle choice, which does lesser harm. That you receive nutrition should not be a factor in determining the harm that the product causes.
The 100% difference was based on the requirement mentioned in the Draft Indian Standard for Carbonated Water (Third Revision of IS 2346) where total pesticide residue was not to exceed 0.0005 mg/litre. In my table, for the head “Milks”, the total pesticide residue, as I have been able to infer, adds up to 0.10 mg and the difference between the two is 99.5%. My bad, I rounded it up.
A far better way to express it would be to say that the total pesticide residue as calculated from your sheet is 200 times more than what is specified in the Draft Indian Standard for Carbonated Water (Third Revision of IS 2346).
For a few of the other products:
Apple 4000
Cabbages, Head 20000
Cacao beans 200
Carrot 1000
Cauliflower 1100
Celery 4000
Coffee beans 300
Eggs 560
Grapes 19000
Meat (from mammals other than marine mammals) 11300
Milk of cattle, goats & sheep 40
Milks 200
Potato 5200
Poultry meat 1220
Tea, Green, Black 64000
Tomato 3000
Wheat 5520
Fucking scary.
There is an entry for Carbonated Water [Appendix B, A. 01 01 of the PFA Rules, 1955] and at (40) states that pesticide residues considered individually cannot exceed 0.0001 mg/litre and the total pesticide residue cannot exceed 0.0005 mg/litre.
Why the artificial distinction between Mineral water and Packaged water/Carbonated water as regards the pesticide residue? Just because it's of natural origin is no reason to allow greater pesticide residues.
have more coke vs safe more coke
this was good fun
DRINK BEER !!
GREAT JOB - KEEP IT UP
CSE: THE CENTER FOR USING SCIENCE TO CREATE AN UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENT.
The whole world should get after their lives to force CSE to appologise to the masses for raising a false alarm.
we are working on similar lines
visit jago-hindustani.blogspot.com
or write to us at jago_hindustani@yahoo.co.in
GOOD LUCK
Aggi: Whoa! That's a long litany of arguments! And I stand by you bro..
Anon: If all the CSE has done is to raise awareness of pesticide residues in food, I applaud them.
what is alarming is the way these politicians have chosen to react. they find it reasonable to kill, abduct, arson etc but find no time to get to the truth and the motive of CSE behind all this. Also there have been numerous editorial pieces and voices crying themselves hoarse on the need to first look at water woes and the pesticide scare in the food basket but has anyone seen any sort of reaction from any politician on that
The real ass is the media, because Sunita Narain is a creation of the media. This "never been to college" would not have been where she is, if it wasn't for the our news papers and TV channels who think every word uttered by Sunita is gospel truth.
Has some one said "every people get the frauds they deserve" ?
If not, I say it now.
Well-I am an Indian and live in NewYork, Fundamentally I feel that food and drinks manufacturers ( regardless of which country they belong to) should stay within safe limits and endeavor to stick to quality standards even if it costs a bit more.
I had a discussion about the Issue with a American associate on the cola pesticide issue and this is what he told me
1. All comparable drinks have pesticide in India
2. Coke and Pepsi have lower level of pesticide than other food items
3. It is not cost effective for them to purify the water or material they use
4. Double standards in safety and quality are justifiable for developing world. There is no need to apply the same safety and quality standards if it means 'bottom line'
Beyond all this argument my personal feeling as an Indian
1) The first CSE REPORT was release over 2 years ago - No quality measure by pepsi coke??
2) Now does that mean that Pesticides in softdrinks is permisible? If so pro pespi pesticide gentlemen please say so boldly. Why hide behind elaborate comparitive statements and arguments?.Yes having high level pesticide is OK..also they should mention the fact that ..no one should poin this out..it is blasphemy to talk about it. just keep shot be and be ignorant
3) Does pesticide in other food items mean pesticide in pepsi is OK? that means because corruption is rampant in India any one company should not be condemned for corruption? Should we adopt the policy that since there are bigger corruption scandals why are we talking abou the guys who are into smaller scale corruption...let us just not talk about it , accept it and move on
3) The most important issue--Do people in developing countries have NO RIGHT to international quality standards? and should MNC's adopt the policy that we will reduce the quality of our goods and services for developing country people because they dont deserver any better?
4) Have we as Indians begun to believe that our "lives" are less 'important" than 'western' or "developed" country lives???
I think this is a good point because instead of using the pepsi coke pesticide issue to focus on food and beverage safety people seem to have taken the logic that
ummm..ALL INDIAN food items have pesticides so let pepsi , coke have it too???
No wonder we are so apathetic too millions of our kids being seriously malnutritioned..we take the same philosophy to our lives too righ? Corruption happens every where? so why single some people out or make an issue of it at all??
Yes why?? why bother???
Yeah I guess so--when we ourselve are hell bent on not improving our lot what logic or argument do I propose to the person who said -double standards ARE OK??
None -- I told him none..we dont care about ourselves ..so there is no reason for american companies or people to care about us.
Nina, I do hope your lethargy of argument is just that, lethargy. And not because you believe in that which you have said. But, if that's your personal view, while I might disagree, I can respect it. However, specious arguments such as "It is not cost effective for them to purify the water or material they use", even if they aren't yours, are dangerous. Because it isn't true and to accuse companies, big or small, of callous disregard to local laws and human life, is to tar and feather them without good reason.
As for the rest of what you say, I'm glad you're in NY. We could do without your negative energy.
Bangalore bytes..I never attacked anyone personally--but I see that you hate some one for their point of view. So you say that you are glad I am out of the country huh?
If I dont agree with your view and feel we got to start somewhere I am better out of the country..And by the way who are you to decide ?
and What is your logic..personal hate and calling people names? Or do you work for these colas per chance? That I guess may be the case
When you have nothing to say attack people personally.wonderful!! I dont buy your spin..
Nina, I have no idea what you are droning on about.
I did say that while I disagree with your views I can respect them.
Where I stand at variance is when you said:
"we dont care about ourselves ..so there is no reason for american companies or people to care about us"
and hence your bad karma is better left outside of India because we don't share your pessimism and can do without it.
We'll help ourselves, thank you very much. Because we'd like safe food and water.
Banglaore bytes STOP ABUSING ME with WORDS likd "YOUR BAD KARMA" "NEGATIVE ENERGY" YEAH I TOO HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR YOU -
BUT YOU ARE AN ASENINE CUNNING FOX.
Your absuses and personal attacks DO not Scare me ..THEY ONLY POINT TO HOW INSECURE AND AFRAID YOU ARE OF OTHER POINT OF VIEWS..
You also think "WE" is you which EQUALS to " EVERYONE" -
Stop making yourself the RERPESENTATIVE AND USING THE WORD "WE" HAHA..I SEE YOU RIGHT THROUGH..
SO GO TRY YOUR LUCK ELSEWHERE
"WE" DONT HAVE PLACE FOR FOXES LIKE YOU..
Dont worry "WE" Alreay know your tricks and SPIN.."WE" ARE sorry for you- too bad your pathetic attempts remain just that..
GO use your abuses elsewhere-I throw them right back on your face..so save them IN YOUR DIRTY MIND
We, would refer to Me, Myself and I.
I have no grouse with you, just your double-standards when it comes to what is acceptable for India.
My dirty mind? Whatever could you mean?
Nina,
Pesticide levels in the US and EU are forty times higher than in India. Our food chain has the lowest level of pesticide contamination in the world. Its the reverse of what you are saying.
Could you please convey this information to your American associate ? I can send you all the information if you would like, which proves my statements.
This is not an issue about Pesticides residues in our food chain.It is an issue of HUMAN PESTS (CSE and the likes) IN OUR SOCIETY.
This is a BIG GAME
NOT SO CLEAN GAME
NEEDS A CRUSADE by like minded people.
visit
jago-hindustani.blogspot.com
Nina
You and your US Associate are uninformed and you have not even read this BLOG carefully. I am just pasting some of my commets again:
3. Prevalent standard in India are on Packaged Drinking water- which are conforming to EU standards and are as strict as possible, anywhere in the world. And target companies- Coca-Cola and Pepsi comply with these standards.
4. Same purified water as per BIS/EU standard is used in making these beverages. These companies actually remove contamination whether pesticides or other material.
Why would these of USD 100 billion + valuation companies stake their reputation for USD1 billion market by selling inferior products? It defeats logic, science and facts.
These are legally run businesses but with huge respect. So it is easy to throw stones on them and become famous.
In scientific investigations there is nothing like a "0" or an absolute zero. Because there is nothing like this except an abstract philosophy which we Indians call "Shunya". Hence scientific people express thissituation in any test results as " Below detectable limits" or "not detected" or "not seen with xyz instrument deploying abc method".
It is merely admitting that while there are no contaminats here ( Zero), in future there may be a technology which can measure with say 1000 more accuracy.
Hence, while there are no pesticides in these Colas- as proven by results of labs like MWH (USA), CSL (UK) and Vimta (INDIA)and Ministry of Health- Gov of India, each report will say/says "Below detectable limits" which is accepted as Zero or closest to Zero.
So, tell your American associate, Indians are as concerned about our health and Coke and PEPSI are serving best products in India.
Now a Challenge, if you are still confused:
Pl name 10 food/beverages products safer than Coke?
OK, can list 10, please list 5?
OK , I know it will be difficult, can you list ONE?
I've uploaded an interesting article from the Economist here:
Economist Article on CSE (PDF. Rapidshare.de)
Click on the Free link to download it.
Do read it.
Good thoughts. I ran across this interesting article about the Coke/Pepsi pesticide issue that suggests that the issue here is more than just about soda, but rather more of an American influence and American commercialism in India. As such, I'd say the PR stakes are indeed alot greater than just selling soda.
It is amazing that educated people are not able to grasp the real issue.
First, appreciate that there is a difference between :
a) there is/isn’t pesticide in Coke/Pepsi
b) there is pesticide in Coke/Pepsi and is it more than medically safe limits
c) there is pesticide in Coke/Pepsi and is it more than permissible limits
d) there is pesticide in Coke/Pepsi and is it more than other food items
CSE usually harps on c) Most of you here are discussing b) and d). When some one challenges CSE’s data, they cleverly take shelter under a) i.e. there is pesticide. Of course there is pesticide, who ever denied it ? There is pesticide in every thing.
The permissible limit will of course be less than medically safe limit, but it can be less, lesser, and still lesser. CSE argues that permissible limit in Coke/Pepsi should be kept lower than in food items because we need nutrition that comes through food and therefore food items are “essential” and therefore a certain amount of pesticides in them have to be accepted as unavoidable, but Coke/Pepsi are “non-essential” and therefore deserve more strict limits.
On the face of it, this sounds reasonable. The trick in this argument is, it divides all eatables/drinkables only in two groups –foods with a nutritive value and therefore essential; and the rest that are non-essential. It is a tribute to CSE’s media management that presently the “non-essential” set consists of only Coke/ Pepsi. How about Tea, Coffee, Beer, . . . ? Surely these aren’t “essential”. How about fruit juices ? These have nutritive value, yet aren’t “essential”. One can get all the nutrition one wants without drinking any fruit juice. How about junk food, (every thing from hamburgers to bhel-puri). Surely some thing that is named “junk” can’t be “essential” ? Yet, CSE harps only on Coke/ Pepsi and the whole world (except a few) wags its tail.
The controversy is NOT about pesticide in our drinks. The controversy is about MNC bashing, particularly the ones that have an “American” tag on them. It is an anti-MNC, anti-US agenda masquerading in the garb of public-health agenda. And it is sad that the society can’t (or won’t ?) see this, and therefore keeps talking in terms of ppm and ppb.
By the way, the pesticide in Coke/ Pepsi doesn’t come through the water route. If it did, it would be easy to remove it by reverse osmosis and kill the controversy. It comes through the sugar route.
Charlotte and Anon: You are both correct. It's far more of a "foreign-hand" bashing exercise than one in rational, grounded thought.
Nina, which NGO do you work for?
Post a Comment