|
PRESS RELEASE:
August 14, 2006
“If we can drink them, we can
test them, says CSE”
UK lab data on soft drink tests is biased; the samples were provided by the
company. Would the UK government accept data, paid for by the company for
regulation?
Indian labs and CSE capable of testing for pesticide residues. If we can
drink their products, we can certainly test them.
If Coke products are so clean, then why is it resisting standards?
Government should not succumb to foreign arm-twisting. The issue is about
regulations and the fact that these companies cannot work outside Indian
law.
New Delhi, August 14, 2006: Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has
said that Coca-Cola’s recent claim that a London-based laboratory has tested
its products and given them a clean chit is completely untenable. “Moreover,
the company’s contention that only a foreign laboratory can test its
products is patronising and borders on racism,” said CSE. The implication is
that the CSE Pollution Monitoring Laboratory is not capable of testing its
products and therefore, its results are wrong: CSE refutes this
emphatically.
The CSE laboratory
CSE would like to make it clear that its laboratory is fully equipped to
test soft drinks. It has used an internationally established and accepted
methodology for its analysis; its equipments are state-of-the-art and
include the GC-MS, which is used to reconfirm the tests for pesticide
residues. The CSE laboratory was scrutinised by the Joint Parliamentary
Committee (JPC), which had found its findings to be correct. The Indian
government laboratories, which had tested the products in 2003, also found
pesticide residues in the drinks.
It is also being said by Coca-Cola that CSE’s laboratory is not NABL-accredited
and therefore, its analysis is not correct. But it had been accepted by the
JPC that as very few laboratories in the country are NABL-accredited for
pesticide residues in water, it is more important to get certification for
quality control. CSE laboratory has -- since then -- been certified under
ISO 9001. It has also improved its capacity to test by procuring a GC-MS, as
recommended by JPC.
The London lab report: a few questions
It is not CSE’s intention to raise issues with the UK-based Central Science
Laboratories (CSL). However, a few clarifications are due:
One, the samples have been provided by Coca-Cola and therefore, these cannot
be compared to the CSE study, which collected samples from the open market.
Would such a study, which has been sponsored and funded by Coca-Cola, be
used for regulatory purposes in the UK?
Two, the data provided by Coca-Cola is for samples provided in June 2005.
Why is this report being released now? Has the laboratory not tested samples
regularly?
Three, the laboratory uses the name of the UK government’s department for
environment, food and rural affairs. But will the UK government allow
contamination beyond stipulated levels in its own country? Recently, it
recalled beverages from the market when these were found to exceed the
non-existent domestic benzene standards by just 1 ppb. In this case, the
government used WHO drinking water standards to say that these products were
unsafe and must be recalled. In our case, we have found drinks to exceed the
final (but not notified) standards by 10-50 times. Would the UK government
have allowed this? Or is our life cheaper?
Four, the laboratory says that it did not find any pesticide residues. What
is the laboratory’s limit of detection? Laboratories can only check above
their limits of detection and quantification, which specify the sensitivity
of their equipment.
We ask this, because in 2003, this same laboratory tested one bottle for
Coca-Cola and gave the product a clean chit. CSE confirmed that this
laboratory’s limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.5 to 2.5 ppb. Therefore, it
could only detect and quantify pesticide levels in soft drinks if these
levels were 5-25 times higher than the EU limit (or the BIS’s final but not
notified standard). In other words, it could not detect pesticides because
its equipment did not have the sensitivity to find them. In comparison,
CSE’s laboratory equipment’s LOQ is 0.01-0.2 ppb for pesticides detected in
soft drink.
Validating the test methodology
The two soft drink companies have argued that there can be no regulations
because their products are multi-ingredient and therefore, cannot be tested.
CSE asks: how then are they now claiming to have tested their products? Or
are they saying that their products can only be tested by a UK laboratory?
Then it may be appropriate to say that only the products should also be sold
in UK.
It is clear that Indian laboratories have the equipment and capacity to test
this ‘complex’ – sugar and water – product. CSE has used the methodology
laid down by the USEPA and used by governments across the world, which is
for testing liquid matrix -- any complex multi-ingredient product, which has
water and other substances. All laboratories are trained to distinguish
between molecules of pesticides against the interferences of the product: we
do not a British lab to tell us this fact. CSE, in fact, used a GC-MS to
reconfirm the presence of pesticide residues.
Also, if these products are so clean and meet the EU standards (and also the
BIS final standards), then why are these companies opposing the setting of
regulations? Do they have something to hide?
Awaiting government response
The ball is clearly in the court of the government, says CSE. The companies
will use any tactics – foreign or strong-armed – to pressurise us to believe
that they are clean and that they should not be regulated. The government
regulations have been finalised but not notified, because of pressure from
the companies.
The question now is, will the government cave in to threats by the US
government to delay and prevaricate on this matter which concerns our
health? Or will it do what is right: notify the BIS standards immediately?
The FDI bogey
Let us be clear that raising the threat of stopping foreign direct
investment (FDI) is a shameful act of desperation. This is a case of how
large and powerful corporations are misusing their power to pressurise our
government not to notify standards, which have been finalised by our own
committee of top scientists. This is a case of corruption and abuse of
power. The fact is that FDI needs regulated environments and rule of law,
not corporate cronyism and weak regulators.
More information:
|
