Pesticides in sugar: A chronology of deliberations
August 2003 to August 2006

Pesticide standards for soft drinks have been discussed for the past two years because of just one issue: how much pesticide comes from sugar in soft drinks and therefore what should be the final product standard for pesticides in soft drinks. It has been almost two years since the soft drinks companies raised this issue. It is their contention that since they have no control over the pesticide residue in sugar, they should not be asked to maintain pesticide standards in soft drinks. Similar reason was given by the industry (including PepsiCo and Coca-Cola) when the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) wanted to set pesticide residue standards for bottled water. At that time too the industry stated that since it had no control over the pesticide residues in groundwater, there was no need to set a pesticide residue standard for bottled water. But the fact of the matter is that there is a pesticide residue standard for bottled water today and the same companies are meeting the standards, irrespective of variations in the groundwater quality.

It is important to trace the debate on pesticide residues in sugar vis-à-vis soft drinks since its inception to understand the issues, their importance and the intention of the industry in raising this matter.

August 2003: The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) test results on pesticide residues in soft drink published. Soon after this, BIS FAD 14 committee starts working on revising the standards for soft drinks.

October 2003: Soft drinks companies raise the issue of pesticide residues in sugar for the first time during the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) set up to investigate pesticide residues in soft drinks. They inform JPC that the pesticide in their drinks comes from sugar, on which they have little control.

December 2004: Written submission to JPC by companies says that they have a system of procuring high quality sugar and an extensive system to treat the sugar syrup by hot carbon process during which pesticide residues are eliminated. JPC asks soft drinks companies to supply data on pesticide residues in sugar.

January 2004: JPC asks the ministry of health and others like the ministry of food processing industries (MoFPI) to give information on the issue of pesticide residues in sugar.

January 2004: Ministry of health responds to JPC: “The pesticide residue in sugar and the quantity of sugar used in soft drinks is so small that it is not likely to increase the pesticide residue in the final product”. It also presents data to the JPC corroborating the same. In its written submission, the ministry states that the methodology to be followed in standard setting would be to take the proportion of sugar in the final product.

Soft drinks companies also submit data on pesticide residues in sugar samples, which show little presence of pesticides. The data is for 3700/03/VLL/PIH/06 and 5029/03/VLL/PIH/02, tested by VIMTA Labs on October 3, 2003, and October 10, 2003, respectively.

February 2004: JPC asks its experts to research the issue and deliberate on it with the sugar industry. Based on the opinion of the experts and the data on pesticide residue in sugar given by various agencies, including soft drinks companies, the JPC rejects the assertion of the industry that sugar is the major source of pesticide in soft drinks. It (JPC) makes the following comments:

JPC-2.177: Though it has been stated by some soft drinks manufacturers that there is a possibility of pesticides entering beverages through sugar, the committee is not inclined to accept the same and desires that this be investigated in detail. The following may be considered while investigating:

According to the Package of Practices provided by Extension Departments, most sugarcane farmers are using only three to five types of pesticides. Most of these are used at the pre-planting stage, planting stage and the first six months of crop growth (February to June). In case there is an attack by insects or a disease attack on the crop, two or three types of pesticides are used till harvesting. This time gap between spray of pesticide and sugar extraction only results in degradation of pesticides.

According to Current Science (Vol 85, No.10, November 25, 2003), microbial activities in soil are high under tropical conditions, hence degradation of pesticides is faster.

According to sugar technologists, the refining process of sugar from sugarcane juice involves boiling, clarification by lime, sulphur dioxide gas, centrifugation of massecuite to remove molasses and sugar crystals. Sugar produced by crystallization is a process, which itself ensures the purity of the product and reduces impurities like dust, dirt and pesticide residues.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program (USDA-PDP) and the Food and Drug Administration Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (FDA/CFSAN) on Organophosphorus Chemicals on Food Crops, “A knowledge of highly refined nature of sugar and syrups supported by the limited residues data mentioned above is the basis of assumption that negligible residues of pesticides would be expected to occur in sugar and syrups”.

JPC-2.179: Carbonated water manufacturers have already mentioned before the JPC that they have a foolproof process to select and treat sugar and this treatment is uniform worldwide to ensure good quality sugar syrup. These companies are already purifying the sugar syrup with a Hot Carbon Treatment Process, which is effective in reducing most of the pesticide residues to below detectable level or below 0.1 ppb. The committee feel that sugar, therefore, cannot be the only source of pesticide residues.

March 2004: For the first time, soft drinks companies raise this issue in BIS committee (FAD 14) meeting. They are asked to submit pesticide residue data for sugar. Meanwhile, in the Pesticide Residue Sub-Committee meeting (ministry of health), the chairman of the Indian Sugar Mills Association states on record, “There is no report on the presence of pesticide residues in sugar.”

July 2004: FAD 14 meets in Kolkata. Despite repeated requests, industry does not supply data on pesticide residues in sugar. After discussion, draft standards are issued, which include standard for pesticide residues in the final product.

Immediately after the meeting, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola meet and write to top officials of the Department of Consumer Affairs, complaining against BIS officials and raising the sugar issue again. They enclose copies of two analytical reports by VIMTA, which they say, “Confirms the presence of pesticide residues in sugar available in India.” The data is for 3700/03/VLL/PIH/06 and 5029/03/VLL/PIH/02, tested by VIMTA Labs on October 3, 2003, and October 10, 2003, respectively. (Please note these are the two samples for which results were submitted to the JPC six months earlier).

FICCI and Coca-Cola submit reports of two more samples. (TNO project number: 010.53033/02.39.01 and Central Analytical Lab number: CD26272).

October 2004: FAD 14 meets in Chennai. Consumer and environmental groups submit their analysis of the pesticide residue data of the two sugar samples. The scrutiny of this data shows that in both samples, different pesticides were found and all were below 1 ppb level (except BHC in report number 5029/03/VLL/PIH/02, which is 1.2 ppb). The total pesticides found in report number 3700/03/VLL/PIH/06 was 2.33 ppb and in report number 5029/03/VLL/PIH/02 was 3.19 ppb.

The analysis of the data on sugar provided by FICCI/Coca-Cola shows similar results. It indicated that in most case no pesticides were found. For instance, the tests done by TNO on February 9, 2004, and the Central Analytical Lab on September 9, 2003, show that no pesticides were detected.

Therefore, the very basic assertion of PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and industry associations (CII, FICCI-CIFTI) that sugar is a major contributor of pesticides in soft drinks does not hold true even from the data supplied by them.

The analysis leads to the following conclusion: Soft drink companies say that sugar content in their products is about 10 per cent. Therefore, if we assume that sugar constitutes 10 per cent of the final soft drink, according to PepsiCo’s own data on sugar, the contribution of sugar to the total pesticide content in the final soft drink is well below 0.1 ppb in case of all individual pesticides and just 0.23 ppb and 0.31 ppb respectively for total pesticides. Both these values are well below the draft standard of 0.1 ppb for individual pesticides and 0.5 ppb for total pesticides. These test were done on raw sugar. Both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola had told the JPC that they treat sugar through a hot carbon process, which reduces the pesticide content further.

The committee also noted that “VSI Pune, NSI Kanpur, Nestle and NIN representatives had opined in this meeting as well as in the last meeting that there were no pesticides in the sugar samples.”

But the industry refuses to accept this evidence and wants further review by an expert panel.

January 2005: National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad, submits its data on pesticide residues in sugar. Eleven samples of sugar are collected at random from markets in Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Analysis shows that they do not contain any pesticides. National Sugar Institute (NSI), Kanpur, tells FAD 14 that they have also not found any pesticides in sugar samples.

February 2005: Expert panel meets in Ahmedabad to consider this data. It notes, “On examining the pesticide residues in carbonated water, the limits of the residues in water as a constituent have already been laid down and the data from NIN on pesticide residues which was tabled at the meeting showed limited presence of pesticide residues. Letters received from NSI, Vasantdata Sugar Institute confirmed in the tests they had conducted/reviewed had showed no presence of pesticide residues in sugar.”
 
Now with the evidence against them, the companies yet again refuse to accept this view. They ask for more data. It is now agreed that Vimta Lab will supply data on the samples it has tested.
 
March 2005: Vimta Labs submit reports (vide letter VLL/AL/GEN/04-05/422). Data from 135 samples (which have been tested for 50 pesticides) is provided.

May 2005: Expert panel meets in Ahmedabad to consider this data. CSE presents a detailed analysis of the data:

1. The mean pesticide residues from sugar (assuming 10 per cent sugar) in soft drinks is 0.06 ppb. This is just 12 per cent of the total pesticide standard of 0.5 ppb, recommended in the draft soft drinks standard.

2. The median pesticide residues (median value is used for setting MRL for crops) from sugar (assuming 10 per cent sugar) in soft drinks are 0.049 ppb. This is just 10 per cent of the total pesticide standard of 0.5 ppb, recommended in the draft soft drinks standard.

3. The median contribution of individual pesticides from sugar in soft drinks is as follows:
 
2,4-D: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Alachlor: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Atrazine: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

HCH:    0.02 ppb (20 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Chlorpyrifos: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

DDT: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Endosulfan: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Ethion: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Lindane: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Malathion:  0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Methyl Parathion: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Monocrotophos: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Phorate: 0.0 ppb (0 per cent of single pesticide standard of 0.1 ppb)

Thus, except for HCH, the contribution of individual pesticides from sugar to the total pesticides in soft drinks is NIL.

Even this analysis goes against the industry.However, it says the data is insufficient and pushes the committee to agree to the monitoring of sugar residues for two years. Now the industry says it needs data from different parts of the country and that the government should conduct an all India survey of sugar samples.

October 2005: No further data is provided by the industry on pesticide residues in sugar. The committee notes the clarification given by the Sugar Industry Sectional Committee (FAD 2) that the sugar samples do not have any pesticide residues. Based on the above information and analysis, the committee decides to finalise the standards for pesticide residues in carbonated beverages. These are similar to those formulated for bottled water.

March 2006: Committee confirms the decision reached in October 2005 to finalise the standard for carbonated beverages and leaves the decision of printing these to the BIS.

Conclusion:
Successive data analysis have shown that there is little pesticide in sugar. The sugar industry association and experts have said that sugar is not likely to contain any significant amount of pesticide precisely because of the application practice (little pesticide is used and whatever is used it is used only in the beginning of the 12 month cropping period) and because of the nature of the purification process used during manufacturing sugar. But after three years of deliberation, if further proof is required to see whether sugar contains pesticides or not, then no amount of data will ever satisfy the industry.

The fact remains that the cola companies and industry associations have (for the last three years) been successfully using sugar as a pretext to delay the formulation of standards. There can never be any consensus between the industry and non-industry members because the industry's economic interests are at stake. However, we cannot also become hostages to a consensus agreement.