It's
cheaper and easier to buy Coke in some third world countries than it is
to access clean water. Coke uses "public relations propaganda" to
convince consumers and entire nations that it is an "environmental
company" when really it is linked to pollution, water shortages, and
disease.
Coke has been tested in many cleaning scenarios and can even compare to high strength brands to
clean everything from oil stains, tile grout and even strip paint off furniture.
In
2003, the CSE analyzed samples from 12 major soft drink manufacturers
that are sold in and around the capital at its laboratories and found
that all of them contained residues of four extremely toxic pesticides
and insecticides--lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos.
"In
all the samples tested, the levels of pesticide residue far exceeded the
maximum permissible total pesticide limit of 0.0005 mg per liter in
water used as food, set down by the European Economic Commission (EEC),"
said Sunita Narain, director of the CSE at a press conference convened
to announce the findings.
The level of chlorpyrifos was 42 times
higher than EEC norms, their study showed. Malathion residues were 87
times higher and lindane- banned in the United States-21 times higher,
CSE scientists said.
They added that each sample was toxic enough
to cause long-term cancer, damage to the nervous and reproductive
systems, birth defects, and severe disruption of the immune system.
Samples from brand leaders Coca-Cola and Pepsi had almost similar
concentrations of pesticide residues in the CSE findings. Contaminants
in Pepsi samples were 37 times higher than the EEC limit while its rival
Coca-Cola exceeded the norms by 45 times, the same findings showed.
The
chiefs of the Indian subsidiaries of Coca-Cola and Pepsi were quick to
refute the charges. Sanjeev Gupta, president of Coca-Cola India, called
the revelations made by CSE "unfair" and said his company was being
subjected to a "trial by media".
Cheaper
Farmers in
the Durg, Rajnandgaon and Dhamtari districts of Chhattisgarh say they
have successfully used Pepsi and Coke to protect their rice plantations
against pests.
It is a trend that has been seen in other parts of India, with farmers also using Indian brands of colas.
The
practice of using soft drinks in lieu of pesticides, which are 10 times
more expensive, gained so much popularity that sales of the drinks
increased drastically in remote villages.
Farmers say the use of pesticides costs them 70 rupees ($1.50) an acre.
By comparison, if they mix a bottle of Pepsi or Coke with water and spray it on the crop it costs 55-60 rupees less per acre.
Old Practice
Agricultural specialist Devendra Sharma says farmers are mistaken in thinking that the drinks are the same as pesticides.
He
says the drinks are effectively sugar syrups and when they are poured
on crops they attract ants which in turn feed on the larva of insects.
Mr Sharma says using sugar syrup for pest control is not a new practice.
"Jaggery
made from sugar cane has been used commonly for pest control on many
occasions. Pepsi and Coca-Cola are being used to achieve the same
result," he says.
Fellow scientist, Sanket Thakur, has a different
explanation: "All that is happening is that plants get a direct supply
of carbohydrates and sugar which in turn boosts the plants' immunity and
the plantation on the whole ends up yielding a better crop."
Coke in the United States contains high fructose corn syrup
which may even prove to be a more effective pesticide since it is a
concentrated cocktail of the simple sugars fructose and glucose.
Anupam Verma, Pepsi sales manager at the time in Chhattisgarh, said sales figures in rural areas of the state increased by 20%.
Not Only Cola, But Water Is The Problem
CSE
scientists H. B. Mathur and Sapna Johnson said their basic inference
was that, as with the bottled mineral water, the soft drink
manufacturers were drawing their water supplies from groundwater that is
heavily contaminated by years of indiscriminate pesticide use.
High
pesticide residues were reported in groundwater around Delhi at the
time when the government's Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) and the
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) carried out a study which also
reported excessive salinity, nitrate and fluoride content besides traces
of lead, cadmium and chromium.
Significantly, the CSE
laboratories tested samples of soft drink brands popularly sold in the
United States as control and found that they did not contain any
pesticide residue. Although more than 95% of all soft drink brands in
the United States are made with municipal water supplies containing all
of the same toxins and pharmaceuticals in our drinking water including fluoride , arsenic, chlorine, atenolol, atrazine, carbamazepine, estrone, gemfibrozil, sulfamethoxazole, and trimethoprim.
CSE found that the regulations for the powerful and massive soft drinks
industry are much weaker, indeed non-existent, as compared to those for
the bottled water industry. The norms that exist to regulate the quality
of cold drinks are inadequate, leaving this "food" sector virtually
unregulated.
So pampered is the lucrative soft drink sector that
it is exempted from the provisions of industrial licensing under the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.
Sources:
bbc.co.uk
ipsnews.net
John Summerly is
nutritionist, herbologist, and homeopathic practitioner. He is a leader
in the natural health community and consults athletes, executives and
most of all parents of children on the benefits of complementary
therapies for health and prevention. 
By Michael Snyder, on October 13th, 2015
You can sign a 
