Subscribe
.jpg?w=320&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
.jpg "(Credit: CSE)")
The Pollution Monitoring Laboratory (PML) of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) places in the public domain its analysis of the contents of 12 cold drink brands sold in Delhi. Three bottles of each of the 12 brands were purchased from markets across the city and analysed to see if they contained pesticides.
PML tested the cold drink samples for 16 organochlorine pesticides, 12 organophosphorus pesticides and 4 synthetic pyrethroides -- all of these are commonly used in India as insecticides, in agricultural fields as well as at home
The test found: organochlorine pesticides
LINDANE (y-HCH): This deadly insecticide damages the body’s central nervous system as well as immune system and is a confirmed carcinogen. It was found in 100 per cent of cold drink samples. Its concentration ranged from 0.0008 milligram per litre (mg/l) to 0.0042 mg/l in the samples tested. This last amount is 42 times the 0.0001 mg/l EEC limit — a set of standards stipulated by the European Economic Commission to control contamination in water used as ‘food’ — for maximum admissible concentration for an individual pesticide. It was found in Mirinda lemon. On an average, lindane concentration in all brands was 0.0021 mg/l, or 21 times higher than the EEC norm.
In the popular Coca-Cola brand lindane concentration was 0.0035 mg/l — a level of concentration which was 35 times higher than the EEC norms.
DDT AND ITS METABOLITES (DDD & DDE): Also detected in 81 per cent of the samples. Absent in Diet Pepsi, their concentration is as high as 0.0042 mg/l in Mirinda lemon (42 times higher than EEC norms). On average, total DDT and metabolites found in the samples stood at 0.0015 mg/l, 15 times higher than EEC limits. In the popular Pepsi brand it was 16 times higher than EEC norms. In the equally popular Coca-Cola brand, it was 9 times higher than the EEC limit.
It found: organophosphorus pesticides
CHLORPYRIFOS: Especially dangerous for mothers-to-be and babies as it is a suspected neuroteratogen (it causes malformations in foetuses), this pesticide was found in 100 per cent of the samples. Maximum concentration was in Mirinda lemon flavour: 0.0072 mg/l, or 72 times more than the EEC single-pesticide norm. The average amount of chlorpyrifos found in all samples was 0.0042 mg/l, 42 times higher than the EEC norm.
MALATHION: Detected in 97 per cent of the samples, its concentration was highest in a Mirinda lemon sample: 0.0196 mg/l, or 196 times the EEC limit for a single pesticide. Coca- Cola had malathion 137 times higher than EEC norms. Malathion gets activated in the human liver to produce malaoxon, deadly for the nervous system. It is also a confirmed mutagen — it can tinker with the body’s chromosomal set-up.
In brand terms
Two multinationals — Atlanta-headquartered The Coca-Cola Company and New York-based PepsiCo — control the cold drink market in India. Their market share is a fiercely contested secret. They also seem to share a penchant for pesticide residues in their products. Total pesticides in all PepsiCo brands on average was 0.0180 mg/l, 36 times higher than the EEC limit for total pesticides (0.0005 mg/l). Total pesticides in all Coca-Cola brands were 0.0150 mg/l, 30 times more than the same EEC limit.
In conclusion, the pesticides found in soft drinks are odiously similar to bottled water, which the PML had investigated earlier in the year.
Merchanting madira
By the 1990s, the carbonated drinks market in the US and Western Europe was saturated. Companies therefore turned to new ones. So came the fizz to the Middle East, refurbished East Europe and Asia. In 1991, PepsiCo entered the newly liberalised Indian market. 2 years later, Coca-Cola re-appeared (it was thrown out in the wake of the 1977 FERA regulations).
Slowly beginning to dominate the Indian market — Coca-Cola bought out Parle Beverages and its brands Thums Up, Limca and Gold Spot; in 1999 it acquired Cadbury Schweppes’ brands Crush, Canada Dry and Sport Cola. Pepsi, on its part, took over Mumbai-based Duke range of soft drinks — they now rule over it. By March 2001, government estimates that 6540 million cold drink bottles were sold annually in the country. In other words, with over a billion Indians, each Indian would be drinking roughly 6 bottles of soft drinks each year (compare: Pakistan, 17 bottles per capita per year; Sri Lanka, 21 bottles; China, 21). In Delhi, the consumption is a whopping 50 bottles per person per year. Companies are now busy wooing rural markets — the innovative 200 ml bottle, costing Rs 5-7, has been hailed as a success. In short, colanisation is here to happen.
But how can quality-conscious multinationals market products unfit for human consumption?
The regulator’s meaningless maze
Will they get away with it?
They wouldn’t have got away in the US. Legally enforceable norms exist there, that regulate the kind of water used to make cold drinks with. (Remember, the main ingredient in a cold drink — or carbonated non-alcoholic beverage, as it is technically called — is water.) In the US, regulations provide that the quality of water used to make cold drinks must be the same as that used to make bottled water. ‘Raw water’ used to make bottled water falls under the regulative umbrella of the US Food and Drug Administration. In their rule-book, water consumed in this form is a ‘food’; therefore water used as an ingredient in beverages — also therefore a food — must meet the same standards as bottled water. In addition the Safe Drinking Water Act, a federal legislation under the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), stipulates drinking water standards to protect public health.
Its primary standards are legally enforceable nationwide. The state of Massachussets, for instance, stipulates that the source water used for bottled water (and carbonated drinks) must meet the federal EPA national primary drinking water standards. They wouldn’t have got away in Europe. The European Economic Council Directive 80/778/ EEC lays down standards for the quality of drinking water intended for human consumption. Such water, it clearly specifies, shall include water used in a food production undertaking for the manufacture or processing of products and substances intended for human consumption, or effecting “the wholesomeness of the foodstuff in its finished form”. (From December 25, 2003, this directive will be repealed and replaced by Directive 98/83/EC, in which the maximum admissible concentration for individual and total pesticide is the same.) But in India, these companies cannot be taken to court. In fact, forget legal procedure; these companies cannot even be politely told to stick to norms. For — and this is precisely where quality-conscious multinationals laugh all the way to the bank — the norms that regulate the manufacture of cold drinks in India are a meaningless maze.
.jpg)
There is Rule 65 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA). Rule 65 regulates the presence of insecticides and pesticides in food. But “food” is so defined in Rule 65 as to exclude “beverages”. Does this mean the Act has nothing to say about cold drinks? Not at all. Sub-section A.01.01 in Appendix B defines the standards of quality for non-alcoholic beverages, but has nothing to say about pesticide residues. This Act is mandatory, but does not regulate pesticides in soft drinks.
Then, there are the specifications for “sweetened aerated water with no fruit juice or fruit pulp or containing less than 10 per cent of fruit juice or fruit pulp” in Part II (D) of The Fruit Products Order (FPO), 1955. FPO rules are as mandatory as the PFA’s. It regulates the general characteristics of a beverage. On the quality of the basic raw material it merely says: “water used in the manufacture shall be potable and if required by the licensing officer shall be got examined chemically and bacteriologically by any recognised laboratory”. Please note: “water…shall be potable”. But what is “potable”? The Order does not define it; legally, therefore, the order provides no scope to regulate pesticide residues.
.jpg)
These two mandatory sets of rules apart, there exists IS 2346: 1992, a norm of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). It lays down specifications for “carbonated beverages”. In the “foreword” to this document, water is clearly mentioned as an ingredient in carbonated beverages: “The quality of a carbonated beverage depends on the quality of the various ingredients that go into its manufacture — water, acidulants, sweetening agents, emulsifiers and stabilisers, flavour, colour and carbon dioxide being the important ones” [emphasis added].
The document then prescribes the requirements and methods by which the quality of carbonated beverages may be gauged. As part of this process, it lists the various ingredients that can be used to make carbonated beverages. In this list, there is no mention of water! In any case, this BIS standard is voluntary in nature (unlike the certification for bottled water); a company needn’t meet its specifications. BIS has another standard, also voluntary — IS 4251:1967 (reaffirmed 1977) — which prescribes standards for “quality tolerances for water for processed food industry”. It’s a bizarre piece of standard-setting. In its foreword, it says: “In processed food industry, water is used for a number of purposes, such as processing, washing, flushing and general usage and also for boiler feed and cooling”. Isn’t it also used to make cold drinks?
The bottom line is that in India, the cold drinks industry is virtually unregulated. Strangely, it is also exempted from the provisions of industrial licensing under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. It gets a one-time license to operate from the ministry of food processing industries, which includes a non-objection certificate from the local government and a water analysis report from a public health laboratory. It also requires a no-objection certificate from the state pollution control board. That’s it. There’s no environmental impact assessment, or siting regulations for the industry. Its use of water — largely unpriced groundwater — is not regulated.
Forget pesticides. Standards for other substances — such as heavy metals like arsenic or lead — also are many times above the guidelines for drinking water issued by the ministry of urban development (see table: Standards to regulate…). For instance, for deadly arsenic, standards differ in different regulations — in soft drinks under the mandatory Food Products Order it is 0.5 ppm; under the BIS ‘voluntary’ standards, the quantity drops to 0.25 ppm; and strangely, drinking water guidelines specify a safe level of only 0.01 ppm. Therefore, soft drinks have been allowed 50 times higher arsenic content than in drinking water. Allowed lead levels for soft drinks are 50 times higher than bottled water. Cadmium is not even legislated. Why? Don’t ask. Working within the meaningless maze of such regulations, common sense dictates that a company would love to set up shop in India.
For full report, log on to www.downtoearth.org.in
The Indian government has notified new standards for pesticide residues in bottled water. The notification came on July 18, 2003, bringing the curtains down on a 6-month drama that had turned quite farcical.
6 months ago, a study conducted by the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) (see: 'Pesticide residues in bottled water', February 15, 2003) showed that most brands of bottled water being sold under the ISI quality certification mark were pesticide-laden. Indian regulatory law for pesticide residues -- the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) and standards specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)-- was exposed as archaic.
Government was embarrassed. BIS formed an expert group to look into the matter. It proposed new standards for bottled water, which recommended quantified maximum residue limit for individual and total pesticides.
WANTED: precisely brain and brawn
There are pesticides in manufactured consumables because there are pesticides in the 'raw water' used. There are pesticides in the source water because there are pesticides being blatantly used in fields. Thus any policy to provide consumers in India with quality consumables can do nothing until it takes into account these deadly chemicals. This causative logic is so plain it requires no articulation. Unfortunately, it needs to be.
This is one reason: "One should not be afraid of pesticides. They are in fact friendly and responsible for making us food sufficient" -- O P Dubey, assistant director-general at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research quoted in the national daily Times of India on the issue of bottled water standards. This is another: "It will be premature for India to take a decision to adopt a strict standard" wrote Amit Mitra, secretary-general of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry in a letter to the health secretary, on standards for bottled water.
Whatever agricultural scientists or industry bodies say, the larger issue that emerges from both the bottled water episode and now the test results is the need for stringent and quantified norms for pesticide residues in drinking water and other kinds of food. This has to be based on the available science of pesticide residue impact on human health. How does one determine this safe level? It requires a high order of scientific research on chronic exposure levels. It requires regular and periodic reviews of the latest research on the toxicity of these substances. Unfortunately, India, with its bombastic claims of scientific capacities, has neither worked on collecting evidence from pesticide use, nor done much toxicity research.
These processes can be put into motion. Till that happens, Indian standards for pesticides would have to be based on the standards set up different international agencies or governments, namely the World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the US Environment Protection Agency (USEPA)/Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Union (EU). Most agencies stipulate different limits for different pesticides, whereas, EU under its norms, has agreed on a value, which is low enough to ensure that no chemical is toxic to the human being.
But ad hoc choosing from different sets of regulations could become a completely meaningless activity, simply because there would be no scientific basis selecting a particular norm from say, WHO in one case or USEPA/FDA in another.
The greatest danger is that new norms could become lax. Let's take an example.
Suppose we were to extend the spirit of the bottled water norms and make drinking water standards to regulate the pesticide chlorpyrifos. We could begin with WHO and FAO. They have separately, and jointly under the Codex Alimentarius Commission, set global guidelines for pesticide residues in food. These are minimal guidelines. The agreed norm is that countries should set higher norms based on their individual conditions. So, for instance, WHO has recently issued draft guidelines for drinking water quality, in which, the proposed guideline limit for chlorpyrifos is 0.03 mg/l.
But recent research indicts this pesticide. A new study based in New York found that women exposed to chlorpyrifos during pregnancy gave birth to babies with reduced birth weight and reduce head circumference. This, researchers noted with worry, was when the mothers had very low levels of exposure to this pesticide. Thus if we were to go for chlorpyrifos norms, would the WHO guidelines not be inadequate?
Consider other complications. In 2000, Dow Chemicals was forced to withdraw Dursban (Dow trade name for chlorpyrifos) from residential and commercial use in the US. Currently its use is restricted in agriculture and USEPA is working towards a complete phase-out by 2005. But Dow is now busily promoting this chemical in countries like India. Needless to say USEPA has not put any restriction on export of chlorpyrifos. During 1999-2000, it was the fourth most used insecticide in India with an installed manufacturing capacity of around 14,000 tonnes. Therefore, selecting a lax WHO guideline for this pesticide would be irresponsible, to say the least.
In addition, norms for regulating multiple residues do not exist in most regulations. Only EU stipulates a single residue limit (0.0001 mg/l) and multiple residue limit (0.0005 mg/l). This single quantified limit makes it easier for the regulator to enforce.
We do not have a pesticide policy in the country, to regulate this powerful industry and ensure the chemicals registered and sold are 'safe' for use. More importantly, as information about toxicity of pesticides only trickles in after these 'wonder' chemicals have been sold and we have been duped, our regulatory mechanisms need to be geared towards constant review and recall. Even more importantly, the policy must set the framework of research, innovation and experimentation, to introduce a new generation of environment-friendly pesticides in the country. This business must begin in earnest.
.jpg "COURTESY TIMES OF INDIA")
When nothing happened
PFA was enacted in 1954. The Union ministry of health and family welfare (MoHFW) is its implementing agency. When the Act was notified, water was not covered under it as 'food'. It defined food under section 2 (v) as "any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water...". According to sources at MoHFW, the reason is that water supplied through municipal taps is not used for drinking purposes alone. It is also used to other household chores like washing and cleaning. Hence, it is not food per se.
In 1996, a group of people recognised the fallacy. All of them were part of a Committee on Subordinate Legislation (CSL) that had got together to do a think, or rather a re-think, on the rules and regulations framed under the PFA. CSL proposed that water should also be included in the Act as a food item. The committee gave two reasons. As the Fifth Report of Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Eleventh Lok Sabha) published in 1997 puts it:
"One, water is treated and purified by the local authority before it is supplied to the public. Thus there is always a possibility of the purity of water supplied falling below the prescribed standard, which renders it injurious to health.
Second, sometimes it is found that the water supplied contains viruses or bacteria, which cause jaundice, typhoid and other water-borne diseases and people who consume it contact such diseases.
Whichever agency is responsible for supplying drinking water to the public has responsibility to ensure the purity of water so supplied and the committee strongly feels that the statute should bind it to do so. Otherwise the whole population will be exposed to serious health hazards, with no one owing responsibility for it".
CSL recommended that immediate steps be taken by the government to amend section 2 (v) of the Act, to include water treated and supplied by local authorities within the definition of 'food'.
Now get into complex, deliberative, bureaucratic give and take. The recommendations had to go to the MoHFW, ministry in charge. It did:
"Supply of potable water in the urban areas comes within the purview of Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment (at present Union ministry of urban development and poverty alleviation). Supply of drinking water in the rural areas in ensured by the Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment (at present Union ministry of rural development) who have set up technology mission on water for providing water at each village. A letter has been sent to these Ministries to send their comments. On receipt of the same the matter will be examined to amend the PFA Act."
Files moved, in due course. In time -- should we say: "duly"? -- the Union ministry of urban development replied: "the widening of the definition of food to include water will bring it under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and consequently would impose a legal commitment and obligation on the agencies for adhering to the recognised standards for potable water supplied by them. As you are aware, drinking water in urban and rural areas is generally supplied only by the State Governments undertakings or the local bodies. The burden of this commitment will fall, therefore, on these agencies and more than the urban local bodies the responsibility will be greater in the case of rural local bodies where the required standards have not yet been reached and who are also facing financial crunch."
As a bureaucrat would happily put it, this was an insuperable argument. Of simply not wanting to take on the task of providing clean water; of simply avoiding it; of representing a scene of change for the better as a pure financial nightmare. This is arrogant administration presenting itself as soft governance. This is plain shirking.
Hold on. Define drinking water
What is 'drinking water'? The term is synonymously used with 'potable water', 'wholesome water', 'safe drinking water', or 'clean drinking water'. For instance, the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) website claims that that "drinking water, supplied by Delhi Jal Board, is potable, wholesome and conforms to the standards laid down by the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment. The quality of water is checked at every stage of treatment -- from Raw Water stage to storage reservoirs and also in the distribution system at the Consumer's end". Questioned further about this DJB claim, Sanjam Chima, advisor pubic relations, DJB said, "We are following the water quality guidelines developed by the CPHEEO. As far as their legal nature is concerned, you should either ask the CPHEEO or the Delhi government." Interesting. The body supplying drinking water to consumers, and monitoring its quality, does not know if the standards which it claims to be following are legally binding or not.
Admits an NIUA official, "I have not come across any common definition of drinking or potable water. It is very ambiguous and quite likely that it has not been defined legally." This lack of a common legal definition gives enough space to state agencies to play around with drinking water quality.
This becomes amply clear the moment one looks at various municipal byelaws.
"As far as possible"
Water is a state subject. The Centre, therefore, can only 'recommend'. It is the state, and its (state-level) agencies, that have to ensure quality drinking water. Various municipal laws show government is completely non-serious about drinking water. According to the section 234 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, it is the corporation's duty to supply wholesome drinking water to consumers. The Act also says that the municipality should take steps to provide as far as possible, a supply of wholesome water. It further adds that the corporation shall, paying regard to available resources, provide civic services including water supply. Such clauses are more like escape routes.
The Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Corporation Act, 1979 goes a step further. It makes no explicit mention of the corporation's duty to supply water to the consumer. Under section 42 of the Act, the department is absolved of not supplying water when there's an accident, such as electric power supply failure or leakage or burst main pipes or obstruction or low pressure in the mains in summer, or a labour strike. The department retains the right to suspend water supply at any time and for as long as may be found necessary for repairs or for laying new lines.
The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 says that steps should be taken to provide, as far as possible, a supply of wholesome water. The Act also says that when it is not practicable to provide such supply at a reasonable cost and there is danger to health from the quality of water being already supplied, water must be made available at a reasonable distance from every house.
Who is responsible? Who can be responsible?
Experts claim that just because quality standards for drinking water have not been legislated in the country does not mean they do not exist. BIS is a statutory body set under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. So, the standards it sets are part of the statute and should be observed. Secondly, the standards recommended by CPHEEO might not be statutory in nature but are strongly indicative and should be applied. Vagueness in various municipal acts should not be read as absence of standards.
Some experts suggest that if one looks at drinking water as a 'commodity', then the services provided by the local bodies can be covered under the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA), 1986. In India, water supply is seen as a public health expense and not as a commodity.
Others contest that if we apply COPRA on drinking water, then it is as if the consumer is demanding something from a business entity, whereas right to clean water is a fundamental right. But opinion is crystal clear on one point: irrespective of whether water is a commodity or a public health expense, once drinking water is supplied, it should conform to specified standards.
Says Dhavan, "Non-inclusion of water under the PFA shows ineptitude on the part of the Indian government, which is trying to avoid direct responsibility. If water is covered under the PFA then writ petitions would start flying the very next day. Government does not want to guarantee quality of water because major water suppliers are government departments."
There aren't many lawsuits in this country that challenge the quality of water. One famous case is the 1990 case of Attakoya Thangal v. Union of India. The case was filed in the Kerala High Court (HC) in which the petitioner claimed that due to over-extraction of groundwater through handpumps and tubewells bored by the local administration at Lakshadweep, there was an ingress of salinity and people were being forced to drink saline water. The HC ruled: "Right to life is much more than the right to animal existence and its attributes are manifold, as life itself. A prioritisation of human needs and a new value system has been recognised in these areas. The right to sweet water and the right to free air are the attributes of the right to life. These are the basic elements which sustain life itself."
"This was a landmark judgement of the court, which linked right to clean drinking water with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It said that right to water means right to sweet water and not salty water. But such cases are rare," says Ritwick Dutta, an environmental lawyer based in New Delhi.
This is the fundamental problem with India's water policy. Right to water is agreed upon in principle and policy but is not clearly specifiable.
Suggests Videh Upadhyay of Enviro Legal Defence Firm, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, "The first and the foremost thing which we need to do is to clearly specify what right to clean drinking water means, which the Supreme Court of India (SC) upholds as a fundamental right. In last 5-6 years, many high courts have passed judgements on clean water, but there is no clarity as to what that right means in quantitative and qualitative means. Courts also leave it open-ended, free for interpretation. There needs to be categorical pronouncement by the SC as to what right to clean water means. The second important thing after this would be to see how this direction of the SC gets reflected in various statutes. Relevant changes would require to be made in specific sections of specific rules."