Department of Consumer Affairs tells the Bureau of Indian Standards not to “rush” ....Ministry of Health says more research is needed ....“Good science” is the convenient tool to obstruct action. Companies win. We lose...

Centre for Science and Environment. Our Laboratory:...In 2003 companies tried to discredit it....Joint Parliamentary Committee examined our methodology, equipment, personnel. All questions raised by companies asked and answered. It concludes: “The committee finds CSE findings are correct on the presence of pesticides in respect of the 36 samples of 12 brand names analysed by them.”

Our laboratory, 2006: Laboratory accredited with ISO 9001:2000 quality management system. Laboratory adds very expensive equipment — GC-MS — which allows it to reconfirm the presence of pesticide. With this equipment, there is no doubt about the identity of pesticide molecule in the sample analysed...

What we check: We test 57 soft drink samples from 25 different manufacturing plants, spread over 12 states — roughly 30 per cent plants covered. We collect samples from different cities...from Burnihat in Meghalaya to Ahmedabad in Gujarat, Palakkad in Kerala to Jalandhar in Punjab.

What we find: Pesticide residues found in all soft drinks tested. A cocktail of 3-6 pesticides was present in all samples.

Lindane (a confirmed carcinogen) levels were over 54 times above the BIS standard; in one Coca-Cola sample from Calcutta, it was 140 times higher. Chlorpyrifos (a known neurotoxin) levels were on average 47 times higher; Coca-Cola sample from Mumbai had 200 times higher level. Heptachlor, banned in India, was found in 71 per cent of the samples, at levels 4 times higher than BIS standards.

Average amount of pesticide residues found in all the samples was 11.85 parts per billion — 24 times higher than the BIS standards for total pesticides in soft drinks (0.5 ppb). Brand drink Pepsi-cola contained 30 times higher residues on an average. Brand drink Coca-Cola contained 27 times higher residues on an average .

Companies say:...Pesticides sub-ppb levels — too little to harm you. Pesticides more in other products — how does it matter?

Why this is scientific jugglery:

Pesticides are tiny toxins — they impact our bodies with tiny but continuous exposure. Called chronic impact. Pesticide regulation is done keeping in mind that exposure has to be kept under safe limits — acceptable daily intake... But non-nutritive foods not included. Soft drinks not included. Cannot have pesticides.

Safety: adhering to standards: Safe limits are defined by standards....Ministry of Health has regulated input water: 0.1ppb (individual pesticide), 0.5ppb (total pesticides). All samples checked in 2006 were unsafe...

Why the food bill won’t help: “Unsafe food: by virtue of containing pesticide and other contaminants in excess of quantities specified by regulations.” As long as there are no regulations, how will this be called unsafe? Worse, there are no provisions for penalties for unsafe food. Therefore, even if (it is) unsafe, (it) ...cannot be penalised easily.

....Contaminant: that which is not added to food but which is present in food as a result of production. Like Pesticide. Extraneous matter: That which is contained in food, which may be carried from raw material…but such matter does not render article of food unsafe...Who will decide if it renders food unsafe? Is pesticide residues in soft drinks contaminants or extraneous matter?

Pesticides are toxic. In all drinks we have found levels above the finalised but not notified standard ....Soft drinks are “choice”of millions. Particularly children. Cannot say that this is ok....Cannot play with our health.