Social in Solidarity with Workers Against Coca-Cola
Saturday 16th August 10pm-7am; £3 entry
Eton Mission Social Club, 91 Eastway, Hackney Wick, London
Come celebrate the demise of the marketing giant who brought you
Santa Claus in red and white.
Live Algerian band
Egyptian belly dancing with a Japanese twist
Dj's (reggae, dancehall, breaks, drum n bass)
Cafe/Bar
Video about the atrocitties of Coca Cola in Colombia
You can get buses 26, 30, 236, 388 to Hackney Wick or the Silverlink
train to Hackney Wick station. Look out for the hall next to
the church.
IN DEFENCE OF SINALTRAINAL - MOBILISE THE BOYCOTT
The International Union of Food, Agricultural,
Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations
(IUF) statement opposing the Coke boycott (posted on their website
11 July 2003 but since apparently withdrawn) is remarkable
both for its unfortunate timing and its deeply disappointing
content. I hope and expect that the Colombian union SINALTRAINAL
will respond in due course, but right now the union's focus is on
the launching the boycott both inside Colombia and internationally.
These observations are no more than interim points in defence of SINALTRAINAL's
boycott call.
The boycott is complimentary to the legal
case that has been brought in the Florida civil courts under the
Alien Torts Act on behalf of the relatives of the victims. This
case has set a trend, a similar action against the US coal company
Drummond Coporation has just been lodged in Alabama and a case against
Occidental Oil is pending. The accumulation of the evidence on which
these cases are founded is itself a dangerous and difficult process.
One of the key targets of the paramilitaries are precisely those
who gather such evidence. The additional dangers have been worth
it, for the first time US corporations are being put on the defensive.
This is already a tremendous step forward.
SINALTRAINAL has been at pains to consult
widely within its membership, with the Colombian trade union federations
and internationally. The rate of unionisation in Colombia's private
sector is extremely low, it takes special qualities in a union organisation
to survive. Last December I observed SINALTRAINAL's six-monthly
assembly of branch representatives, and was able to see at
least in part the union's culture which is based on militancy and
mobilisation. The union organises in Nestle and Kraft as well as
Coca Cola.
The delegates had a full say in developing
the union's negotiating tactics with each employer. All of these
local leaders live on the envelope of danger to themselves and their
families, yet they refused to buckle under the tremendous psychological
pressure. Their commitment is matter of fact, deeply moving, heroic.
It deserves recognition and respect.
SINALTRAINAL is a trade union, that is it
organisers workers in the food and drinks sector. But the concept
of trade unionism applied is inclusive rather than narrow. SINALTRAINAL
works with other unions, human rights organisations and social movements
in a network called "Campaign Against Impunity - Colombia Claims
Justice". The union sponsors educational outreach
work in the community. I have heard a rumour that such activity
is held against the union. How ridiculous and petty! And SINALTRAINAL
is fully involved in the work of the CUT federation. These
two factors are not in contradiction, surely
working with other social groups as equals strengthens the trade
union movement.
There is a political issue at stake. SINALTRAINAL is an example
of what has been called 'social movement unionism'. There are unions
following this approach in Colombia, the most notable being the
public sector workers union SINTRAEMCALI. This is in
stark contrast to the Colombian government's preferred model, what
Uribe calls 'participatory unions'. What he means is unions that
keep their heads down and their mouths shut, collaborationist unions
co-opted to the neo-liberal project - so long as it doesn't
hit them too hard.
SINALTRAINAL really does not have the luxury
of a choice. It is fightback or perish.
The call for an international boycott did
not come out of the blue. SINALTRAINAL has been trying to get Coca
Cola to respond to its complaints for years. There is no effective
recourse under Colombian law, hence the necessity of an internationally
projected campaign to bring pressure to bear on the employer. Working
with its growing support network, and with the endorsement of its
own federation the CUT and the CGTD, SINALTRAINAL initiated three
public hearings on Coca Cola and human rights. The first took place
in Atlanta, Georgia 20-22 July last year; the second in Brussels
on 10 October and the third in Bogota on 5 December. I attended
the last two hearings, which were both fully attended and in which
the tactic of a boycott was openly raised for discussion. Despite
being invited, Coca Cola chose not to attend.
The proposal to launch the boycott call
was taken to the World Social Forum in Brazil. Where better? The
launch platform in Bogota was led by CUT President Carlos Rodriguez
and Director of Human Rights Department Domingo Tovar. Who
better?
We are on the verge of a breakthrough in bringing the plight of
Colombian trade unionists to public attention. The choice for us is
between protecting Coca Cola's global brand or an international
mobilisation of popular solidarity. Have no doubt that the
boycott has only just begun, and it will be escalated over the next
year.
Andy Higginbottom
Secretary Colombia Solidarity Campaign, London
THE COCA-COLONISATION OF INDIA
Coca-Cola's 'toxic' India fertiliser
Waste product from a Coca-Cola plant in
India which the company provides as fertiliser for local farmers
contains toxic chemicals, a BBC study has found. Dangerous levels
of the known carcinogen cadmium have been found in the sludge produced
from the plant in the southern state of Kerala. The chemicals were
traced in an investigation by BBC Radio 4's Face The Facts programme
and prompted scientists to call for the practice to be halted immediately.
However, Vice-President of Coca-Cola in India, Sunil Gupta, denied
the fertiliser posed any risk. "We have scientific evidence
to prove it is absolutely safe and we have never had any complaints,"
Mr Gupta said.
The results have devastating consequences
for those living near the areas where this waste has been dumped
Professor John Henry, poisons expert Face The Facts presenter John
Waite visited the plant following complaints from villagers that
water supplies were drying up because of the massive quantities
of water required by Coca-Cola. Villagers, politicians, environmentalists
and scientists have accused the firm of robbing the community of
the area's most precious resource. They say the area's farming industry
has been devastated and jobs, as well as the health of local people,
have been put at risk.
'Disturbing' As part of the probe, Face The Facts sent sludge samples
to the UK for examination at the University of Exeter.
Tests revealed the material was useless as a fertiliser and contained
a number of toxic metals, including cadmium and lead. The lab's
senior scientist, David Santillo, said: "What is particularly
disturbing is that the contamination has spread to the water supply
- with levels of lead in a nearby well at levels well above those
set by the World Health Organisation." According to Britain's
leading poisons expert, Professor John Henry, consultant at St Mary's
Hospital in London, immediate steps should be taken by the authorities
in India to ban the practice immediately. The levels of toxins found
in the samples would, he said, cause serious problems - polluting
the land, local water supplies and the food chain. "The results
have devastating consequences for those living near the areas where
this waste has been dumped and for the thousands who depend on crops
produced in these fields," Professor Henry said.
'Good for crops' Cadmium is a carcinogen and can accumulate in the
kidneys, with repeated exposure possibly causing kidney failure.
Lead is particularly dangerous to children
and the results of exposure can be fatal. Even at low levels it
can cause mental retardation and severe anaemia. Professor Henry
said: "What most worries me about the levels found is how this
might be affecting pregnant women in the area. You would expect
to see an increase in miscarriages, still births and premature deliveries."
Mr Gupta said local farmers had been grateful for the fertiliser
because many could not afford brand-name products of their own.
"It's good for crops," he said. "It's good for the
farmers because most of them are poor and they have been using this
for the past three years." Coca-Cola say they will continue
to supply the sludge to farmers.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/3096893.stm
Published: 2003/07/25 17:51:55 GMT
FROM INDIA
CSE's POLLUTION MONITORING LABORATORY
In February this year, CSE released a study on pesticide residues
in bottled water. Readers wrote in asking if the
same was true for cold drinks. Yes, but this time the stakes are
higher. Tests carried out by the Pollution Monitoring
Laboratory found deadly insecticides in twelve leading brands of
cold drinks. And in India, they can get away with this.
All this and more, visit: http://www.cseindia.org/html/cola-indepth/index.htm
DOWN TO EARTH MAGAZINE
It turns out that Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Diet Pepsi, Mirinda Orange,Mirinda
lemon, Blue Pepsi, 7-Up, Coca Cola, Fanta, Limca,
Sprite and Thums Up are...COLONISATION'S DIRTY DOZEN
But the study asks some larger questions
- why isn't the cold drinks industry in India adequately regulated?
Who is ensuring the quality of water used for cold drinks, or for
that matter even bottled water?
PESTICIDES IS THE POINT, NOT BOTTLED
WATER OR SOFT DRINKS
In February, we released a study on pesticide residues in bottled
water being sold in the market. We reported how we
found legalised pesticides in bottled water. In other words, the
norms for regulating pesticide levels in these bottles
were so designed that pesticide residues would not be detected.
We had no intentions of following up this
study with investigations in other products. Then our readers wrote
to us.
They wanted to know: if what we had to say about the bottled water
industry was correct, then what about soft drink manufacturers?
After all, they all used water as a raw material. They also sourced
their water largely from groundwater. We had, they said, a responsibility
to tell.
By May, it was also evident that government
was prevaricating on legislating the amended, stringent norms for
bottled water.
Industry pressure, we were told by wags, was enormous. Stakes were
high.
Something was fishy. Most of the big players
in the bottled water industry, we knew, had the capability to treat
and clean
the water. They also catered to hapless consumers with little choice
but to pay more for water, than for milk. Municipal
supplies were unreliable. Theirs was a thriving business. Nothing,
not even a little pesticide, would hold it back. Then
why the opposition?
Could it be that the stakes were even higher
than we had imagined? Suppose, what was really at stake was not
the bottled
water industry and its Rs 1000 crore business, but the soft drink
industry and its estimated Rs 6000-7000 crore business.
Indians drink on an average 6.6 billion bottles of soft drinks each
year and business is flourishing. Suppose, just for a minute,
that this industry has skeletons, which would come tumbling out
if the bottled water industry was further regulated.
No, we told ourselves, this could not be
true. After all, this mega industry of the beautiful people is well
established. It is
old. It is reputed. Giants of the corporate world control it, who
swear by responsibility and citizenship.
But we were stunned. All bottles of soft
drinks analysed at the Centre's pollution monitoring laboratory
had pesticides, in much
higher quantities than considered safe for humans. The sum of all
pesticides in the PepsiCo brands added up to 0.0180 mg/l, 36 times
higher than the European Union's limit (EEC) for total pesticides.
Coca-Cola brands had 0.0150 mg/l of all
pesticides, 30 times more than the same EEC limit.
Even more startling we found that this human
health-impacting industry is more or less unregulated. The Bureau
of Indian
Standards (BIS) had, at least, some kind of mandatory standards
for the bottled water industry. In comparison, nothing exists forthis
'food' industry. It is regulated under a plethora of agencies and
standards but most are meaningless or plain ridiculous. It
gets licensed under the Food Products Order and further regulated
under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The BIS
standards, set for it roughly 10 years ago, are voluntary. In other
words, this massive industry has been massively let off.
Worse, none of the pieces of legislation
even mention the fact that raw water - over 90 per cent of the finished
product --
needs scrutiny. The limit for deadly arsenic and lead in soft drinks
has been set 50 times higher than the allowed standards
for bottled water or drinking water. Did the regulators just forget
these facts? Or was it deliberate amnesia?
Let us be clear, this is not a case involving
little companies struggling to make ends meet, that regulators know
cannot be
regulated. This involves only two large companies, which incidentally
also control the world markets. More importantly,
this involves an industry that is a food industry. It impacts our
health. Directly.
But there are even bigger stakes at hand.
The study on pesticides in bottled water brought us some predictable
responses. Industry argued it is unfair to ask for stringent regulation
on pesticides. We cannot afford it, industry said, and these norms
are
unnecessary because the pesticide residues found are in such small
quantities that they are harmless. Amazing. What wisdom
from such wise people. Pesticides are deadly in small quantities.
They accumulate over time in our bodies. Increasing evidence
shows that some pesticides - such as chlorpyrifos, a popular insecticide
in India - are deadly even if the exposure is tiny.
The other, I consider facetious, argument is why only target bottled
water. The food we eat, say these great critics, is far
more contaminated. Indians eat much more than their daily dose.
But they are missing the point. Pesticide,
not bottled water or soft drinks, is the point. It is imperative
to have a policy for
safe use of pesticides. A policy for safe pesticides. It is clear
that once our soil, food and water is contaminated, it will be
prohibitively expensive to clean. We have no choice but to work
on the basis of the precautionary principle. For this we need
seriously stringent regulations, to curtail use and to work towards
new strategies for 'safe' substances. We cannot afford
to clean up after the poisoning. We have no antidote. Whatever the
industry and government may believe.
I do not know how the two corporate giants
will receive our findings. But for me, the more important matter
is if you, our
readers, believe that we have done justice to the question you asked
us. The consumer in the free world, they say, is king.
So let the king pass sentence.
SUNITA NARAIN
Editor, Down to Earth
E-mail: editor@downtoearth.org.in
More in the latest Cover Story: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=1
See also: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?msid=115007
|
