Internal Soda Co. Docs Explain Origin Of Benzene
By Ross Posted in User Blogs — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have uploaded internal soda company documents provided by a whistleblower written by a former Cadbury Vice-President Technical.
http://www.schoolpouringrights.com
The memos summarize experiments done in 1990 relating to the tendency of benzene to form from an interaction between sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid. The effect is greatest in low-sugar drinks and upon exposure to heat and sunlight. The FDA advises me that calcium disodium EDTA, which is widely used as a technical fix to the problem in the US, is not approved for use in non-carbonated soft drinks. The FDA further has advised me that it has initiated a preliminary survey of benzene in soft drinks. The FDA has not yet provided me a copy of a December 17, 1990 memorandum showing what the industry disclosed about the problem. The initial report is that the memorandum was destroyed. The FDA Commissioner's abrupt unexplained resignation within two days after I emailed the Commissioner's office about the need for testing for benzene is still unexplained. The HHS Inspector General this week issued subpoenas for records relating to the disposition and disclosure of certain stocks (i.e., Pepsi, school food service distributor Sysco, and Wendy's). Dr. Glen Lawrence, who was science advisor to the FDA's New York labs in 1990 and 1991, advised me this Fall that he is shocked to see that there are drinks that still contain the ascorbic acid-benzoate combination that is known in the industry to lead to benzene formation. The Professor had published a lucid explanation of the chemical interaction involved in a peer reviewed journal. Dr. Lawrence noted that benzene is associated with leukemia as a carcinogen, and it can take many years before the leukemia develops. About 30 percent of cancers in children ages 0-14 years are leukemia. He explained that school children exposed to benzene in drinks may not develop leukemia until they are in their 20s.
I had just been given internal soda companies about the formation of benzene in certain soft drinks by an industry whistleblower who had been part of a secret research project. I knew that that the situation was much more serious than even Dr. Lawrence realized. The problem is especially dire in low-sugar drinks, in warm climates or where the technical fix to avoid the formation of benzene in soft drinks is not being used. See generally "Outbreak of Coca-Cola-related illness in Belgium: a true association," Lancet Volume 354, Issue 9179 , 21 August 1999, Pages 681-682
Perrier's carbonated bottled water was recalled for benzene from contaminated carbon dioxide in 1990. Some non-carbonated fruit-flavored water (McKesson) and (Koala Springs) was recalled later in the year. The recall of the noncarbonated product was due to the breakdown of the artificial preservative benzoate (and there were a number of regional recalls that year involving bottled waters). In testing, the FDA was also finding benzene, for example, in orange soda. The soda pop contaminated with benzene in 1990 escaped the public's notice. But it most definitely was known by company officials by December 1990. The companies commenced frantic, secret research projects. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Cadbury did not recall any products that tested above the limits accepted for water supplies. At Cadbury, the research project was known as Project Denver. While Perrier had been recalled globally at 11-18 parts per billion (ppb), Diet Orange Crush, for example, tested at 25 ppb before exposure to heat and 82 after exposure. (RSSL, a global leader in analytical testing serving food companies, did the testing) Under European regulations the standard for benzene in drinking water is now 1 ppb. The regulators in Europe I've contacted are not aware of the tendency of benzene to form from the mere combination of certain ingredients. As a result, no regular testing is done. For analytical chemists worldwide unfamiliar with the chemical process involved, please consult the peer-reviewed published article by the FDA consulting scientist "Benzene Production from Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (May 1993) .
Coca-Cola issued a dramatic recall of Dasani from Britain for the carcinogen bromate last year. Five years earlier, many schoolchildren got sick after drinking soft drinks in 1998 and 1999 after the carcinogen benzene was found in many of its products. There were massive recalls in Belgium, UK and France followed by explanations deemed unconvincing by investigators. "Coke's contamination story 'highly unlikely,' " BBC News, August 17, 1999. Coca-Cola's CEO pointed to phenol (a derivative of benzene) as due to fungicide on some wooden pallets in France. Similarly, in Israel, the year before, a company spokesman pointed to paint thinner absorbed from products in various stores in Israel. (In Bloomberg at the time, it was reported that it was benzene that was found). There must never be a repeat of that experience or tolerance of the industry's failure to fully disclose the nature of the underlying benzene problem. In lay terms, the formation of benzene is caused by the breakdown of sodium benzoate in the presence of ascorbic acid and some other ingredients. Only then other competing explanations be fairly judged like contaminated carbon dioxide, fungicide on pallets, gear lubricants, cleaning solvents, paint thinner in stores etc.
Pepsi's experience in the US is illustrative of the need for testing. For example, in 1996, Pepsi recalled approximately 30,000 cases in bottles and cans, to include Welch's sparkling grape soda, due to an off odor and taste. In 1997, PepsiCo South recalled 137,000 cases (all sizes and package types) of a wide variety of drinks -- mainly diet drinks and citrus flavors -- due to an off odor and taste. In 2002, a recall of 7200 cases of Mountain Dew was suggested as possibly due to contamination from equipment cleaning fluid. Not to be outdone, in 1997, Coca-Cola recalled 300,000 bottles and cans due to a off odor and flavor. Often a recall is attributed to a gear lubricant, such as recalls by Coca-Cola bottling companies in the US in 1990, 1992 and 1994 or a recall in Australia in 2002. Benzene is a common ingredient in non-food grade lubricants. According to a 2004 Shell Oil comment at the FDA continued to be widely used in the beverage industry. So one question that arises is: was the determination that the contamination due to a gear lubricant in many of the cases just based on testing that showed benzene?
When sued in 2001 by someone who drank a soda laden with lubricant in 2001, Coca-Cola declined to list the ingredients of the lubricant or describe how it got there. Thus, even where a particular incident has nothing to do with the benzene formation at issue, candor with consumers as to the causes of contamination is not a trademark. When a consumer complains that a soft drink has an off odor and taste, someone out in the field who may not have been in a food factory for years, may then go to try to pinpoint the problem. The inspector has been trained by the FDA in diplomacy in dealing with managers who don't even want to hear the word "recall". Faced with only an off odor and taste, they are left to the good intentions of the company. Testing for benzene should be done not only upon complaint, but routinely as is done in the case of municipal drinking water and bottled water.
France has banned all vending in schools. England just announced it will go soda free all grades. Public schools in Australia, India, Scotland and Wales likely will soon go soda-free. In the US, Schwarzenegger signed a law that will make California schools soda free (and Massachusetts and Arizona are likely next). Maine and New Jersey took decisive administrative action with less fanfare. From an insider's perspective, however, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, dental decay, caffeine addiction, and behavioral problems are just some of the health problems raised by the consumption of soda by a captive audience of children at school. Health advocates just are not yet informed by the documents now being made available by an industry whistleblower that I represent about the tendency of the known carcinogen benzene to form in soft drinks.
The internal soda company documents show that in late 1990, the benzene was found to be from the breakdown of sodium benzoate in the presence of ascorbic acid, rather than from contaminated carbon dioxide (such as had led to the Perrier recall earlier that year). Benzoate converts to benzoic acid in an acidified environment such as most soft drinks. The benzoic acid then interacts with the ascorbic acid in some situations and forms benzene. Instead of disclosing to consumers the nature of the underlying benzene problem -- at the very least on the occasion of the massive recalls in 1998 and 1999 -- Coca-Cola and its main bottler CCE offered up unconvincing explanations about fungicide on wooden pallets and paint thinner absorbed from products at the various stores. They then emphasized the political fix throughout the late 1990s rather than the technical fix in marketing to a captive audience of schoolchildren. Benzene is a nasty carcinogen that is taken seriously by environmental authorities. It also should be taken seriously when children are encouraged to pour it down their gullet instead of water by some popular teen celebrity.
As far back as 1990, some well-known products tested far above accepted limits for drinking water. Some products tested above even the 20 parts per billion ('ppb"), the highest level of the 1998 recalls of numerous soda products and nationwide bans in Europe -- and far higher when exposed to heat and light. Yet, there was no recall and no disclosure to consumers of the 1990 testing results by the major companies. See J. M. Packman (Coca-Cola's Food Law Counsel) , "Civil and criminal liability associated with food recalls," Food and Drug Law Journal 53 (1998), pp. 437-452. (Indeed, several US soft drink products tested just this past month tested well above that level, even before exposure to heat or sunlight). An uploaded internal document explains that the benzene generated in U.S. Diet Crush before exposure was 25 ppb and after exposure to 16 hours of UV ~ 30 degrees C was 82 ppb. That's 16 times the level in the US at which newspapers have to be notified (to tell consumers not to drink the water) for municipal water supplies. After exposure to the heat and UV, Diet Slice was tested by RSSL at 41.5 or 8 times the maximum level of 5 ppb permitted for water supplies in the US.
In the US, if there are 5 ppb benzene detected in a water supply, radio and newsapers have to be notified. (EPA Consumer Factsheet on: BENZENE.) That level is not merely not "fit for its intended purpose" under the product liability laws. Upon drinking over a prolonged period of time, that can be cancer in a can. The cause addressed by Project Denver, rather than contaminated carbon dioxide, was due mainly to the interaction of sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid and was greatest when the product was exposed to heat or ultraviolet light. But hundreds of pages of Project Denver documents, to include testing of competitor products, could speak for themselves. Calcium disodium EDTA (Calcium disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate) is one technical fix that is intended to avoid the problem. Under the Code of Federal Regulations, it is permitted for canned carbonated drinks; Dow, the manufacturer, advises that its approval was related to the concern for degradation of the metal can. There are other possible fixes. Why are there so many products worldwide with no technical fix apparent from the ingredients? Is it because calcium disodium EDTA is not deemed safe and not permitted in drinks in EU and Australia? Under European regulations the standard for benzene in drinking water is now 1 ppb under the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption. Worldwide, outside of the US and Europe, the WHO recommended guideline level of 10 ppb in drinking water is useful in assessing what maximum level might be acceptable for soft drinks.
Legislators should rid schools of soda. ("Get junk food out of schools: poll," CBC News, Dec 5 2005; Editorial, "Junk food out of British schools," The Post and Courier, Nov. 19, 2005; Editorial, "Youth obesity far bigger than Coke," Atlanta Journal Constitution, Dec. 1, 2005.) But if it is allowed, state legislators should require testing for benzene given the number of instances of schoolchildren getting sick. Water supplies are regularly tested and bottled water in the US is subject to regulations relating to permissible benzene levels. If soda is being urged by soda companies and some school administrators and legislators as a substitute for water, then soft drinks should be tested also. If the American Beverage Association ("ABA") President Susan Neely truly wants to be "proactive," then the ABA should support regular, transparent and independent testing such as is done for tap water and bottled water. Given Coca-Cola and Pepsi have actively opposed disclosing the levels of pesticides in their drinks in India, the companies cannot be relied upon to ensure that no product above the safety guidelines is sold. We should hold our beverage companies who provide the beverages for profit to the same safety standard as our ground water and drinking water.
The FDA has advised me that it is initiating a preliminary survey of benzene in soft drinks and further that calcium disodium EDTA (widely used in non-carbonated soft drinks) is not approved for non-carbonated soft drinks. (It was approved only for "canned carbonated drinks" because of the risk of degradation of the metal can; it is a sequestrant and chelating agent that traps the metal residue; it also serves to avoid this tendency to form benzene under certain conditions). The FDA official writes me that a formal rulemaking petition will be required. The Food Standards Agency in Great Britain advises me that calcium disodium EDTA is not approved in the EU for beverages at all.
Regulators around the world: Priority in government testing by agencies should be given to diet drinks with benzoate and ascorbic acid but not any of the technical fixes. As explained in the internal memorandum written by the Cadbury Vice-President at the time, the effect was greatest in diet drinks. This likely would have been because of the absence of the insulating effect of the sugar. According to my client who is available to take a call from you and who used to work on this research relating to benzene when the issue first arose, the beverage with the greatest risk would contain the combinations as follows: (1) diet or reduced sugar, (2) benzoate, (3) ascorbic acid or its sister erythorbic acid, (4) juice, and (5) citrus or cherry flavor. The strategy that should be taken in each country will vary with the products. For example, the analysis in testing in the United Kingdom might start with this list of 85 or so soft drinks marketed to children in the UK that contain sodium benzoate. Then testing generally could be limited to those that contain ascorbic acid (especially, for example, citrus flavors) that do not have any apparent technical fix. (An even longer list of drinks with sodium benzoate (E211) is contained in the list of products collected this past year by the Food Standards Agency in connection with its survey of the preservatives benzoate and sorbate; that list indicates the country of origin and manufacturer. and whether sorbate is used in addition to benzoate.) (see downloadable pdf) It is also important to test for undisclosed calcium disodium EDTA and ensure that any use of calcium disodium EDTA is approved as safe for the use. (By analogy, in the recent UK survey of benzoates and sorbates, four instances of undisclosed sorbate was detected in soft drinks and were addressed by the manufacturer). Great Britain does not allow sodium benzoate to be used in public schools which avoids the problem entirely. ("'Muddle' over school drinks ban," BBCNews, Dec. 15)
Regulatory authorities around the world should test and monitor products ranging from Coca-Cola's Quatro Light (Pomelo) in Argentina to Polar Diet Orange in the United States. Products sold in schools like Guzzlers Citrus Punch, Sunny D (Orange/Baja) should be tested. (The Sunny D Orange Light had a technical fix that worked. Even greater attention should be paid to those marketed directly to kids such as the low sugar (the 2/3 less sugar versions), high Vitamin C Bellywashers with the action hero on top. I would be glad to provide hard copies of these results from testing already done on these products with any governmental authority. see generally "Food and Drug Agency, "Investigations Operations Manual, Chapter 8 - Recall Activities" (pdf)
Dr. Michael E. Knowles from Coca-Cola , Director Scientific & Regulatory Affairs was head of the UK Fisheries and Food's Food Science Division from 1986 to 1989. From 1989-1991, Dr. Knowles was Chief Scientist (Fisheries and Food) and Head of the Food Science Group. After the 1990 benzene crisis involving Perrier (and the separate problem was discovered concerning soft drinks), he was hired by Coca-Cola in 1991. He likely would know both what was disclosed to the regulatory authorities and what was known by Coca-Cola. At Pepsi, Louis Imbrogno is a key senior technical executive who was with the company in 1990 and is still there. He might be able to shed light on the testing results shared with regulatory authorities.
Shortly after getting whistleblower documents from 1990 showing stunning test results relating to the formation of benzene in some soft drinks, I emailed the FDA Office of Commissioner mid-afternoon at 2:10 p.m. on Wednesday, September 21, 2005. Getting no response, on Thursday, I posted the same information at a website picked up on "google news." FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford sent an email on Friday to FDA staff announcing his resignation effective immediately without explanation. According to the New York Times on Saturday, September 24, 2005: "A government official said the resignation was related to the fact that Dr. Crawford had not fully disclosed information about his finances to the Senate before his confirmation. * Ira Loss, senior health analyst at Washington Analysis, .... said he had been told by someone in the White House that Dr. Crawford had been asked to resign for a reason not yet known to the public."( See also "Investigators subpoena ex-FDA chief's records," Reuters, Dec 19, 2005)
That Saturday morning, I spoke to a deputy FDA counsel who was at a Boston obesity litigation conference addressing soda nutrition labeling and the role of the FDA. I asked why I hadn't got a response to my email. He didn't know. At the same conference, over sandwich wraps, I asked a friendly representative of the industry group "Consumer Freedom " what he knew about the tendency of benzene to form in soda and he explained that they knew a bit but he didn't elaborate. At the time, Commissioner Crawford denied that his departure had anything to do with his stock holdings. It was not reported what those holdings were. On October 26, 2005, the Wall Street Journal reported that the former FDA head held shares in regulated firms as late as 2004. Mr. Crawford at one point had up to $100,000 in Pepsi Co stock. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have reported that the HHS Inspector General is investigating the circumstances of his departure. Someone should ask him about benzene formation in soda.
Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Crawford is an expert on chemical contamination of drinks and water supplies, as he explained in his March 2005 confirmation statement. Dr. Crawford explained that he has played major roles in the development of mandatory nutrition labeling and the control of chemical and microbiological contaminants of food. In 1990, Dr. Crawford was Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (which handles meat safety). That was the year that the benzene issue became known. At the FDA, he was Chair of the FDA's Obesity Working Group (OWG) had been its Chair since it was created in August 2003. In January 2004, groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the restaurant and soda industry front Center for Consumer Freedom presented opposing comments before the group. See also "FDA Obesity Report To Suggest Changes To Serving Sizes On Labels," FDA Week, March 12, 2004. In May 2004, he explained that labelling changes on soft drinks -- making the calories reflect the size of the 21.5 oz. bottle, for example, and not merely refer to an 8 oz. standard -- would be voluntary, not mandatory, on NPR. "Fighting Obesity," Talk of the Nation, Science Friday, May 21, 2004. In mid-July 2005, he spoke very eloquently on the subject of sending healthy messages to children.
Until 2002, while in the private sector, Dr. Crawford was Director of Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, which had entered a strategic alliance with the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) to foster understanding of issues facing food companies. Dr. Crawford served as Academic Advisor to the GMA on scientific and regulatory issues dealing with food and nutrition policy. GMA, along with the American Beverage Association ("ABA"), is the group active in opposing school soda bans. A recent study funded by the ABA by Dr. Crawford's successor found no association between obesity and school soda vending. The recent study was funded by an unrestricted gift by the ABA (previously known as the National Soda Distributors Association). As Director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, he persuasively argued in testimony on regulatory reform that there needed to be transparency and science-based decision-making in risk assessment relating to contamination of foods. He urged that decision-makers and scientists "have a legal and moral duty to recuse themselves from issues that stand to directly and/or financially benefit them." This week the HHS Inspector General issued subpoenas for financial records relating to share holdings. Lisa Richwine, "Investigators subpoena ex-FDA chief's records," Reuters, Dec 19, 2005.
What did the NSDA representatives tell the FDA at the meeting on December 17, 1990? (What testing data was disclosed?) I am awaiting a response on a FOIA request submitted to the FDA. The initial report is that it was destroyed. An off-the-record meeting with citrus juice makers about contaminants for which no notes were made was the subject of previous revelations by US News and World Report. In the case of the December 17, 1990 meeting with makers of citrus soft drinks and benzene, a memorandum existed and then the copies were reportedly destroyed. If the FDA wants to restore the public's trust, it needs to look harder for the December 17, 1990 memorandum of the meeting between FDA and NSDA (ABA). Kevin Keane, the former assistant secretary for HHS in charge of public affairs who defended Dr. Crawford in his nomination hearing earlier this year now works for the American Beverage Association effective this month. Maybe they could ask him if the ABA has a copy of the memorandum.
As explained by the VP Technical in the research memos and the 1993 article by the FDA scientist -- which you perhaps have not read -- Pepsi would not have benzene due to this interaction because it does not contain ascorbic acid. Pepsi found it did have benzene in 1999 and issued national recalls but that was due to contaminated carbon dioxide.
As for the scientific lab reports on what colas contain in India, they are linked at the subpage titled "pesticides" and have been confirmed by the government report.
http://www.schoolpouringrights.com
But that relates to the quality of the groundwater used in making the carbonated drink -- and in the US, there are strict standards enforced as to drinking water and so that is not a problem here (just in the developing world).
One of the problems with internet discourse is that everyone is busy with their lives -- especially on Christmas eve and Christmas Day -- and not inclined to delve into the subject.
Now as for benzene in colas as such (without ascorbic acid, I have linked at
http://www.schoolpouringrights.com
some articles about benzene found in colas in Europe.
[But there is no reason to think such contamination exists presently (and although monitoring is certainly advisable, it is a simple matter to change the filters at the company providing the carbon dioxide)] In Mass., the same standard applies to carbonated drinks that use the potable water).
As for benzene due to the tendency of benzene to form because of the interaction between benzoate and ascorbic acid, benzene, of course, is a known carcinogen and acceptable levels are set regarding the consumption of water.
These articles are linked at the cited webpage (I don't now as Santa hasn't wrapped the presents yet).
"Safety of Coke Drinks Comes Up Again --- In Europe as Belgian Children Feel Ill," Wall Street Journal, Oct 25, 1999
Pouthier, "Outbreak of Coca-Cola-related illness in Belgium: a true association," Lancet, 21 August 1999, pp. 681-682
"Coke's contamination story 'highly unlikely,'" BBC News, August 17, 1999
"Critics knock Coke over can crisis," Marketing Magazine, July 26, 1999
Rob Landley, "A Fluid Ounce of Prevention," Fool.com, July 16, 1999
"Coke Marshals Forces After Crisis in Europe," Advertising Age International, July 12, 1999
Killgren, Lucy ; Edwards, Paul, "Making A Trauma Out Of A Crisis" Marketing Week (July 01, 1999): 26-28
"A Big Fizzle for Coca-Cola," TIME, July 8, 1999
"Coca-Cola says Phenol at root of scare, " Planetark, June 28, 1999
"Things Aren't Going Better With Coke," Business Week, June 28, 1999
"France Slams Coke," Motley Fool, June 22, 1999
"Soft-Drink Giant Sluggishly Reacts to Bad Press Over Tainted Product," Advertising Age, June 21, 1999
"The Enemy of The People," Sunday Times June 20, 1999 p3.
"Bad For You," Economist, June 19, 1999, Vol. 351, Issue 8124
"A friendly drink," Financial Times, June 18, 1999
Food Standards Agency, Belgian Soft Drinks - The Latest, June 17, 1999
"80 fall ill in France, partial ban on soft drink imposed," Financial Post, June 17, 1999 Pg. C14
Paul Ames, "Belgian ban may soon end, but Coke now must restore consumer trust," Associated Press, June 16, 1999
"Coke pulled from some European sites Factories' woes fixed soon, company says," USA Today, June 16, 1999
"Belgium, France Limit Coca-Cola Sales," San Francisco Chronicle, June 16, 1999
"Coca-Cola Pulls Drinks From European Shelves: Recall action comes after 115 become ill," Reuters, June 16, 1999
"European warning over Coca-Cola," BBC News, June 16, 1999
"Europe Coca-Cola 'regrets' contamination," BBC News, June 17, 1999
"50 million cans of Coca-Cola drinks withdrawn in France," AFP, June 16, 1999
Packman (Coke's Counsel), "Civil and criminal liability associated with food recalls," Food and Drug Law Journal 53 (1998), 437-452.
"Belgium bans Coca-Cola," BBC News, June 1, 1999
"Israel Coca-Cola sales thinning out after scare,"Jewish News Weekly, July 17, 1998
"Smelly bottles cause Coke sales to dip in Israel," The Atlanta Constitution, Jul 13, 1998, pg. A.06.06
"Sniff Coke before drinking, health ministry tells Israelis," Deutsche Presse-Agentur, July 12, 1998
"Bad Coke," jmcc.org (Al Quds) July 1998 (Israel)
Judy Siegel, "Health Ministry: Sniff Coke before sipping," Jerusalem Post, July 12, 1998
"Benzene scare response was not good enough,"'Off Licence News, June 19, 1998
"Soft drinks shortage fear," The Grocer, June 13, 1998
"Benzene Contamination Shakes UK," Chemical Market Reporter, June 8, 1998, Vol. 253, Issue 23
"Shelves cleared after benzene found in drinks," Packaging Magazine, June 4, 1998
Mark Henderson, "Soft-drink firms hope to avoid Perrier's fate," The Times (London, England), June 2, 1998 p12
"52m cans withdrawn in poison drink scare," The Daily Mail June 2, 1998 p2.
"Leading soft drinks withdrawn," BBC News, June 1, 1998
McNeal et al., "Survey of Benzene in Foods" JAOAC Int'l, Vol. 76, No. 6 (1993)
"Koala Springs Plots Ad Image Clean-Up," ADWEEK, November 26, 1990
"Traces of benzene found in mineral water, fruit drinks," Houston Chronicle, Nov 14, 1990
Koala Springs Pulls Drinks from Shelves as Benzene Is Found," Wall Street Journal, Nov 14, 1990Sales halted after benzene found in fruit pop," The Toronto Star, November 14, 1990
And on the subject of "colas" -- as opposed to soft drinks with the combination of sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid, here are some articles on pesticides found in colas in India.
Ratna Bhusan, "Coca-Cola Appeals New Label Laws," Times of India, July 27, 2005
"Supreme Court Orders Thorough Examination of Soft Drink Contents," Financial Express, January 4, 2005
"Indian group plans Coke, Pepsi, protests after pesticide claims," Channel News Asia (AFP), Dec. 16, 2004
"Pesticide in Cola Leads to Cancer," Prison Planet.com, Dec. 7, 2004
"Coke, Pepsi Must Print Pesticides Content on Labels," Sify.com, Dec. 6, 2004
"Pepsi, Coke banned in Parliament complex: Pesticides in soft drinks shock MPs," Deccan Herald, Aug. 6, 2003
"Coca-Cola's Letter to University of Massachusetts," India Resource.org, dated June 15, 2004
"JPC uphold pesticide report on colas," Reuters, Feb. 6, 2004
Rama Lakshmi, "Parliamentary Committee Confirms Pesticides in Coca-Cola," Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2004
Jyotsna Singh, "India finds pesticides in colas," BBCNews, Feb. 4, 2004
"A Refreshing Guide to Food Safety," Down to Earth, Dec.. 31, 2003
Amy Waldman. "India Tries to Contain Tempest Over
Soft Drink Safety," New York Times , Aug 23, 2003
Amy Waldman "India: New Tests On Colas," New York Times , Aug 22, 2003.
"Indian MPs to probe cola row," BBC News, Aug. 22, 2003
Jyotsna Singh, "Profile: Environmentalist group in cola storm," BBC News, Aug. 22, 2003
Gaurav Choudry, "Crippling Colas," The Tribune, Aug. 16, 2003
Joanna Slater, "Coke, Pepsi Fight Product-Contamination Charges in India," Wall Street Journal, Aug 15, 2003.
Luke Harding,"Delhi court orders inquiry into claims of poisons in soft drinks," The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 12, 2003
Archna Shukla, "Cola majors Coke & Pepsi in the dock," Bombay Economic Times, Aug. 10, 2003
Rama Lakshmi. "Soda Giants Battle Public Panic in India; Report of Pesticide Residue Alarms Buyers," The Washington Post, Aug 10, 2003
Scott Leith, "India tension mounts: Soft-drink makers fight pesticide flap," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 9, 2003
Press Release, "PepsiCo and Coca Cola conjure up "data" that seeks to convolute, confuse and take the Indian public for a ride," Aug. 7, 2003
Centre for Science and Environment, "Soft Drinks, Hard Truths," Aug. 5, 2003
Scott Leith, "India tension mounts Soft-drink makers fight pesticide flap," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug 9, 2003
Raju Bist, "India's cola controversy widens," Asia Times, Aug. 8, 2003
"Indian States to Test Coke, Pepsi for Pesticides," Planetark.org, Aug. 8, 2003
Press Release, "CSE welcomes independent testing. 'Independence' and 'credibility' matter," Aug. 8, 2003
Saritha Rai, " India: Soft Drinks Investigated," New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). Aug 7, 2003. p. W.1
Paul Brown, , "India orders an inquiry into toxic soft drinks claim," The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 7, 2003. p. 13
Paul Brown, "India Orders an Inquiry into 'Toxic Soft Drinks' Claim ," The Guardian, Aug. 7, 2003
"Soft drinks not to be served in Parliament," Times of India, Aug. 6, 2003
"Coca Cola, Pepsi banned in Parliament," Tribune News Service, Aug. 6, 2003
"Coke, Pepsi India deny pesticides in soft drinks," Reuters, Aug. 5, 2003
"Tests reveal pesticides in Coke, Pepsi, Mirinda," Times News Network, Aug. 5, 2003
"Environmental group finds high pesticide levels in PepsiCo and Coca-Cola soft drinks, companies deny it," US Water News Online, August 2003
"Pesticides in Indian soft drinks," Global Pesticide Campaigner, Aug. 2003
Sanjeev Srivastava, "Indian colas 'not unsafe,' BBC India, Aug. 5, 2003
"Pesticide findings spur Indian government crackdown on bottled water companies," U.S. Water News Online, March 2003
Look, if you're inclined to believe any anti-American bozo who accuses American soft drink companies of misdeeds, it just shows how desperate you are to attack these companies.
I believe the Cadbury VP Technical who wrote the memo I uploaded and the testing that last month verified it.
She lives me near.\ and I spoke to her about the memos.
She's not ant-American. And indeed she's very loyal to the soda company (though the company is British).
And as for the limits of acceptable benzene in product, those are agreed-upon by the soda associations. For example, it was the British Association in the 1990s that agreed (with the big retailers) that the standard applicable to water should apply.
I guess I don't understand why people approach an issue such as true crime or science from a political perspective. The same is true in Amerithrax. People approach it from a political perspective ratther than a true crime matter where it is the facts that matter, not one's politcial persuasion (or nationality).
No one condones mailing anthrax and murdering people -- and no one condones benzene above limits applicable to water.
In China, the government covered up the benzene spill in the river out of nationalistic concerns. That was wrong.
Referring to the paper you cite, what is the transition metal catalyst present in sodas that can faciliate the production of benzene?
For example, searching benzene, China and cover-up, the google results.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=China+co
ver-up+benzene&btnG=Search+News
It's a simple matter to comply with the Food Law. in the developed world, regarding additives and contaminants.
As they say, we have the technology.
For example, the FDA advises that with respect to caclium disodium EDTA, the industry should petition in a formal rulemaking if they want to use it in connection with non-carbonated soft drinks .
How much benzoic acid and ascorbic acid can be found in a soda? Given these quantites, how much benzene can be produced?
How does this amount compare with the amounts of benzene that harm humans?
I'll tell you why I'm reading you politically:
a. You regularly post on this partisan political site against these companies.
b. In many (all?) of these posts you link to your lengthy, disorganized site dedicated to attacking these companies.
Combine the two, and I think it's reasonable to suspect a political agenda here.
All very good questions. Ascorbic acid is not found in colas, but is found in some soft drinks. It is found where Vitamin C is listed or where there is juice. And so in recent testing the effect is greatest where there are high levels of ascorbic acid and low sugar -- apparently because the sugar serves as an insulating effect. Heat and sunlight have a dramatic effect. For example, in the 1990 experiment using Diet Slice, levels went from 1 ppb to 41.5. With Diet Orange Crush, it went from 25 to 82 ppb.
But to answer your question, in the first experiment done by the Cadbury scientists (see uploaded page), ingredient levels (mg/liter)
were
citric acid: 1508
sodium benzoate: 483
ascorbic acid: 198
yellow #6: 57.
I'll look for a more detailed worksheet listing of different products tested in 1990 to upload. My friend Larry is the one who made the measurements.
To summarize the factors:
If there is no sodium benzoate, no problem.
If there is no ascorbic acid listed, no problem as a general rule, although the Cadbury experiment found that it may be in the juice (and found also that citric acid can produce the same result). (And that is our experience in the US with a product that tested at 24 ppb that was a low-sugar orange soda.)
On this question of the level that harms humans, the WHO standard is 10 ppb, the US EPA standard is 5 ppb, and the EU standard is 1 ppb. At the time, it was explained to be an issue of quality, rather than "harm."
The "harm" at such levels only comes from long-term consumption.
At the time of national recalls due to benzene in 1998 and 1999 in Europe, the standard in Europe was 10 ppb. In the US, it was 5 ppb. The Perrier levels were 11-18 ppb. Flavored waters sold by Koala Springs and McKesson were also recalled at levels comparable to Perrier.
One low sugar grapefruit drink in Argentina recently tested at 66 ppb.
The highest level in the US to date in our testing was a low-sugar, 100% Vitamin C drink -- it tested "off the shelf" 39 ppb. It was purchased at ambient temperature at a K-Mart. It is most definitely (and exclusively) marketed to kids. Because of all this media frenzy about empty calories and encouragement of fortification with vitamins, the public is led to buy low-sugar products without understanding the problem that can lead to in the presence of sodium benzoate, which is used to permit cheap packaging (and a cold-fill manufacturing process).
We haven't yet used an incubator or weatherometer to simulate shelf life. I have been waiting from the FDA and the American Beverage Assocation for input on the testing protocol they recommend.
My friend did the actual testing for Cadbury in 1990 and so it's not a matter of expertise -- I'm just looking to help get folks on the same page in knowing how the problem needs to be avoided. The gracious and cordial ABA spokesman (formerly #1 HHS public affairs person) has already assured me that they agree they don't want products with benzene in them on the market. Soda industry folks are parents too and are going to take steps, I'm sure, to adjust the formulations as necessary to avoid the problem.
I am not a scientist and so will have to pull Professor Lawrence's study "Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (May 1993)" to describe further the decarboxylation process. He was the scientific consultant in 1990 to the New York labs that were doing testing. But it is a very good question -- and points to why this caclium disodium EDTA works. A chelating agent, it sequesters that. I have it in pdf form somewhere if you want it emailed.
Dow, the supplier of calcium disodium EDTA advises that calcium disodium EDTA was approved for canned carbonated drinks because of concerns of degradation of the metal can. I'll look for a link to the toxicological studies that Dow sent as they will likely include a good explanation of the chemical interaction.
In lay terms, a chelating agent or sequestrant traps the mineral and then it is peed out. The industry should seek approval to use it. (The FDA has advised me that they will work with the industry in an enforcement action to require compliance with the statute that requires food additives be approved).
So, to summarize: the problem here is that sodium benzoate, a chemical used in the packaging process, is dissolving in the beverage, then reacting with the beverage to produce benzene?
I'll say this for you: I had doubts, but your answers convinced me that there's something worth looking at here.
Forgive me if I don't cheer your government-centered approach, though; we should all have learned from Hurricane Katrina that if you depend on the government to protect you, you will die.
thanks,
The Food Standards Agency confirmed to me by email this week that "Calcium disodium ethylene diamine tetra-acetate (Calcium disodium EDTA) (E385) is controlled by Annex IV of The European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC and is permitted in various foods. However, it is not permitted to be used in soft drinks." I don't know yet why it is not approved in the EU.
But the problem at least as to schools is avoided entirely because now sodium benzoate now is not going to be allowed in drinks in British schools. BBCNews, Dec. 15, 2005. Without sodium benzoate, there won't be benzene due to this interaction (and any benzene would have to be due to some other cause like contaminated carbon dioxide). Benzene from contaminated carbon dioxide (the gas comes from the ground and then is sold be vendors) can be avoided by using filters at those plants. The global Perrier recall was due to human error reportedly -- a worker didn't change the filter.
I too have a dim view of government's role (because of the ease with which agencies are dominated by the regulated industry. But the fact that 79% percent of parents want government to act (see Roper Online, October 2005) is overshadowed by the fact that parents in a majority of large districts have already acted.
Countries that have gone soda free all-grades include France and England. States include California, New Jersey, Maine and now Nevada. Districts that have gone soda-free K-12 include NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami-Dade, Philly, Pittsburgh, Scranton, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Boston, Milwaukee (?), DC, Seattle, Austin, Baltimore, Albuquerque, Buffalo, Fresno, Oakland, Montreal, Quebec City, Sioux Falls, DesMoines, Pierre [S.D.], New Haven [CT], Columbia [S.C.]. Anchorage soon too. Palm Beach County likely will be next.
Press accounts routinely missed the fact that a majority of large districts have gone soda-free K-12.
There was an excellent in-depth artilce in the Washington Post this week illustrating your Katrina point.
"The making of Homeland Security: Prelude to disaster'
Department born out of 9/11 struggles to execute even basic tasks
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051224/POLITICS/5122404
18
Is not consistent with your conclusions. If the problem is sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid why are you talking about contamination of beverages that have neither of these in them? That is just evidence against your conclusion and for contamination from outside sources.
The contamination of Perrier in 1990 and the Coke and Pepsi products in Belgium in 1999 was due to contaminated carbon dioxide.
So, yes, there are different sources, but no, it is not inconsistent.
For example, in 1990, this problem was discovered because the McKesson and Koala Springs products were not carbonated and thus they immediately knew it was not the carbon dioxide. Benzene can contaminate carbon dioxide by being in the land from pollution through which the gas passes -- then the product is contaminated when the gas is added. Under this scenario, the soda companies collect from the insurance policy because of the damage caused their product by the gas. Where the interaction is due to the intrinsic interaction of ingredients they choose to use (to lower costs), the recall will perhaps not be an insurable loss. Sodium benzoate permits lower cost packaging -- because the product can be "cold-filled" rather than hot-filled.
The exploration of the possible sources of the benzene detected was all laid out in the very lucid internal lmemo written by the Cadbury VP, in which she guides and summarizes the companies exploration for why it was happening. (The information was extremely tightly controlled and kept even from other R&D people not directly involved. Officials were stunned to find Diet Orange Crush testing at 25 ppb off the shelf and 82 ppb after exposure to heat and light in a weatherometer.
It is not yet established (1) what they told the FDA, and (2) who made the decision not to recall products testing above the limit for water. The Cadbury VP argues to me that it was not criminal because there was no standard for benzene in soft drinks -- technically the standard applied only to water. My concern presently is just to share the info so that the niche players entering the market who do not know of the problem (because the Big Three may not have shared the info). The literature does not reflect that the info saw the light of day. For example, the effect of heat and light is extremely dramatic, but the only surveys have involved refrigerated samples.
There are also possible ways that have been suggested that benzene might get in a . Indeed, the explanation of the contamination in France in 1999 was that fungicide had been used on pallets and had gotten on the outside of the bottle was inhaled by the schoolchildren who got sick. The explanation was not deemed credible. In Israel in 1998, it was suggested that the product at different stores absorbed paint thinner. That explanation also was not deemed credible.
But as for the exploration of the hypotheses done by Cadbury -- using the scientific method -- the internal memos provide the best explanation. The trade association then went to the FDA and made whatever disclsoures they did (the FDA says they appear to have destroyed the meeting memorandum). Cadbury was quite systematic and quickly divined the source of the high levels of benzene detected. They figured it out and confirmed within a period of two weeks or so. At Cadbury, the project was called PROJECT DENVER. After their conclusion, they then collected products worldwide, to include from Coke and Pepsi, and tested them. The results have not been disclosed yet. But as I said, Diet Orange Crush tested at 25 ppb "off the shelf" and 82 after heat and light. 82 ppb would be 82 times the present limit in the EU.
They want you to doubt every product of capitalism! That destroys the economy, that destroys our way of life! You were the only sane one here Neil don't be fooled by all those big words. I was so happy to find this sight and now I am seeing nonsense here that belongs on koss or something.
I'm not saying he's right, or that all of his causes are worth investigation. I'm saying that his benzene theory sounds plausible enough to at least look at.
Now what if Al Qaeda had a plot to introduce benzene or anthrax into the water or beverages given our kids.
Oh, wait. They do.
Al Qaeda, Anthrax and Ayman Zawahiri
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
What embodies capitalism in this context?
Isn't it Pepsi beating Coke's capitalization by responding consumer healthful beverages by responding to consumer preferences for healthful beverages?
"Coca-Cola Is Going Just a Bit Flat in Atlanta," Los Angeles Times, Dec. 27, 2005
Or the Mexican shopkeeper's right to sell Big Cola instead of Coke -- such as inherent in free enterprise?
"In Mexico, Taking Fizz Out of the Cola Giants," Los Angeles Times, Dec. 28, 2005
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bigcola28dec28,0,2606498.story?coll=l
a-home-business
How does the link you posted relate in any way to the topic at hand?
It took me a while to peruse (it's a long article), but I found absolutely no references to benzene and no mention of any kind of Al Qaeda plans to deliver a biological agent via the water or through beverages.
I suppose if there were actual plans to introduce harmful elements into beverages favored by our kids, or if one of those harmful elements were benzene, it might have been an appropriate and on-topic link. But there weren't and it wasn't. It came from left field with no traceability whatsoever to any of the points raised by your diary or any comment.
Congratulations. You've threadjacked your own thread.
The relevance of link broadly is because Al Qaeda is attacking capitalism -- and a company that sells consumers a product with benzene is undermining both capitalism, the rule of law and the public good. I'm not. I'm a defender of both capitalism and the free world.
Moreover, as for Al Qaeda's intent, CIA reporting since even before 9/11 confirmed plans to poison water supplies with anthrax or biological agents. You'll note in my section on the Egyptian scientist researching pathogens in the Canton public library, he reportedly was researching the water supply of a hospital and pathogens. He was accompanied, allegedly, by one of the members of the so-called Detroit cell in requesting plans for the water supply. Generally, using anthrax to poison a reservoir is ineffective (because of dilution) which is the reason for the focus on localized water supply. Cyanide was allegedly involved in the plan to poison the embassy in Rome -- where they underground had broken in to the relevant pipe. Finally, among the 100+ documents that the Defense Intelligence Agency gave me about Al Qaeda's zabadi program were treatise-like discusion of the alternative means of delivery -- to include poisoning food or water supply. I haven't uploaded all the Al Qaeda documents just like I haven't uploaded all the benzene documents. People don't read the available material anyway as they don't spend the time. Indeed, the mission of thte USDA and FDA now include combatting the threat to food and beverages consumed by the public.
Turning back to this issue of avoiding the benzene formation by ensuring formulations are adjusted on an as-needed basis worldwide, the companies acted swiftly back in 1990 to do so. Now, however, with the trend toward low-sugar and increasing the amount of Vitamin C -- and new market players -- the problem is once again acute. All of the technical people my friend and I know are very classy people. Mainly it is an issue of educating the new high-level decision-makers to give the issue priority.
On the subject more broadly of capitalism, capitalism includes the company's right of free speech to show its critics are misinformed. For example, it seems that with respect to the deaths of workers in Colombia, it seems that neither side is uploading detailed facts that we would need to be able to intelligently judge the issue.
Colin Perkel, "Soft-drink giant aims to head off boycotts," Dec. 28, 2005
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2005/12/28/1370449-sun.html
In this context of this tendency of benzene to form under certain conditions, for example, Coca-Cola or American Beverage Association is free to come forward with a copy of the December 17, 1990 Meeting Memorandum that the FDA says it destroyed.
Any company is free to come forward with independent, certified testing relating to benzene -- both "off the shelf" and after exposure to heat and light. I've corresponded with the HHS #1 public affairs person on the subject. This month he started working for the soda trade association. I asked him for the testing protocol he recommends but never heard back. He just promised not to contact the HHS or FDA for a year. (The FDA is conducting a preliminary survey of benzene in soft drinks at my request and so someone else from the trade association office will likely have the contact instead).
Sometimes it is difficult to fathom what its public relations and advertising people are thinking.
Fanta Light: "Advert spitting complaints upheld," BBC, July 6, 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4654683.stm
Homeland Security for Drinking Water Supplies
http://www.environmental-expert.com/articles/article1264/article1264.htm
"Historically, ... [t]hese statutes and subsequent protection and security measures were aimed at natural disasters or unintentional contamination events. Today, attention and protection is focused on intentional attacks on our water supply."
In Mass., the water used in soft drinks has to meet the same standard as used for drinking water.
In Britain, during the 1998 benzene crisis, the British Soft Drink Association agreed the standard for water should apply (as a practical matter, even where not formally applicable).
The Cadbury VP Technical who wrote the uploaded 1990 memos summarizing the problem argued to me recently that it was not criminal not to recall the affected products because the water standard did not formally apply to these circumstances.
Presently, my main focus is to see what the companies disclosed to the FDA to see if they disclosed the high levels (or just disclosed low levels). Effective government regulation in a capitalist society requires the industry's cooperation, good faith and candor.
This question of possible contamination from other sources raises another tenet of a capitalist society --consumer free choice. The situation in India involves different contaminants, but the issues of informed choice are similar. The Supreme Court in India ordered Coke and Pepsi to disclose the content of pesticides on their products but they have failed to do so, arguing, in part, that directing the manufacturers to disclose the amount of pesticide would amount to infringement of the right to maintain trade secret. (They had other more persuasive arguments, such as that the pesticides were in the water and sugar and so it wasn't fair to single them out).
http://www.elaw.org/resources/printable.asp?id=2848
In The High Court of Judicature for Rajastan and others (2004.10.20) (Soft drink pesticide labeling case) the Court held:
"The argument does not appeal to us. Insofar as water is concerned, it is a necessity as no one can survive without the same. As regards beverages, they are products of trade and commerce produced by the manufacturers. They are sold for a price. One can survive without carbonated beverages and soft drinks, but none can survive without water. Once a person pays price for a commercial product it must be totally safe. If a carbonated beverage or soft drink is not free from pesticides and chemicals, the consumer must be told that it contains pesticides or chemicals and the extent of their presence must be specified on the product. The sale of the product should not be allowed without disclosing the composition of the product and the presence, if any, of insecticide, pesticide and chemicals. It was submitted that in case such a disclosure is made, there would be panic in the market and the business will dwindle. The contention cannot be a ground to give a go-by to Articles and 19(1(a) and 21 of the Constitution for the sake of business of the manufacturers. It is not difficult to imagine why the respondent companies want to keep the question of the presence of pesticides in carbonated beverages and soft drinks under wraps. It is only because of the commercial interest that such disclosure is being withheld from the public and the consumers. Commercial interests are subservient to the fundamental rights. The manufacturers cannot be allowed to keep the contents of the carbonated beverages and soft drinks under veil of secrecy. Such secrecy cannot be legitimately allowed and the veil of secrecy must be lifted for public knowledge and information in the public interest, so that they can make an informed choice for the purposes of buying the product.
In view of the aforesaid discussion we hold that in consonance with the spirit and content of Articles 19(l)(a) and 21 of the Constitution the manufacturers of beverages namely Pepsi-Cola & Coca-Cola and other manufacturers of beverages and soft drinks, are bound to clearly specify on the bottle or package containing the carbonated beverage or soft drink, as the case may be, or on a label or a wrapper wrapped around it, the details of its composition & nature and quantity of pesticides and chemicals, if any, present therein."
In the US, it is possible to bring the amount of benzene down to zero (or very near zero) and so this question can be avoided altogether so long as all the market players focus on the issue (and adhere to technical fixes that work).
The benzoic levels of soft drinks in the UK is listed in a recent survey of 300 drinks, with the level listed for each drink. The ones with the highest benzoic level , no sugar added,(and 100% Vitamin C) would be prime candidates for testing.
Note that at least in UK schools, this problem of benzene formation recently has been avoided entirely by ridding schools of all drinks that contain sodium benzoate.
Last year, Coca-Cola on its own initiative recalled Dasani under analogous circumstances where the carcinogen bromate was found to form from a chemical interaction.
COCA-COLA'S Dasani in the UK : The Public Relations Fiasco, 2005
http://icmr.icfai.org/casestudies/catalogue/Marketing/MKTG103.htm
"Coke pressed for answers," Beveragedaily.com, April 5, 2004
http://www.beveragedaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=51832-coke-pressed-for
"Coca-Cola postpones release of its not-so-pure water," Associated Press, Mar 26, 2004
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2004/03/26/2003107845
"Coke withdraws Dasani in UK, Food Quality News, March 22, 2004
http://www.foodqualitynews.com/news/ng.asp?id=50786-coke-withdraws-dasani
Valerie Elliott and Angela Jameson, "Coca-Cola withdraws 'Sidcup tap' water," Times Online, March 20, 2004
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1047260,00.html
"Things get worse with Coke: Bottled tap water withdrawn after cancer scare," March 20, 2004
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1174127,00.html
"Coke Pulls Water From UK Shelves," CBSNews, March 19, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/03/world/main603712.shtml
"Coca-Cola withdraws new bottled water," Daily Mail, March 19, 2004
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id
=300056&in_page_id=1770
"Coca-Cola suffers second Dasani hiccup," March 19, 2004
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1044055,00.html
"Coke pulls bottled water in health alert," Manchester News, March 19, 2004
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/84/84845_coke_pulls_bottled_water_
in_health_alert.html
Coca-Cola Statement, "Voluntary withdrawal of Dasani in UK, March 19, 2004
http://www2.coca-cola.com/presscenter/viewpoints_dasani.html
Dasani: Your Questions Answered
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/faq/190246/
"Coca-Cola Recalls Bottled Water"
http://www.ionizers.org/cocacola.html
What next? Pepsi causes autism, too?