Fizzy pop
In the UK we spend over £7.9 billion a year on soft
drinks, but what are the impacts of our fizzy habits? Ruth Rosselson investigates.
Health matters
Carbonated soft drinks have long been criticised for contributing to both
tooth decay and obesity. A study of teenagers reported in March last year
that “having just one fizzy drink a day could equate to putting on
almost a stone in a year”.(1) Meanwhile, it’s not just the full
sugar versions that rot our teeth. The acids all soft drinks contain can
also dissolve tooth enamel.(2) Such health concerns have led to new restrictions
on soft drink vending machines in schools.(3) In response to the changing
market, companies are concentrating their efforts (and their considerable
budgets) on producing and marketing low-calorie versions of their drinks
or on promoting ‘healthier’ formulations of their brands, such
as the Panda Pops brand, which contains fruit juice and has no added sugar,
artificial flavours or colours.(3)
Other ingredients used in soft drinks may also have negative health impacts.
Last year, research concluded that “women who regularly drink cola
could be increasing their risk of osteoporosis”.(4) It has been suggested
that it’s the phosphoric acid contained within that is the culprit
although the mechanisms for this are as yet unproven. Aspartame – a
low-calorie sweetener – has also been under the spotlight and linked
to a variety of symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, loss of balance and
fatigue.(5) The debate about its links to tumours continues.
In 2006, soft drinks hit the headlines as traces of benzene, a carcinogenic
chemical, were found at eight times the level permitted in drinking water.
The UK Food Standards Agency claimed that the products did not pose an immediate
health risk. Benzene is thought to be produced when sodium benzoate (a preservative)
reacts with ascorbic acid (vitamin C).(6)
Many soft drinks also contain the stimulant caffeine which, if consumed
regularly, can lead to addiction. Research suggests that children consuming
caffeine have higher incidences of illness, headaches, sleep problems and
iron depletion.(5)
In India, it’s not just legal ingredients that are of concern. Last
year, research found “dangerous” levels of pesticides, including
the carcinogenic Lindane, in all of the tested samples of Pepsi and Coca-Cola.
On average, the drinks contained up to 30 times the standards outlined by
the Bureau of Indian Standards.(7)
Irresponsible marketing to children
These concerns have led to criticisms that the companies have marketed unhealthy
products in a way that appeals to children. The Food Commission criticised
brands, including Tango, for designing websites to catch the attention of
young children,8 while Irn Bru was criticised by Which? for an adventure
playground where children slid and climbed through giant Irn-Bru cans.(9)
Alternative brands
The last time we wrote about soft drinks, we focused on two brands set up
to challenge the imperialism of Coca Cola and provide ethical alternatives.
These were Qibla Cola and Mecca Cola. Unfortunately Qibla Cola, which was
set up in 2003 and pledged to give 10% of its profits to charity, went into
receivership in September 2005. Mecca Cola, based in the United Arab Emirates,
aimed to provide a new business model based on Muslim and Arab principles
and pledged 10% of its profits to local charities and 10% to Palestinian
organisations. However, we have not included it on the table this time because
it did not respond to our email requests for information and its website
appears not to have been updated since 2004.
Waste
Three quarters of carbonated soft drinks are packaged in aluminium cans.
Recycling levels are still low – 42% in 2001 – and so millions
end up in landfill. Recycling aluminium is particularly important as it
can be recycled indefinitely without losing its properties and it is the
most cost-effective material to recycle.(14)
Links
Corporate Accountability International www.stopcorporateabuse.org
Killer Coke www.killercoke.org
War on Want’s Coca Cola campaign www.waronwant.org/cocacola
References
1 Reported on Monday, 6 March 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk
2 www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy_living/nutrition/drinks_soft2.shtml
3 Focus on Soft Drinks, May 2006, the Grocer
4 Reported on news.bbc.co.uk 6/10/06, Original study, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
5 Ecologist “Behind the Label, Diet Coke” 01/06/06
6 Times Online, www.timesonline.co.uk 2/3/06
7 Press Release, India Resource Centre, 3/8/06 www.indiaresource.org/news/2006/1084.html
8 Food Magazine, July-Sept 2005
9 Which? January 2006, “Child Catchers”
12 Corporate Accountability International, Coca Cola factsheet, 2004
13 War On Want, Coca Cola, the Alternative Report, March 2006
14 Wastewatch factsheet, Metals recycling, Sept 2005
15 Observer, July 2006
17 Guardian, 18/8/06 19 CEE Bankwatch Network and Gender action, 2006
20 International Defence Directory 2004
21 Nichols 2005 annual report