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

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