A "Third" world conspiracy ?

fbaezer wrote:

Do you really think Bophal would have happened in, say, Germany? And that tragedy wasn't produced by farmers, but by Union Carbide.

As best I remember, a Union Carbide plant did blow up somewhere in the USA a few years after Bhopal. I don't think it was quite as bad as Bhopal, but it was pretty bad too. I also remember that an explosives factory in the Netherlands blew up in 2000 or 2001, killing over 100 people.

fbaezer wrote:

What I say is that it is a problem of a specific social tissue.

I think it's mainly a problem of poverty. Indians enjoy less food safety than Europeans because they enjoy less of everything than Europeans. Given this unpleasant reality, why should food safety be the only exception?

0 Replies

Accidents and disasters often accompany the dangerous industries throughout the world, giving no difference to the social systems and living standards. From time to time I see on the news reports about either fire on the chemical plant, or spilling of oil near the coast, and majority of these disasters happen in the First World. But any accident occurring in the Third World is being used by the anti-globalist demagogues and bored people for attacks on the major business enterprises that constitute the base of the First World success and prosperity.

0 Replies

Just came upon this post and haven't read all the responses. However, since the water comes from the local water supply I would be just as or even more concerned with the quality of the water supply. After all everyone uses it.I see no mention of that. I guess it is of no concern since there is probably no one to sue. Are the soft drink companies the culprit? Not that I can see.

0 Replies

On your post, Thomas:

No one is safe from industrial accidents. Sh¡t happens.
But some societies try to prevent those accidents, while others carelessly look over the causes and act only to paliate the effects of the accidents.
It's a thing about civil protection culture.

Money (being a rich or a poor society) has to do with it, but is not everything.
How well informed is the population about the possible sources of a catastrophe, how well do the different authorities (national and local) cooperate in imposing effective norms, how do organizations of civil society (media, unions, businessmen associations, charitable organizations, community clubs) contribute to a culture of awareness, that counts at least as much as money.
That's what I mean by "a specific social tissue".

I give a examples from my own country.
In November 1983, a few months before Bhopal, we had a terrible gas explotion in San Juan Ixhuatepec, a working class suburb or Mexico. Dozens were killed, because -for political reasons- poor people were allowed to build their houses in Federal land, very near the deposits of all gas supply to Mexico City.
In September 1985, an 8.1 Richter scale earthquake made Mexico City tremble: 20 thousand were dead, many of them because buildings were made to barely cover norms who were relatively lax for a city who has big eartqueakes quite often.

The unpreparedness for those tragedies hurt the government , marked a generation of young people ("the earthquake generation", now in their late thirties) and gave rise to a new "civil protection culture", even if there's still corruption and even if most Mexicans are poor.
We have had hurricanes, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, etc; we've also have had our share of industrial nuisances (arsenic in the water in the north of the country), but the death toll is very slight in comparison, and most of the perpetrators of industrial mess have been tried by an special prosecutor for the defense of the environment.
These are societal triumphs, regardless of the income level.

0 Replies

thomas wrote:

In a nutshell, it says people in Mumbai are having the same problem with just plain, bottled water.

Just a few days ago, a similar controversy erupted over the most popular brands of bottled waters in India. Almost all big companies (including pepsico) have come under fine for marketing "substandard" bottled water, and several licenses have been cancelled. In almost all cases, water was found to contain a high percentage of pollutants.

fishin' wrote:

All true enough. I've never understood why the 3rd world countries don't just take standards established elsewhere and make their laws match. They don't have to do the science themselves. Is there a reason India can't adopt the ECC standards for their own? There should be no need to reinvent the wheel.

Yes, in an ideal case scenario we all would like to see this happen. But the fact of the matter is that the government is too busy trying to save its own butt than to do any work which will be "good" for the people. The current administration is much much better, but we still have a long long way to go. Realpolitik in India usually triumphs over any nobel intentions.

fishin' wrote:

Do you test the water that comes into your house? If it was found to have arsenic in it and people died from drinking it who would be at fault? If you are on a municiple water supply you'd probably assume that the supplier is at fault woudn't you? Do you test the water that comes into your house? If it was found to have arsenic in it and people died from drinking it who would be at fault? If you are on a municiple water supply you'd probably assume that the supplier is at fault woudn't you?

Now if the company pumps their own water out of the ground and tests it IAW the standards of the country they are in and the water doesn't meet those standards then sure, the company should be held responsible. But if someone else provides them with the water and certifies that the water has been tested and meets all requirements who gets the blame?

Everyone knows in India that tap water is not fit for drinking. Almost every house has portable water purifier plants and municipal water is fed through this before it is consumed. (I am talking abt middle/upper class here in metros). In my house, we have our own tubewells, water from which is fed through this purifier before we consume. And people who have this are in a large majority. We do not rely on municipal supply. If every house hold knows this, then I really don't see the reason why pepsico etc don't know this ?

The end supplier of a good is ultimately responsible for the safety/usability of the product. If yr BMW breaks down due to a fault in the stereo, you go to BMW, not to the Chinese shop which manufactured that stereo for you. All multinationals have strict standards for their raw material. I work for a MNC myself, and most of my customers are MNCs, and I can vouch for this fact. What I am saying is that the temptation to overlook this "quality" is far greater when you know that you will not be "caught", or if caught, you will get away with it, which often is the case in 3rd world countries.

Thomas wrote:

In general, this is not a realistic assumption to make. Research of this kind is expensive, even unethical when performed on humans. Therefore it's quite common for the European Community to set limits by the standard of "We don't like this stuff; if we can detect it at all, it's too much". I don't know what the rule for this particular limit was though.

Moreover, the sad reality is that the dominant nutritional problem in India is hunger, not insecticide poisoning. Given that, it may well be worthwile for Indians to trade off some amount of water safety for higher farm productivity.

We all have to have something to compare with, to measure against don't we. So why can't we accept the EEC as the standard to which we can compare ourselves ? Further I don't thin EEC would have set these limits arbitrarily.

Yes, the dominant problem is hunger, but the issue is not that here. People who go hungry in India, are not the consumers of coke and pepsi. Water safety for farm productivity ? Would you hold the same argument for errr...say GM crops ?

0 Replies

Gautam wrote:

We all have to have something to compare with, to measure against don't we. So why can't we accept the EEC as the standard to which we can compare ourselves? Further I don't thin EEC would have set these limits arbitrarily.

In this case you are more optimistic about processes in the European community than I am, but I don't have enough evidence to refute you competently. There is no reason against using EEC standards as benchmarks, but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to make Indian producers meet these benchmarks. As I said in a later post, Indians are on average ten times poorer than Europeans. This has to lead to reduced standards for something. Why not reduced standards of water and Cola purity for the relatively well-off Indians?

Gautam wrote:

Yes, the dominant problem is hunger, but the issue is not that here. People who go hungry in India, are not the consumers of coke and pepsi.

But they are consumers of Indian food, produced by the same farmers who pollute the water supply. Higher environmental standards for Indian farmers would bring healthier Coke and Pepsi for rich Indians at the cost of increasing food prices for starving and malnourished Indians. So there really is a tradeoff between water purity and the food supply. It's not immediately obvious to me that this tradeoff is worth making.

Gautam wrote:

Water safety for farm productivity ? Would you hold the same argument for errr...say GM crops ?

I absolutely would!

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

In this case you are more optimistic about processes in the European community than I am, but I don't have enough evidence to refute you competently. There is no reason against using EEC standards as benchmarks, but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to make Indian producers meet these benchmarks. As I said in a later post, Indians are on average ten times poorer than Europeans. This has to lead to reduced standards for something. Why not reduced standards of water and Cola purity for the relatively well-off Indians?

I might not be optimistic abt the EEC process Thomas, but my point is that atleast there *is* something to benchmark against.

If Indians on an average are 10 times poorer, it does not neccessarily follow that they should accept reduced standards specially with regard to health and safety. We might be 10 times poorer, but we are as human as our European conterparts !! Even if for one moment we assume that we can reduce our standards 10 times, the level of pesticides found in the cola we 30 times than the EEC benchmarks !!

Thomas wrote:

But they are consumers of Indian food, produced by the same farmers who pollute the water supply. Higher environmental standards for Indian farmers would bring healthier Coke and Pepsi for rich Indians at the cost of increasing food prices for starving and malnourished Indians. So there really is a tradeoff between water purity and the food supply. It's not immediately obvious to me that this tradeoff is worth making.

The issue is not the farmers polluting the ground water here. (btw, the studies show that most of the ground water pollution is happening due to untreated industrial waste being dumped in our rivers), the issue is why is pepsico and coke not treating the water before it is used for manufacture of coke/pepsi ? Is it just to save costs ? and the knowledge that no one really cares ? or even if they find out, we will get away scot free ?

0 Replies

Gautam wrote:

If Indians on an average are 10 times poorer, it does not neccessarily follow that they should accept reduced standards specially with regard to health and safety. We might be 10 times poorer, but we are as human as our European conterparts !!

I'm not saying Indians are less human than Europeans. If I sounded like I was implying that, I didn't mean to. But let's say you're an average European making $30,000 a year. Now say you must cut your spending by a factor of 10 for some reason. There's absolutely no way you can do this by cutting just luxury and creature-comfort spending. You will also have to cut expenses which by you things that have a profound impact on your life quality, even your life expectancy. Reducing the quality of your drinking water is one option you have for cost-cutting. The option sucks, I agree, but it could suck much less than your other choices for cutting your budget that much. You might very well do it in this theoretical scenario.

As a society, Indians are pretty much in the same situation as this hypothetical European. I'm not disputing low water and Coke quality can suck, and I agree the world would be a better place if living standards in India weren't so much lower than in Europe. But given that they are so much lower, it is possible, I think even likely, that allowing for 30 times higher pesticide levels sucks less than the alternatives Indians realistically have, given their collective budget constraints.

Gautam wrote:

The issue is not the farmers polluting the ground water here. (btw, the studies show that most of the ground water pollution is happening due to untreated industrial waste being dumped in our rivers)

This seems inconsistent with the article you quoted in your initial post. The non-government organization that ran the tests says the problem with the beverages they tested is pesticides. The main channel through which pesticides contaminate the water supply is farmers who spray them onto their fields. If the problem had been industrial waste, they would have also found some major contamination by petrochemicals, aromatic hydrocarbons, fluro-chloro-carbon compounds, and other typical industrial pollutants. I can't seem to find these in the report you posted.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

....so much lower, it is possible, I think even likely, that allowing for 30 times higher pesticide levels sucks less than the alternatives Indians realistically have, given their collective budget constraints.

But this is not an excuse for companies to ignore standards which they follow in "developed" contries right ?

Thomas wrote:

This seems inconsistent with the article you quoted in your initial post. The non-government organization that ran the tests says the problem with the beverages they tested is pesticides. The main channel through which pesticides contaminate the water supply is by farmers spraying them onto their fields. If the problem had been industrial waste, they would have also found some major contamination by petrochemicals, aromatic hydrocarbons, Fluro-cloro-carbon compounds, and other typical industrial pollutants. I don't see these in the report you posted.

You are right. Sorry, my mistake. But on the point you raised, see my article on the analysis of effluent dumped by coke in the river by their plant. I think it is the forth or fifth post.

0 Replies

Gautam wrote:

But this is not an excuse for companies to ignore standards which they follow in "developed" contries right ?

Wrong, in my opinion. If the benefit to Indian consumers of having their drinks purified to European standards was greater than the cost of it to producers, producers could increase their profits by purifying their products, advertizing the fact, and charging a higher price. This doesn't appear to be happening, which is evidence, though not proof, that this level of purification isn't worth its cost to Indian consumers.

Again: I'm not saying I like any of this. But your question wasn't whether it sucks that beverage quality in India is low. It was whether your story reveals a conspiracy against the third world, and to this my answer is clearly no. Suppose a pixie could magically turn India into a country where no politician is ever corrupt and no corporation ever exploits anyone. In this case, water quality in India would still be well below European standards just because almost everything material in India is well below European standards. Water quality is just one facet of that. Your story can be undestood without assuming anything beyond India's poverty.

0 Replies

I think I did get the title right. Conspiracy is not the right word to use it. I am thinking of a right word, but cant seem to find one...

Audacity maybe ?

Thomas, your insights into this issue are fab. Thanks for a stimulating discussion.

Will post a reply, once I am in the right frame of mind, right now I am feeling too frivolous Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

the issue is why is pepsico and coke not treating the water before it is used for manufacture of coke/pepsi ? Is it just to save costs ?

That is the heart of the issue. It puts a huge burden of suspicion on Coca Cola. All the blah about India is irrelevant. This is about the sanity of a product, wherever it's being manufactured. To have four times the allowed standard of pollutants in your beverage, for a multinational like Coca Cola, is inexcusable, yes criminal.

0 Replies

A reasonably prudent company would occasionally test the dry ingredients and water they use in products that will be drank by humans. Low cost purifing methods often leave resudues of about these sizes.
If the water is obtained from the local drinking water utility, then they are resonsible, perhaps more so, than the bottler customer of the water utility. The article smells of a sting operation. Were other products tested that would contain water from a similar source? It is possible the test samples were deliberately contaminated to discredit Coke and Pepsi or to bring public attention to the need for more government control in broad areas?
Yes I can believe that large multinational corporations would depend on lawyers instead of doing prudent, but moderately costly testing, especially if an alternate source of safe water was not available except at much higher cost. With rare exceptions big is bad. Neil

0 Replies

If India leans too heavily on Coke and Pepsi,
they may cut production and raise prices,
or alternately close down completely,
which would anger many citizens
addicted to these drinks which are
totally lacking in nuetrition other than
sugar in some of them. Neil

0 Replies

Conclusion: someone is making as many victims in Africa and Asia as possible. In Africa, they're dropping like flies and the Bush creeps are only worsening things. I would think that to be deliberately, as we are accustomed to.

0 Replies

Wolf,
I think that you have the cart before the horse.
It is not in Coca-Cola's or Pepsico's best interests in having customers die on them. But spending extra money to purify water to put in soda pop when the customer is just as likley to be killed by a dose of tap or bottled water is hard to justify.
Purifying bottled and tap water to western standards would add perhaps a year or two to the average Indianslfe. This would add another two to four percent to Indias population. (probably more due to improved health of the fertile population) This is not what India needs. She has been unable to feed herself adequetly for probably several hundred years. At the rate she is going now eventually the land and water will be poisoned and the death rate will exceed the birth rate, and then will stabilize at that level of population and living standard, whatever they are at the time it happens.

The price of human life, and the value each person places on the one they have is a very subjective judgement. Westerners would live longer if they eschewed fatty foods, cigarettes, liquor, automobiles, and casual sex. It would be very paternalistic of anyone to say that you can't do this or that because it's dangerous. We assume that there are some personal choices.

You should read Maltheus, The German philosopher. He has some very apt things to say about human propensities. They were true then, they are equally so now.

The Europeans chose war, emigration, and technological advances to cope with excess population.
The American Aborigionals chose war, and agricultural improvements.
The Chinese chose famine, disease and female infanticide.
The Indians chose famine and disease.
The Africans are choosing an avoidable disease to reduce their numbers, (not to say that the other three horsemen of the apocalypse aren't doing their part).
The Christians are hoping for Armageddon to save them from the Bibical injunction to multiply.

Have a glass of homemade Porter, You don't have to drive anyplace do you?

0 Replies

A "Third" world conspiracy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know