Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Santosh Mittal v. State of Rajasthan and others

País/Territorio
India
Tipo de la corte
Otros
Fecha
Oct 20, 2004
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Juez
Ratliore
Singh
Número de referencia
Civil Writ Petition No 3105/2003
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Desechos y sustancias peligrosas, Alimentación y nutrición
Palabra clave
Acceso-a-la-información Control de calidad de los alimentos/inocuidad de los alimentos Derecho constitutional Plaguicidas Salud pública
Resumen
The petitioners in this case claimed that the carbonated drinks manufactured PepsiCo and Coca-Cola were contaminated and laced with pesticides, which were dangerous to human life. The petitioners sought a ban on their sale and use by the public at large. It was also the case of the petitioners that the drinks manufactured by these companies contained suspended impurities. They prayed that the manufacturers make a complete disclosure of the composition and contents of their products including the presence, if any, of the pesticides and chemicals therein, so that the consumers could make an informed choice before buying and consuming the products. The respondent companies submitted that they were not required under law, to disclose the presence or absence of pesticides in their products. It was also submitted that the products contained 90% water, 9.0% sugar and 0.1% preservatives; in case water contained pesticides, they could not be blamed for it. They also submitted that small traces of DDT and other pesticides were not harmful to the health of the consumers. In 2003, an NGO made an analysis of pesticide residues in soft drinks. They found pesticide residues in the samples of twelve soft drink brands of PepsiCo and Coca-Cola procured by it from open market in Delhi. DDT was detected in 81% of the soft drink samples. In the Coca-Cola and Pepsi samples received from USA, no pesticide residues were detected though they were manufactured by the same multinationals. The court analyzed the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1 )(a) of the Constitution, which included a right for all citizens to acquire information. The court emphasized that once a person paid a price for a commercial product it had to be totally safe. If a carbonated beverage or soft drink was not free from pesticides and chemicals, the consumer had to be told that it contained pesticides or chemicals and the extent of their presence had to be specified on the product. The sale of the product should not be allowed without disclosing this information. It was submitted by the respondents that in case such a disclosure was made, there would be panic in the market and the business would dwindle. The court stressed that this contention could not 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 was only because of the commercial interest that the disclosure of information was being withheld from the public and the consumers. Commercial interests were subservient to fundamental rights. It concluded that the manufacturers of beverages namely Pepsi-Cola & Coca-Cola and other manufacturers of beverages and soft drinks were bound to clearly specify on the bottle or package of the drink the details of its composition and quantity of pesticides and chemicals, if any, present therein.
Texto completo
text.asp