No Sweat!'s disservice

The standoff between Coca-Cola and campus activists is, rather quietly, drawing to a close.  

In June, administrators will decide whether to renew Coke’s contract as the exclusive provider of campus soft drinks. Among other issues, they will weigh No Sweat!’s charges that Coke supported killing Colombian union leaders.

Despite No Sweat!’s activism, these alleged abuses have failed to inspire popular outrage in Bloomington. Why, then, has No Sweat! continued to use the same failing arguments against Coke?  

Perhaps a futile campaign lends the group a sense of moral superiority. Assuming, however, that it wants to do more than make noise, No Sweat! should immediately focus its arguments on the unimpeachable charges against Coke.  

In 2003, a BBC investigation proved that the waste material Coke gave Indian farmers for fertilizer in fact contained toxic metals and was entirely useless as a fertilizer.

Although the leading poisons expert in Britain told the BBC that the waste had “devastating consequences” for the farmers, Coca-Cola denied the accusations and continued to distribute the filth.

Coca-Cola’s business practices are harmful in America, too. Soft drinks, along with many other foods, contain alarming amounts of high-fructose corn syrup.

Using corn by-products as a sweetener is problematic. Diverting resources to produce high-fructose corn syrup contributes to rising food prices, which are devastating for poor people around the world.

Furthermore, the majority of corn is grown as a monoculture. When land is used to grow a single crop, the soil is depleted of nutrients. Thus, farmers have to apply increasing amounts of pesticides and fertilizer, which in turn weaken the topsoil and contribute to epidemic runoff.

To be sure, Coca-Cola isn’t single-handedly responsible for the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup. Federal subsidies to corn growers combined with tariffs on imported sugar distort the true costs of producing the syrup. However, Coke’s heavy use of the substance makes it a major contributor to globally unsustainable agriculture.

In spite of this, campus activists remain religiously convinced that Coke only plays foul abroad. On its Web site, the only argument No Sweat! makes against what it calls “Coke-Cola” is that the corporation has killed Colombian workers.

In a February IDS story, one No Sweat! member said that the best solution for IU “would be to have Coke reform its overseas practices and not have to lose the (exclusive) contract.”  

Statements like these betray a naivete about the full implications of consuming Coca-Cola and do a disservice to the cause of ending Coke’s exclusive vendor contract.

While pressing for a reform in Coke’s overseas practices is undeniably positive, it will do little to stem the environmental damage done every time a soft drink is sweetened using high-fructose corn syrup.

If No Sweat! is truly interested in encouraging IU to contract with responsible businesses, it will have to open its eyes to the full range of harm Coke does and accept that, until Coke reforms those practices, activists have a responsibility to be unequivocal in their demands that IU end all of Coke’s campus privileges.