The Joint Parliamentary Committee on soft drinks has upheld the findings of the Centre for Science and Environment that the 12 branded cola products, including those of Pepsi and Coca-Cola, it examined did contain pesticide residues.

In view of this, the JPC has asked the government to formulate stringent quality norms for carbonated drinks.

Also Read Soft drinks, hard truths: The cola row

"The committee is of the view that the CSE findings are correct on the presence of pesticide residues in carbonated water in respect of three samples each of 12 brand products of Pepsico and Coca-Cola analysed by them. (We) would conclude that CSE stands corroborated on its finding pesticide residues in carbonated water," the JPC report titled 'Pesticide residues in and safety standards for soft drinks, fruit juices and other beverages,' said.

The report said CFL-CFTRI of Mysore and CFL Kolkata analysed independently samples of the same 12 brands collected and sent to them by the Directorate General of Health Services.

"Both laboratories also detected the presence of organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticide residues. The presence of pesticide residues is therefore a common scientific finding of all the three laboratories," the report said.

However, on the quantitative aspect, the results of CSE and those of CFL-CFTRI and CFL vary widely.

"The committee has no hesitation in admitting that as explained by different experts who deposed before it, variations in analytical research is a well-known factor. In the instant case there have undoubtedly been variations in the samples which had different batch numbers and were manufactured at different locations."

It said: "Even though all the three laboratories employed the same analytical procedure, differences were noticed in the way the procedure was performed, with the result that the differences could be significant."

Dismissing claims by both, Coke and Pepsi, that since more than half of their operations are through franchisee owned bottling plants, these franchisees should adhere to quality norms, the JPC termed these explanations 'unsatisfactory.'

"The committee feels that the existence of a bottlers' agreement cannot absolve the producers and marketers of their responsibility towards ensuring freedom from contamination of the beverages sold to consumers," it said.

"Whether its own bottling unit or a franchisee bottling unit, it is the absolute responsibility of the brand owner who selects the bottlers, provides the processing technology, quality, know-how, the concentrate and finally markets the end products to ensure that consumers get a product which is in conformity with the prescribed norms of quality and safety," it said.

Taking note of the fact that the Rs 6,000 crore (Rs 60 billion) soft drink industry (which JPC also refers to as carbonated or sweetened aerated water) was unregulated, JPC said: "It is exempted from industrial licensing under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and gets a one-time licence to operate from the ministry of food processing industries under the Fruit Products Order 1955 and a no-objection certificate from the local government and the state pollution control board."