Rajpal's Column

19th November 2000

Wholesome drinks and mad cows that sing

By Rajpal Abeynayake

But, even if the British stand on their head and say it, the onus is on the Sri Lankan authorities to take stringent precautions — and some evasive action against the British reactions.

Considering that a great deal of hogwash was conveyed to the British people at the onset of BSE some years back, there is no reason to believe that the British will not bullshit us. "Though discharges (from ships, aircraft and other man-made structures at sea) of radioactive materials is banned in terms of London and OSPAR Conventions, routine discharges of radioactive wastes into the marine environment from the nuclear reprocessing facilities at La Hague (France), Sellafield (NW England) and Dounreay (Northern Scotland) continue, despite strong evidence of environmental damage. ´´

That report is by Greenpeace, the environm-ental organisation that even the WTO people love to cosy upto, that being a different story altogether.

But, at least that's one good reason that the British should not be taken on their word.

But also, there has been a rash of these incidents, which should be good reason for local authorities to listen up. No less than the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned of the contamination of wheat in Sri Lanka in recent times. 58000 tons of wheat flour being distributed contains potassium bromide, which is injurious to health say WHO authorities, who have warned that the stocks should be withdrawn immediately.

But also, to get back to Greenpeace and Britain, Greenpeace has alleged that the UK authorities have promised to look into discharges to the sea from the Sellafield nuclear plant. But as things stand, according to Greenpeace, the UK will actually be increasing such discharges.

So, let the UK authorities stand on their head, but the onus is on the Sri Lankan government to ascertain the truth about the threat of BSE and let the public know the whole truth. That's irrespective of how many mad cows we have in politics.

All this may also be resonant at a time when Coca Cola has been required to settle a race bias case in the United States for a whopping 192.5 million US dollars.

Coke will pay a record $192.5 million to settle a racial discrimination case covering hundreds of black workers who said they lost out on pay and promotion.

Obviously this should hurt Coca Cola's international image badly, as the company will be deft in using its advertising dollars to make sure that Coke continues to be it — not shit. It may sound politically incorrect, but if Coke as a employer is comprised of white trash ( else how could a discriminatory policy be allowed against black workers?), how could Coke cling to the image of selling a wholesome drink? (What is a wholesome drink asked former media Minister Mangala Samaraweera at a Cabinet Press briefing. The question was aimed at this writer who was not talking of Coke either. Certainly Mr. Minister, it may be said now, it ain't Coke....)

Coca Cola may not like it that its transgressions are being spoken of in the same breath as those of the British government. But, both institutions represent the tradition of cavalier international trade. The British sell cattle feed. Coke sells a drink, and with advertising meant for cattle. Both institutions definitely swear by the new canons of the international free market.

Coke is American. The British are also American.

But, similes aside, it is a pity that the case of suspect BSE in cattlefeed in Sri Lanka has not aroused any consumer ire or organised protest. Sri Lankan consumers stand no chance, because even the British consumers, who shouted themselves hoarse against the spread of mad cow, didn't. Or when the British BS on BSE, are we impressed by the stiff upper lip of Britsh colonial practices that made no room for holy cows?

The Guest Column

Editorial/ Opinion Contents