Dow Jones Interactive

International
EU Panel Criticizes Coke's Explanation in Drinks Scare --- Group Says Causes In Belgian, French Case Still Unknown
By Brandon Mitchener and Betsy McKay
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal

08/17/1999
The Wall Street Journal
A12
(Copyright (c) 1999, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

BRUSSELS -- The European Union's executive commission criticized Coca-Cola Co.'s explanations for a contaminated-drinks scare in Belgium and France in June as "not entirely satisfactory," adding that the real reasons for the widespread reports of illness remain unknown and that public hysteria wasn't the sole cause.

Coke has blamed the crisis, in which hundreds of people reported falling ill after drinking Coke products, on a batch of defective carbon dioxide, as well as on a fungicide that may have rubbed off some wooden pallets onto its cans of soda. The soft-drink company was forced to make the largest product recall in its history as a result of the reported illnesses.

In its first report on the scare, the commission's consumer-protection office criticized both of Coke's explanations and suggested that the problem might stem from other problems in Coke's production process. The report said Coke officials had "reacted rapidly after problems occurred, resulting in the removal of potentially contaminated samples" before the arrival of public authorities.

A Coke spokesman yesterday said that the company hadn't tried to remove evidence. "We have been and are cooperating fully with the authorities," he said.

The report said levels of sulfur observed in the carbon dioxide "cannot explain the extent of the symptoms," including nausea and trembling. It added that levels of fungicide found on the cans were "highly unlikely" to produce the effects described. "The quantities found, on just a few pallets, are infinitesimal (0.4 micrograms on the entire can) and can in no case explain the troubles observed," it said.

The commission added that while "certain interested parties" dismissed the outbreak as psychological, "the serious occurrences and sickness of young children are among the most important arguments that refute this theory." The report didn't identify those "interested parties." Nor did the panel say how many people it believed had fallen ill from drinking Coke products.

Coke has maintained that its products are safe and that the problem was one of quality control. It said that the levels of fungicide and contaminants in the carbon dioxide were present in low levels, but that those amounts were enough to create an "off-taste" and could make a sensitive person feel ill.

The Coke spokesman said that an early study commissioned by the Belgium government had found that 47% of the Belgian schoolchildren who reported falling ill hadn't consumed a Coke product.

A final study is expected later this year, he said.

The commission said some soft-drink samples were found to contain "abnormally high levels" of certain plant extracts. Plant extracts, such as vanilla, are used in soft drinks such as cola. It is not known which ingredients the commission was referring to specifically. Coke's formula is a secret. "One cannot exclude that errors were committed in the selection of plants or the dosage of extracts in Coke's own concentrate," the report said.

It added that "an accidental contamination was possible" in certain bottling sites, where the company's procedures for the use of insecticides and rodent killers presented "a certain number of deficiencies." Neither a commission spokesperson nor several other commission officials familiar with the report could be more specific about the alleged deficiencies.

The Coke spokesman dismissed allegations of problems with Coke's soft-drink ingredients or production process, saying they were "not an issue at all."

The commission criticized French and Belgian public authorities as having been too willing to believe in the effectiveness of Coke's own crisis-management measures. France and Belgium also sent consumers mixed signals, with France sowing unease among consumers but issuing orders that "couldn't be followed in practice" and Belgium sending a clear message but demonstrating lax follow-up, the report said.

In a response attached to the report, France's public health ministry rejected much of the commission's criticism and said any confusion was Coke's fault, not France's. Furthermore, the ministry said that the commission exaggerates the health risks involved.

Belgium's health ministry, in a separate comment, said that "the situation is now under control" and that it doesn't see any reason to file more reports "unless there are new developments."

--- The Coke Chronology

Excerpts from official European Commission chronology of the Coke
contamination episode

May 10 A bar owner in Antwerp reports that several
consumers complain of nausea, vertigo, other
symptoms after drinking Coca-Cola.

June 7 Coca-Cola Enterprises, Coke's bottler in
Belgium, suspects problems with the quality of
carbonated gas used to make Coke fizzy.

June 8 32 teenagers in a Belgian school are
hospitalized after drinking Coke. Coke and
Belgian public health officials impound the
company's products. Coke changes carbonated
gas supplier.

June 9 Coke says irregularities could cause
headaches, nausea and cramps but `don't
present any health risk.'

June 10 More Belgian schoolchildren fall ill. France
alerts public officials.

June 11 Belgium demands recall of suspect Coke and
Fanta in bottles and some cans filled in
France. French authorities collect samples at
a Coke bottler.

June 14 Belgium bans sale of all Coke products

June 12-18 Hundreds more French and Belgians fall ill.

June 15 Coke advances theory of fungicide poisoning.

June 16 Coke voluntarily shuts down its French
bottler.

June 23-24 Belgium, France lift bans on Coke sales.

June 25 French Coke bottler resumes normal operations.

Aug. 16 European Commission issues critical report on
Coke crisis.