Australia: Greenpeace and Coca Cola Fight Over Recycling Plan

Northern Territories In Australia had put a recycling plan in place. The Consumer was charged 10 cents extra for beverages. They received the money back when they returned the beverage container for recycling.

Despite the program already doubling recycling rates in the Northern Territory and operating successfully in South Australia for 30 years, Coke has taken the NT Government to court and effectively put the scheme on hold.

ANGRY consumers are flooding social media with threats to boycott Coca Cola after the company's court win to dismantle the NT container deposit scheme.

The Federal Court ruled in favour of the beverage company after it argued the NT Government's 10c deposit recycling scheme - introduced in January 2012 and similar to a scheme that has been running in South Australia since 1977 - was costly and ineffective.

Coke had argued the extra 10 cents added to its products was unfair to consumers, despite the fee being refundable.

The soft drink company yesterday had to call police to break up a protest led by Clean Up Australia chairman Ian Kiernan and Greenpeace CEO David Ritter at its Sydney headquarters.

But it's having a harder time dealing with the angry mob online. Hundreds of people have flooded the company's Facebook page with furious messages and complaints, with many users pledging to never buy Coke products again.One user posted a picture of a dead bird with a cut open stomach full of plastic waste, along with the message "Brought to you by Coca Cola".

Earlier today, Mr Kiernan and a small group of environmental activists tried to dump 4000 beverage containers at Coke's HQ.The containers had been collected on Clean Up Australia day on the weekend, and were a symbol of the litter which would accumulate if Coke overturned the NT recycling scheme.Coke didn't think much of the reminder, calling in eight members of the NSW police to block the small band of high-profile protesters

The protest and today's court decision dates back to January 4, 2012, when the Northern Territory introduced a deposit system to encourage people to recycle cans and bottles. Coca-Cola Amatil, along with Schweppes Australia and Lion Pty Ltd, were not impressed with the scheme and took it to the Federal Court.

Coke argued the scheme was a failure, with only 33 per cent of containers recycled.But Ian Kiernan and others believe the real reason for the beverage giants' opposition to the scheme was that they didn't like the extra 10 cents added to the retail price.

Coca-Cola Amatil said "container deposit schemes have consistently been found to be the most expensive and inefficient method of increasing recycling rates."

It added "Australian families do not deserve to be slugged with yet another cost of living increase that will push grocery prices up when there are cheaper and equally effective alternatives on the table.

But a spokesman from Greenpeace, Reece Turner, said it was an absurdity for Coke to talk about cost of living issues when consumers get a refund."It is the height of corporate arrogance, and any claims Coke makes in future about sustainability have been completely trashed."

Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting on 11 April in New Zealand. A national ‘Cash for Containers’ scheme is on the table for state and territory premiers to discuss - but with the beverage industry lobby pushing hard to crush the scheme we’re worried the scheme won’t pass.

Australians want this scheme - over 80% have voted in favour of it in recent polls.

This graphic Greenpeace ad was pulled from Australia's channel 9  

According to Food Quality News Coke put up a phony web site where you could support the recycling plan but your cursor would not go over the button to support recycling.

Lawsuit against Coca Cola’s Vitaminwater

First filed in 2009 it alleges that brand’s parent company, Coca-Cola (KO), took part in “deceptive labeling and marketing for the soft drink, which included claims that the drink could reduce rise for eye disease, promote healthy joints and support ‘optimal immune function.’” The complaint also takes issue with the company’s marketing campaign, which includes words like “defense,” “rescue,” and “endurance” on various Vitaminwater labels, suggesting that their product, a non carbonated soda containing

Coca Cola’s  attorneys said “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.” Stephen Gardner, chief litigator for the CSPI, thinks this argument is “utter nonsense.”

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Levy in Brooklyn recommended that plaintiffs in the case should be able to litigate for declaratory and injunctive relief as a class action. but they however, seek financial damages. So all they can get is for Coca Cola to change the label to stop them from deceptive practices.

In November the CSPI filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Dr Pepper Snapple Group claiming misleading information on regular and diet varieties of 7Up Antioxidant sodas, including cherry, mixed berry, and pomegranate. Although the beverages contained small amounts of vitamin E, the labels—which featured pictures of fruit—could confuse customers, according to the CSPI, into thinking the products were fortified with antioxidants from actual fruit or fruit juice. The suit was settled out of court last week, Dr Pepper Snapple Group agreed to remove all references to “antioxidant” on the products’ labels.

In January, the Federal Trade Commission found POM Wonderful, makers of several fruit-based beverages,guilty of “deceptively advertising  their products and did not have adequate support for claims that the products could treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction, and that they were clinically proven to work.”

Yet another class-action lawsuit, this one filed in 2011 against Naked Juice—owned by PepsiCo—claimed that several of Naked’s juice and smoothie products contained misleading or false information, like that the contents were “all natural” or contained “nothing artificial.” The drinks in fact included numerous synthetic ingredients, such GM soy, fructooligosaccharides and inulin. As of last week, the company agreed to a $9 million settlement, which includes removing the misleading labels and hiring an independent tester to determine just how many genetically modified organisms (if any) are in their drinks.

Will people stop drinking these products? Probably not.