Before I start, I want to lay my cards on the table. I have what is probably an unhealthy love of Diet Coke. That being said, it pains me to say this: Coca-Cola is a destructive company that practices colonial-style oppression and disregard for the foreign countries in which it operates plants. In an attempt to stave off criticisms of my column, let me also say that I am aware of the criticisms against other soft-drink makers, Pepsi included. Although this column is directed at Coca-Cola, it can be seen as a larger criticism of the soft-drink industry as well, mainly because I can’t stand the taste of Pepsi.

The list of offenses perpetrated by the Coca-Cola Company is a long and storied one. Perhaps the most well-known include the accusations of anti-union activities including contract killings in Columbia and the ongoing water-purity and access controversies in India. These two issues depict a company putting profits ahead of people and the environment and are both ongoing debates that deserve attention because of the charges they level at the Coca-Cola Compnay.

In 2004, a New York-based fact-finding delegation reported there had been 179 human rights violations, including nine murders, at various Coca-Cola bottling plants in Columbia. In a lawsuit filed against Panamco, a Latin-American based Coca-Cola bottling company, the Columbian trade union Sinaltrainal attempted to use the Alien Tort Claims Act to charge the Atlanta-based Coca-Cola with the murders of three workers. A U.S. District Court later ruled that because the alleged crimes did not occur on U.S. soil, the U.S.-based Coca-Cola could not be charged, but the Latin-American bottlers could be.

Although this might seem fair, a quick examination shows that Coca-Cola owns a nearly 40 percent share of Panamco. Sinaltrainal claims the Coca-Cola Company assisted paramilitary organizations in carrying out the murders of several outspoken union members. Although Coke claims to have no knowledge of the murders, the locations of the killings within the plant suggest at least a tacit level of involvement with the crimes. Sinaltrainal also points out the fact these killings do not appear to be arbitrary but resulted in the silencing of particularly vocal pro-union workers. Unions are strongly discouraged by the Latin-American Coca-Cola companies.

Coca-Cola’s irresponsible and criminal business practices are not confined to the Americas, however – activists in India have been fighting the corporation’s plants for years now. Chief among the criticisms of Coca-Cola in India is the usage and pollution of the local water tables. The southern Indian state of Kerala banned the sale of Coke (and Pepsi) in late 2006, citing a study by the Center for Science and Environment which found hazardous chemicals, including pesticides, in the soft-drink. The CSE report looked at 25 manufacturing plants in 12 Indian states and found similar levels at all the plants.

A 2003 BBC report found dangerous levels of heavy metals, including carcinogens such as cadmium in waste water that the company had given to local farmers as a fertilizer. A lab analysis by the University of Exeter revealed that not only was the water useless as a fertilizer, but the levels of toxic metals greatly exceeded the levels set by the World Health Organization. In addition to Coca-Cola’s expelling polluted waste water, locals from the surrounding villages have repeatedly and routinely complained of Coca-Cola’s overuse and abuse of local water sources.

In a damning report, The Energy and Resource Institute, a traditional ally of Coca-Cola in India, said the widespread water shortages in and around the village of Kala Dera were directly caused by the bottling plant. The report recommends either the highly unlikely solutions of finding an alternate water source, relocating the entire plant, or the most likely option, shutting down. Coke has ardently disputed the claims, stating that it uses less than 1 percent of the available water supply. While continuing to deny culpability, Coca-Cola has recently said it will spend $20 million over the next five years to “improve global water conservation.”

Nearly all disputes involving multinational corporations, such as the criticisms of Coca-Cola, are both hotly contested and troubling. The Web site Co-op America’s Responsible Shopper recommends finding alternatives to drinking Coke in an effort to encourage the corporation, who recently reported earnings of more than $1.2 billion dollars, to take a more active role in conservation and human rights campaigns. In an increasingly globalized, capitalized world the most aggressive thing we can do often is to change our buying habits.

Corporations are money-making entities – if enough people quit buying their products, they are forced to adapt to the market demands and change their products or policies.

In light of this, I am hitting Coke where it hurts: right in the profit margin. And although you might ridicule the idea of one man’s refusal to drink Coke as having any level of effectiveness I have two replies. One, in the words of that great Indian peace activist Gandhi, you must first be the change you wish to see in the world. Two, you drastically underestimate the amount of Diet Coke I consume.

– Quincy Miller is a senior in English from Altoona.