Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

June 23rd, 2012:

Coca-Cola Tells Sodastream ‘Stop Using Our Garbage Against Us’

Ian Muttoo/CC BY-SA 2.0

In today’s corporate nonsense, Forbes reports Coca-Cola South Africa has issued a cease-and-desist letter to Sodastream, the Israel-based maker of home carbonation units and soda-making products.

At issue is Sodastream’s collection of disposable cans and bottles, from a variety of beverage makers, and displaying them in promotional “cages” to demonstrate how much less waste is created by making your own soda or sparking water.

These cages have been used in more than 20 exhibits around the world, with a text reading “1 Family. 5 Years. 10,657 bottles and cans.”

The letter from Coca-Cola’s lawyers concludes that Sodastream is using “our client’s trade marks in a manner intended to disparage them, while competing with our client’s products…your conduct amounts to unlawful competition under the common law.”

Sodastream CEO Daniel Birnbaum is rightly non-too-pleased:

If they claim to have rights to their garbage, then they should truly own their garbage, and clean it up. … We find it incredulous that Coke is now re-claiming ownership of the billion of bottles and cans that litter the planet with their trademarks… they should be sued in the World Court for all of the damage their garbage is causing.

Here, here. Even if, just like in Sodastream’s cages, it’s not just Coke’s bottles and cans that are the problem. You can’t just single out Coke for being the problem here, it’s an entire culture of disposability.

Ultimately it does seem like Coke wants it both ways: Disclaiming responsibility for ownership of cans and bottles when littering is concerned or there is a suggestion, as Lloyd has suggested many-a-time here on TreeHugger, that beverage manufacturers should be legally required to take back their bottles and cans, but then saying they own them, via intellectual property and trademarks, when the same waste product is used against them.

Even if the law comes down against Sodastream on this one—and I could see that happening—common sense clearly favors Sodastream, especially as Coke is not being singled out. Sodastream is holding all disposable beverage containers up to the same ridicule here. If Sodastream were saying something positive about all those cans no doubt Coca Cola wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Waste disposal

yet biology professor JWC Wong is leading, at public subvented expense, a trip to Taiwan to see…………… incinerators


Waste Disposal Act,

Mandatory recycling


Currently there are 24 incinerators operating in

Taiwan, and they receive 60 percent of the nation’s

municipal solid waste and 40 percent of its industrial

waste. Nonetheless, since 2004 the incinerators have

been facing a shortage of materials to burn as well

as problems due to community complaints about the

emissions. The three incinerators in Taipei had

to cut their operations by half, at least partly

because there were not enough materials to


Furthermore, the government promotion of

ash “recycling” in construction and pavement work

represents a serious environmental liability in Taiwan,

given that many toxics remain in those ashes. Since

many companies are not willing to use the ash in their

own pavement, and there is not enough storage space,

the ash is often spread in places like farms, posing a

huge environmental threat.

Thanks to the community’s passionate

resistance to waste incineration, Taiwan has not fully

implemented its original plan to build many new

burners, and the amount of waste incinerated in the

country has remained fairly constant since 2002.

Download PDF : On the Road to Zero Waste