Of all the exhibitors at the recent Berkeley Springs tasting event, Chicago-based Moni’s Teas was the most inspiring. The company’s organic line of fine tea products was sold alongside a range of premium bottled water brands. Moni’s Teas owner Monica Hayman explained that, as fruit tea infusions are refreshing when served cold on warm days, women can feel more pampered and gain functional advantages by using luxury bottled water. She added: “In order to drink tea, you add water. So why not add water that contains a high quality pH or possibly calcium, magnesium or other nutrients with healthy benefits.” The company stocks more than a dozen premium brands, including Aquadeco, Berg, Finé, Highland Springs and Tasmanian Rain.

Ethical brands, which provide a portion of sales or profits to alleviate water shortages in the developing world, more than doubled their volumes in 2007, according to the 17th annual UK Bottled Water report from Zenith International. Final flood relief figures show that bottled water companies also provided a total of 55 million litres to assist households affected by lack of access to clean water during last year's soaking summer. Always an important factor, the effect of poor weather on overall consumption was especially severe in 2007. Record summer rainfall caused the UK market to fall by 4% in both volume and value to 2,185 million litres, and £1,590 million at retail prices. Consumption per person reached 36.0 litres last year, compared with 29.6 litres five years ago. "Despite such a disappointing summer, the role of bottled water in emergency situations and the surge in ethical waters highlighted new areas of consumer resonance," said Zenith Market Intelligence Director Gary Roethenbaugh. Sales of water in retail sizes saw a smaller decline than the total market in 2007, falling by 3.3% to 1,785 million litres. A maturing UK water cooler sector slipped back further in 2007, dropping by 30 million litres. Including volume through water coolers, still water claimed an overall 86.8% share. Sparkling water held up better, with a 2.4% volume decline. The share of spring water rose to 26.0% in 2007 after reclassification by the Highland Spring brand. World market leaders Danone and Nestlé saw their combined share of UK consumption dip to 28% following Danone's divestment of Eden Springs. Princes Soft Drinks, Highland Spring and Greencore Mineral Water held their positions as the next three largest operators. The top five groups accounted for 56.8% of total volume in 2007. "Despite increasing beverage choices, bottled water has retained particular popularity in school lunchboxes, on the dinner table, at the gym and for hydration on the go," Gary Roethenbaugh continued. "Bottled water’s purity and zero calorie virtues should continue to drive the market forward." UK bottled water consumption remains well behind the West European annual average of 110 litres per person. Zenith projects 3% to 4% annual growth in the coming years, pushing UK sales to 2.6 billion litres in 2012.

Premier League football club Tottenham Hotspur has replaced its traditional water coolers and has installed mains-fed Tana Water machines in its restaurant, coaches’ area, medical centre, reception and education centre. The new machines dispense chilled mains water that's treated with ultraviolet light to kill germs, and is filtered to improve taste. * About Tana Water* Tana Water UK Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tana Industries, one of the world’s leading developers and producers of mains-fed water dispensers.

*Dannon has unveiled a new advertising campaign for Activia featuring award winning actress and passionate self esteem advocate Jamie Lee Curtis. In the new campaign developed with Young & Rubicam, to air throughout 2008, Curtis draws attention to the importance of digestive health, sheds light on this all too frequent, silent health problem and presents Activia as a delicious, simple solution. * Studies show that more than 87% of Americans suffer from occasional digestive health troubles and 70% of women say their digestive health issues have a negative impact on their daily lives. Despite this, many people are silent about this important subject. Curtis hopes to change this. "I am not afraid to talk about bowel issues - there I said it - and I'm very committed to help people find solutions, like a balanced diet and Activia. It is rewarding to be the ice breaker who speaks openly about digestive health and irregularity, and make it easier for people to find a solution.” Dannon believes Curtis' charismatic personality and integrity will inspire Americans to overcome their reluctance to talk about and hesitance to treat their occasional irregularity. The first stage of the campaign will feature introductory ads with Curtis discussing digestive health problems and the clinically proven benefit of Activia. The campaign will evolve with Curtis and will include frank and open conversations about occasional digestive health issues. Activia Brand Director Jeffrey Rothman believes Jamie Lee Curtis is the ideal partner for Activia to help more Americans talk about and take control of their digestive health. The company claims that Activia is the first and only probiotic yogurt available in the US that is clinically proven to help naturally regulate the digestive system in two weeks by helping with slow intestinal transit, when eaten daily as part of a healthy and balanced diet.

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has developed a new certification programme for bottled water. This new initiative enables consumers of bottled water to choose brands that have been validated by UL to meet the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) requirements for quality and safety. The seal of quality assurance will also enable producers of bottled water to differentiate and more effectively communicate their commitment to the product quality and safety. UL Global Water Business General Manager Jeff Smith commented: “The introduction of this new Mark for bottled water is a natural extension of UL’s commitment to public safety,” said Jeff Smith, general manager, UL Global Water Business. “Consumers can feel confident that when they see the UL Certified Water Quality Mark on bottled water, that the global leader in product safety certification, with more than 100 years of service, has independently tested the safety and quality of the water.” Ongoing commitment The announcement of the Certified Water Quality Mark demonstrates UL’s continuing commitment and leadership in water quality. In the summer of 2007, UL commissioned a blind market research study to quantify the value of the UL Mark among US consumers of bottled water. The study found that in every tested scenario there was significant consumer preference for bottled water brands that carry the UL Mark, and that many consumers would switch brands or pay more to get the benefits of the UL Mark. “High consumer preference toward the UL Mark demonstrates the public’s desire for independent verification that bottled water meets all federal regulations for quality and safety,” said Ann Marie Gebhart of UL. “The UL Mark is one of the most widely recognized and trusted safety symbols in the world. Bottled water manufacturers who partner with UL can now very effectively communicate their commitment to the quality and safety of their products.” The new UL Certified Water Quality Mark will first be available for bottled water products intended for distribution in the United States. Consumers can be assured that bottled water bearing the Mark is produced at plants audited by UL, and those audits are inclusive of the IBWA, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements. Quality testing To date, UL has analyzed more than 1.5 million water samples for thousand of bottlers, public water supplies, engineering firms, consultants, and state and federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. military. UL’s water laboratory is certified in 48 states and Puerto Rico, making it the most certified laboratory for bottled water analysis. The introduction of the new Certified Water Quality Mark for bottled water is the latest in a series of milestones for UL’s Water Programme. UL’s drinking water analytical laboratory in South Bend, Ind., has more than 20 years of experience analyzing bottled water in accordance with FDA standards. Highly active in water safety and quality, UL staff has served on the Technical and Government Relations committees for the IBWA and continues to make presentations to the water industry. In 2007, UL was awarded the IBWA Plant Inspection Contract, allowing UL to conduct unannounced annual third-party audits of bottled water plants for IBWA members and candidate members. UL’s water quality certification programme is fully accredited in the United States and Canada. UL is a recognised certifier of water products and water testing by the EPA and is an active participant on numerous national standards committees and industry task groups.

*Convictions for corporate manslaughter in the food and drink manufacturing could soar under the new Corporate Manslaughter Act coming into effect on 6 April 2008, according to the UK risk adviser and insurance broker Aon. * British companies responsible for work deaths, which have previously escaped prosecution, could now face a criminal record and unlimited fines, if they do not strengthen their health and safety strategies. From April 1997 to March 2007 there were 37 fatalities in food and drink manufacturing, a sector that ranks among the highest of manufacturing injury rates. The greatest proportion (about 40%) of fatalities is related to workplace transport and 30% of falls from height were fatal. Across the UK, some 241 people were fatally injured in the workplace in 2006/07 alone (Source: Health & Safety Executive) yet there have only been 34 prosecutions and just six convictions since 1992, according to the Crown Prosecution Service. Conviction under the former legal framework proved almost impossible as a company could only be convicted if the ‘directing mind’ or senior individual could be identified and found guilty for gross failings leading to the death. Now prosecutions are likely to prove more successful as the court can consider the wider corporate picture by looking collectively at the actions of senior management. * No claims culture* Aon Director Peter Jackson said: "The good news is that the injury rate for the food and drink sector has dropped by almost 50% since 1990/91. Alongside this, an increasing number of migrant workers in the sector has lead to a reduction in claims for accidents as they have much less of a claims culture – but this is changing as they adopt the local culture. "As such, companies cannot afford to be complacent about the duty of care owed to their employees. They must regularly review and monitor their health and safety procedures to overcome potential problems in the future, including the impact of prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter Act. If a food and drink manufacturer can demonstrate that procedures were in place and correctly monitored, this could decrease the likelihood of conviction, in addition to preventing the fatality in the first place." Direct action Food and drink manufacturers whose accident records are better than the norm have applied the following: A robust risk management and health and safety function that reports directly to the CEO or board committee; Clear health and safety processes that are 'owned' by staff on the factory floor and included in shift management Key Performance Indicators; Multilingual instructions on health and safety; Understanding of the full cost of claims at a site level so local management start to take the issue more seriously; Effective claims management so legitimate claims are concluded quickly and don't attract more cost than they need to and spurious ones are defended robustly. Aon Technical Director Tom Sheffield commented: "MPs such as David Blunkett have argued that numerous public disasters and workplace accidents caused by companies' gross failings have gone without punishment because the government has not previously had good tools to prosecute effectively. This inability to convict has been the largest driving force behind the new Act. Armed with this new law, prosecutors could be eager to put these weapons to the test. "As such, this really serves as a wake up call to business to update their health and safety controls for the well-being of their employees and the public." Aon is also advising companies to protect their employees and themselves by: Ensuring clear governance and internal control regimes in the workplace and that these are effectively enforced; Undertake a gap analysis on their legal and regulatory compliance; Checking directors and officers insurance policies to see if they are covered in relation to the new laws – add coverage for both the company and directors so the policy will pay for investigations and defence costs;

*In the days before the British Water Cooler Association (BWCA) annual meetings, events were dominated by an onslaught on the bottled water industry from several directions. * Commencing some two weeks previously, the media initiated the debate of tap water vs bottled water in restaurants, and set the scene for the Minister of the Environment, Phil Woolas, releasing his view in The Grocer magazine on 16 February, where he was quoted as stating that “drinking bottled water verges on being morally unacceptable”. On Monday 18 February, BBC Television’s Panorama programme focused on the tap water vs bottled water issue. It examined the carbon footprint of bottled water imported into the UK from many worldwide destinations, including Fiji, as well as the landfill issues concerning the PET bottles, of which only some 20% are recycled. The next day, Sustain issued its long-awaited report entitled 'The taps are turning – are we ending our love affair with bottled tap water?'. As a result of this media attention, the subject was the talk of the events in Telford, and BWCA Chairman Michael Barnett gave the opening address at the Annual General Meeting, entitled 'They have us in their sights'. Michael Barnett: No one could have failed to notice the media campaign that has developed over the past few weeks and climaxing in recent days, firmly set against the drinking of bottled water. So many issues are put forward by the many interested parties that one is left bewildered and wondering just who is the prime mover behind this campaign? Who really stands to gain? Of course, there's never smoke without fire, and among some of the outlandish claims made about bottled water, there are of course some with an element of truth. For example, the sustainability and Carbon Footprint claims. However, is there any manufactured product available today that has no Carbon Footprint associated with its manufacture available to the consumer? Of course there isn’t. Even the human organism at its basic survival level, just metabolising, as in sleep for example, produces a Carbon Footprint. So, why is so much fiction and passion entering this debate? Why the panic? Why the ever-increasing crusades from the Eco Warriors? There is undoubtedly a concerted campaign afoot. Just see the daily papers: "In 2008 bottled water drinkers are the new smokers ... " The Times 16.01.08 And that old chestnut: "One litre of bottled water is 1,000 times more expensive than tap water!" Then on Saturday 16 February, the Environment Minister, Phil Woolas, stated that drinking bottled water 'borders on being morally unacceptable ... ". The Panorama programme of Monday 18 February followed up on this subject and other contributions by the Eco Warriors. Consumer choice But why the attack on the consumers’ free choice to spend their hard earned money on what they choose to drink, be it tap water or bottled water? No one forced consumers in the UK to consume approximately 2.3 billion litres of bottled water in 2006 – an exceptionally hot year. That’s about 40 litres per person. They did this of their own free will and spent £1.7 billion in the process. That purchase level is nothing short of a vote of confidence in a product and a delivery system, isn’t it? Whatever their reasons; lifestyle, taste, quality, health, hydration, convenience, or availability, consumers did so of their own free will and preference. The UK’s labour force is approximately 30 million people who go out to work five days a week. From the time they leave their homes to travel to work and then return home at the end of the day, they spend an average of 10 hours per day away from their home. During these 10 hours, or some 65% of their awake hours, they don't easily have a direct means of accessing the mains tap water system. On their route to and from work, whether it's by public or private transport, tap water is rarely an available option. Any fluid intake for hydration has to come from beverages they purchase on the way. Tea, coffee, carbonated drinks and of course bottled water. Why, therefore, has it come into vogue to criticise these consumers for choosing to drink bottled water? It is, after all, available in convenient handy packs at affordable prices and has also been proven to be the healthiest alternative of all the available soft drinks. In the workplace, much of the building stock isn't state of the art, and mains tap water may only be available in the kitchen, canteen or toilets. Staff in these workplaces have to choose what they drink and many of them have chosen bottled water for one reason or another. The bottled water industry is being criticised for its meteoric growth over the past 20 years. If this has been so, then who has driven this growth? The consumer, naturally. The free-choosing consumer, whatever his reasons may have been. One thing we're sure of: no one forced him to do this! No Government Minister said, “you must drink bottled water". The growth seen in the bottled water industry has come from an increased level of consciousness and understanding by the British public that health matters! In part, this consciousness ironically did come from Ministerial statements in support of initiatives for healthy lifestyles, healthy food and drink in the home, workplace and of course schools. But these statements failed to consider the simple fact that tap water isn't generally available to consumers at all times when away from their homes. Much of the growth that has been achieved by bottled waters has been at the expense of sweetened warm beverages such as tea and coffee, as well as carbonated bottled beverages, rather than tap water. Bottled water has challenged the traditional bottled carbonated soft drinks for their ‘share of throat’. Water, including bottled water, is now universally acclaimed as the healthy alternative in delivering hydration. * Hydration in a healthy context* There's now also universal recognition that health and hydration are interrelated. This isn't the exclusive domain of private medicine, the health and leisure industry, or the private commercial sector. The National Health Service openly recognises that drinking water and being adequately hydrated is essential for health. It has recognised that its operational costs would be cut substantially if the UK population was better hydrated. We hear from health experts that the average person is only 70% hydrated at most times and the implications this has to lack of performance, failing health and general well-being. So there's absolutely no argument that WATER, all water, is good for ALL. So why isn’t this the message the Government Minister is projecting? Why is he stating that only one type of water, tap water, is the solution – one which isn't universally available to the consumer? To quote a known brand of confectionary publicity material: “at Work, Rest and Play”. ... and price? Exaggeration about the price of bottled water is rife, too. It's publicised that huge volumes of bottled water are sold in restaurants at up to £6.00 per litre. Yes, that may well be so in the top restaurants of Mayfair, London, alongside bottles of Burgundy and Champagne costing in excess of £15,000 per 75cl bottles. So what if they are? Are we not in a society where freedom of choice is paramount? If some private equity city slicker wishes to blow his New Year’s bonus on that bottle of Burgundy, shouldn’t he be allowed to do so? But in the real world, we all know that at our local supermarket, the high volume own brands sell at about £0.28/2-litre bottle – just 14 pence a litre. These are the brands which account for the vast majority of the 2.3 billion litres consumed in 2006 by Jo Public. So why exaggerate unless the real point one wishes to make is a weak one, and one stands a better chance of being heard by knocking the opposition. Carbon footprint Let’s look at probably the only valid element of the argument against bottled water: its carbon footprint. Yet, to do so in isolation is wholly unfair. Probably the largest contributory elements of the carbon footprint are transportation and the use of PET bottles. Interestingly, all carbonated soft drinks are delivered in the same PET packaging and transport as bottled water. However, we don't see Eco Warriors and government ministers indicting cola manufacturers for their carbon footprint. In reality, bottled water accounts for only one seventh of the whole UK bottled drinks market by volume – just 16% – yet it receives 100% of the media and Ministerial attention. Is this fair? Especially when everyone agrees that water is the healthy alternative to the whole gamut of soft drinks. One of the reasons for the focus on bottled water is due to misinformation, or to be kinder, the lack of information available, or even secrecy surrounding the true carbon footprint of tap water. What no one has yet calculated is the true environmental damage sustained by delivering a litre of tap water to our homes and businesses. It's easy enough to claim that a litre of bottled water is x gm of CO2 having assessed the production and distribution energy usage of the manufacturer. But it's much, much harder to obtain data to assess the true carbon footprint of delivering a litre of tap water from the water utilities. If such an analysis of mains tap water was undertaken, it mustn't ignore the trillions of litres and trillions of tons of water leaking from our national mains distribution systems daily. Just to give this some measure of scale, here are some facts: * “Daily 50% of mains water leaks from the distribution system.”*The Times 10.7.06 * “Total UK losses are 3.4 billion litres per day.” * The Times 10.8.07 This is an equivalent volume to fill three Lake Windermere’s each day. Or, almost 50% more water leaks from mains water pipes in the UK in one day then total UK consumption of bottled water in a year! “The volume of the UK water leakage in 37 days is greater that the global volume of all bottled water sold.” So, that’s the scale of the problem and the huge task before the water utilities to maintain these pipes on a daily basis, employing tens of thousands of men. These men drive as many vans and trucks and use diggers to excavate our roads, which they shut-off to traffic causing jams and diversions and longer travel distances. The carbon footprint of all this direct and indirect activity is on a mega scale, but it's not logged and set against the carbon footprint of tap water. Is this fair? If this additional data was factored in to the ‘claimed’ carbon footprint of tap water, it's questionable if the carbon footprint would be the small fraction it's claimed to be, as compared to bottled water. * So what’s all this fuss about?* Ask yourself. How can a Government Minister make a statement pointing the finger of blame squarely at the bottled water industry, which provides an acclaimed safe healthy product, wherever and whenever it is needed, to an educated and informed consumer which selects to purchase it out of free will. How can the same Minister state that drinking bottled water “borders on immorality….” Have you ever heard any Government Minister make a similar statement that; gambling borders on immorality? smoking borders on immorality? drinking alcohol borders on immorality? driving 4 x 4 gas guzzlers borders on immorality? Of course we have not, because the governments of the free world believe in freedom of choice. Normally, if a government is not enthusiastic about a specific activity e.g. smoking, drinking, gambling then it applies a tax to it, swinging in some instances, to make the cost of pursuing such activity higher, but what is does not do is state that such an activity is immoral. It allows the consumer to exercise his free choice and pay the price, should he wish to do so. Whilst speaking of government action and accepting that only some 23% of PET bottles are recycled, the question arising is who is at fault? The bottled water industry? Maybe, partially. They could have introduced a deposit scheme, as did the bottled water cooler industry nearly 20 years ago to ensure that bottles are returned when empty. But what of government initiatives? What have we seen? Not much! I visit Israel regularly and there, on every street corner, is a substantial wire cage intended for the public to place their empty PET bottles. These cages are never more that some 50 metres apart and nightly are emptied and the contents taken for recycling – not landfill. The national recycling rate is in excess of 80% and rising In Germany each PET retail pack bottle has a Euro 0.5 deposit for the same purpose. So where is positive action from our Government? Non-existent! It appears they find it easier to point the finger at the bottled water industry. As is said, the best form of defence is attack. And what of the 20,000+ jobs that the bottled water industry provides and the £1.7 billion that it adds to the UK GDP? Both government and media soon forget the vital role bottled water played in the West Country last year when we had unprecedented flooding. Without the availability of bottled water this social tragedy would have become a national disaster. Oh, yes they want and expect the benefits of the bottled water industry, but only when it suits them . . . Inform and reassure clients We water cooler suppliers, members of the BWCA are only a little insulated from this raging debate, as our industry can differentiate itself in several ways from the bottled water PET retail pack providers. However, we are also supplying bottled water and the brush being stroked across the canvass at this time will probably touch us to some extent. Our clients will need to be informed and reassured of the benefits we provide and where we stand. Firstly, our water cooler industry is essentially a B2B orientated service provider (not product) supplying hydration in the workplace where it is required both, under legislation and by staff wishing to maintain their hydration levels. Our members offer both bottled water coolers and plumbed-in water cooler delivering tap water. Which of these our customers install is their choice, based on availability of plumbing and that old chestnut of tap water V bottled water taste debate. Whichever it is to be we fulfil the requirement by installing the relevant water cooler. As an industry we have shown tremendous foresight and dedication to reduce the environmental impact of our activities. Were we not one of the first, if not the first industry to provide financially for the recycling of water coolers at the end of their lives? We go back to 2005 – two years before the WEEE Regulations mandated we do so. Have we not always charged bottle deposits to ensure that our bottles re returned to us? Have we not always used returnable, refillable and recyclable bottles with a life of some 50 roundtrips before they are taken out of service? Have we not always ensured that our scrapped bottles are supplied to recycling centres which crush and shred them to supply other industries as a raw material for non-food application? Have we not recognised other aspects of our environmental footprint and appointed consultants to assist and direct us to reduce our Carbon Footprint where possible and offset where not? I believe that whilst this storm blows overhead we need to remember our contribution to society by providing a safe, high quality product, where and when it is needed, in an environmentally conscious manner to consumers who drink it from personal choice to impove their wellbeing, health and hydration. Michael Barnett Chairman British Water Cooler Association

*In a ceremony on 28 March at Elopak Group Headquarters in Stabekk, Norway, Elopak signed a major partnership agreement with WWF Norway (World Wide Fund for Nature). The prime goal of the partnership is for Elopak and WWF to combine their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. * Elopak commits to reduce the company’s carbon emissions by 15% by 2010. WWF will coach and verify Elopak’s efforts to achieve this goal. This is a three year partnership agreement, and is the first of its kind in Elopak’s history. In addition, Elopak will contribute money to WWF’s biodiversity and forestry management programmes, and WWF will monitor the sustainability of the forestry practices used by Elopak’s board suppliers as needed. The agreement was signed by Elopak Chief Marketing Officer Børge Kvamme and WWF Norway Secretary General Rasmus Hansson. * Making good on commitment* Børge Kvamme stated: “We are committed to reducing our carbon emissions significantly, and demonstrating the environmental attractiveness of our beverage carton. WWF will help us make good on this commitment, injecting key competence and verifying that we do what we say. Through these combined efforts we hope to qualify as a WWF Climate Saver.” Elopak Director Environment Sveinar Kildal said: “We will provide direct sponsorship for WWF’s programmes in forestry and biodiversity. These programmes are essential for fighting illegal logging and protecting endangered species. The partnership will therefore help us secure that 100% of our raw material comes from well managed forests.” * WWF* WWF is the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organisation, working in over 90 countries addressing critical climate change and environmental issues. It is an organization that makes a difference, vigorously campaigning towards governments, industry and the general public to create viable long-term solutions for the planet’s environment. The WWF offers many opportunities to educate Elopak people through training programmes and activities, and it provides valuable strategic advice on sustainability issues to the global packaging industry. “This partnership opens up many opportunities for Elopak and our joint ventures around the world. It gives us a more credible voice when speaking about the environment, and marks the start of an important new stage in Elopak’s environmental and sustainable strategy,” said Sveinar Kildal.

Assuming shareholders give their approval at the annual meeting this April, Cadbury Schweppes of the UK will cease to exist in May. Instead, the group’s vast global confectionery business will be renamed Cadbury plc and listed on the London Stock Exchange on 2 May, while its Americas beverage business will become an independent US based company listed on the New York Stock Exchange on 7 May. Cadbury first announced it wanted to separate the two businesses in March last year. The company said both operations would function more efficiently as separate entities. However, market observers speculated that the move had also been prompted by “activist investor” Nelson Peltz, whose Trian company owns about 4.5% of Cadbury Schweppes. Peltz is known for pressuring managements to release more profit to shareholders. Cadbury’s first plan was to sell off the drinks business – formerly known as Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages (CSAB), now being rebranded as the Dr Pepper Snapple Group (DPSG) – to a private equity consortium. But that scenario had to be abandoned when the global credit crunch made it difficult if not impossible for would-be buyers to raise the necessary finance. Analysts had expected the drinks business to sell for up to £8 billion (€10.3 billion), with more than £6 billion (€7.7 billion) being paid out to Cadbury Schweppes shareholders as a special dividend. In October, however, the group’s management said it would instead launch the division as an independent company, with shareholders receiving stock in the new business rather than a cash windfall. In March, Cadbury finally announced its proposed timetable for the split-up. The company said it had secured $3.8 billion (€2.5 billion) in loans from five major banks – JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, Morgan Stanley and UBS – to fund the demerger and ensure the new Dr Pepper Snapple Group began life on a sound financial basis. Even then, there were fears Cadbury Schweppes might be forced to postpone the spinoff because of the rapidly worsening economic climate. Ironically, among the first to suggest this possibility were analysts at Bear Stearns –a few days before the US bank itself went into meltdown. Credit Suisse analysts also sounded a warning note, calculating the demerger could involve related costs as high as £1.2 billion (€1.5 billion).

Pro Hydro Vivo Clear from ECSA in Chile has introduced a powdered citrus drink sachet of green tea, phosphorus and potassium, designed to yield a 1 litre drink to aid cell metabolism and hydration.

Global venture capital and private equity firm 3i has sold its 25% stake in Senoble, the third largest French producer of yogurts, dairy products and chilled desserts. The Senoble family has bought back 3i’s stake and will now regain 100% ownership of the business, which has doubled in size during 3i’s involvement over the past four years. Marc Senoble, fourth generation family business owner, sold a 25% holding to 3i in 2004 in order to finance the growth of the group. During that time turnover almost doubled from €630 million to over €1.1 billion; international business increased from 25% to 55% of total sales; four acquisitions were made outside of France; and the number of industrial manufacturing sites doubled to 12 (5 in France, 3 in the UK, 1 in Spain, 1 in Italy and 2 in Slovakia). Senoble is the market leader in private label dairy products which represents 85% of the company’s business, with the remaining 15% marketed under the Senoble and Weight Watchers brands or local brands in central Europe. Marc Senoble has recruited Francois Salamon, former executive at Danone and Club Med, as General Manager in order to add international expertise to the management group. Marc Senoble comments: “Over the past four years, I have been grateful to have chosen 3i as a partner. Leveraging its international network, in depth sector knowledge and active partnership style, 3i has played a fundamental role in our expansion in the UK and has fervently supported our development strategy in Europe.”

*Frisian Flag Indonesia, one of the largest foreign affiliates of Royal Friesland Foods, and the market leader in dairy in Indonesia, has been honoured as the best foreign investment company among large-scale industries. * The award was presented by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Frisian Flag Indonesia Managing Director Cees Ruygrok at a special ceremony at the Presidential Palace in Jakarta. In two factories in Jakarta, Frisian Flag Indonesia produces a wide assortment of dairy products such as sweetened condensed milk, long-life ready to drink milk and powdered milk products for adults and children. This is the first time the prize has been awarded, and 5,160 companies were audited by a team of experts, looking at corporate governance, consistency of product quality, production facilities, corporate social responsibility programmes and environmental care.