*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.

*Canada’s Saputo has completed the acquisition of US Alto Dairy Cooperative for $160 million. * Alto produces Italian-style mozzarella and provolone cheeses along with American-style cheeses such as Cheddar, Monterey Jack, Muenster, Fontina and Gouda. It also produces whey products, marketed nationwide under a variety of brand names and private labels. Alto employs around 467 employees in its two plants located in Wisconsin. In 2007, the cooperative had sales of $378 million. This acquisition will enable Saputo Cheese Division (USA) to expand its business, and represents a major step in the Canadian company’s goal to achieve a stronger presence in the US.

Santa Monica based MD Drinks has added a still water to its Function Drinks range. Known simply as Water, the product is a combination of vapour distilled water and electrolytes packaged in a 23.5oz sports cap bottle. The company began business with the launch of a detoxifying drink called Function Urban Detox in November 2005. Since that time, the company has developed eight unique functional beverages designed to combat different problems, such as ageing or flu and colds, to drinks aimed at boosting mental acuity or easing sore muscles.

European scientists have rejected calls to introduce an EU-wide ban on a number of common food and beverage additives after a study conducted in the UK last year. The British study suggested a link between hyperactivity in children and a range of food and beverage colourants, consumed in combination with the preservative sodium benzoate (E211). Experts at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Milan, Italy, decided the results of the study were too inconclusive to form the basis for immediate action. However, EFSA is continuing its own reassessment of all colouring agents authorised for use in the EU, and expects to reveal first findings before the end of this year. The £750,000 (€955,000) research programme at Southampton University in England was commissioned by the UK’s official Food Standards Agency (FSA). Scientists examined the effects of consuming a juice cocktail containing sodium benzoate and six colourants on two groups of children – 137 children aged three years and 130 aged from eight to nine years. Colourants used in the study were: Sunset yellow (E110), Quinoline yellow (E104), Carmoisine (E122), Allura red (E129), Tartrazine (E102) and Ponceau 4R (E124). Sodium benzoate and one or more of these colourants are used in some soft drinks as well as many food products. In September, the Southampton researchers reported that either the sodium benzoate or the colourants produced signs of hyperactivity in both groups of children. A furore erupted in the UK press after the FSA announced the findings, and advised parents of hyperactive children to avoid giving them food or drink containing any of the colourants used in the study. The FSA forwarded the study to EFSA to be considered for further action – but critics claimed the UK agency itself should have immediately banned all the “suspect” colourants from British food and drink. After examining the research with the help of experts in behaviour, child psychiatry, allergy and statistics, EFSA’s special review panel on food and beverage additives conceded that the study provided “limited evidence” that the mix of additives “had a small effect on the activity and attention of some children.” But the EU experts added that the results were inconsistent between the two age-groups of children, and did not indicate which of the various additives might be responsible for the effects observed. “Considering the overall weight of evidence, and in view of the considerable uncertainties,” EFSA said in an official statement, “the panel concluded that the findings could not be used as a basis for altering the ADI of the respective food colours or sodium benzoate.” In its own ongoing review, the EFSA panel is studying additives individually. Its first formal recommendations are expected to include some of the colourants used in the Southampton study, such as Allura red. EFSA’s decision not to act on the Southampton study was welcomed by the British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA), which said: “All ingredients used by the soft drinks industry are approved as safe in use by the Food Standards Agency. “Soft drinks manufacturers have for some time been responding to the public’s increasing desire for more ‘natural’ ingredients. A wide variety of beverages are now available to meet this need, and innovation in this area is ongoing.” But the Food Commission, an independent consumer organisation, was critical of the European regulators. Anna Glayzer, co-ordinator of the commission’s “Action on Additives” campaign, said: “We do not need them in our food, and we would urge the European Commission to pursue a ban. Further testing would cost millions and take years, and is simply not a viable option. “In the meantime, the Action on Additives campaign calls on responsible food manufacturers to take steps to remove these food additives as soon they can.”

Red Bull made a spectacular entry into France on 1 April. The world's largest energy drink producer celebrated its long-awaited arrival in the country with 150 'Wings Teams' from around Europe, forming a magnificent get together as they circled around the Arc de Triomphe in their distinctive blue and silver Minis just hours after a BASE jumper got the 'Wings for Paris' day off to a flying start by leaping off the Eiffel Tower. The highlight of the celebrations marking the arrival of the energy drink, which is already available in more than 140 countries, with more than 3.5 billion cans sold in 2007, was a Red Bull-style car rally around the Arc de Triomphe by the 'Wings Teams'. The roundabout around the famous arch at the end of the Champs-Elysees may be one of most challenging for motorists anywhere in Europe, with swift-moving traffic entering and exiting from 12 different avenues. But the Wings Teams from 10 different countries across Europe skillfully navigated their Minis into and around the monument. After safely parking their cars, they surprised curious Parisians by giving them wings – free samples of the energy drink. Distracted tourists When asked for her experience, one of the charming British drivers replied: "It was a bit hairy getting in here at first, but the Parisians have been very kind and let us in. It's great fun. All the tourists stopped taking pictures of the Arc de Triomphe and now they're taking pictures of us. I think that says it all." Earlier, just after daybreak, Swiss BASE jumper Ueli Gegenschatz got the Red Bull 'Wings for Paris' day off to a dazzling start with his picture-perfect leap from the top of the Eiffel Tower, France's 324-metre-high national landmark. After a three-second freefall, Gegenschatz pulled his pilotchute to unfurl his canopy for a 35-second gentle descent. He landed safely about 600 metres northwest of the city's tallest structure and world's most recognisable monument. "It was an exciting climb up and the jump went well with a nice opening," said Gegenschatz, who had made his ascent up the side of the tower in the early morning hours under the cover of darkness. "It was pretty cold up there and there was quite a bit of wind. I was glad when the sun finally came up. It's a great way to introduce Red Bull to France." Gegenschatz was briefly detained by a French police officer who happened to be driving by the landing spot just as he saw the Red Bull canopy fly over his windshield. "That was just a bit of bad luck at the end," said Gegenschatz. "The police later told me it was purely by chance that they were there right when I was landing." About two hours later, French trial motorbike specialist Julien Dupont gave countless thousands of rush hour commuters in Paris's La Defense business district a rush of their own with a gravity defying motorcycle ride up, over and down the other side of the 50-metre-high arched concrete roof of the CNIT Center. "Everything went according to plan on the way up and it was my greatest accomplishment on the bike ever," said Dupont, who was helped by two tall women in short skirts who distracted security. "The roof was a bit slippery, so I had to slow down a bit on the way back down the other side. It was tricky getting the (80-kilo) bike over the fence, but that all worked out well."

* Pernod Ricard has announced the signing of a contract with Sweden for the acquisition of 100% of the shares of the Vin & Sprit Group (“V&S”), the owner of Absolut vodka. * The icon premium vodka Absolut is no 1 worldwide with around 11 million 9 litre cases sold in 2007 and a 9% volume growth. In the United States Absolut sells more than 5 million 9 litre cases and in the rest of the world close to 6 million cases were sold in 2007. Pernod Ricard Chairman and CEO Patrick Ricard, commented: “The acquisition of V&S by Pernod Ricard is a fantastic opportunity and represents our third transformational acquisition since the Seagram and Allied Domecq transactions. Absolut is an exceptional brand. Its integration within our portfolio of premium brands combined with the strength of our worldwide distribution network paves the way for outstanding growth prospects. We become thus the co-leader of the global wine and spirits industry.” * Joining a big family* Absolut will join Pernod Ricard’s brands portfolio which includes Chivas, Ballantine’s, The Glenlivet, Jameson, Martell, Beefeater, Ricard, Malibu, Kahlua, Havana Club, Mumm, Perrier-Joüet, Jacob’s Creek and Montana. In addition, V&S also brings other opportunities, notably Cruzan rum (around 600,000 cases sold in the US in 2007 and a growth profile of 27%) as well as Level, the no 4 brand in the super-premium vodka category in the US. The price paid for V&S by Pernod Ricard will be €1,450 million plus $6,050 million (€5,280 million). Pernod Ricard will also assume net debt of €346 million as of 31 December 2007 resulting in a total enterprise value of €5,626 million. V&S will pay the Swedish government a dividend of €85 million before closing of the transaction, and the purchase price of the shares will be increased by a pro-rated annual interest charge of 2.0% from 1st January 2008 until the effective closing date of the transaction. In exchange, Pernod Ricard will benefit from the full cash flow generated by V&S over this period.

*Italian family run business Fonte Sole has added Arte to the company’s luxury flagship Solé bottled water collection. * Arte is a super premium brand sourced in Nuvolento, Lombardy. Packaged in a contemporary 75cl bottle sold in either still or sparkling options, Arte enables hospitality venues to serve a more exclusive product to VIPs and dignitaries while reserving Solé for core luxury restaurant and bar menus. The sleek, multi faceted clear glass bottle is certainly an impressive design while the water’s refreshing and crisp taste has also received praise from food critics, hoteliers and restaurateurs. According to the company, the Arte range pays homage to great artists of Italy. The first featured artwork to adorn the bottle is by Leonardo da Vinci. Stephen Goodchild told water innovation: “We featured Leonardo da Vinci not only because of his stature as an Italian artist, but also because of his fascination with water and its movement. We expect to use other of his works for future Arte editions but have not ruled out using other Italian artists too.” * Italian water on foreign soil* Solé’s principal export market is the United States where the leading wine and spirit company in each of the major states typically distributes it. Outside of the US, the bottled water has achieved distribution in many countries. “In the US, Solé enjoys particular success in California followed by Florida and Arizona. In Europe, Germany is a strong market for our returnable products and, in the Far East, Japan and Malaysia are especially important.” At the end of 2007, the company donated bottles of Arte to help raise funds for the <1> at a glittering Ball held at the Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane, London. In 2008, the company will be aiming to consolidate gains made in established markets as well as developing sales in new markets, particularly China and India. What’s more, the brand has been shortlisted in this year’s Italian packaging contest <2> and will enter the 2008 water innovation awards. “Certainly the Arte product has caught the attention of Food and Beverage Directors from leading hotels around the world and this has in turn led to new distribution opportunities,” explained Goodchild. In terms of environmental and ethical initiatives, Solé Classic is bottled from recycled glass and recycled paper is used for the labels. Moreover, the company’s marketing materials are designed by a social enterprise and the firm claims to be an active supporter of the local community, supplying its water without cost to children and staff at a school close to its bottling plant. Fonte Sole is run by Giuseppe Bodei whose grandfather founded the business in 1896. <1>: http://www.braintumourtrust.co.uk <2>: http://www.italiaimballaggio.it