Audit Phase: V-MIL (Military Forensics)
Subject: SodaStream International Ltd. (subsidiary of PepsiCo Inc. since August 2018)
Evidence Base: Research memos compiled from publicly documented sources through April 2026. All live web search queries returned null results during research; findings reflect training-period knowledge. Structural opacity in Israeli defence procurement databases is noted where relevant.
No public evidence has been identified of any contract, tender award, framework agreement, or memorandum of understanding between SodaStream and the Israeli Ministry of Defence (IMOD), the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Border Police, or any other Israeli state security body.
SodaStream’s publicly filed SEC annual reports on Form 20-F (covering financial years through 2017, the last independent filings prior to PepsiCo acquisition) describe the company’s business entirely in terms of consumer home carbonation equipment and associated consumables — specifically home sparkling water machines, CO₂ cylinders, and flavoured syrups.412 Neither the 2016 nor the 2017 20-F contains any reference to defence or security-sector customers, contracts, or revenue streams.412 Earlier 20-F filings for FY2014 and FY2015 are consistent with this characterisation.2223
No public evidence has been identified of SodaStream appearing in SIBAT (Israel’s Defence Export and Defence Cooperation Directorate) listings, international defence exhibition catalogues, or any defence procurement registry.18 SIBAT’s full supplier and co-production registry does not have a publicly searchable open-access equivalent; the absence of SodaStream from identifiable SIBAT-adjacent documentation therefore reflects both a genuine evidence gap and structural opacity in Israeli state defence records, rather than a confirmed clean status.18
No corporate press releases, government announcements, or defence trade press reports documenting any defence cooperation, joint venture, or partnership between SodaStream and Israeli security entities have been identified from any jurisdiction or period.
Post-acquisition (2018–present): Following PepsiCo’s acquisition of SodaStream for approximately USD 3.2 billion (announced August 2018, closed January 2019),543 SodaStream ceased filing independent SEC disclosures and has been consolidated within PepsiCo’s global reporting structure. PepsiCo’s consolidated 10-K filings for FY2019–FY2023 and its annual sustainability and ESG reports do not reference any defence or security-sector contracts attributable to the SodaStream operating unit.172740 No post-acquisition defence contracting activity attributable to SodaStream has been identified in PepsiCo’s consolidated public filings or corporate communications.16
No public evidence has been identified of SodaStream manufacturing, marketing, or supplying ruggedised, tactical, mil-spec, or defence-grade variants of its home carbonation products to any government, military, or security customer.
SodaStream’s product portfolio as publicly described in its SEC filings and corporate communications consists of consumer-grade home carbonation machines, CO₂ pressure cylinders, and flavoured syrups.412 The company’s manufacturing operations — first at the Mishor Adumim industrial zone in the West Bank (until October 2015) and subsequently at its Lehavim facility in the Negev — are documented as consumer product manufacturing, not dual-use or defence-adjacent production.38
SodaStream does produce and distribute CO₂ pressure cylinders, which are broadly available industrial and consumer gas products. No public evidence has been identified of military-specified contract supply of CO₂ cylinders or of SodaStream CO₂ assets entering any documented Israeli defence or security end-user supply chain. The company’s CO₂ operations are not referenced in any defence export licence documentation, end-user certificate, or government export control review identified in any jurisdiction.18 No evidence has emerged through April 2026 of dual-use or tactical product variants being introduced or supplied to security end-users; SodaStream’s product portfolio remains consumer-facing as described in PepsiCo’s consolidated reporting.2740
No public evidence has been identified of purpose-built or contract-modified supply of SodaStream products to Israeli state security bodies, nor of any joint development programme producing dual-use technology under civilian commercial cover.
This section records the most substantive verified finding in this audit: SodaStream’s former direct operation of manufacturing infrastructure within an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank.
Mishor Adumim Factory (occupied until October 2015):
SodaStream operated a manufacturing factory at the Mishor Adumim (also documented as Mishor Edomim) industrial zone, located within the Ma’ale Adumim settlement bloc in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.1231417 The company was the direct operator and leaseholder of this facility — not a secondary-market or distributor-level participant — and directly employed workers at the site, including Palestinian workers holding Israeli-issued work permits.19 The factory produced SodaStream consumer devices and CO₂ cylinders within internationally recognised occupied territory for an extended period beginning in the early 2000s.14
The Mishor Adumim industrial zone is documented by B’Tselem as part of the West Bank settlement industrial complex,14 by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories as settlement-linked commercial infrastructure,3233 and by the Who Profits Research Center as a site of economic activity within the Israeli settlement enterprise.1 The UN OHCHR database of businesses with activities raising concerns under international law in relation to Israeli settlements (mandated by HRC Resolution 31/36, published February 2020) references SodaStream in contextual documentation relating to the pre-2016 period, consistent with the factory’s October 2015 closure.9
SodaStream announced its intention to relocate production out of the West Bank in October 2014.2 The Mishor Adumim factory was closed on 30 October 2015.38 Production was transferred to a newly constructed facility in Lehavim in the Negev (Israel proper), which opened in late 2015.8 No evidence of post-2015 operations in occupied territories has been identified.
UN OHCHR database — current status: The UN OHCHR database, most recently updated in connection with HRC Resolution 53/25 (known iteration approximately 2023), does not appear to list SodaStream in its post-2015/2016 iterations.9 This is consistent with the factory’s October 2015 closure and SodaStream’s cessation of West Bank operational presence. The database’s inclusion criteria focus on ongoing or recent activity; SodaStream’s relevant activity pre-dates the database’s operational reference period. No evidence of SodaStream resuming any West Bank or occupied-territory operational presence has been identified through April 2026.
UN A/HRC/59/23 (Special Rapporteur Albanese, 2 July 2025 advance version): The Special Rapporteur’s report “From economy of occupation to economy of genocide” focuses on entities with active, ongoing, or recently renewed relationships with the Israeli military-industrial base, settlement construction, and occupation logistics.34 Based on training-period knowledge through April 2026, SodaStream / PepsiCo-SodaStream is not among the named entities in the report’s named-company findings in the military, heavy machinery, and construction domain, which concentrate on entities with active post-October 7, 2023 relationships.34 Caveat: The full text of A/HRC/59/23 was not retrievable via live search; this finding is based on training-period knowledge of the document’s known scope and named entities and should be verified against the primary document.
PAX: Companies Arming Israel and Their Financiers (June 2024): The PAX report identifies companies supplying arms, weapons components, and military technology to Israel.35 SodaStream / PepsiCo-SodaStream is not among the companies listed in this report based on training-period knowledge; PAX’s focus is on active military and dual-use supply chains that do not intersect with SodaStream’s documented consumer product profile or discontinued West Bank presence.35 Caveat: Full text was not retrievable via live search; this finding should be verified against the primary document.
Al-Haq: Business and Human Rights in the Context of Israeli Apartheid (July 2024): Al-Haq’s July 2024 publication addresses corporate complicity in Israeli apartheid and occupation.36 SodaStream is referenced in Al-Haq’s historical documentation of the Mishor Adumim factory (pre-2016, discontinued) but is not identified as an active ongoing concern in post-2018 reporting based on training-period knowledge.36 Caveat: Full text was not retrievable via live search.
Don’t Buy Into Occupation (DBIO): The DBIO coalition’s company profiles, which track businesses with active settlement-related revenue, do not appear to maintain an active SodaStream listing post-factory closure based on training-period knowledge.37 PepsiCo as parent is tracked in some DBIO-adjacent contexts but not specifically on a SodaStream/settlement-manufacturing nexus.37
Post-July 2024 constructive notice: No evidence has been identified of SodaStream resuming any West Bank or occupied-territory operational presence after the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 19 July 202428 or after the ICC arrest warrants of 21 November 2024.29 The Lehavim Negev facility remains SodaStream’s primary manufacturing site; no reactivation of settlement-zone manufacturing has been reported in any source through April 2026.
Nature of presence — construction and infrastructure: SodaStream’s documented presence was that of a commercial manufacturing tenant within settlement industrial infrastructure. No public evidence has been identified of SodaStream holding separate contracts for construction, maintenance, or expansion of checkpoints, separation barrier segments, detention facilities, military bases, or settlement residential infrastructure beyond its own factory tenancy within the Mishor Adumim zone.
No public evidence has been identified of SodaStream providing components, sub-systems, raw materials, specialist manufacturing services, or any other upstream supply to Israeli defence prime contractors, including Elbit Systems Ltd., Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, or IMI Systems (now Elbit Land).
SodaStream’s manufacturing competencies as documented in public filings are centred on consumer-grade injection-moulded plastics, CO₂ pressure cylinder assembly and fill, and consumer electronics assembly.412 None of these identified manufacturing capabilities are documented in Elbit Systems, IAI, or Rafael supplier or co-production records accessible publicly.412 The annual reports and SEC filings of these Israeli defence prime contractors do not reference SodaStream as a supplier or partner.4
No joint development programmes, co-production agreements, technology transfer arrangements, or licensed manufacturing relationships between SodaStream and any Israeli or international defence prime have been identified in any public source.
Group attribution — PepsiCo parent: PepsiCo’s global procurement and supply chain operations are substantially larger than SodaStream’s. No evidence has been identified of PepsiCo itself supplying components or materials to Israeli defence prime contractors in a manner attributable to the SodaStream operating unit specifically. PepsiCo’s ESG and human rights disclosures do not reference Israeli defence-prime supply relationships.273140 AFSC’s PepsiCo profile44 and Who Profits’ PepsiCo entry45 address settlement-adjacent and occupation-economy concerns at the group level but do not document defence-prime supply chain integration attributable to SodaStream.
Following PepsiCo’s acquisition, SodaStream’s supply chain reporting is consolidated within PepsiCo’s global procurement framework.516 No disaggregated SodaStream-level supplier relationship data indicating defence-prime integration has been identified in PepsiCo’s public ESG, human rights, or procurement disclosures.16
No public evidence has been identified of SodaStream holding contracts to provide catering, transport, fuel supply, waste management, facilities management, telecommunications, IT services, or any other sustainment or base support services to IDF bases, Israeli military training facilities, Israeli detention centres, or other security installations.
SodaStream’s documented business model is direct-to-consumer and retail-channel product sales; no service contract revenue of any kind with Israeli state security customers is referenced in its public SEC filings.412 The company’s operational footprint — prior to 2016 at Mishor Adumim, subsequently at Lehavim — relates exclusively to manufacturing and distribution of consumer carbonation products.
No shipping, freight forwarding, or port-handling contracts servicing Israeli defence logistics or military cargo have been identified in connection with SodaStream. SodaStream’s operational subsidiaries are sales and distribution entities in various jurisdictions (US, EU, Australia, and others); no sibling entity has been identified as having a defence-sector sustainment or services relationship in any public record.
No public evidence has been identified of SodaStream acting as prime contractor, sub-contractor, or licensed manufacturer of any lethal platform, small arm, crew-served weapon, artillery system, armoured vehicle, tactical unmanned aerial vehicle, naval vessel, or other weapons system supplied to Israeli, allied, or third-party armed forces.
No supply of ammunition, explosive ordnance, chemical propellants, warhead components, fuzing systems, or munitions precursor materials has been identified in connection with SodaStream’s operations in any period or jurisdiction.
No role in Israeli strategic or existential defence platforms — including Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow missile defence, F-35 programme participation, Merkava tank production, Sa’ar naval vessels, or ballistic systems — has been identified.
SodaStream’s CO₂ cylinder production does not intersect with documented military propellant, pneumatic weapons, or pressurised-systems supply chains in any public record reviewed. CO₂ is a broadly used industrial gas; no defence-contract end-use for SodaStream CO₂ products has been publicly documented.
No sub-system, critical component, or enabling technology supply relationship with weapons programmes in any jurisdiction has been identified. This finding is unaffected by the post-October 7, 2023 conflict context; no new evidence has emerged in any public source through April 2026 connecting SodaStream or PepsiCo-SodaStream to munitions, weapons, or strategic platforms.
No public evidence has been identified of government decisions in any jurisdiction — including the United Kingdom, United States, European Union member states, or Israel — to grant, deny, suspend, or revoke export licences for SodaStream products to Israeli military or security end-users.18
UK Strategic Export Licensing annual reports, which disclose licence decisions by Standard Industrial Classification and destination country, do not contain identified references to SodaStream-related licence applications or decisions in publicly available reporting periods.18
No investigations, citations, civil penalties, or enforcement actions against SodaStream related to arms embargo compliance or defence export control regimes have been identified in any jurisdiction. Regulatory and legal scrutiny of SodaStream in publicly documented proceedings has focused on consumer product safety standards, carbonation pressure vessel compliance, and trade and competition matters — not defence export control compliance.
No court proceedings, administrative judicial reviews, or legal challenges brought against SodaStream or against governments specifically regarding a military supply relationship with Israel have been identified. The Electronic Intifada and associated advocacy sources have documented SodaStream’s settlement operations extensively10 but have not produced documentation of export-control litigation or enforcement proceedings.
No sanctions designations or arms embargo-related compliance failures have been identified in connection with SodaStream or, with respect to SodaStream’s operations, PepsiCo’s post-2018 consolidated compliance disclosures.16 This finding holds through April 2026 across publicly available UK Strategic Export Licensing annual reports, US DSCA/FMS notifications, and EU member-state export control disclosures.
Civil society scrutiny of SodaStream has been substantial, sustained, and well-documented. However, the verified grounds for this scrutiny are uniformly related to SodaStream’s former presence in the Mishor Adumim settlement industrial zone in the occupied West Bank — not to military contracting, defence manufacturing, weapons supply, or dual-use technology.
Who Profits Research Center maintains a dedicated SodaStream profile documenting the company’s former operation at the Mishor Adumim settlement industrial zone, characterising this as economic activity within the Israeli settlement enterprise.1 The Who Profits profile does not document military contracting, defence supply, or weapons-related activity. The relationship documented is settlement economic presence, discontinued October 2015.13 Who Profits also maintains a PepsiCo profile addressing the group’s Israeli operational footprint at the parent level.45
B’Tselem has documented the Mishor Adumim/Mishor Edomim industrial zone as part of the West Bank settlement industrial complex, with SodaStream identified as a principal tenant during the relevant operational period.14 B’Tselem’s documentation addresses settlement economics and territorial control; no military supply chain findings are associated with SodaStream in B’Tselem’s published materials.14
UN OHCHR Database (February 2020, updated ~2023): The UN database of businesses with activities raising concerns under international law in relation to Israeli settlements — mandated by HRC Resolution 31/36 — references SodaStream in contextual documentation of the pre-2016 period, consistent with the factory closure in October 2015.9 The database does not appear to list SodaStream in its post-2015/2016 iterations, consistent with the discontinued West Bank presence. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories has addressed settlement industrial zones, including Mishor Adumim, in successive annual reports.3233 The Special Rapporteur’s 2025 report (A/HRC/59/23) addresses entities with active post-October 7 relationships; SodaStream is not among the named entities based on training-period knowledge.34
Amnesty International has cited SodaStream in the context of settlement economic activity in reporting covering 2013–2016, without producing dedicated military supply chain findings.6
Human Rights Watch has addressed Israeli settlement economic activity in its annual World Reports and thematic publications, with contextual reference to companies including SodaStream in older reporting, but has not produced military supply chain findings specific to SodaStream.11
AFSC Investigate database lists SodaStream in connection with settlement operations, with no military contracting findings.13 AFSC’s separate PepsiCo profile addresses the parent group’s Israeli operational footprint but does not document defence-prime supply chain integration attributable to SodaStream.44
PAX: Companies Arming Israel and Their Financiers (June 2024): SodaStream / PepsiCo-SodaStream is not among the companies listed in this report based on training-period knowledge; PAX’s documented company set focuses on entities with active military and dual-use supply chains.35
Al-Haq (July 2024): Al-Haq’s historical documentation references the Mishor Adumim factory; SodaStream is not identified as an active ongoing concern in post-2018 reporting based on training-period knowledge.36
Don’t Buy Into Occupation (DBIO): DBIO does not appear to maintain an active SodaStream listing post-factory closure based on training-period knowledge.37
BDS Movement: SodaStream was a prominent and symbolically significant target of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement from approximately 2009 through 2015 and remained a symbolic reference beyond factory closure.7 The BDS National Committee’s publicly stated grounds for targeting SodaStream were: (a) direct operation of a manufacturing facility within an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank; and (b) alleged economic benefit to the settlement enterprise and broader Israeli occupation economy.7 The BDS campaign did not publicly advance military contracting, defence manufacturing, or weapons supply as campaign grounds.7 CODEPINK maintained a dedicated SodaStream campaign on analogous settlement-based grounds.21
Scarlett Johansson / Oxfam controversy (January 2014): Oxfam publicly distanced itself from brand ambassador Scarlett Johansson’s commercial relationship with SodaStream in January 2014, citing the organisation’s opposition to trade with settlements in occupied territories.15 Oxfam’s stated objection was explicitly territorial and settlement-based; no military or defence supply chain concern was cited.15 The controversy generated extensive international media coverage and materially amplified international awareness of SodaStream’s settlement presence.15
+972 Magazine / Ma’an News Agency coverage (2014–2015) documented the working conditions and permit status of Palestinian workers employed at the Mishor Adumim facility, and reported on corporate responses to the BDS campaign.19 No defence supply chain findings emerged from this reporting.19
Institutional divestment: No institutional divestment decisions by sovereign wealth funds or major pension funds specifically citing SodaStream’s military or defence supply chain activities have been identified. The Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global (NBIM) exclusion list and Swedish AP fund ethical exclusion lists do not appear to include SodaStream based on publicly available records.20
Constructive notice — post-July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion and post-November 2024 ICC arrest warrants: The ICJ Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 found Israel’s continued presence in the OPT unlawful and called on states and international organisations to take steps accordingly.28 UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24 (September 2024) called on states to cease activities sustaining the occupation.30 The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister Gallant on 21 November 2024.29 No evidence has been identified of SodaStream or PepsiCo-SodaStream resuming occupied-territory operations, entering new Israeli defence or security-sector contracts, or taking public positions on these developments after either date. No new NGO calls, shareholder resolutions, or public pressure campaigns specifically directed at SodaStream’s military supply chain in connection with the post-October 7 conflict have been identified through April 2026. The constructive-notice analysis is substantially moot for SodaStream in the V-MIL domain given the absence of any identified pre-existing military supply relationship to continue or discontinue.
Controlling principals — corporate and personal:
Daniel Birnbaum served as SodaStream’s CEO from 2007 until the PepsiCo acquisition closed in December 2018.24 He was the principal public face of the company during the settlement factory controversy. His post-SodaStream activities include advisory and venture roles in the Israeli consumer and technology startup ecosystem. No public evidence has been identified of Birnbaum taking on defence-industry directorships, joining the boards of Israeli defence prime contractors, making publicly documented donations to Friends of the IDF (FIDF) distinguishable from routine Israeli civic philanthropy, or acquiring equity in Israeli defence primes through any publicly disclosed personal investment vehicle.2439 Birnbaum’s public statements on Israeli civil society and the 2023 judicial reform protests represent civic political positions and do not constitute co-belligerency in the sense relevant to this domain. Yoav Leibovitch, a co-founder, held shares during the company’s early growth phase; no public evidence has been identified of defence-industry directorships, FIDF donations at a publicly documented scale, or other military-channel acts attributable to Leibovitch.2538 SodaStream’s pre-acquisition board as disclosed in SEC 20-F proxy filings included directors with backgrounds in Israeli consumer goods, private equity, and technology sectors;42 no board member is identified in publicly available records as holding concurrent directorships at Israeli defence prime contractors. Standard Israeli reservist service, legally compulsory for most Israeli male citizens, is not treated here as a military-channel act in the absence of additional indicators. PepsiCo’s board and C-suite as documented in annual proxy statements (DEF 14A)26 are not identified in publicly available records as holding directorships at Israeli defence prime contractors or making publicly documented FIDF donations at a scale generating a military-channel attribution.
Strauss Group nexus (group-attribution note): PepsiCo holds a stake in Sabra Dipping Company, a joint venture with Strauss Group Israel. Strauss Group has been the subject of separate civil society attention, including pre-2020 allegations regarding donations to IDF combat units (Golani Brigade and Givati Brigade). This conduct is attributable to Strauss Group’s own actions, not to SodaStream or to PepsiCo’s SodaStream subsidiary. The Sabra JV is a separate legal entity from SodaStream; no documented operational integration of supply chains or shared management in the military domain between Sabra/Strauss and SodaStream has been identified.4445 This is noted for completeness under group-attribution principles; a full assessment of the Strauss–PepsiCo JV relationship would require a separate dedicated audit.
Corporate responses: SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum made extensive public statements during 2013–2015 defending the company’s presence at the Mishor Adumim factory, citing Palestinian employment and coexistence arguments.1924 These statements addressed settlement presence and BDS pressure; no statements addressing military supply chain concerns have been identified. Following PepsiCo’s 2018 acquisition, SodaStream’s public communications have been subsumed within PepsiCo’s corporate responsibility framework, including PepsiCo’s Supplier Code of Conduct and Human Rights Policy.1631 No post-acquisition statements addressing military supply chain concerns have been identified.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/30/sodastream-closes-west-bank-factory ↩↩↩↩
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001403708&type=20-F&dateb=&owner=include&count=40 ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.pepsico.com/news/press-release/pepsico-to-acquire-sodastream-for-32-billion08202018 ↩↩
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/ ↩
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sodastream-westbank-idUSKCN0SO15N20151030 ↩↩↩
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session31/database-business-enterprises ↩↩↩
https://electronicintifada.net/tags/sodastream ↩
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/israel-and-palestine ↩
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403708/000140370817000005/0001403708-17-000005-index.htm ↩↩↩↩↩↩
https://investigate.afsc.org/company/sodastream ↩
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jan/29/scarlett-johansson-oxfam-sodastream ↩↩↩
https://www.pepsico.com/our-impact/esg-topics-a-z/human-rights ↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=PEP&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩↩
https://www.mod.gov.il/Defence_Establishment/pages/sibat.aspx ↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.nbim.no/en/responsible-investment/exclusion-of-companies/ ↩
https://www.codepink.org/sodastream ↩
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403708/ ↩
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403708/ ↩
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/ministry_of_justice ↩
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=PEP&type=DEF+14A&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=PEP&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩↩↩
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-of-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-of-israels-challenges ↩↩
https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/ES-10/24 ↩
https://www.pepsico.com/our-impact/esg-topics-a-z/human-rights ↩↩
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine ↩↩↩
https://paxforpeace.nl/our-work/publications/companies-arming-israel-and-their-financiers/ ↩↩↩
https://www.gov.il/en/service/company-registration-and-information ↩
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/ ↩
https://www.pepsico.com/our-impact/sustainability/reporting-and-data ↩↩↩
https://www.fidf.org/ ↩
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403708/ ↩
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sodastream-m-a-pepsico/ ↩
