Sucralose and Its Unknown Effects - Hazardous?

So, today I heard on the swedish news ( that The National Food Administration actually accepted Sucralose as a synthetic sweetener in provisions without sending their report over to the Swedish Chemicals Agency, because that they do not have the obligation to do such a thing. What the fuck! Pardon my language but Sucralose Resembles DDT and PCB and a thorough investigation should be conducted, and rightfully so that is what the Swedish Chemicals Agency will do in 2007.

In the report from the National Food Administration it apparently states that although the synthetic sweetener has been approved, one should consume it in modest doses, a statement which is in accordance with the European Scientific Commité (my translation).

Now I need to take the time to point something out to you all.

1. In the past, chemical agencies and food administrations have cleared new synethetic substances in food or other chemicals to be used in medicines or construction or whatever - substances that 10-20 years later all of a sudden are seen as toxins, hazardous not only for man but also for the environment. Are we going to do something about it?

2. Sucralose apparently runs straight through your body when for example one drinks a soft drink or whatnot, or so they say. Yay! But they have totally neglected or overlooked the fact that this substance runs straight through our water treatment plants without sticking to the layers of sediments and other equipment that filters 'our' water and make it drinkable again (or atleast for us in the western world). This synthetic substance is out there in the environment, and who should investigate how it (and most likely hundreds or perhaps thousands of other substances) or atleast point out to people that this luxury that is the society of consumption really is bad news? We are rapidly not only using all of our resources but we are doing so without really bothering with the effects, we are looking in the other direction. Global warming, the consumption society, power structures and economy, it is all connected. Are we going to do something about it?

3. Even though Sucralose is not real sugar and is supposed to be 'better' than real sugar, you still get a craving for sweet provisions.

Unscientifical conclusion number one: Instead of educating people to eat healthier the provisions industry comes up with something that makes people become even more addicted to their products in an even larger scale, and earn them a lot more money in the process. The provisions industry does not want education - they want ignorance.

Unscientifical conclusion number two: This ignorance that can be said to exist within the provisions communities can be found in various forms within other communities (transnational communities) that contribute to global warming, the consumption society and even supporting the ignorant type of politics which makes way for them to keep on destroying our way of life and esentially our mentality. Are we going to do something about it?

Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health

An American researcher has collected data from both USA and Europe about the potential risks and benefits from eating different fish. The results have been gathered by The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which promotes the science and art of medicine and the betterment of the Public Health.

The result and consclusion is not that unexpected, but salmon in the wild do not have a greater amount of quicksilver in them than the salmon that has grown up with the aid of man according to the study, if we are to believe what DN writes. Some fish do have a greater amount of Omega-3 in them but the radical difference can be find between various sorts of fish.

DN have chosen to contribute with graphics on which fish that has the greater amount of 'good' fat and which fish that has the most amount of 'bad' fat. This piece of graphic is problematic for some reasons such as the absence of information on other contents that might be good with the fish that contain less good fat.

However, EPA and DHA are the types of Omega-3 that has heart-protecting effects according to the study. Moreover, we also have to keep in mind that it was American researchers who, only two years ago, warned us that the Norweigan salmon contained high amounts of toxins such as PCB and dioxins compared to salmon from the west coast in the United States. The reaserchers gained a lot of attention but also drew a lot of criticism. European toxicologists opposed the American researchers with their own research data.

Here is the abstract from the report:

Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health
Evaluating the Risks and the Benefits

Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH; Eric B. Rimm, ScD
JAMA. 2006;296:1885-1899.

Context Fish (finfish or shellfish) may have health benefits and also contain contaminants, resulting in confusion over the role of fish consumption in a healthy diet.

Evidence Acquisition We searched MEDLINE, governmental reports, and meta-analyses, supplemented by hand reviews of references and direct investigator contacts, to identify reports published through April 2006 evaluating (1) intake of fish or fish oil and cardiovascular risk, (2) effects of methylmercury and fish oil on early neurodevelopment, (3) risks of methylmercury for cardiovascular and neurologic outcomes in adults, and (4) health risks of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish. We concentrated on studies evaluating risk in humans, focusing on evidence, when available, from randomized trials and large prospective studies. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to characterize benefits and risks most precisely.

Evidence Synthesis Modest consumption of fish (eg, 1-2 servings/wk), especially species higher in the n-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), reduces risk of coronary death by 36% (95% confidence interval, 20%-50%; P<.001) and total mortality by 17% (95% confidence interval, 0%-32%; P = .046) and may favorably affect other clinical outcomes. Intake of 250 mg/d of EPA and DHA appears sufficient for primary prevention. DHA appears beneficial for, and low-level methylmercury may adversely affect, early neurodevelopment. Women of childbearing age and nursing mothers should consume 2 seafood servings/wk, limiting intake of selected species. Health effects of low-level methylmercury in adults are not clearly established; methylmercury may modestly decrease the cardiovascular benefits of fish intake. A variety of seafood should be consumed; individuals with very high consumption (5 servings/wk) should limit intake of species highest in mercury levels. Levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish are low, and potential carcinogenic and other effects are outweighed by potential benefits of fish intake and should have little impact on choices or consumption of seafood (women of childbearing age should consult regional advisories for locally caught freshwater fish).

Conclusions For major health outcomes among adults, based on both the strength of the evidence and the potential magnitudes of effect, the benefits of fish intake exceed the potential risks. For women of childbearing age, benefits of modest fish intake, excepting a few selected species, also outweigh risks.

Author Affiliations: Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School; and Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.


Podcast Concerning Synthetic Sweeteners (In Swedish)

P1 Konsument 2006-06-14

This is a debate with Göran Petersson, Pernilla Lunderot and Ann-Cristin Nykvist about synthetic sweeteners and other questions concerning sugar with the host Cecilia Collin. This podcast is in Swedish.

Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LfM)

I would like to take the opportunity to write a post about LfM and their work. As I am going to write a lot about their material in this blog, I wanted to post the information about what they do and how the organisation is constituted. The following text can be found at their website Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LfM):

"Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LfM) is a non governmental non political organisation. It was founded in 1991 and is open to medical doctors, medical students and scientists within the medical field. Others can be associated members. LfM now has around 300 members from all medical specialities.

The purpose of LfM is to promote a development of society that leads to good living conditions and health for today's and tomorrow's generations, nationally as well as globally.

LfM wants to quicken the development towards a socially, economically and ecologically sustainable society. We want to support this development through- bringing forward scientifically founded principles and knowledge about connections between environmental factors and health;- bringing forward that the human being, being a part of nature, is dependant of healthy eco systems that can provide us with air, water and food of sufficient amount and quality.

LfM has, together with Engineers and Economists for the Environment (IfM and EfM) formed the umbrella organisation The Natural Step's Professional Network (DNSy)

LfM is associated to two international organisations:- ISDE, International Society of Doctors for the Environment - HCWH, Health Care Without Harm

We agree with the four system conditions, developed by The Natural Step Foundation
System condition 1 In a sustainable society the functions and diversity of nature are not destroyed by a systematical increase of concentrations of substances from the bedrock.
System condition 2 In a sustainable society the functions and diversity of nature is not depleted by a systematical increase of concentrations of substances from society´s production.
System condition 3 In a sustainable society the functions and diversity of nature is not depleted through overuse, repression and manipulation.
System condition 4 In a sustainable society the thrift with resources is efficient and just so that human needs can be satisfied everywhere.

We think globally:
- Chemicals and health
- Traffic and health
- Climate changes and health
- Energy issues and health
- Food and health

We consider the responsibilities of the profession:
- Medicines, health and environment
- Life style, health and environment

We have arranged seminars on "Medicines, Health and Environment" in 2004 and 2005. Coming is "Food for life" February 16, 2006.

We publish four issues yearly of our Newsletter. No 3-4/2005 dealt with nuclear power for energy.The address is LfM, Box 2277, S-103 17 Stockholm, Sweden".

Twenty Five Short Insights On Food, Health and the Environment

These short points can be found in the newsletter "Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LfM)" nr. 2-3 2006 and are comprehensive for what was said during a lecture on toxics in our food.


• It was members of the consumer's co-operative society who pushed the ecological trade forward.


• It was those cultures who chose agriculture which have moved on towards the modern civilisation with its culture and technology. Everyone did not have to be involved in finding food for the day, some could be creative in other fields.

• Princes had it easier to rule if they controlled corn stock instead of root vegetable stock.


• We (Swedes) had a widespread lack of nourishment during the later part of the 18th century. There was especially less iron and vitamin c in Norrland.

• We have forgotten about the berries and their valuable contents.

• We have methods such as preservation which makes it possible to get a hold of locally produced vegetables and fruit all year round.

• When we start to cultivate wild variations of vegetables and berries they will lose parts of their valuable content, which normally can be found in the wild kinds.

• We do not know enough about the valuable content of fruit and vegetables.


• We can be net producers of energy once again, like the agriculture was before the oil period.

• Physical activity is very important for our health. It is good that we have to use more physical activity during the production of provisions.


• Grazing-grounds, pastures or rice constitutes more than ninety percent of the production in the world.

• When eat S.M.A.R.T. was used as a platform to calculate how much area it takes to produced food and oil for one person, it amounted to about 1250 M2.

• If you eat ecologically produced meat then it takes larger areas due to the forage, but parts do come from pastures which otherwise would not be used. It takes far less areas if you eat less meat and that the meat is ecological.


• The animals are an ecological resource which maintains the ecological balance.

• Lacto-vegetarians live in symbiosis with the meat eaters.

• The animals give warmth which can be good during oil shortage.


• To develop variations which are more resistant to diseases means that one develops variations with a higher concentration of toxics.

• When we look the use of chemicals we do not think about the non active substances in a product.

• A Danish study showed that better sperm quality could be linked to ecological farmers rather than traditional farmers.

• We are dependent of the long fatty acids in fish. However, we have polluted fish with chemical toxics.

Local Production

• It is not entirely accurate that food that has been shipped from far away has contributed to more carbon dioxide than locally produced food from greenhouses.

• Locally produced food is the way to go. But we have to gain knowledge how we can adapt to our variable climate.

• Social relations and to feel part of something benefit from the responsibility within the local ecological community.


• Eat S.M.A.R.T. is a good start when discussing eating habits from a global and health perspective.

• We have to change our agriculture to ecocycle agriculture.

Chiquita's Frog Is Not Ecological

This is not fresh off the press but it has for some time been widely known within the eco-society that Chiquita's frog is not ecological. Chiquita means "little" but Chiquita Brands International is a big fruit company on the market. Chiquita is known for its bananas, which a lot of Swedes like, making Sweden one of the countries which are marketable for Chiquita Brands International.

Chiquita has launched and been providing Sweden with bananas labeled with a green frog, certified by the Rainforest Alliance. But Chiquita's tactics make consumers believe that they are ecological bananas. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation points out that Chiquita still use one of the most toxic biocides at their banana plantations. As much as 50 Kg biocides are spread yearly across each cultivation hectare, which is ten times more that what is used at conventional cultivations of potatoes, potatoes are the crops most sprayed with pesticides in Sweden.

Chiquita releases inacurate information; claiming that the certified plantations house as much wildlife and plantlife as in the jungle, which is totally wrong. Even though they are certified, Chiquita's banana plantations are green deserts. Compared to other brands such as Dole and Del Monte, Chiquita have tried to improve their production by working on environmental improvements and better social conditions for their workers.
If you do not like the situation you can make a difference by boycotting the brands that are not ecological, and buy products that are either labeled with fairtrade or if you live in Sweden: KRAV, (which I will write about in forthcoming posts).

Boycott unecological brands - support ecological alternatives for a better environment and for the workers at the plantations worldwide.

Provisions Company Dafgård Recalls Products Lacking Correct Decleration of Contents

According to the Telegram Bureau of the Newspapers (TT) the provisions company Dafgård recalls two dangerous products; their fish au gratin and their shellfish pie. Someone has discovered that these products contain soy protein without having been stated in the decleration of contents. Soy protein can be dangerous for people who are allergic.

Soy protein is not only used in food, no no, according to Wikipedia soy protein is also used for "emulsification and texturizing. Specific applications include adhesives, asphalts, resins, cleaning materials, cosmetics, inks, pleather, paints, paper coatings, pesticides/fungicides, plastics, polyesters and textile fibers". With this in mind I can understand why sensitive people can have reactions from this protein. I wonder exactly in which types of food we can find this protein and what it is used for. Now I do not mean that this protein is all bad news, according to Wikipedia Soy protein may "prevent heart problems and many countries allow health claims for foods that are rich in soy protein". But it was soy allergy that was in consideration and the point with the article was to show that companies are sloppy when it comes to declare what is in their food, they either gamble and try to get their products approved or they just 'miss' what is in their own products. Talk about not having done their homework.

When it comes to Dafgård they do not provide the market with the most nutritious products. Their food is from what I can understand the type of products you heat in the microwave or in the oven. They offer products like "Gorbys", "Billy", ready meals, meatballs, pasta etc. It is not the smallest company, they manufacture 22 different ready meal, from lasagne to fish- and chicken portions. 60 000 of them leave the factory every day, which is a lot of meals. It is hard to understand how the quality is maintained when the production is so high.

Here are some of their nice little quotes.

"Vision - By continual development of products and technology be one of the leading family business in the food trade in Europe"

Then develop your products by labeling them with correct declerations of content and develop your technology so you know what is in your own products. If you want to be ahead of everyone else then maintain your quality.

"Business concept - We will offer a wide range of delicious food that facilitate and save time in our customers kitchen"

I do not want to save that much time in my kitchen, primarily I want to cook my own food and eat nutritious food that does not need to be heated in the microwave and lose nutritions from the already-not-so-nutritious product. I know for a fact that these ready dinners are hard to heat properly and I know that you do become full, but you will quite quickly become hungry again during the day. Is that really worth saving some time in the kitchen?

If Dafgård really had a turnover in excess of 180 million euros in 2004 which they claim, then I suggest that they use some of that excess money and spend it by developing more frozen ingredients and ecological food rather than developing their ready meals and their not-so-nutritious "Billy" and "Gorby" products that has to be heated in a microwave.

Severe Draught Causes Problems For Swedish Farmers

There is currently a severe heat wave over the British Isles as well as in Sweden, where the situation for farmers does not look good. Sweden is experiencing a massive draught due to the unusual lack of rainfall during the summer months. According to, the most affected areas are Gotland, Öland and Skåne, where the pasturage dries up and the feed-harvest is threatened. The worst case scenario is that farmers may have to kill their cattle.

Farmers on Gotland are feeding their cattle with the feed storaged for the forthcoming winter, but the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) gives a somewhat optimistic but uncertain forecast for the forthcoming weekend. As Sweden is covered in yellows and browns the Swedish National Board of Agriculture have decided to let cattle feed of crop from some sort of fallow land controlled by the European Union. The Swedish government have demanded that the European Commission allow Swedish farmers to let their cattle feed of the fallow land.

Now why do we have to ask the European Commission at all in these situations? There is fallow land where farmers can find food for their cattle, but the European Commission have to decide whether or not to let cattle feed of fallow land. All this boils down to that bureaucracy is worth more than the lives of hundred or perhaps thousands of cattle in Sweden. All decisions and demands have to be filtered through a mindless, slow and bureaucratic mess, which reduce lives of cattle to pieces of paper with the 'right' signatures. I would say, let the cattle out to feed on the fallow land, let them roll around on the properties, shit and feed of the land as they please. Give them some water and let them stay up all night and party on the land controlled by the European Union. The elected mob does not know anything about the situation and health of thousands of Swedish cattle, let the farmers decide what is needed in the appropriate situation and cut out the administrative procedure before it is too late.

Areas affected by the draught also include counties such as Uppsala, Östergötland, Jönköping, Kronoberg, Kalmar, Blekinge, Halland, Skåne and Västra Götaland.
The situation for farmers is critical in a lot of areas due to different oncoming processes in the farming. Farmers have to in a very short time havest their crop, prepare the land for sowing, and then sow next year's harvest. The draught might cost farmers milions of Swedish crowns and the quality of their products will not be as good as if it had fallen more rain during the critical summer months. The potato harvest is affected, so is the corn but the sugar beets can handle some draught. Local specialities are also easily affected in the warm weather.

Since most decisions concerning Swedish agriculture have to go through the European Commission or the Swedish National Board of Agriculture, everything does not develop smoothly and there is a lot of paper work in the way of helping the Swedish farmers out in the countryside. I say, the farmers better ignore the European Commission and act before it is too late - lives, local business and their economy is threatened.

The European Commission wants less Acrylamide in eatables.

The European Commission wants less acrylamide in food. Personally, I do not want any acrylamide in my food. According to, the European Commission believes that the percentage of acrylamide in provisions has to be lowered.

The chemical compound acrylamide is formed when provisions are heated, but scientists have not yet been able to prove any connection between acrylamide intake via food and cancer in the large intestine, rectum, bladder, or kidneys. According to Wikipedia "In 2002-04-24, Swedish Livsmedelsverket (National Food Administration) announced that acrylamide can be found in baked and fried starchy foods, such as potato chips and breads, and concern was raised as it may be a carcinogen. And in 2005, in a cooperation between the Harvard School of Public Health and the Swedish Karolinska Institutet, researchers were seeking a connection between acrylamide and breast cancer, but could not find any in that case either, as revealed in a press release published 2005-03-15."

The European Commission has been meeting in Brussels lately and they have been working on trying to develop a program for Europe. This program will allow every country within the European Union to do research and bring forth guidelines for their consumers, scientists in Sweden have been measuring acrylamide in food since a couple of years back but with this program, scientists will finally be able to provide research data on the amounts of acrylamide which the europeans receive from provisions.

Toxicologists at SNFA warned us about acrylamide in provisions four years ago and I believe that we should think first before we eat large amounts of food (of everything really) but the best thing to do is not letting your children eat a lot of junk food such as potato chips or even white bread. I need to find out if you can avoid the creation of acrylamide when you heat up and make your very own potato chips. If you actually were able to create potato chips without the same amounts of acrylamide then I would want manufacturers and companies that create potato chips to investigate exactly what their products consists of before and after the manufacturing process. I would find it easier to avoid potato chips altogether if I knew that the bag would give me cancer from consuming a few potato chips here and there during my lifetime. Even though the connection between acrylamide and cancer is yet to be 'discovered' I believe that we know to little about our bodies' storage capacity when it comes to collecting chemical substances. The thing that I also dislike is that I believe that we might have more reasearch data on the male body and not the female body.

So, next time you bring your friends over, talk about making your own chips or perhaps have some vegetables as snacks instead.

Sucralose Resembles DDT and PCB

According to Swedish national television, experts warned today the public about the syntehtic sweetener called Sucralose (Splenda is its trade name). Here is the original article in Swedish:

Sucralose apparently resembles hazardous substances such as DDT and PCB and can be found in various products such as sodas and ketchup. It is known as E955 in the European Union and is not only six hundred times as sweet as sucrose but it is twice as sweet as saccharin and four times as sweet as aspartame! Be sure to read all about the use of Sucralose in branded products by following the Sucralose link above.

We do not need all these junk sweeteners. And does it really have to be six hundred times sweeter than sugar? What is the secret? Well, Sucralose does not contain any calories - that is the little miracle this dangerous sweeterner has to offer. According to the article, chemists are stunned that this substance is even used in provisions. The strange thing is that the European Union and the Swedish National Food Administration have approved Sucralose as a sweetener. SNFA apparently writes on their website that "the extensive evaluations on Sucralose could not find any health hazards associated with this sweetener, including increased risk of cancer", then what were the people who did these 'exstensive evaluations' up to? Were they sleeping?

I see a pattern here. What has happened with Sucralose has happened many times before. Food companies come up with new ways of 'developing' their products and then they need to get their 'discoveries' approved by the national food administrations, that is, being approved by them who still have more power than themselves. Even though these substances later on prove to be dangerous, authorities still approve these substances even though they have not been properly tested yet. The authorities have proven to be weak against the commercial threats posed by companies with a lot of money, time and commercial interest on their hands. If this dilemma is ever going to be solved then laws and legislations have to be made by governments and the European Union and the national food administrations need to stop being soft and look beyond these companies and their commercial interests.

Eco and Ethics

Over the past couple of years an interest for the environment, ecology and ethics has gradually begun to affect the very essence of my actions.

Due to certain people close to me, I have started to eat more healthy food, trying to figure out where the food comes from and why I really should ignore certain products even though they look alright. I also try to think about other aspects concerning our surroundings and the environment in general, it is hard to make a change because one can only control oneself, but through raising people's consciousness by making them aware of certain things, I believe that creating awareness in issues on ecology, food, products, the environment etc. is needed in this day of age. Though I find it hard to live as I teach, creating this blog will help me to remember certain guidelines and codes of ethics and alter my actions in accordance with them.

This blog will hopefully cover various news, guidelines, codes of ethics, products etc. concerning ecology, food, health and the environment. Moreover, I do not believe that one can follow everything by the book and alter ones actions in accordance with all new findings and observations - that would not be possible and you would only lie to yourself in today's western society.
Although I mostly see problems and issues concerning our way of life in the western world, I think that we have the economy to ignore hazardous and unethical products on our market. One of the general arguments is that "You can save thousands of Swedish crowns each month if you shop your groceries at this market". Instead of completely think about our own economy I say let us invest thousands of Swedish crowns in food and products that have eco-labels, that perhaps have been produced in the region or locally, that are not hazardous, that have not been produced with child labor or that have not caused any threats to the ecosystem.

Do not let the market and transnational companies steal the term 'eco' and customize it into their own thing, ridding it of any third party guidelines, research, investigation and even laws. Listen here, the world may be gone in a hundred years time - this is serious and that is why I want you to study and learn how the economical machinery works as it takes its toll on the environment and even mankind.

I'm Spectraz and this is "Eco and Ethics".