Eco and Ethics

A New Pesticide Has Been Introduced For Use On Swedish Strawberries

A new pesticide has been introduced for use on swedish strawberries.

The pesticide is called Signum and is introduced before the European Union even has finished its report and analysis. I wonder why the pesticide has been allowed during a period between 24th may and 18th october 2007 when the European Union's evaluation is not ready yet.

It even becomes more urgent to let people know about it since a danish evaluation has come up with the possibility that the pesticide can affect or even hurt yet to be born babies. What about our small children? What about older women and men? What about our environment? What about our water?

Astrid Mårtensson at the swedish chemical inspection has been involved in clearing this pesticide. One of her arguments as an chemical inspector (she has to be one when working at a chemical inspection right?) is that swedish farmers have to keep up with competition abroad. Wait a minute, shouldn't the chemical inspection look at what is best for the environment first of all, and stop focusing on the farmers' economies and market value?

This right here is why we need to distribute money to farmers who produce strawberries, as well as other things, as naturally as possible. Avoiding pesticides might be impossible in certain areas but surely not all of them, if they need financial help then I think they should be granted money if they have an ecological production. We cannot have a sloppy inspection, our chemical inspection should be stern but fair, and focus on our citizens health rather than the farmers' economical situation. I wish we have means to stop fungus or insects from ruining our products other than pesticides, however, there seems to be a long way to go before we can see severe changes. We do not need a sloppy chemical inspection, they need to be stern and fair and look at the whole picture instead of just focusing on the market.

Climate Crisis Q&A

One of the most respected news sources in Sweden has recently published an article dealing with some of the questions readers raise in the global warming debate. DN relies on the following sources: Nature, Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – all filtered through IPCC. I thought that it would be interesting to do a quick rundown of the latest Q&As related to global warming and environmental issues. I am going to provide very short answers because I am not in the mood to elaborate, if you want the full answers I suggest you go and look through some of the sources mentioned above. Although I have short answers I try and give you the overall notion of the answers.

Why do you just let one side state their opinion? There are researchers who do not believe that mankind affects the climate.

All published sources that DN relies on are sources that almost all share the same view and has passed through IPCC. One of IPCCs functions is to collect and present the paradigm-like views and research.

Have you seen “The Great Climate Swindle” documentary?

Apparently one of the sources in the film; Carl Wunsch is extremely misquoted and has in an open letter declared that he was tricked by the producers of the documentary. So from DNs point of view it is not a decent form of documentary partly because of this and what it supports.

The results from satellites and weather balloons do not support the climate researchers arguments supporting today’s leading perspective on global warming.

The results used to bug the researchers but it was because of the analyses. The problem has been dealt with.

The planet has been warm before if we look throughout its history.

Yes of course. Researcher Milutin Milankovic both believes and shows that earth’s motion around its axis have three different cycles. These variations affect the temperature on our Earth. Then you have other contributing aspects such as the amounts of snow and ice, the oceans' temperatures and sediments that contain a lot of ‘stuff’ which when released into the atmosphere contribute to raising the temperature on our planet.

Today’s global warming is due to variations in the sun’s radiation.

No, the sun’s radiation can only explain a small part of the global warming.

I do not have the energy to deal with the last question in the article; I suggest that if you understand Swedish you should read it yourselves instead. When I look back on what I have written and the overall mood and the way I declare what the news source has published then I can see a lack of inspiration from my part. This is due to several things.

My concern is that the different ‘perspectives’ seem to leave out the good stuff from their oppositional point of views. Surely all data on anything ‘environmental’ should be a part of the explanation on why the planet is becoming warmer. Shutting down some views and supporting others can make us miss essential stuff or give us an attitude that we should brush aside everything that has not been allowed by the IPCC. This attitude which is gained by choosing sides and make us force it upon other people is dangerous. It becomes environmental bullying - science and religious aspects merge into a ready made package. Science has to rid these elements out of its nucleus structure, otherwise we will yet again see science diminish and we will face The Crisis of the European Sciences.

Animal Mass Extinction Thought Experiment

I was talking with a thoughtful friend the other day, one whom I have come to know through philosophy studies. We discussed the possibility that some species may face mass extinction in the future and if or why mankind should do anything about it. He especially pointed out some oddities concerning mankind’s values in relation to animal mass extinction.

First of all let us take a moment and engage ourselves in a thought experiment: Species number one, a monkey living in a remote area of Africa faces extinction. Species number two, a cranky spider roaming about in Australia also faces extinction. Let us presume that mankind have the resources to save one of these species from mass extinction. The initial questions I now ask are: Which species should we save? Why should we save that particular species rather than the other? What are the good arguments for saving that species?

Did you choose to save the monkey? How did you make your decision? What were your good arguments? I did not mention that the spider in my example might be more beneficial to the environment and ultimately to mankind. Let me rephrase the questions. Should we really try and save species at all? How do people intend to choose between saving a particular species rather than one that is either unknown or seen as a hazard to the environment?

Man is not the measure of all things – animals have faced mass extinction long before man even appeared on the scene. Even if we blame ourselves, tell people that we are trying to save species for generations to come or proclaim that the entire eco system will collapse if certain species die, there is no way we can ‘make it right’ and do natures job for her. We do kill animals, we do pollute and threaten eco systems but why choose to tell the world that we ought to save a certain species and then ignore hundred and thousands of other species? Perhaps we should not try to save certain species. We should instead try and save ourselves by dealing with our problems and face reality.

We should ask ourselves if it is really more important for us that certain species survive than what it is for the environment. We do not have the resources to save all the animals that affect the eco system, our values are not entirely rational when we choose our rescue missions and we inaccurately heighten our capacity as benefactors to the environment. We face a grim future, we are staring it right in the eye and we cannot really ‘feel’ its consequences. The efforts are missing the bigger picture – we might have to let certain species go nonetheless because they face extinction with or without us helping them to survive. Governments should deal with problems concerning the environment on a large scale rather than politicise it. However, I am not saying that we should stop researching about the environment and species locally, but we have to ask ourselves about our own values and arguments when we engage in such activities.

Now let me come back to the thought experiment and try to make some witty comment about it. I would want to save the spider, because a cranky spider can be much more interesting to look at when it is indeed cranky. It is more likely that it may be easier to save because one might be able to breed it in labs placed in the spider’s natural environment. It is probably a great benefactor around the country side, scaring people and stray cats as it roams about. The monkey is simply too hard to keep alive, it will cost so much money, time and effort. It will keep on eating leaves on trees that we need now when we are going to breath less of our much needed oxygen in the future. If we have evolved from monkeys, then evolution has moved on for a reason regardless of what we know about it.

My point here is that I call for a re-evaluation of one’s handed down values. Transcend these values by asking yourself the right questions, your answers will lead the way to a new individual understanding, once there you will be ready to adopt values in accordance with your new found understanding.

Al Gore's Political Past

"All Gore does not care about the environment" wrote one of Metro's columnists today. I figured that the column looked promosing and gave it a go.

How do you cover up something? Well, the easiest way is to get a blanket and flick it over the thing you want to cover up. A more complicated immaterial object or notion such as "pride", "political persona" or perhaps something that might be called 'truth', would require a more fancy cover up than your ordinary blanket.

Let us presume for a moment that the overall truth of this column, it’s historicity, is somewhat accurate or in some way meaningful. Let us conduct a little thought experiment, just for kicks, drop your guard for a minute and receive some written environmental punches from Gore’s political past. Under Gl Aore’s vice presidency his responsibility for environmental issues led to:

* The bald people who own the companies that chop up forests in the U.S. were allowed to cut down the oldest trees in forests, once protected by law and then sold the lumber below the market price probably to, let me take a wild guess, rich companies that produce fancy furniture.

* The people who breed cattle got their pasture expenses lowered. Making it easier to breed, slaughter, and send the stuff to starving fat people all over the U.S… let us try and make CO2 levels drop again, why don’t we produce more meat, more meat! Build meat castles from the damn cows, move the castles to the Hamptons and order some decent American rich folk move in. The deal comes with your customized private moat.

* The government - you know the official name for that place with the old men who run political tings – made it easier for the sugar industry in Florida by giving them more money. A lucrative synthetic business that live on making consumers addicted… They obviously need more money!

* The sugar industry is ruining the everglades, but hey, it’s just a big swamp with dangerous gators, very very dangerous, and they smell too. The hell with it. It does not have anything to do with the environment!

* The national parks where animals and plants once could be animals and plants and just do plant business or whatnot, those parks were opened up for legal hunting and fishing. Well, those pink salmons are in the way so they had to make it legal so more people would go there and litter and consume! The bears were doing a poor job. They are just incompetent and lay around all winter doing nothing.

* When researchers asked for money to do research on solar energy, their funds were decreased. The sun will never die! someone said. It's an absolute truth, handed down by the almighty Bob, the bloke from the other research department, the one with the fancy logo, which would get the deal and do me a movie about the environment and bet on the CO2 thing, all just to cover up me ever writing this article.

Now for you who have seen the film, the one where Gore talks about a decent goal, a thoughtful arrow indicator on where we are heading and how we are polluting the world – his political background completely shatters any impact or credibility it could have produced (atleast for someone). It becomes Gore’s protective shield against what people can accuse him of, it is his get out of jail free card, since environmental politics in the U.S. still is controversial and could hardly be mentioned in a room with hardcore industrial guns. The film can be seen as a cover up, it definitely gets a new expanded meaning with the background of his.

How much does your past affect what you strive for or believe in now? A big deal I reckon, especially if one’s past gets covered up or lost in the very political speech of the present stance.
The cheap shots and lame attempts of irony in this article will not cover up the focus of this article – but nevertheless… What is there left, when one now speak truths and uphold other truths but in the past have caused other truths that are in direct conflict with the very truths you tell, which also effect the fuelling of our doom?

I end this article by borrowing a catchy phrase from Henry Rollins... Dear Al Gore, You put the Mental in EnvironMental.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle by Martin Durkin for Channel 4 is a documentary on the subject that I have written a lot of posts about for a while now, namely global warming. However, this is a fundamental counterweight for a lot of views held by the environmentalists, media and scientists that still push the CO2 explanation on global warming. This is a must see for all of you who are willing to change your viewpoint in a radical way.

"Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.
We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."

Channel 4

Are We Changing Planet Earth?

If you have not watched the BBC documentary "Are We Changing The Planet" then I suggest that you see it and tell your friends about it. Are.We.Changing.Planet.Earth.BBC-ONE
Be sure to check "An Inconvenient Truth" as well. It is very important that you spread the information on to people just like yourself, the earth's environment is changing fast and radically and I think that it is going to be essential for mankind to immediately adress this and make changes during the years to come.

An Inconvenient Truth

If you have not seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet then you should make it your top priority to watch it as soon as possible. Head over to Climatecrisis to learn more about what you can do for the environment, you should focus a considerable amount of attention on the ten things you can do. Read the PDF here.

Politicians got a wake up call from scientific data on global warming.

World leaders urged to act on global warming study

Here are some paragraphs that I have gathered from the article: World leaders urged to act on global warming study

"PARIS (Reuters) - World governments should take heed of the most wide-ranging scientific assessment so far of a human link to global warming and agree prompt action to slow the trend, the chairman of a U.N. climate report said on Monday."

"The report draws on research by 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries and has taken six years to compile. It is unlikely there will be major changes between the draft and the final conclusions, according to diplomatic sources."

"Thirty-five industrial nations have signed up to the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, capping emissions of carbon dioxide."

"The United States pulled out in 2001, arguing Kyoto would cost jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from goals for 2012. Still, President Bush said last week that climate change was a "serious challenge"."

"The draft report says there is at least a 90 percent probability that human activities are to blame for most of the warming in the past 50 years. The previous report, in 2001, rated the probability at just 66 percent. "

"The U.N. report, the fourth of its kind, is expected to foresee temperatures rising by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 8.1 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, with a "best estimate" of 3C (5.4F) rise."

U.S. needs to improve ethanol transport

Just days after Bush had opened his mouth on the issue of ethanol, the head of a U.S. ethanol industry group said on Tuesday that "The United States will need to make big improvements in shipping ethanol from the U.S. heartland -- perhaps even building pipelines from the Midwest to the coasts -- to transport the fuel to markets".

Logical move. Stategy: when a government leader (or any politician who has somekind of influence on democratic practice and economy) say something positive about something you are researching or marketing, you proceed with a decleration that it will take resources to develop an infra structure or just that you strategically want to be a part of the scientific advancement. The logical move is thus a political outcry calling for money. Here is the article from Reuters.com / Science:

U.S. needs to improve ethanol transport

...the industry has fallen behind.
...rail and trucking must be improved.
...I don't think you could do it without some sort of government help.
...shipping ethanol on new lines dedicated fully to ethanol could ease environmental concerns because the fuel, unlike oil or gasoline, is quickly biodegradable.

Bush to address global warming in annual speech

This article on global warming comes from Reuters.com /Science: Bush to address global warming in annual speech.

By reading this article I find that the U.S. on the record will promote a new approach when it comes to issues related to global warming. What the government then does off the record is a completely different thing, however foreign politicians have probably talked some sense into Bush. Here are a few interesting things taken from the article:

Bush has not:

...dropped his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.

On the issue of global warming, Bush has:

...pushed a series of initiatives aimed at encouraging the development of alternative energy sources such as hydrogen and ethanol.
...called U.S. addiction to foreign oil a serious problem that required more spending on new technologies.
...acknowledged last summer that humans exacerbate the problem.

After a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel Bush said he was commited to:

..."promoting new technologies that will promote energy efficiency, and at the same time do a better job of protecting the world's environment."

Speculation:

...the possibility that Bush will unveil a shift on climate policy.

Sucralose and Its Unknown Effects - Hazardous?

So, today I heard on the swedish news (http://svt.se/) 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.

Jama
Abstract

Podcast Concerning Synthetic Sweeteners (In Swedish)

P1 Konsument 2006-06-14
Podcast

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) www.dnsy.se.

LfM is associated to two international organisations:- ISDE, International Society of Doctors for the Environment http://www.isde.org/. - HCWH, Health Care Without Harm www.noharm.org.

We agree with the four system conditions, developed by The Natural Step Foundation www.detnaturligasteget.se:
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.

Consumers

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

Society

• 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.

Substances

• 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.

Energy

• 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.

Areas

• 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.

Livestock

• 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.

Toxics

• 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.

Conclusions

• 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"
-Dafgård

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"
-Dafgård

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 svt.se, 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 svt.se, 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.