Monday Moaning

The bad news never seems to end.

WWF International accused of ‘selling its soul’ to corporations

Pandaleaks writer says conservation group has forged links with business which is using it to ‘greenwash’ their operations

An orangutan mother and baby rescued by an animal charity from people paid by palm oil companies to kill them. Photograph: Vier Pfoten/Four Paws/RHOI / Rex

WWF International, the world’s largest conservation group, has been accused of “selling its soul” by forging alliances with powerful businesses which destroy nature and use the WWF brand to “greenwash” their operations.

The allegations are made in an explosive book previously barred from Britain. The Silence of the Pandas became a German bestseller in 2012 but, following a series of injunctions and court cases, it has not been published until now in English. Revised and renamed Pandaleaks, it will be out next week.

Its author, Wilfried Huismann, says the Geneva-based WWF International has received millions of dollars from its links with governments and business. Global corporations such as Coca-Cola, Shell, Monsanto, HSBC, Cargill, BP, Alcoa and Marine Harvest have all benefited from the group’s green image only to carry on their businesses as usual.

Huismann argues that by setting up “round tables” of industrialists on strategic commodities such as palm oil, timber, sugar, soy, biofuels and cocoa, WWF International has become a political power that is too close to industry and in danger of becoming reliant on corporate money.

“WWF is a willing service provider to the giants of the food and energy sectors, supplying industry with a green, progressive image … On the one hand it protects the forest; on the other it helps corporations lay claim to land not previously in their grasp. WWF helps sell the idea of voluntary resettlement to indigenous peoples,” says Huismann.

WWF’s conservation philosophy has changed considerably in 50 years, but until recently it was widely thought that people and wildlife could not live together, which led to the group being accused of complicity in evictions of indigenous peoples from Indian and African forests.

Source: TheGuardian Read more

Opinion:

My question is, if the WWF have become so big that they need these massive donations, is it time to wind down?

Monday Moaning

This is an all-too-common sight.

False advertising.

Why can’t these charlatones be brought to book?

False or misleading labelling is endemic in supermarkets and plays on the gullible.

.

They won’t play a responsible game, then make laws with heavy fines for breaches so they will.

If it hasn’t got sugar, then it’s NOT sugar

The commercial world is full of bullshit, that companies and corprations should be taken to task

This is another labelling issue.

 

Not a CTWW Post – 1st Jan

2013… gone

2014 is here

Happy New year to all my followers and visitors. Your support and comments have made the past year awesome, all is appreciated.

I hope that the New Year brings you all that you have wished for. More, I hope that the New Year brings some important changes in the way we view our green attitudes, that governments come to their senses, and corporations become more responsible.

Only three more weeks until Small is back in the saddle and Wednesdays once again become CTWW.

Monday Moaning

“I-522 would have required that non-exempt foods and agricultural products offered for retail sale state “clearly and conspicuously” on the front of the package if they were genetically-engineered, contain or might have contained genetically-engineered ingredients.” – Wikipedia

Pepsi, Coke, Nestle top multi-million-dollar campaign against I-522

Pepsico, Coca-Cola and NestleUSA have each put up more than $1 million to defeat Washington’s Initiative 522, money  the food industry giants channeled through a “Defense of Brands Strategic Account,” set up by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) so companies would leave no footprints.

The initiative, which has drawn the ire of the food industry and agribusiness, would require the labeling of genetically modified food products, seeds and seed stocks sold on the shelves of Washington stores.

In yielding to a lawsuit brought by Attorney General Bob Ferguson, GMA agreed to list donors to what has become a $17.1 million campaign to defeat I-522.

The list is a who’s-who of America’s powerful food and agribusiness firms.  It was posted late Friday on the balky website of the state Public Disclosure Commission.

Coca-Cola and Pepsico have been here before.  The American Beverage Association, in 2010, spent $16.9 million on a TV blitz that rolled back a small soda pop-junk food tax enacted by the Washington Legislature in an effort to ease cuts in money to the state’s schools and colleges.

The “No on 522″ donations include: (read the full article for a comprehensive list of donors)

Source: SeattlePI read more.

Opinion:

These companies are fighting for their survival; in other words for their ability to make huge profits.

They know that if GMOs are a required part of labeling, they’ll lose a substantial part of their market because the public are daily becoming more discerning and more concerned with GMOs and their effect on our health.

We are at war, company profits vs the right to choose.

Personally, I have stopped knowingly buying any product that I even suspect contains GMOs, That includes Coca Cola or any soda, but not limited to.

The whole food industry is a minefield of horrors at our expense.

We deserve the right to know the path through this minefield, we deserve the right to protect ourselves from corporate greed.

The amount of money these corporations and companies have spent to defeat this labeling proposal is obscene, and shows how frightened they are of losing their precious profits. It also shows how blatantly ignorant they are of our health.

They don’t care!

Change the World Wednesday – 16th Oct

Courtesy of: http://www.blogactionday.org

Click on the banner for the full post

This weeks challenge is a little difference from Small’s normal CTWW challenges, but nevertheless an important one.

This week please consider human rights as it relates to the environment. A good place to start is by reading The Human Right to A Safe and Healthy Environment.

 

THEN …

Leave a comment below or write a post discussing our environmental rights, whether or not they are being realized and how we, as individuals, can help maintain or realize them.

Generally, our human rights are being stiffled by governments and corporations.

My immediate thought on reading the challenge was health and the right to know what we are eating, drinking and putting on our bodies.

Many countries have laws relating to product labelling, just as many countries don’t.

We have the right to know.

To know if:

The food products we buy are made with GMOs so that we can make an informed decision as to whether that product will be a part of our diet, or not

The product contains some form of additive, preservative, sweetener that may or may not be prejudicial to our health.

The product contains some agent or chemical that is considered to be cancer causing or harmful in any other way.

Advertising about products is the truth, and not just something the companies would like us to believe.

Frankly, there is so much bullshit out there that people are confused, and as a result cannot make informed decisions.

The public are bombarded with dubious evidence from company sources, that are seriously at odds with independent assessments.

Governments should be mandating that companies cannot use in-house, biased information for their products, but must be, by law, compelled use to independent testing and reports by specialists that are not chosen by the company.

The use of professionals, doctors, veterinarians, dentists, nutritionists, etc to endorse products needs to be banned. These people will tell you that black is white for money. It’s bullshit! Professionals making claims about any product should be held accountable, struck off, if their views are contrary to independent evidence.

Lobbying should be banned, as it contravenes the basic human right to know the truth.

Companies need to be banned from political donations because some of the biggest are the worst; for example the First World is up in arms over the rate of the morbidly obese, yet one of the greatest culprits is the soda industry, but because they collectively donate billions, governments aren’t interested in the problem and fob it off elsewhere.

Governments have lost sight of the fact that they represent THE PEOPLE, they have become self-serving entities whose only interest is the next election. The people themselves have lost sight and keep putting the same fools into government.

If we want to claim our human rights, we have to change the paradigm, because the current one IS NOT WORKING!

Until we take back control we will continue to be abused by the very people that we have elected to ensure our human rights.

It is our right to know!

Monday Moaning

Whoops… It’s Tuesday already.

Where’d Monday go?

What happened to Monday?

I have a feeling it’s going to be one of those weeks.

Still, we can have a Tuesday Moaning over coffee.

Food

We need it, the world is short of it. Companies and corporations are trying to get rich from it, and they don’t care if it’s healthy or not, just as long as the money rolls in.

They experiment with it; GMOs and the like, they try and control or dominate the market and nobody bleats or raises an eyebrow.

Nearly all the grain in the world is already compromised. I read yesterday of a farmer whose crop was banned because it was contaminated with GMOs, he was exporting to a country that, wisely, doesn’t accept them.

We read about the rush for biofuels creating shortages of the same plants that were once a food crop.

They want to GMOise or farm salmon, then shit happens…

This goes against nature. Nature has it’s protections in place and along comes man and tries to change it.

It won’t be too far in the future when all we can get is GMOised products. The thing that concerns me is that we don’t yet know what GMOs do to us and government organisations are being bought and sold on the idea that this is necessary in order to overcome the global shortages.

The companies and corporations bulldoze ahead, regardless; as long as there is a profit rainbow ahead. The governments don’t say boo, they don’t want to lose their funding from these bastards; they don’t care about you, their bottom line is money.

We, the people, need to stand up to this crap. Hurt these companies where it hurts most, the pocket.

We need to demand GMO labeling, so that we can make informed choices when we buy.

We need to educate the populace, who are kept in the dark through lack of information, or biased advertising.

We, the people have become sheep, we ‘just follow’ the flock, it doesn’t matter if we are pandering to the corporate wolves.

It has to stop!

And only you can stop it.

 

Make you Fink on Friday

Fat profits: how the food industry cashed in on obesity

Ever since definitions of healthy bodyweight changed in the 1990s, the world has feared an obesity epidemic. But the food giants accused of making us fat are also profiting from the slimming industry

Weight-loss has become a huge global industry

When you walk into a supermarket, what do you see? Walls of highly calorific, intensely processed food, tweaked by chemicals for maximum “mouth feel” and “repeat appeal” (addictiveness). This is what most people in Britain actually eat. Pure science on a plate. The food, in short, that is making the planet fat.

And next to this? Row upon row of low-fat, light, lean, diet, zero, low-carb, low-cal, sugar-free, “healthy” options, marketed to the very people made fat by the previous aisle and now desperate to lose weight. We think of obesity and dieting as polar opposites, but in fact, there is a deep, symbiotic relationship between the two.

In the UK, 60% of us are overweight, yet the “fat” (and I include myself in this category, with a BMI of 27, slap-bang average for the overweight British male) are not lazy and complacent about our condition, but ashamed and desperate to do something about it. Many of those classed as “overweight” are on a near-perpetual diet, and the same even goes for half of the British population, many of whom don’t even need to lose an ounce.

When obesity as a global health issue first came on the radar, the food industry sat up and took notice. But not exactly in the way you might imagine. Some of the world’s food giants opted to do something both extraordinary and stunningly obvious: they decided to make money from obesity, by buying into the diet industry.

Weight Watchers, created by New York housewife Jean Nidetch in the early 1960s, was bought by Heinz in 1978, who in turn sold the company in 1999 to investment firm Artal for $735m. The next in line was Slimfast, a liquid meal replacement invented by chemist and entrepreneur Danny Abraham, which was bought in 2000 by Unilever, which also owns the Ben & Jerry brand and Wall’s sausages. The US diet phenomenon Jenny Craig was bought by Swiss multinational Nestlé, which also sells chocolate and ice-cream. In 2011, Nestlé was listed in Fortune’s Global 500 as the world’s most profitable company.

These multinationals were easing carefully into a multibillion pound weight-loss market encompassing gyms, home fitness, fad diets and crash diets, and the kind of magazines that feature celebs on yo-yo diets or pushing fitness DVDs promising an “all new you” in just three weeks.

You would think there might be a problem here: the food industry has one ostensible objective – and that’s to sell food. But by creating the ultimate oxymoron of diet food – something you eat to lose weight – it squared a seemingly impossible circle. And we bought it. Highly processed diet meals emerged, often with more sugar in them than the originals, but marketed for weight loss, and here is the key get-out clause, “as part of a calorie-controlled diet”. You can even buy a diet Black Forest gateau if want.

We think of obesity and dieting as polar opposites, but there is a deep relationship between the two

We think of obesity and dieting as polar opposities, but there is a deep relationship between the two

So what you see when you walk into a supermarket in 2013 is the entire 360 degrees of obesity in a single glance. The whole panorama of fattening you up and slimming you down, owned by conglomerates which have analysed every angle and money-making opportunity. The very food companies charged with making us fat in the first place are now also making money from the obesity epidemic.

How did this happen? Let me sketch two alternative scenarios. This is the first: in the late 1970s, food companies made tasty new food. People started to get fat. By the 1990s, NHS costs related to obesity were ballooning. Government, health experts and, surprisingly, the food industry were brought in to consult on what was to be done. They agreed that the blame lay with the consumer – fat people needed to go on diets and exercise. The plan didn’t work. In the 21st century, people are getting fatter than ever.

OK, here’s scenario two. Food companies made tasty new food. People started to get fat. By the 1990s, food companies and, more to the point, the pharmaceutical industry, looked at the escalating obesity crisis, and realised there was a huge amount of money to be made.

But, seen purely in terms of profit, the biggest market wasn’t just the clinically obese (those people with a BMI of 30-plus), whose condition creates genuine health concerns, but the billions of ordinary people worldwide who are just a little overweight, and do not consider their weight to be a significant health problem.

That was all about to change. A key turning point was 3 June 1997. On this date the World Health Organisation (WHO) convened an expert consultation in Geneva that formed the basis for a report that defined obesity not merely as a coming social catastrophe, but as an “epidemic”.

The word “epidemic” is crucial when it comes to making money out of obesity, because once it is an epidemic, it is a medical catastrophe. And if it is medical, someone can supply a “cure”.

The author of the report was one of the world’s leading obesity experts, Professor Philip James, who, having started out as a doctor, had been one of the first to spot obesity rising in his patients in the mid-1970s. In 1995 he set up a body called the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF), which reported on rising obesity levels across the globe and on health policy proposals for how the problem could be addressed.

It is widely accepted that James put fat on the map, and thus it was appropriate that the IOTF should draft the WHO report of the late 90s that would define global obesity. The report painted an apocalyptic picture of obesity going off the scale across the globe.

The devil was in the detail – and the detail lay in where you drew the line between “normal” and “overweight”. Several colleagues questioned the group’s decision to lower the cut-off point for being “overweight” – from a BMI of 27 to 25. Overnight, millions of people around the globe would shift from the “normal” to the “overweight” category.

Professor Judith Stern, vice president of the American Obesity Association, was critical, and suspicious. “There are certain risks associated with being obese … but in the 25-to-27 area it’s low-risk. When you get over 27 the risk becomes higher. So why would you take a whole category and make this category related to risk when it isn’t?”

Why indeed. Why were millions of people previously considered “normal” now overweight? Why were they being tarred with the same brush of mortality, as James’s critics would argue, as those who are genuinely obese?

Read more

Opinion:

It’s beautiful…

The companies that make you fat, also make a profit from trying to make you slim… but you just keep getting fatter, so BigPharma step in with ‘pills’ and you still keep getting fatter.

The psychology is there for all to see.

Let’s look at pre-1980.

That was before the big companies started making so many prepared foods and recreational snacks.

You ate at home, you ate what your mother cooked, and you didn’t get fat.

Post-1980 mother had to go to work, she didn’t have time to cook, you started eating ‘TV Dinners’ and snacking outside the home, and you got fat.

Do you see the equation here?

It is simple.

Mothers at home, obesity goes, mothers at work, obesity prevails.

But of course that doesn’t work any more. Because the mothers at home have forgotten how to be pre-1980s mothers. Remember when Home Ec (home economics and cooking) used to be a subject at school, mandatory for all girls. What happened to Home Ec? It disappeared!

Who made it go ‘whoosh’?

Ah, this is where the skulduggery comes in. Lobbyists! Lobbyists lobbying for the food companies convinced the education department that Home Ec wasn’t necessary.

Of course it was vital that Home Ec disappeared, so that new mothers didn’t know they were feeding their families on corporate profit-making fat-generating shit!

Bring back 1950s mothers, bring back Home Ec it’s the only solution.

Here’s the crunch!

Everything that corporations try to sell you that is ‘diet’, ‘light’, ‘low cholesterol’, ‘zero calories’ is bullshit! Pure bullshit!

Because the artificial sweeteners they use are worse than the original products. Aspartame, sucralose, HFCS, these products are POISON! And they are in every diet product on the planet. They have adverse effects on every organ in your body, from your brain to your big toe.

But governments will never step in to prevent these products from being used, BECAUSE THE CORPORATIONS WON’T LET THEM!

The governments are a façade, the real owners of the world are corporations, the real owners of you are the corporations. The governments are just the puppets to make you slaves feel good; yes, you are slaves, you have lost control, you are controlled.

Wake up!

 

Smell the coffee!

… and I don’t mean Starbucks!

 

 

 

 

 

Why do we do this?

How indigenous people are turned off their lands

Hundreds of thousands in Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand are said to have been displaced

A protester faces riot police in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in a demonstration against the eviction of lakeside dwellers. Photograph: Tang Chhin Sothy/AFP/Getty Images

 

Cambodia

More than 400,000 people have been forcibly evicted from their lands since 2003, often without compensation, as the nation sells off its territory to sugar and rubber barons and property developers. Villagers who protest have been beaten, imprisoned and murdered – such as the environmental campaigner Chut Wutty, who was killed last year – as more than one-tenth of land has been transferred in the past few years from small-scale farmers to agribusiness, rights groups claim. A recent Global Witness report – and investigation by the Guardian – found that Deutsche Bank and the International Finance Corporation were bankrolling massive government-sponsored land grabs in both Cambodia and Laos through two Vietnamese companies, HAGL and VRG, which had been granted recent economic land concessions. Villagers claimed they had little food to eat and no chance of jobs, as hardly any positions were offered by the companies.

Vietnam

The state can take land away from citizens for economic development, national security or defence reasons, or in the public interest. But in recent years the government has grabbed land to make way for eco-parks, resorts and golf courses, much to the anger of the public. Last year, around 3,000 security forces were deployed in the northern Hung Yen province after villagers protested against a 70-hectare land grab to make way for an “eco-urban township”. Around the same time, a family of four fish farmers protested against a state eviction squad armed with homemade shotguns and land mines – a bold move in this one-party nation. While the prime minister declared the fish farmers’ eviction illegal, a court recently handed down a five-year jail sentence to those involved in the protest for making a “bad impact on the social order … [of] the country as a whole”.

Thailand

The sea gypsies in the southern resort island of Phuket are facing eviction after living on and around the beaches of Rawai for the past 200 years. Thai landowners claim they want the land back to build houses and a “sea gypsy village” in which tourists can buy fish and see how this once nomadic seafaring tribe now lives on land. The sea gypsy communities have so far refused to move, but could be forcibly evicted if no resolution is reached. Sea gypsies in neighbouring areas, such as Khao Lak, have also been forced off their land by resorts and hotels over past decades, while Burmese sea gypsies around the Mergui islands are reportedly being moved out by authorities keen to develop the area for tourism.

More cases of greedy corporations and governments.

You can’t make money from a native village, but build a resort or a golf course for the billionaires and you can make a lot of money!

It matters not that you are destroying lives.

 

Monday Moaning

We have known for 75 years, and still we do NOTHING!

Yes, we knew in 1938!

How the burning of fossil fuels was linked to a warming world in 1938

This month marks the 75th anniversary of Guy Callendar’s landmark scientific paper on anthropogenic climate change

English engineer Guy Stewart Callendar who expanded on the work Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius and developed the theory called Callendar effect that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to global temperature. Photograph: University of East Anglia Archives

Seventy-five years ago this month an amateur weather-watcher from West Sussex published a landmark paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society directly linking the burning of fossil fuels to the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Guy Callendar was a successful steam engineer by trade, but in his spare time he was a keen meteorologist. In April 1938, his paper, “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature”, which built on the earlier work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, was published with little fanfare or impact. It was only in the proceeding decades that the true significance of his conclusions would be heralded.

To mark the anniversary, two modern-day climatologists have published a co-authored paper (pdf) in the same journal celebrating not just his legacy, but also illustrating with modern techniques and data just how accurate Callendar’s calculations proved to be.

Dr Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science, who co-authored the paper with Prof Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, describes why Callendar is so significant to the development of climate science:

In hindsight, Callendar’s contribution was fundamental. He is still relatively unknown, but in terms of the history of climate science, his paper is a classic. He was the first scientist to discover that the planet had warmed by collating temperature measurements from around the globe, and suggested that this warming was partly related to man-made carbon dioxide emissions…People were sceptical about some of Callendar’s results, partly because the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere was not very well known and because his estimates for the warming caused by CO2 were quite simplistic by modern standards. It was only in the 1950s, when improved instruments showed more precisely how water and CO2 absorbed radiation, that we reached a better understanding of its importance. Scientists at the time also couldn’t really believe that humans could impact such a large system as the climate – a problem that climate science still encounters from some people today, despite the compelling evidence to the contrary.

Hawkins has also written a blog post about his new Callendar paper, which delves deeper into why Callendar’s findings were not immediately acted upon, or even discussed until decades later:

Doubts in the role of CO2 remained, partly because the world did not warm further – in fact land temperatures fell slightly until around 1975, before the warming resumed. This temperature plateau is very likely due to increased levels of particulates (or ‘aerosols’) in the atmosphere reflecting solar radiation back into space. Ironically, these aerosols are also the product of fossil fuel burning and strict regulations were imposed in the developed world on their emissions in the 1960s and 1970s which allowed the warming from carbon dioxide to emerge again. Aerosol emissions from the developing world may also have played a role in the temperature plateau since around 2000.

Here is the illustration produced by Hawkins and Jones to show how Callendar’s findings, published in 1938 and updated in 1961, match a modern-day temperature reconstruction (CRUTEM4) of global land temperatures for the period 1850-2010.

Comparing historical reconstructions of near-global land temperatures using CRUTEM4 (black, Jones et al. 2012) with Callendar (1938) (red) and Callendar (1961) (blue), using a reference period of 1880-1935. The CRUTEM4 estimates are for 60◦S-60◦N (to accord with Callendar’s series), with grey shading representing the 95% uncertainty. Image: Ed Hawkins and Phil D. Jones

Callendar’s original paper can be read in full online. Of particular interest – beyond his workings, of course – is the peer-review “discussion” at the end between various professors and Callendar. You really get the sense that Callendar was viewed as a naïve amateur in this field, which possibly contributed to why his conclusions weren’t fully absorbed until the 1960s.

 

 

Read more

It just goes to show that governments don’t care! Or, are completely in cahoots with corporations.

Until there is a dramatic change in political circles, nothing will change.

It is up to each and every one of you to make your votes count, get these corrupt bastards out of government.

If you vote Republican or Democrat, you are to blame for this procrastination!

 

More Corporate Bullshit

Coca-Cola’s New Fruitwater Contains No Fruit, But Will Anyone Care?

As soda sales dip, Coke hopes Fruitwater will pick up slack.

You may be celebrating the fact that soda consumption has been fizzling out, but don’t expect the beverage industry to walk away from you (or your wallet) so easily.

Yesterday, soda giant Coca-Cola confirmed it’s launching a new line called Fruitwater. Just don’t look for any real fruit in the dazzling, bubbly drinks. There isn’t any. But it will contain the artificial sweetener Splenda, also known as sucralose, and will come in zippy flavors like black raspberry, watermelon punch, strawberry kiwi and more. The new beverage line, launching April 1, will fall under Coke’s Glaceau unit, which produces Vitaminwater and Smartwater.

“Such an ‘unsoda,’ fizzy and sweetened but packaged like bottled water, could lure people who are looking for an alternative to sugary carbonated drinks,” writes Candice Choi for the Associated Press.

In the midst of our nation’s obesity epidemic, beverage companies are hoping low- and zero-calorie soda alternatives will be the next robust market. Choi notes that the company’s Vitaminwater sales were up four percent, while Smartwater was up 25 percent.

But it hasn’t all been calm waters for Coca-Cola. Despite Vitaminwater’s nutritious-sounding name, the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a class-action lawsuit in 2009, claiming the product used deceptive health claims in marketing the drink. Coca-Cola’s defense countered that “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage or was composed only of vitamins and water because the sweet taste of Vitaminwater puts consumers on notice that the product contains sugar.”

For fruitless Fruitwater, an emerging environmental concern may cause the most waves.

Source: Take Part Read more

Opinion:

I have a heap of issues over this.

Using names like Smartwater, Vitaminwater, Fruitwater, H2OH, etc, should be banned because they are misleading.

What’s next eWater?

OMG! I just googled it expecting to find some humorous images and I find the stuff already exists; revitalising units and lotions (with gold no less).

Anyway, back on the subject.

Coca Cola’s assumption (defence) that “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage…” is bullshit, the majority of consumers are hoodwinked by advertising and believe everything that is dished out to them and never think to question claims, even if the claim is built into the product name.

The use of ‘fruit’ for something that does not have fruit in it is misleading in the extreme. Coke is battling for market share and they will use every dirty trick in the book, and some that aren’t yet there, to increase profits.

Consumer interest and protection groups should be jumping on the bandwagon and proclaiming, denouncing, and prosecuting, not only Coke, but all these bastard corporations.

By using the name Fruitwater they are misleading a gullible public. A public that needs protecting from the corporate wolves.

Just because Fruitwater uses sucralose, in place of the poison aspartame, doesn’t resolve the issue. Sucralose is a chlorinated form of sucrose (sugar). It is not processed by the body, once it does it’s sweetening act, 90% passes right through your system and into the toilet.

Great, it’s gone!

But has it disappeared?

Not on your life. It remains in the sewerage, it bypasses the sewerage treatment because it is not affected by the sewerage system and passes on into the planets water supply.

Scientists have already detected elevated levels and admit that they don’t know what the effects are, or are going to be.

Are we putting our fish and seafood on a crash diet? No-one knows. People use this stuff to lose weight. Will it have the same effect on our aquatic life? Are we dooming all aquatic life to become anorexic, just skin and bones and no meat for humans to eat? Are we destabilising the one remaining food source on the planet?

Once again, we are paying scant regard to the environment.