|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Naturskyddsföreningen (Swedish Nature Protection Organisation) is an idealistic environmental organisation with power to change. They spread knowledge, locate environmental threats, create solutions and influence politicians and governmental agencies both national as international. Source: www.snf.se. SNF has a good knowledge about a broad spectrum of topics - readers of their member's magazine 'Sveriges Natur' can only confirm this. Environmental problems with toxic chemicals are one of the topics that regularly come back in Sveriges Natur, and not without reason. Take for example last edition, #03 from 2009. On pages 52 and next, a two-page long article explains how environmental toxics have recently been discovered suspect in playing a role in increased incidence of osteoporosis in humans. The article stresses the fact that nowadays some 250 man-made toxic substances can be detected in any human body. On pages 17, 24 and 40, clothing which has very likely been treated with PFOA and other toxics is shamelessly advertised in the same magazine. It leaves no doubt that SNF knows perfectly well how many of the clothes in shops - including outdoor clothes - are loaded with dangerous chemicals. Still, SNF's redaction apparently sees it as a necessity to promote this kind of wares in their own magazine. Why? For the same reason as why farmers prefer to spray food with pesticides and why the rainforests on our planet are disappearing: because it makes money! No one is perfect, and no one should. However, if SNF is not going to give the good example, who is? Our politicians? Because hypocrisy is not my kind of thing, I sent two kind emails to the redaction (with one year in between), explaining why I don't think it's very good to allow ads for products like that, and asked what their motivation was for having it in their own magazine. I never got any reply, but the ads continued. Take action! If you also think that the magazine of an organisation like SNF is not the right place to advertise environmentally harmful products, just drop the redaction an email shortly explaining why you think so. They can be approached on: Because the organisation is too good to just give up membership... but not good enough yet for being allowed to promote PFOA.
|
||||
|
|
||||
