Natural Citizen
05-28-2015, 04:53 PM
Nanotech is increasingly being pursued for use directly in the food we eat, rather than just in the packaging.
According to Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a12790/wait-theres-nanotechnology-in-my-food-16510737/): “The most commonly used nanoparticle in foods is titanium dioxide. It’s used to make foods such as yogurt and coconut flakes look as white as possible, provide opacity to other food colorings, and prevent ingredients from caking up. Nanotech isn’t just about aesthetics, however. The biggest potential use for this method involves improving the nutritional value of foods.
“Nano additives can enhance or prevent the absorption of certain nutrients. In an email interview with Popular Mechanics, Jonathan Brown, a research fellow at the University of Minnesota, says this method could be used to make mayonnaise less fattening by replacing fat molecules with water droplets.”
There has been a 1000% increase in nanotech used for food since 2008 and is now being deployed by (http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/nanotechnology) major companies including Kraft, General Mills, Hershey, Nestle, Mars, Unilever, Smucker’s and Albertsons.
What are the real implications of this? There’s one thing for sure; the element of power is a very necessary thing to consider. With all technology like this, monopolization and hierarchical structures are a potential problem. The USDA and other health oversight agencies have a long track record (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-escobar/the-tale-of-rbgh-milk-mon_b_170823.html) of approving controversial practices used in our food that later turn out to have deadly health and environmental impacts. Understanding the current players in the agro-tech business including Monsanto (http://theantimedia.org/?s=monsanto) and Syngenta (http://theantimedia.org/?s=Syngenta), you can see how this could end badly.
The implications of this are significant for the future of Agorism, sustainable food, independent agricultural business, monopolization of food, the health of the people consuming this food, and much more.
No one is saying that nanotech in food is inherently bad, but with the history of the organizations funding this technology, people are naturally suspicious. More research is needed and concerns (http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/25/c/4723/2014_Tiny_Ingredients_Big_Risks_Web.pdf) must be addressed before nanotech in our food becomes our next big mistake.
Continued - USDA Gives $3.8 Million in Grants to Develop and Promote Nanotech in Food (http://theantimedia.org/usda-gives-3-8-million-in-grants-to-develop-and-promote-nanotech-in-food/)
According to Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a12790/wait-theres-nanotechnology-in-my-food-16510737/): “The most commonly used nanoparticle in foods is titanium dioxide. It’s used to make foods such as yogurt and coconut flakes look as white as possible, provide opacity to other food colorings, and prevent ingredients from caking up. Nanotech isn’t just about aesthetics, however. The biggest potential use for this method involves improving the nutritional value of foods.
“Nano additives can enhance or prevent the absorption of certain nutrients. In an email interview with Popular Mechanics, Jonathan Brown, a research fellow at the University of Minnesota, says this method could be used to make mayonnaise less fattening by replacing fat molecules with water droplets.”
There has been a 1000% increase in nanotech used for food since 2008 and is now being deployed by (http://www.foe.org/projects/food-and-technology/nanotechnology) major companies including Kraft, General Mills, Hershey, Nestle, Mars, Unilever, Smucker’s and Albertsons.
What are the real implications of this? There’s one thing for sure; the element of power is a very necessary thing to consider. With all technology like this, monopolization and hierarchical structures are a potential problem. The USDA and other health oversight agencies have a long track record (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-escobar/the-tale-of-rbgh-milk-mon_b_170823.html) of approving controversial practices used in our food that later turn out to have deadly health and environmental impacts. Understanding the current players in the agro-tech business including Monsanto (http://theantimedia.org/?s=monsanto) and Syngenta (http://theantimedia.org/?s=Syngenta), you can see how this could end badly.
The implications of this are significant for the future of Agorism, sustainable food, independent agricultural business, monopolization of food, the health of the people consuming this food, and much more.
No one is saying that nanotech in food is inherently bad, but with the history of the organizations funding this technology, people are naturally suspicious. More research is needed and concerns (http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/25/c/4723/2014_Tiny_Ingredients_Big_Risks_Web.pdf) must be addressed before nanotech in our food becomes our next big mistake.
Continued - USDA Gives $3.8 Million in Grants to Develop and Promote Nanotech in Food (http://theantimedia.org/usda-gives-3-8-million-in-grants-to-develop-and-promote-nanotech-in-food/)