nano technology

[eve]

I remember posting articles a while back, but although the subject died here, I'm getting increasingly concerned that nanotechnology has invaded our foods, cosmetics, and other products, while we remain in ignorance.

The Soil Assn has banned nanotech in any product classified as organic, and the email from ETC is quite alarming. Now there is an article by Which in the Daily Mail that you may care to read:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...icle_id=505561

[John]

I wouldn't worry about it. These kind of scares really just take attention away from the many known harmful substances that we are already being exposed to.

[Roxy]

For example, foods are in development that are said to stave off the aging process.

Anything that can do that sounds scary!

On a more trivial level, they suggest it would be possible to create a fizzy drink that changes flavour according to the number of times the can is shaken.

Even scarier! We'll have real life Willy Wonkas popping up all over the place.

I'll steer clear of those products, just as I try to do with any GM products.

In my opinion, it's one more very good reason to eat organically.

[eve]

I wouldn't worry about it. These kind of scares really just take attention away from the many known harmful substances that we are already being exposed to.

Hey John, are you referring to foods containing GMOs? Actually in the US where I note that you live, the bulk of the population is totally unaware of practically every item of foods they ingest, that contain GMOs. GMOs and nanos are not scares, they actually exist, yet who tells the public of long term effects?

Roxy is right, sticking to organic is the safest option.

Reminds me of when tobacco manufacturers dismissed scientific reports on the dangers of smoking, by telling people to ignore the scares.

[John]

GMOs are not good at all. One among many reasons is that a GMO plant can be made that has a higher tolerance to pesticide, or even produces pesticide within itself, resulting in higher exposure for the consumer.

I don't mean to pooh-pooh your concern, Eve, although maybe I'm doing just that. But for goodness sake, in that article they're citing Prince Charles as an expert. What are his qualifications; his mother and father copulated?

[Roxy]

He's been promoting organic agriculture and sustainable farming practices for a long time now. Here's one of his projects:

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/pers...rove/homefarm/

[eve]

John, it is so easy to denigrate others, especially royalty. He's just an ordinary guy with ordinary intelligence, he's no Einstein, but at least he has not only been speaking out about organic, but putting it into practice.

[Roxy]

Now if we could only get him to stop hunting......

[Akala]

"As of January 2008, the Soil Association has banned the use of man-made nanomaterials from all Soil Association certified organic products. [1] This applies particularly to health and beauty products, but also to food and textiles. Ahead of the Government [2], we are the first organisation in the world to take action against this hazardous, potentially toxic technology that poses a serious new threat to human health...."

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s...0!OpenDocument

[eve]

That's what I said in the first posting here; though the open document is useful.

[John]

John, it is so easy to denigrate others, especially royalty. He's just an ordinary guy with ordinary intelligence, he's no Einstein, but at least he has not only been speaking out about organic, but putting it into practice.

So questioning someone's credentials has become denigration? I'm an ordinary guy with ordinary intelligence too, but if I compared something to Thalidomide, one of the most notorious creations in scientific history, I would expect skepticism and for people to be dubious once they realized that I possesed no more than ordinary knowledge.

Of course there are conceivable dangers with nanotechnology to be concerned about. However, I only say that anti-nanotechnology press may be misinformation, at worst disinformation, and possibly it could divert attention and resources from definite dangerous substances in our environment, of which there are many.

[emzy1985]

I understand what you're saying John. I think we are all better on organic, but should definately campaign for the use of non GMO and non nano foods because not all of us, including me can afford organic food all the time.

[eve]

In its newly published standard, the Soil Association bans the use of human-made nanomaterials whose basic particle size is less than 125nm and whose mean particle size is less than 200nm. While the Soil Association’s ban only affects organic production for goods certified in the UK, other organic certifiers worldwide are expected to follow suit.

“We welcome this sensible move by the Soil Association and encourage other certifiers, companies and governments to follow their lead,” said Jim Thomas of ETC Group. “A decade ago the Soil Association led the way in creating a safe alternative to GM crops when they declared organic production to be GM-free and now they are trailblazing again – acting to protect the public from potential risks of engineered nanoparticles.” In 2003 ETC Group first called for a moratorium on nanotechnology research until governments adopt agreed-upon safety standards and regulatory oversight.

Despite a flood of commercial nanotech products and a paucity of studies on the health, safety and environmental impacts of nano-scale materials, the regulatory vacuum persists today. A 2007 survey by 15 governments estimates there are at least 70 nanotech food-related applications already on the market. According to Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, the nanotechnology market for food and food processing could reach $20.4 billion by 2010, and most major food and beverage corporations are investing in nanotech R&D.

[Roxy]

I understand what you're saying John. I think we are all better on organic, but should definately campaign for the use of non GMO and non nano foods because not all of us, including me can afford organic food all the time.

I agree. Whilst I eat 99% organic at home, I can't always say that I do when I'm eating out at someone's house, or in a restaurant. It'd be nice to know that I'd be just as safe in those circumstances, as I would be if I was eating my organic foods at home.

[Akala]

School of Applied Sciences Public Lecture by the University's Dr Tim Gabriel - "Does size really matter? How nanotechnology can change our lives"

"Nanotechnology is a big word that describes very small things, but the impact of nanotechnology could be massive. Is it possible to create a world with no poverty, no famine, and no illness? There are claims that nanotechnology, one of the most recent scientific milestones, is set to do just that. Others, notably the Prince of Wales, are worried that it might turn much of the world into ‘grey goo’! Nanotechnology is the ability to control and manufacture materials at the molecular level. Its impacts underpin the workings of many everyday products such as computers, cosmetics, sporting equipment and medicines. The amazing capacity and versatility of nanostructures and nanodevices could lead to a more efficient and economical way of life for everybody in years to come." Tim’s lecture will give an insight into the fabrication methods of specific nanomaterials, the range of commercially available products that incorporate nanoparticulates and future developments in the world of nanotechnology.

Date: Wednesday 12th March 2008
Lecture at 6.15 p.m. in Canalside Lecture Theatre, Firth Street
Refreshments from 5.45 p.m.

University of Huddesrfield, West Yorkshire, UK, HD1 3DH

http://www.hud.ac.uk/news/hudd-lines...nt_events.html

[Roxy]

Well obviously I can't get to the lecture, but I would like to know how nanotechnology is going to alieviate povery, famine and illness.

[eve]

Akala, you mention impact on products such as computers, cosmetics, sporting equipment and medicines, but there are already nanoparticles in food. That makes me feel powerless.

[ImVeganOUT!!!]

are they really gonna make a soda that changes flavour depending on how much you shake it?

..or was that an example?

[emzy1985]

Well seeing as it is completely pointless and "soda" or fizzy drinks as we call them, are absolutely abominal for your health so the answer is probably yes! LMAO!

Don't quote me on that though

[eve]

How did soda get into this subject?

[Andy]

lol, in the link you posted at the top of the thread

I have to admit though, it sounds really cool!

[Roxy]

A colour-changing soda was mentioned in that article Eve. Sounds like something out of Willy Wonka's factory!

[ImVeganOUT!!!]

that would be disgusting