Nanotechnology (nanoparticles) in our foods RIGHT NOW

reply to post by OnceReturned


With respect, your argument that everything human beings do is ultimately natural is facetious, and you know it is don't you?

You're trying to argue that simply because everything human beings interact with, in whatever fashion, is ultimately natural because at one stage or another, every raw material comes from our (for all intents and purposes) closed biosphere.

OK, it's not totally closed, as millions of tonnes of foreign material bombards our planet every year, but for the scope of what we're saying, we'll say it is.

Let's cut right to the chase shall we?

There are tiny levels of toxic but naturally occurring substances in our soils, lead, arsenic, mercury and so on.

There are differences in consuming these in the negligible and tolerable quantities leached into our plants and foods from the soil, than taking a bowl and filling it with the above toxins and consuming them.

They are both natural products of the environment, but in differing concentrations, are both benign and lethal.

Ultimately, nuclear fusion is a natural process that occurs in every star. We copied this natural process to produce the hydrogen bomb.

There is nothing natural about a Hydrogen bomb, whereas the same process is a natural process in stars.

Likewise, there is nothing natural about taking genes from a species of fauna or flora, manipulating those genes in a laboratory, and introducing them into a totally unrelated species.

It is a glib argument to propose that simply because everything we can manipulate once originated as a natural product or process in our biosphere, that it remains a natural product or process after it humanity has finished tampering with it.

I have come across an incredible food product in its raw form it was used by Royal Families and the best Imperial Armies in the World. This incredible food product derived from the best strains of Purple Rice in the world by a top notch renowned scientist uses nanotechnolgy by grinding the Potent Purple Rice into nanoparticles. This allows the food to be absorbed into human and animal bodies more readily. The machine that does the grinding was developed by German engineers.

My son was going down hill fast and had dropped 30 pounds in a month. He could not eat I thought we were going to lose him I got him on this new Nanotechnolgy derived Purple Rice and the food product turned him around and he was back working In 2 weeks. He now is a new person what a God send and the Nano Technology Purple Rice Food Product just hit the World market in the last month. ^Y^

To gloss this over and state that nanoparticles are safe to ingest is like saying that not only can you eat the cereal but eating the box is fine too.
These particles have not been tested for human health effects.
It's Russian roulette with food.
Most of us would not willingly choose to play but have little choice.
For those who don't trust big industry or the government this should be a big red flag.
As consumers and citizens we have a right to know what we are eating and how it might affect us.
"Trust us" they say.
NO THANKS

Prove it's safe and then I'll try it.

reply to post by amari


What was your son's condition? I have a friend who is losing weight and cannot keep food down. This could be something that would help her tremendously. Where can you find it? thanks

Originally posted by revmoofoo

Originally posted by nightbringr

Hope you can sleep at night with the death of millions on your hand simply because you dont want these things in your food.

A bit overly dramatic don't you think? I take it you also don't believe in a persons right to choose what they put in to their bodies? How about people who live in cities who cannot get any locally grown produce? Does them living in a city mean that they should have no option but to purchase GM (or other undesirably altered produce) from their local supermarket?

On a side note, I sent the information in the thread to a friend and his response was:

"But what if the DNA changes give me super powers"

I sh*t you not! lol

Rev

edit on 9/10/2010 by revmoofoo because: my kingdom for mad spelling skills!

reply to post by nightbringr


Opps! I meant to reply to the above comment but anyhoo. It was overly dramatic, but then again, isnt everything in this board? I still believe these advances are necissary if we plan on feeding our over-populated planet. And the whole arguement of "if it isnt natural, dont eat it" makes no sense to me. There are thousands of naturally occuring toxins and poisons on earth, you wouldnt suggest i eat those over modified food would you, simply because they are "natural"?

reply to post by nightbringr


I do see where you're coming from, but I'm also one of those people who doesn't believe that the planet is overpopulated. Then again, I'm a wee bit mental (with the paperwork to prove it) so I hope you'll forgive me for holding that point of view. The only point I was trying to make really is that we should get to choose what we put in to our body, not be told that we don't have a choice like I was today when I got the new Seasonal Flu jab that has the Swine Flu vaccine in it too. Things like that really twist my nipples. *grrr*

Rev

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by OnceReturned

 

With respect, your argument that everything human beings do is ultimately natural is facetious, and you know it is don't you?

I don't think it is, but we'll see. I take the argument that everything human beings do is natural - immediately, not even ultimately, as you suggest - totally seriously. I don't at all think it can be dismissed as a trivial technicality.

You're trying to argue that simply because everything human beings interact with, in whatever fashion, is ultimately natural because at one stage or another, every raw material comes from our (for all intents and purposes) closed biosphere.

I am not trying to restrict my argument to interactions or raw materials. Consider the following facts:

1) The only difference between inanimate materials and living organisms is complexity. Everything is made out of the same stuff (~90 elements), and everything obeys the same physical laws. Living things can be completely described in chemical terms. In fact, defining life along the borderline of things like virii and prions and simple single celled organisms is a non-trivial undertaking. When does it go from a group of molecules to a living group of molecules?

2) Consider the history of life on earth: 3 billion years ago some chemicals mixed together in a puddle at the base of a volcano and got struck by lightning. All life on earth is a continuation of that chemical reaction over geologic timescales.

3) The oxygen in the air that we breath is the waste product of life on the early earth. Every breath you breathe is of air that was expelled from a microbe or a plant. Those organisms comepletely changed the atmosphere of the planet, and without them we wouldn't exist. Coral reefs, oil fields, dirt. . . all of these thing come from natural chemical processes of the earth, by way of the living chemical processes.

So much of the earth is the way that it is because of the effects of living things, I fail to see how human beings cutting down a forest is any less natural than the forest growing there in the first place. We're carrying on a long tradition of living organisms dramatically affecting their environment. We're not doing anything new, we're just doing it in a more complex way.

OK, it's not totally closed, as millions of tonnes of foreign material bombards our planet every year, but for the scope of what we're saying, we'll say it is.

Let's cut right to the chase shall we?

Let's.

There are tiny levels of toxic but naturally occurring substances in our soils, lead, arsenic, mercury and so on.

There are differences in consuming these in the negligible and tolerable quantities leached into our plants and foods from the soil, than taking a bowl and filling it with the above toxins and consuming them.

They are both natural products of the environment, but in differing concentrations, are both benign and lethal.

Toxic things are different than safe things, but it's not that one is natural and the other one is not natural. It's not at all clear that genetically engineered food or food with nanoparticles in it is more dangerous that food without those things. We have no reason to believe that this is the case, and we certainly shouldn't assume that it is. Many more people have eaten and died from poisonous things that were not processed at all than have been killed by genetically engineered foods or by nanomaterials.

Ultimately, nuclear fusion is a natural process that occurs in every star. We copied this natural process to produce the hydrogen bomb.

There is nothing natural about a Hydrogen bomb, whereas the same process is a natural process in stars.

We get the same result but we don't copy the process. Is it so outrageous that nuclear activity occur naturally on the surface of the earth? Lightning occurs here, and plants are solar powered. We burn long dead microbes to drive our cars. I really don't see any of these things as being different in an important way. Oysters make pearls and humans make microchips. Why is one more natural than another?

Likewise, there is nothing natural about taking genes from a species of fauna or flora, manipulating those genes in a laboratory, and introducing them into a totally unrelated species.

That process is the product of evolution. Human beings evolved and this is our behavior; we mix genes in a new way. Virii directly act on the genes of other organisms. So do human beings.

It is a glib argument to propose that simply because everything we can manipulate once originated as a natural product or process in our biosphere, that it remains a natural product or process after it humanity has finished tampering with it.

Is honey natural after it is processed by a bee? Is oxygen natural after being processed by a plant? Are beaver dams or spider webs? What about birds nests? The food is natural after the farmer grows it, but once you mix it with nanoparticles it becomes unnatural? What if the farmer used synthetic oil in his tractor? Then would the food have been unnatural all along?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by amari

 

What was your son's condition? I have a friend who is losing weight and cannot keep food down. This could be something that would help her tremendously. Where can you find it? thanks

We Had taken him to several doctors and they could not figure out what was wrong with him. So I called a friend and he said to try this New Purple Rice Food product. After taking the Purple Rice Food within 2 days he could eat very small amounts of food and could hold down liquids. He would throw up constantly before taking the Purple Rice and he had black circles under his eyes and could not use the bathroom. This was the greatest turn around I had ever seen with someone so sick. My wife and I thank God everyday. I do not know if the Purple Rice Food will help your friend but it helped my son. ^Y^

Originally posted by stars15k


Additives have been added to foods for decades. Vitamins and minerals. They are just now being called "nano-particles". Before that, it was just chemicals in microscopic sizes.

Foods quick to lose moisture through their skins have been coated for decades. It's one reason to wash everything really well before eating. The things used, waxes, varnishes, and even oils, are considered safe to consume. Cukes and peppers will sometimes enter a produce department greasy and apples crusty with varnish. Oranges, bananas, potatoes and grapes are fumigated for bugs and fungus. Many foods are gassed to speed or slow the ripening process. Without these measures, we probably would consider bananas a luxury and only have potatoes and apples at picking time. Citrus is both gassed for color (otherwise many oranges woud be green when ripe) and varnished to slow aging.

The term "nano" is so overly used and misunderstood that is has become vilified. It simply means very, very small, .on the order of being 1 billionth. And that is all. I personally would rather chance that something that very small would be more easily washed off my food than any grease, oil, varnish or wax coating applied much heavier. It's nothing new, it's a repackaging of something people didn't know or think about before.

"Nano" denotes something of a certain size. Yes,it has always existed. Our ability to cheaply produce it is what has changed.

Nano's tend to pass through barriers that other, larger compounds could not pass. If the material is "waxy", it is not a nano. You could barley make a nano using a waxy type molecule. It is far to large, being almost nano in size itself with a single molecule.

But nano's in our food is very worrisome. Nano's can get into cells, by passing natural defenses. Like a virus.

reply to post by nightbringr

Well there are two options then:
1. Some people to stop breeding like rabbits in unsustainable environments low on resources.
2. All people to eat genetically modified crap and ruin themselves.

Besides, life like this is not the kind of thing I'd like:

I'm not sure I like the idea of nanobots inside my body. What's to stop the government from adding behavior modification properties to these nanos to try and control the population? If nanos can be grown and programmed to do one task, they can be grown and programmed to fulfill multiple tasks. (Docile behavior, sterilization, etc)
With Haarp controlling the weather, and Nanos controlling our food supply, what's next on the Big G's list of things to control? And I drink a lot of Pepsi... I guess I'm f**ked.

reply to post by concerned190


So does everything you eat, drink, or breath. All our organs are factories to process chemicals and either add things to our bloodstream or remove things from them.
That's standard health and biology.

And selective breeding is the same thing, by the way. Similar biologicals are combined to gain the benefits of both. DNA is DNA. Whether it is tall corn with high-sugar corn to make tall, high-sugar grain or good quantity of milk produced with high fat content to make lots of high fat milk, it's all the same, happening on the same level.
People are just now awakening to the science they were taught but never learned. It's now packaged by alarmists as something bad. And the people who slept through science are reacting to the alarm........when it goes off accidentally on Saturday morning, not a work day. They jump around disoriented and confused.

I appreciate people being objective and discussing the science of what this report does and does not actually mean.

On the other hand my initial reaction is that we are being messed with yet again in an underhanded way. Until, I have time to research the pros and cons of nano particles in my food I most definitely do not choose to eat them. The point is I am not given a whole lot of choice at the grocery store. As the consolidation of food production continues my options get more and more limited.

I've spent the last six months trying to clean up my diet and use less toxic products in my home, on my body, and in my body. Frankly, its exhausting trying to find enough safe, health promoting products to ensure that I have at least some variety, so I'm not bored to tears with what I eat.

Unfortunately, almost every mainstream product on the market has some kind of issue:
1. GMO
2. Artificial sweeteners
3. High fructose corn syrup
4. Sodium chloride
5. Pesticides and fungicides
6. Parabens and harsh surfactants
7. Excessive antibiotics and HGH
8. Perfumes, colorants and dyes
9. Processed to within an inch of its life

I agree, that to feed the masses, we cant't expect things to be like they were at the turn of the century. However, we do have some responsibility in making this mess. We vote with our dollars what is acceptable by what we buy. I just returned from the grocery store, so it is very fresh in my mind that I have over 8' of aisle length to select some type of dehydrated potato product, or 6' of deli space to pick my favorite fried food. I can choose from a whole aisle if I want cereal, candy, chips or frozen pizza. For the most part these companies are motivated by dollars, when enough us stop eating 18 varieties of Hot Pockets they'll stop making them!

We can also start being proactive with our contribution to the food supply. I would venture a guess that most of us could grow from a small to large portion of our own food. I understand people in dense cities have some challenges. That being said I have seen some really innovative rooftop and balcony gardens. In less dense areas we can do a lot better and also trade supplies. I make my own soap, a friend of mine has chickens, and another friend of mine has her whole back yard as a vegetable garden. We exchange quite a bit.

I know I'm slightly off topic it just seems to me we do have more power than we give ourselves credit for.

S1J1A1

reply to post by nightbringr



What kind of logic is that? Yes, poisons are 'natural', but eating them isn't - as evidenced by animals usually superior wisdom in this respect.

I see you have bought into the overpopulation myth. The earth has more than enough of everything to feed earth's population, and even a much, much bigger one. That is, if they stopped poisoning everything in the natural environment.

It isn't overpopulation which is a threat to our food supplies, it's corporate poisoning of everything good, pure and healthy. Just look at the food supply from the gulf which has been totally ruined.

Originally posted by nightbringr
Genetic modification and chemical fertilizers allow much greater yield on crops. Todays farmer is able to produce many times the yield per acre as at the turn of the 1900s. It is very selfish to want to do away with these things. While food prices would skyrocket and people worldwide would starve due to lack of food, you could perhaps afford to eat and not worry about "contamination" in your food. Hope you can sleep at night with the death of millions on your hand simply because you dont want these things in your food.

I don't believe there is a greater yield. Many studies have found that there is no significant increases in crop yields. IF there is an increase it is 0.03-0.04% more.
www.ucsusa.org...
www.leopold.iastate.edu...
foodfreedom.wordpress.com...

It is quite intriguing that you mention nanoparticles. How about just atoms. Especially those with different isotopes. At least in our food chain, our generation has been introduced to the C4 carbon through extensive use of corn by-products such as the NEWLY named version of High Fructose Corn Syrup to Corn Sugar.

So here is a Wiki to enlighten you all:

The different isotope ratios for the two kinds of plants propagate through the food chain, thus it is possible to determine if the principal diet of a human or an animal consists primarily of C3 plants (rice, wheat, soybeans, potatoes) or C4 plants (corn, or corn-fed beef) by isotope analysis of their flesh and bone collagen. Similarly, marine fish contain more 13C than freshwater fish, with values approximating the C4 and C3 plants respectively. The ratio of carbon-13 and carbon-12 isotopes in these types of plants is as follows:[2] * C4 plants: -16 to -10 ‰ * CAM plants: -20 to -10 ‰ * C3 plants: -33 to -24 ‰

So I don't think its nanotechnology that should be referenced to trace or modify what we are eating.

Cheers

reply to post by concerned190


Great thread concerned.....
Definitely something to be concerned about....
Immaterial of the level of harm it can do, it could probably be a test stage for absolutely anything...
From becoming immortal to dying the death of a squished ant...

Thanks... we need to keep our eyes ears & plates open

Best

Ultimate nanoparticulates to be found, already exist within your bloodstream, they are somatids.. small, nearly indestructible, and are the reason for your genetic timing sequences (on the order of nearly 1.5phz in frequency if that helps you identify the size of them)

your not being very directive in your descriptions since everyone and their momma too, use the word "nano" like a cool new toy to play with..

Nano simply is short for "Nanometer", as in equal to or less then a nanometer in 3 dimensional scale.. that pretty much describes the entire world of molecular biology, and atomics, and under that premise, "anything" you eat is basically nanotechnological in design (just depends on your relative POV)..

I want more nano particles in my food!!! Is that a crime?