It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nano Tech in our Food

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:38 AM

Top 10 Reasons for Using Nanotech in Food

That is the name of the article I stumbled upon while trying to educate myself on the freakish reality of programmable matter and quantum dots.

"Companies are engaged in nanoscale research; however, they do not publicly declare so partly because of uncertainty in the safety assessment and regulatory climate," said Betty Bugusu, research scientist at the Institute of Food Technologists in Washington, D.C."

That paragraph along with this one, is what gave me pause:

California's Oxonica makes Nanobarcodes from nano-particles that contain silver and gold stripes varying in width, length and amount, such that billions of combinations can be created to tag individual products. The barcodes have been primarily used to assure brand and authenticity in pharmaceuticals, but applications could be forthcoming in tracing food batches. Combined with pathogen sensors, the barcodes that must be read by modified microscopes could trace sources of outbreak.

I will give you the top ten reasons without the very interesting source information provided by the article in case you just want to skim. The entire article is short and worth a read if these things interest you.

1. Contamination Sensor
2. Antimicrobial Packaging
3. Improved Food Storage
4. Enhanced Nutrient Delivery
5. Green Packaging
6. Pesticide Reduction
7. Tracking, Tracing, and Brand Protection
8. Texture
9. Flavor
10. Bacteria Indentification and Elimination

Call me old fashion but, I don't think this is such a good idea. I put on my tin foil hat when I came to number seven about tracking and tracing. It's expensive as hell but, I try to buy the meat that hasn't been tainted with antibiotics and such. Am I someday soon going to have to pay triple for non-nanotech food?

Here's the article for your review:

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:51 AM


posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:32 AM


posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by Whisper67

I had a read at what you said and because I did not know much other than things that I had read years ago I had a little dig on google.

Nanotechnology is being experimented with to manufacture molecules which could result in anything being made by mass joining of nanotech with other nanotech, it can be used to move around your body treating things such as cancer by making RNA strands when they reach their target. I mean this is as close as we have come to the size of atoms. They are actually predicting that food can be created from nanotech. It would look, taste, feel and have the same effect as food but it is artificial.

The potential for good is astounding as is bad.

This might sound "wacky" but it is a possiblility in the wrong hands and when do we hear of things ending up in the right hands?

What happens once your body is crammed with nanotechnology, be it from many sources, food, vaccinations, creams we purchase, drinks we consume and so on and so forth. At first it is programmed to repair damaged cells etc.

What IF it were re-programmed?

Ill let your mind wander on that one.

Scary thought. Do you trust anyone enough with this technology is the question people need to ask themselves as opposed to what are the possibilities and benefits.

If it sounds to good to be true................

[edit on 13-3-2009 by XXXN3O]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:05 AM
Congress and Obama just funded NAIS (Animal ID) and Rosa Delauro has HR 875 and other "Food Safety" bill ready to become law (identical bills introduced in the house and senate so there will be no debate)

"including implementing record-keeping and labeling of all food and food ingredients to facilitate their identification and traceability"

The FDA stated they will be looking at "technology" for food tracing FDA

So expect the nanotech in your food real soon. (GAG, gag B....f) The "food Safety" bills also forces small farmers out of business so forget food direct from the farm with out tags.

the right point of view: Canada free press
the left point of view: Dailykos
farmers on Animal ID: NICFA White Paper
left on HR875 and Monsanto OpEdNews #1 #2

It is amazing something both the right AND the left agree on!

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:18 PM
Wow, thank you XXXN30 & crimvelvet for contributing such informative links.

I'd like my ticket to Utopia now. A place where we didn't have to constantly monitor the motives of...well...everyone! Maybe it's your avatar XXXN3O, but when I think about re-programming of these nanobytes I get a vision of when Neo sticks his finger into that mirror and the visual that follows.

The main reason I think this is important to talk about is I fear, as the above post mentions, legislation will be passed and nanotech introduced into our food supply without the general public having the slightest awareness.

If it can track the food, for sure it could track us. I don't for minute like the idea of these critters running around in my body. I could see this easily becoming the next evolution of humanity. A fusion of computer and human.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:33 PM
Any attempt to remove the right to grow food should be viewed with distrust. That it is coming from the influence of Transnational corporations is worse.

Check out this short but well written article. It seems that a version of the "New World Order" has been slipped in right under our noses!!!

The WTO and the Politics of GMO By F. William Engdahl, author of ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order’ (Mit der Oelwaffe zur Weltmacht, edition Steinherz, Wiesbaden) and an independent publicist who has written extensively on GATT and EU agriculture issues since 1984. click

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:47 PM
The most obvious problem is that one companies nanotech may truly be ok in isolation, but mixed with a nano-particle by another company will not be ok. That other company could be a food company, or it may be the one that desighned your hover, or car, or e.g. a broken open disk drive.

If there are billons of options on how these things can be mixed, then it follows there should be thousands (certainly hundreds) of ways they can cause harm. One way of causing harm should probably be one too many (at least that's the big hope!!!).

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:04 PM
the next step in human development? human computer. thats where it is heading. (in the same program below) the new fear is that it will not be machines vs humans, but the augmented vs the regulars.

i watched a program about using nano-tech to create a artifical red bloodcell that would be 500x more efficient then a regular one (in oxygen -> muscle transfers)

meaning you could sprint full out for 15 minutes one 1 breath


once nanotech really gets going, its either going to benefit us, or hindle us. a big fear of scientists is the nanodust. after you tell the machines to replicate themselves, 10,000,000,000 times, what if they dont stop? yup. planet covered in a dust / ash made of tiny machines.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by 30 Seconds]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:11 PM
Also , Nano food is Good when your really hungry an want ten million of something!

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:35 AM
What we are digging up in this thread is making me very uncomfortable. The implications are wide reaching:

scare the public and then use "food safety" and "animal diseases" as the argument for imposing systems that are onerous beyond human endurance. What systems? Industrial ones that a normal farmer can't afford to put in place and with bureaucratic tasks that turn farming into something approaching filing out a complex tax return daily, and with penalties that are greater than those imposed on most felons

Peanut product anyone? Yum.

And the Secretary of the Dept. of Agriculture is Thomas Vilsack, a known Bilderberger and CFR.

Calling Em Out

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:58 AM
You got it in one.

The penalties are $1,000,000/day max and up to 10 years in jail if a corporation can manage to pin the problem on the farmer. The farmer has thirty days to rebut (after they have already confiscated his bank acct, land, home...)

WORSE the FOOD CZAR (Administrator) is judge, jury and executioner.

The findings of the Administrator relating to the order shall be set aside only if found to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.”

The validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review.”

set aside only if found to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” That means you have to PROVE you are NOT guilty. They do not have to prove you are! It is much harder to prove you are not guilty.


Penalties Paid Into Account- The Administrator--
(1) shall deposit penalties collected under this section in an account in the Treasury; and
(2) may use the funds in the account, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation--
(A) to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law; or
(B) to provide assistance to States to inspect retail commercial food establishments or other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food safety programs.

The more farms and fines the more agents they can hire. the more agents under a regional Administrator the higher his pay grade, and they do NOT HAVE TO PROVE YOU GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW!!!!

top topics


log in