You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'GMO and Nanotech' category.
Oh, sure. I’m getting pretty savvy about avoiding genetically modified food. But, as April Dávila discovered, Monsanto touches a LOT more of your life than the produce on your plate. How about the plate itself?
In her blog, “A Month Without Monsanto” April discovers a day at a time all the ways Monsanto profits from us. I’m still only about two weeks into her posts, and already I’m disgusted, amused, curious and angry. She eats much closer to a vegetarian diet than I would choose for myself, but lists her food choices, clothing, personal items, and has a dandy resource list for those interested in her research. Why don’t you skip over there and see how she’s doing?
By the way, about my headline. I’d dearly LOVE to go a month (or a year, or a lifetime) without adding one cent to the bottom line of the company in question. But the more I read April’s research, the more I study my own foodshed, the more I doubt my ability to actually pull it off. Honestly.
Kate learns exactly what is IN those cookies
I picked up an iPhone app to help me figure out some of the ingredients on food labels. It’s called “Don’t Eat That” and is $1.99 in the iTunes Store. It has made Gizmodo‘s This Week’s Best iPhone Apps list, a list I like to browse for helpful apps. You’ll find it in the iTunes Store in the Healthcare and Fitness section. The app is currently running version 1.3 and updates are frequent, but there is lots of room for expansion and improvement here.
You’ll have to forgive my total lameness at being unable to post screenshots—some of me is in 2010, but some of me lags several decades behind. There are good screenshots at the iTunes Store.
What I love:
- The alphabetical listing is very thorough and the information contained in the descriptions is unbiased but extensive.
- You can choose to view ingredients by their names as listed on labels, or in lists of ingredients that may aggravate allergies and asthma, are particularly harmful to children, are banned somewhere in the world and where the ban is in effect, and ingredients that are known carcinogens.
- Foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms can also be searched in their own section.
What I’d change:
- I’d love to have a section where I can add my own notes to each item for our own food reactions and issues. Rose, for example, is allergic to almonds and I would love to be able to tap once to flag each ingredient listed that contains almond extractives.
- I’d also like ingredients to come up when the bar code on the product is scanned. Then, each ingredient should be “clickable” for reference without having to scroll down the list.
How I use it:
- There are an awful lot of ingredients that are floating around in my brain with sticky notes attached: “This is also known as MSG”, “Do I really want this in my body?”, “Wait, is this something that’ll make a migraine flare up?” and sometimes it’s hard to keep it all straight. This little app takes the sticky notes out of my brain (freeing up those brain cells for much more important information, such as how to spell Kyrgyzstan) and putting them into what I often refer to as my “offsite brain.”
- When the kids are tempted by some treat that this friend or that aunt eats all the time (“and they haven’t grown three heads yet, Mom…”) we will sit down with the ingredient label and this app. Once they decipher that this ingredient comes from petroleum and that ingredient is another name for a substance that kills their brain cells, they rarely ask for that food again. “Okay, how about an apple, then?”
- And, of course, as a purely educational tool in the supermarket, I’ll sit a child down to research ingredients for things we just don’t want in the house at all. Overhearing our discussion, a woman once stopped mid-stride in the store aisle and asked me if I knew much about GMOs. I was thrilled to have information at my fingertips about the food on the shelves.
What a marvelous time we live in! Yes, food labels are a nightmare to decipher, but then along comes just the right tool to crack that lock. No more eating unspellable seventeen-syllabled-foodlike-substances for us!
As is true of all my posts, I do not accept compensation for my reviews. No one has approached me and requested this review, and I did not receive a “reviewer copy” of the program.
This post is part of Prevention, Not Prescriptions and Real Food Wednesday.
Intelligent Design by jurvetson, on Flickr
If you are fascinated with the science and tech behind nanotechnology, or if you want to know what it is, how it works, what consumer products (nearing 10,000 some estimates say) contain it and why you should care, there is a new site that has all these answers and more.
I was so very excited when @TomPhilpott sent a tweet around:
Small isn’t always beautiful: Everyone should check out Andrew Schnieder’s blockbuster series on nanotech http://www.aolnews.com/category/nanotech/
I rushed right over, but it took me hours to read it all. Schnieder has done just an excellent job laying it all out for us average Joes. I didn’t see where he addressed the scariest issue yet as far as I’m concerned: that nanotech particles cross both the blood/brain barrier, depositing nanotech in your delicate brain and the placental barrier, which can carry these particles to an unborn baby!
So, if you or someone you know wants more information about nanotechnology, at last there is a place to send them for reliable information.
This post is part of Fight Back Fridays, hosted by Food Renegade.
Dear Mr. Colson:
I respectfully take exception to your BreakPoint editorial of March 16, 2010, “Genetically Modified Famine: Ideology and the Poor.” The Institute for Food and Development Policy says that world hunger is not a food production problem, but is a food justice problem. In 2008, enough food was grown globally to feed over 11 billion people—a staggering 4,000 calories per day, roughly twice what a human requires for sustenance.
As Christians, caring for our neighbors is the second great commandment, but seeing to the resources we have been given falls within our purview as stewards as well, and genetically engineered life is proving not to be a good use of our stewardship responsibilities.
Genetically modified crops once appeared to offer great promise, but as the Union of Concerned Scientists explains in its March 2009 study, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields despite twenty years of research and thirteen years of commercialization.
The great increase in genetically modified crops grown for human sustenance and animal feed owes more to the governmental subsidies paid for these crops than to their overall effectiveness as a food source.
That the seeds and the corresponding herbicide and pesticide which permits their growth may only be purchased the same company is telling, as is the agreement farmers must sign to purchase the seed. This contract includes the following onerous provisions:
o Farmers signing this agreement have agreed to waive all of their rights under the Federal Privacy Act.
o Farmers cannot save any seed or provide any seed to others.
o Farmers must allow the manufacturer access to their fields to inspect crops and to determine the farmer’s compliance with the contract.
o There is no time limit to this contract—the company is authorized to examine the farmer’s documents, fields, and crops even after the farmer has stopped using the company’s seed.
o The company will not honor any warrantees if the farmer does not also use the company’s approved chemicals with the company’s GM seeds.
This agreement does nothing to protect farmers or encourage food growth in developing countries; it protects only the profits of the manufacturer.
Perhaps more alarming is that genetically modified organisms are patented life forms according to the U.S. Supreme Court decision Diamond v. Chakrabarty. The company creating the genetically modified seed “owns” the plants created with that seed. This burgeoning monopoly is increasing food scarcity and prices—the price of genetically engineered seed has increased 10% over last year, which will not benefit developing countries in their quest to feed their populations—all while decreasing the safety and security of our food. Indeed, the FDA has put the fox in charge of the henhouse, issuing only a voluntary guidance recommendation on the testing of bioengineered plants by the companies that produce them. In fact, in order to purchase GMO seeds, farmers must agree that no independent testing of the seeds will take place.
Meanwhile, the prospective health dangers of consuming GMOs have been documented since 1989. Herbicide-resistant superweeds are becoming more and more common. The total pesticide and herbicide load on land growing genetically modified crops is far greater than on conventional land and is increasing.
And now that genetically modified and patented plant life has been approved by our government, the next step is to genetically modify and patent animal life, which has already occurred in the case of Canada’s Enviropig. The next logical step down this slippery slope is the genetic engineering and patenting of human life.
Anti-GMO ideology is not exclusive to the political left. Shenandoah Valley farmer and man of faith Joel Salatin is among those leading the fight against GMOs. Salatin’s website says that he is “in the redemption business: healing the land, healing the food, healing the economy, and healing the culture.” This self-styled Christian Libertarian Capitalist Environmentalist Lunatic Farmer is just one of many who believe that what God has created in His wisdom should not be dissected and reassembled for our own selfish reasons; that the food He created for our bodies is profoundly superior to that which we can create in a lab; that His method of food production honors Him and the earth He created far more than the patenting of life for profit. We believe the words of Isaiah 55:10–11 to be instructive:
“As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”
The plant that does not yield seed for the sower but for the seed company returns to the farmer empty. Our growing dependence on GMOs asks the farmer to mortgage his future for the profits of a few.
This post is part of Real Food Wednesdays, hosted by Kelly the Kitchen Kop.
cabinet of food and poison 2 by jessamyn, on Flickr
There are certain species that science looks to as indicator species. When these species first show problems, an alarm is sounded that something is happening that needs our attention. We have several things happening right now in these indicator organisms and how we react is very important.
Alarm #1: Atrazine Causing Sexual Abnormalities in Amphibians
(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2010) A recently published study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that male frogs exposed to the herbicide atrazine can become so completely female that they can mate and lay viable eggs. This latest study adds to the growing scientific evidence which shows that atrazine, one of the most common herbicides used in the U.S., disrupts the development and behavior of aquatic animals, and negatively effects their immune, hormone, and reproductive systems.
Alarm #2: Silver Nanoparticles Lethal to Fathead Minnows
(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2010) Scientists at Purdue University have found that nanosilver that is sonicated or suspended in solution is toxic and even lethal to fathead minnows, an organism that is often used to measure toxicity on aquatic life. The study is the latest research to demonstrate the need for federal regulatory agencies to regulate emerging nanotechnologies as a unique pesticide.
Alarm #3: Pyrethroid Pesticides in Streams Found Toxic to Indicator Species
Pyrethroid insecticides, commonly used to kill ants and other insects around the home, have been found in street runoff and in the outflow from sewage treatment plants in the Sacramento, California area. The insecticide ended up in two urban creeks, the San Joaquin River and a 20-mile stretch of the American River, traditionally considered to be one of the cleanest rivers in the region. Although the pyrethroid levels were low, around 10-20 parts per trillion, they were high enough to kill a test organism similar to a small shrimp that is used to assess water safety.
One thing that strikes me is the incredibly small amount of substance required to cause problems. Two parts per trillion of pyrethroid are enough to paralyze one indicator species.
What does this have to do with real food?
Indicator species are more than just thermometers, taking the chemical overload “temperature” of our environment. They are food for other organisms. Because people are at the top of the food chain, we need to heed these alarms and not just roll our eyes and inwardly giggle about male frogs capable of giving birth.
Kate, my teenaged daughter and I both adore wild-caught Pacific and Alaskan salmon. While developing from egg to fish, salmon feast on amphipoda, small shrimp-like organisms similar to the type killed by pyrethroid. No amphipoda, no salmon. Animals eating large quantities of hermaphroditic amphibians could likewise become ill or damaged, and pass that up the food chain eventually leading to…us. And even if you are a strict vegetarian, these poisons are in the water used to irrigate your crops—yes, even organic crops.
Okay, so what can I do?
Getting rid of the toxic waste in your own home is an essential first step. Avoid antibacterial and antimicrobial products. If you are a germophobe, I recommend Why Dirt is Good: 5 Ways to Make Germs Your Friends by Mary Ruebush. Plain soap is good for washing hands, triclosan, used in antibacterial hand cleaners is a very dangerous chemical. You absolutely do not want an antibacterial cutting board, which leaches chemicals (usually triclosan) into your food with each swipe of the knife. Evidence is emerging that triclosan in our water supply doesn’t break down and that it builds up in the bodies of marine animals to the point that it might be toxic to them. One researcher, after using triclosan-containing products in the course of a normal day, discovered that his body absorbed 2900 times more triclosan after only two days of use.
Next, search your cabinets. Pesticides are not something you want in your everyday living space. There are many good natural remedies for bug infestation which can be located in an internet search. Some might not work for you, but keep trying until you find one that does. You may not like ants in your kitchen but poison on your food is not a good trade-off. And for heaven’s sake, if you must keep poison in the house, please do not store it near food, like in the above photo!
Finally, if you’re a letter-writing, phone-calling type, make your concerns known to the governing bodies that are paid with your tax dollars to protect you. Sign petitions, join associations, bookmark Beyond Pesticides, the Environmental Working Group and Grist.
Caring about the world in which we live has less to do with tree-hugging than with breathing, eating and drinking clean. You should absolutely start with your own body and your family’s health, but please don’t stop there.
This post is part of Prevention, not Prescriptions.
James Cameron by worldchaos81, on Flickr
Avatar made a bit of a splash at the box office this year. Well, okay, maybe more of a tsunami with a domestic gross to date of almost $708,000,000 and a foreign gross of $1,839,000,000. Yup, people worldwide have dropped a two and half billion for two and a half hours of escapism. Wow. Nine Oscar nominations should indicate people are coming away with something of value. Personally, I came away with a headache, and I wasn’t the only one.
This will come as no surprise to some, but 3D movies cause unnatural eye motions and can cause blurred vision and motion sickness, even after you leave the theatre. Mark Pesce describes the process very well:
Since the various movie and television display technologies only offer parallax-based depth cues, your brain basically has to ignore several other cues while you’re immersed in the world of Avatar. This is why the 3D of films doesn’t feel quite right. Basically, you’re fighting with your own brain, which is getting a bit confused. It’s got some cues to give it a sense of depth, but it’s missing others. Eventually your brain just starts ignoring the other cues.
That’s the problem. When the movie’s over, and you take your glasses off, your brain is still ignoring all those depth perception cues. It’ll come back to normal, eventually. Some people will snap right back. In others, it might take a few hours. This condition, known as ‘binocular dysphoria’, is the price you pay for cheating your brain into believing the illusion of 3D. Until someone invents some other form of 3D projection (many have tried, no one has really succeeded), binocular dysphoria will be part of the experience. [emphasis mine]
In the meantime, filmmakers are rushing to get more 3D features on screen because where Hollywood smells blood in the water, the sharks congregate. Avatar‘s massive revenues have sent filmmakers scrambling to retool movies for 3D presentation. Here’s a partial list of major motion pictures scheduled to be released in 3D:
How to Train Your Dragon
Alice in Wonderland, which broke opening weekend grosses, earning $210,300,000 in its first three days.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, parts 1 and 2
Clash of the Titans
Spider-Man 4
Madagascar 3
Priest
Toy Story 3
Shrek Forever After
Tron Legacy
Despicable Me
Beauty and the Beast (reissue)
Guardians of Ga’Hoole
Saw VII
Rapunzel
Cars 2
And many, many more.
Paramount is also talking to JJ Abrams about making the next Star Trek in 3D. In a recent interview, he said, “And, if I, in fact, direct the Star Trek sequel, 3-D could be really fun, so I’m open to it. What I’ve seen of Avatar makes me want to do it because it’s so crazy-cool looking.” Now, asking me to boycott a JJ Abrams film because it is in 3D is beyond the pale. But I can still enjoy the film in its standard presentation, choosing to cast my vote for more of that instead of more brain confusion.
In an attempt to claim the moral high ground, some claim that the profound realism of deep focus (3D) confers more honor upon the natural system of sight than flat presentation. Recent advertisements are touting the advent of 3D in the home with new television technology.
So what does all this have to do with real food?
The Hollywood system is a lot like Big Food in extreme close-up. One super-successful product (in this case, Avatar) changes the way companies do business, even if it costs them more at the outset. They are counting on the new tech to pull in enough customers on its own, irrespective of other factors (writing, directing, acting, editing and distribution). Some customers, citing health problems (binocular dysphoria) complain, but for the most part, the new and exciting tech is able to generate enough buzz (Oscar nominations, but mostly money) to drown out other voices, dismissing them as old-fashioned Luddites. Besides, the tech offers great moral promise (closer to reality). And money rules all: What sells (at the box office) is the template for the next generation of product.
And so it is with food technology: One super-successful product (for example, genetically modified corn) changes the way companies do business, even if it costs them more at the outset. They are counting on the new tech to pull in enough customers on its own, irrespective of other factors (increased pesticide/herbicide use, resistant weeds, the patenting of life forms). Some customers, citing health problems (allergies and the documentation of Jeffrey Smith) complain, but for the most part, the new and exciting tech is able to generate enough buzz (yet unrealized promise of fortune) to drown out other voices, dismissing them as old-fashioned Luddites. Besides, the tech offers great moral promise (feeding the world). And money rules all: What sells (at the grocery store) is the template for the next generation of product.
The good news is that we can turn this system on its head and make it work for us, for our health, for our children and for the future. As the movie Food, Inc. says, we all get three votes a day to change the system. What are you voting for?
individually wrapped and padded produce by oceandesetoiles, on Flickr
A recent article over at The Atlantic about food packaging caught my eye. It starts out with the oft-discussed problems of food packaging: how to create a method of food packaging that protects food for longer times, mechanical handling and further transport without creating a nuisance in the landfill or increasing our dependence on fossil fuels. One possible answer, the author poses, is edible food packaging.
The article takes a sharp turn, though, and raises very serious questions about the form this edible packaging will take. Will the American public be made aware that the packaging they are expected to eat contains nanotechnology? Will proper testing take place?
As Geoff Fary, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, explained on Australian television news, “We just don’t want to take the risk of having these particles released in industry in a fairly unregulated way, only to find that we have reaped an awful harvest 30 years down the track.”
Does all this sound unsettlingly familiar? It should.
Even now, with almost 90 percent of U.S. soy, corn, and cotton grown with genetically modified seeds, skeptics maintain that a creepy technology has been shoved down our throats without proper oversight.
Consider, also, the food safety angle. The more hands processing a food, the more dangerous it tends to be. So your apple leaves the orchard and instead of being shipped to a store distribution center, is sent to a packaging facility. That’s one more step, and several more hours to days of freshness loss. The edible packaging is applied, and the food leaves the processor for the store distribution center. From there, the apple follows the normal course of preparation for sale, with multiple stops and manipulating hands along the way. Even once it reaches the store, unpackers, produce managers and other consumers handle this packaging. And you are going to put that in your mouth? Would you lick the outside of a bread wrapper?
Have you ever heard someone sneeze in a produce department? Okay, the food scientists will say, we’ll add a germ-killer to the packaging. Even if someone sneezes on our food packaging, the germs won’t survive because our super kill-em-all package will render them harmless. Feel better? I don’t. That kill-em-all tech is going into my mouth? My stomach? My gut? What about the good bacteria that lives inside me to help me digest and fight hostile germs? Will that be killed off, too?
Surely, not every food producer will have their own edible packaging facility. This is one more tech that needs to be centralized, thus increasing the danger of terrorism and insecurity to our food supply.
If you hear the caution in my writing, you are hearing correctly. Nanotechnology makes me extremely uncomfortable. Rather than going the route we took with genetically modified foods (that is, “Hey, why not?! Looks good to me!”) to find that we have unleashed a genie into the world we can’t force back into the bottle, we need to approach this new technology with great respect and excessive testing performed by disinterested third parties. That last part is crucial.
In the meantime, while scientists and researchers whose pockets are lined with cash from nanotech companies perform the most possibly skewed testing, throw out negative results and push this new tech into our food, may I offer a suggestion? If you are a long-time reader of this blog, you already know what I’m about to say:
Know your farmer, know your food
Eat food without packaging that you purchase from a source known to you personally. Or, if you’re really a crazed radical (wink, wink), why not try growing your own? Think you don’t have room? How about some inspiration from this Urban Organic Gardener?
I’ll be keeping an eye on the nanotech scene, so drop by again if you’re as fascinated as I!
And if you don’t know why I’m so up-in-arms about nanotech, here are a couple of my past posts on the subject:
Nanosilver: In with the old, in a new way
Lung damage from nanoparticles
This post is part of Fight Back Friday, hosted by Food Renegade.
