Reply To: Scripts 2015

Forums Herbalist Scripts Scripts 2015 Reply To: Scripts 2015


    Table 1: A sample of food companies engaged in nanotechnology research and development 85,86,87
    • Altria (Mondelez)
    • Associated British
    • Ajinomoto
    • BASF
    • Cadbury Schweppes
    • Campbell Soup
    • Cargill
    • DuPont Food
    Industry Solutions
    • General Mills
    • Glaxo-SmithKline
    • Goodman Fielder
    • Group Danone
    • John Lust Group Plc
    • H.J. Heinz
    • Hershey Foods
    • La Doria
    • Maruha
    • McCain Foods
    • Mars, Inc.
    • Nestle
    • Northern Foods
    • Nichirei
    • Nippon Suisan
    • PepsiCo
    • Sara Lee
    • Unilever
    • United Foods
    Table 2: Food products that may contain
    manufactured nanomaterials 88
    • Almond beverages
    • Candy
    • Cereal
    • Chocolate
    • Chocolate syrup
    • Coffee Creamer
    • Cookies
    • Crackers
    • Cream Cheese
    • Doughnuts
    • Gum
    • Mashed Potatoes
    • Mayonnaise
    • Milk
    • Mints
    • Oils
    • Pasta
    • Popcorn
    • Pudding
    • Rice beverages
    • Salad Dressing
    • Soy
    • Soy beverages
    • Sports Drinks and
    other beverages
    • Yogurt
    Many foods Americans eat on a daily basis contain nanomaterial ingredients (see Table 2 for a list of product types that may include nanomaterials). In 2008, Friends of the Earth released a groundbreaking report on the use of nanomaterials in food, “Out Of the Laboratory and Onto Our Plates:
    Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture.” Six years later, our government has made little progress in protecting the public from these potentially dangerous food ingredients, despite the fact that additional nanofoods continue to be found on the market. ————While the FDA is charged with ensuring “the safety
    and security of our nation’s food supply,” at this time the agency has merely offered nonbinding guidance to industry on the use of nanomaterials in food.89
    However, the FDA’s 2012 draft guidance on the use of nanomaterials in food warns about the different properties of nanomaterials compared to ingredients
    used in traditional manufactured food substances.90 Nevertheless, lack of established regulations allow for 20 nanofood products to remain on the market while the public takes up potential health risks. Friends of the Earth has compiled a list of 87 food and beverage products known to contain nanomaterials (see Table 3 for a list of products that include nanomaterials). We have compiled an additional 79 products since our 2008 report. The number of nanofood products we know to be on the market has grown more than tenfold in six years. —Beyond food, nanomaterials are also found in kitchen equipment, health supplements, some types of agricultural inputs, food contact materials and food packaging,
    as well as in a broad range of other products. The use of nanomaterials in food contact materials, including packaging, cling wrap, storage containers and chopping boards, increases the probability of Nanomaterials are already integrated into food labels that indicate the freshness or temperature of a food product via color-coded display stickers. The company OnVu™ creates “the label
    that makes freshness visible” and is already featured in U.S. supermarkets.
    The OnVu™ Intelligent indicator has been applied onto meat product labels.93,94 nanomaterial ingestion. It is also likely that nanomaterials
    in packaging that is not designed to release chemicals (for example, nanosilver antibacterial food storage containers) will nevertheless migrate from food packaging into foods. Polymers and chemical additives in conventional food packaging are known to migrate from the packaging into food products — such is the case with BPA and phthalates.91,92 Conversely, flavors and nutrients in foods
    and beverages are also known to migrate into plastic packaging, a process known as “flavor scalping.” Nanotechnology is also expected to dramatically expand the use of edible coatings, which will clearly result in increased ingestion of nanomaterials (see nano fruit case study). Nanofood products are also marketed
    for children and babies. Several products are commercially available in the
    form of powdered nutritional drinks (ToddlerHealth and NanoVM®).95,96
    Table 3: Commercially available nanofoods
    Albertsons American Single Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Cheddar Cheese Stick Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Chocolate Syrup Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Chocolate Sandwich Cookies Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Coffee Creamer Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Cream Cheese Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Golden Sandwich Cookies Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Italian Cheese Blend Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Mini MarshMallows Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Mozarella Stick Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Vanilla Pudding Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Albertsons Whipped Cream Albertsons Titanium dioxide
    Best Foods Mayonnaise Unilever Titanium dioxide
    Betty Croker Mashed Potatoes General Mills Titanium dioxide
    Betty Croker Whipped Cream Frosting General Mills Titanium dioxide
    Breathsavers Mints Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Cadbury Milk Chocolate Bar Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Canola Active Oil Shemen Industries Nano-sized self assembled
    structured liquids = micelles
    Carnation Breakfast Nestle Titanium dioxide
    Dentyne Fire Spicy Cinnamon Mondel ez
    International Titanium dioxide
    Dentyne Ice Peppermint Gum Mondel ez
    International Titanium dioxide
    Dickinson’s Coconut Curd Dickinson’s Titanium dioxide
    Eclipse Spearmint Gum Wrigley Titanium dioxide
    Fancy Flake Coconut Spartan Titanium dioxide
    Fiber One Cereal General Mills Titanium dioxide
    General Mills Trix Cereal General Mills Titanium dioxide
    Good and Plenty Candy Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Hershey’s Bliss Dark Chocolate Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Hershey’s Bliss White Chocolate Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Hershey’s Cookie n Cream Bar Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Hershey’s Milk Chocolate Bar Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Hershey’s Special Dark Bar Hershey’s Titanium dioxide
    Table 3: Commercially available nanofoods (continued)
    Hostess Frosted Donettes Hostess Titanium dioxide
    Hostess Powdered Donettes* Hostess Titanium dioxide
    Hostess Twinkies Hostess Titanium dioxide
    Jello Banana Cream Pudding Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Junior Mints Tootsie Titanium dioxide
    Keebler Pepper Jack Crackers Kellogg’s Titanium dioxide
    Knorr Pasta Sides Pasta Unilever Titanium dioxide
    Kool Aid Blue Raspberry Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kool Aid Lemonade Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kraft American Single Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kraft Easy Cheese Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kraft Jet Puffed FunMallows Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kraft Jet Puffed MarshMallows Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kraft Mayo Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kraft Miracle Whip Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kraft Parmesan Cheese Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Kraft Velveeta Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Lays Ranch Seasoning Mix FritoLay Titanium dioxide
    Lindt Milk Chocolate Lindt Titanium dioxide
    Lindt White Chocolate Lindt Titanium dioxide
    M&Ms Chocolate Candy Mars,Inc. Titanium dioxide
    M&Ms Chocolate with Peanuts Mars,Inc. Titanium dioxide
    Maternal Water La Posta del Aguila Silver
    Mentos Freshmint Gum Perfetti Van Melle Titanium dioxide
    Mentos Mints Perfetti Van Melle Titanium dioxide
    MesoGold® Purest Colloids, Inc. Titanium dioxide
    Mini Whoppers Eggs Hershey Titanium dioxide
    Minute Rice Riviana Foods Titanium dioxide
    Mothers Oatmeal Iced Cookies Kellogg’s Titanium dioxide
    Nabisco Chips Ahoy Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Nabisco Oreo Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Nabisco Sugar Free Oreo Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Nanoceuticals™ Slim Shake Chocolate RBC Life Sciences®, Inc. Titanium dioxide
    Table 3: Commercially available nanofoods (continued)
    Nanotea Shenzhen Become Industry &
    Trade Co., Ltd.
    Nano-ball milling procedures
    Nestle French Vanilla Coffee Mate Nestle Titanium dioxide
    Nestle Original Coffee Creamer Nestle Titanium dioxide
    Peeps Marshmallows Born Candy Co. Titanium dioxide
    Philadelphia Cream Cheese Kraft Titanium dioxide
    Pina Colada Sobe South Beach Beverage Co.,Inc. Titanium dioxide
    Powdered donuts* Dunkin’ Donuts Titanium dioxide
    Primea Ring Saeco USA Inc. Silver
    Ragu Classic Alfredo Unilever Titanium dioxide
    Richardson Pastel Mints Richardson’s Titanium dioxide
    Shamrock Farms Fat Free Milk Shamrock Foods Titanium dioxide
    Smuckers Orange Cream Shell Smuckers Titanium dioxide
    Tic Tac Mints Ferrero Titanium dioxide
    Trident White Peppermint Gum American Chicle Titanium dioxide
    Turkey Gravy Titanium dioxide
    Vanilla Milkshake Pop Tarts* Kellogg’s Titanium dioxide
    Vics White Cheddar Popcorn Vic’s Corn Popper Titanium dioxide
    White M&Ms* Mars, Inc. Titanium dioxide
    Wishbone Ranch Dressing Unilever Titanium dioxide
    Note: List based on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ Consumer Products Inventory current as of Feb. 19, 2014.97 However, manufacturers change their product formulation from time to time, and such changes may not be reflected in the database. Friends of the Earth has not conducted tests on these products and cannot guarantee their nanomaterial content; products marked with an asterisk have been found to contain nanomaterials via a laboratory study commissioned by As You Sow in 2013.98
    Edible food coatings
    Manipulation of materials at the nanoscale can allow food scientists to create “edible nanolaminate films” that can be used as barrier layers to prolong shelf
    life. These films can include lipids or clays as moisture barriers; biopolymers, such as carbohydrates, as oxygen and carbon dioxide barriers; or nanoparticulates and emulsified nanodroplets, which could contain active ingredients to improve taste, texture or appearance.99 Antibacterial substances such as nanosilver can also be directly integrated into the edible coating, such as for meat packaging.100 Edible coatings containing engineered nanomaterials
    are reportedly already being used to extend the shelf life of fruit and vegetables in markets in the U.S. and Canada.101 Tests conducted in Central and South American farms and packing stations found a number of fruits with a nano coating, including apples, pears, peppers, cucumbers and other produce that is delivered to the U.S. and Canada.102 24
    Nanomaterials now in commercial use pose serious ecological hazards Nanomaterials used in the agri-food system inevitably enter the environment from waste associated with product manufacture, product use (including ingestion and excretion) or disposal. Furthermore, nanomaterials are being released into the environment intentionally, for example as nano-agrochemicals and nano-feed used on farms. Early studies have demonstrated that nanomaterials already in commercial use pose serious hazards to species like largemouth bass and water fleas (Daphnea magna), which are used by regulators as ecological indicators (see Table 4). Preliminary studies suggest that nanomaterials may accumulate (and possibly even magnify) in organisms along the food chain.103,104 The extent to which nanomaterials will “clump” together in the environment, forming larger particles that may pose reduced toxicity risks, is unknown. The ecological hazards associated with nanotoxicity remain very poorly understood, underscoring the urgent need for further research.105–Friends of the Earth has expressed great concern about the environmental implications of the dramatically expanded use of nanosilver and other antimicrobial nanomaterials in consumer and industrial products.106 Fullerenes,107 nano titanium dioxide, nano zinc oxide,108 nano-silver, single-walled carbon nanotubes109 and other nanomaterials have all been found to have bactericidal properties[F19]. Yet the effects of nanomaterials on microbes, bacteria and fungi — the foundation of all ecosystems — remain poorly understood. Increased commercial use of highly potent anti-bacterial nanomaterials and their increased presence in waste streams could disrupt the functioning of beneficial bacteria in the wider environment, for example those performing nitrification and denitrification in freshwater and the marine environment.110 Nano-antimicrobial agents may also shift into microbial populations and disrupt the functioning of nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with plants.111 Any significant disruption of nitrification, denitrification or nitrogen fixing processes could have serious negative impacts for the functioning of entire ecosystems. There is also a risk that widespread use of antimicrobials will result in greater antibiotic resistance among harmful bacterial populations.112,113 Early studies have demonstrated that nanomaterials already in commercial use pose serious hazards to important aquatic species.
    Experimental evidence of the ecotoxicity of nanomaterials now in commercial use
    Titanium dioxide Nano form used in sunscreens, self-cleaning glass, remediation, widely use in small micro form in foods and cosmetics 30nm Killed water fleas (Daphnea magna)114 which are used by regulators as an ecological indicator species 25nm anatase UV-illuminated TiO2 toxic to algae and water fleas115 Zinc Used in electronics, optoelectronics, gas sensors, sunscreens, cosmetics, food packaging, paint Nanoparticle zinc oxide, size unknown Toxic to algae and water fleas (Daphnea magna)116 Carbon based nanomaterials Carbon black used in tyres, dyes; carbon nanotubes used in specialist car and aeroplane materials and fabrics, potential use in packaging; fullerenes used in cosmetics, potential use in medicines, batteries and electronics C60 fullerenes Water soluble C60 caused brain damage (lipid peroxidation) in juvenile largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)117, used by regulators as an ecological indicator. Subsequent study found tetrahydrofuran (THF)-solubilized fullerenes even more toxic than water solubilised fullerenes, with 100% mortality in the THF-C60-exposed fish between 6 and 18 hours of exposure118 Single walled carbon nanotubes By-products associated with their manufacture cause increased mortality and delayed development of small estuarine invertebrate Amphiascus tenuiremis119 Single-walled carbon nanotubes By-products associated with their manufacture delayed hatching of zebra fish (Danio rerio) embryos120 . C60 fullerenes Killed water fleas (Daphnea magna)121,122 C60 fullerenes and C60HxC70Hx Caused behavioural and physiological changes in water fleas that are associated with increased risk of predation and reproductive decline123 C60 fullerenes Toxic to microbes, inhibits growth and decreases respiration124
    Used in cosmetics, sunscreens, scratch resistant coatings 13nm High levels of exposure stunted root growth in corn, cucumber, soybean, carrot and cabbage crops125 The United Kingdom’s Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering have called for the environmental release of nanomaterials to be “avoided as far as possible,” and for their intentional release to “be prohibited until appropriate research has been undertaken and it can be demonstrated that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.”126 In May 2013, a group of U.S. scientists published the first global assessment of the likely emissions of nanomaterials into the environment and landfills. It was estimated that in 2010, 260,000 to 309,000 metric tons of global nanomaterial production were discarded into landfills (63-91 percent), soils (8-28percent), water bodies (0.4-7 percent), and the atmosphere (0.1-1.5percent). According to the authors, more accurate estimates of nanomaterial emissions were hampered by the lack of available data on use. The annual worldwide market for nanomaterials is estimated to be around 11 million metric ton. By far the largest share of the nanomaterials currently on the market is industrial carbon (85 percent by weight) and silica (12 percent by weight). nanoscale titanium and nano-silver are believed to be the most-used nanomaterials in food and food contact materials[F20].127 As the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks has noted, “the increasing use of Ag-NPs [nanosilver] in consumer and medical applications implies that they will find their way into the environment. The activity that makes them desirable as an antimicrobial agent could also pose a threat to the microbial communities in the environment.”128 Impacts on aquatic ecosystems A recent review of toxicological research on nanometal oxides silver, copper and zinc oxide reported that they are extremely toxic to freshwater aquatic organisms including fish and algae, with crustaceans being most affected.129 Titanium dioxide, one of the most widely used nanomaterials, caused organ pathologies, biochemical disturbances and respiratory distress in rainbow trout.130 Nano titanium dioxide is also toxic to algae and to water fleas, especially after exposure to UV [F21]
    Impacts on soils
    According to a U.S. study, emissions to soils represent as much as a quarter of nanomaterial flows, mostly from the disposal of biosolids onto agricultural land.133 This is troubling because studies have shown that nanomaterials can potentially harm beneficial soil microorganisms, plants, nematodes and earthworms and prevent nitrogen fixation.134,135,136 Another recent U.S. study found that metal and metal oxide nanoparticles accumulate in the soils to which they are applied, rather than aggregating or dissolving, and can be toxic to microorganisms, plants, nematodes and earthworms.137 Similar adverse effects on earthworms have been observed in reaction to other nanoparticles.138 A recent study by Colman et al. found an adverse impact on plants and microorganisms in a long-term field experiment following the application of sewage biosolids containing a low dose of nano-silver.139 The nano-silver treatment led to changes in microbial community composition, biomass and extracellular enzyme activity, and affected some of the aboveground plant species, as well. It also led to an increase in nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes — significant because nitrous oxide is a notorious greenhouse gas, with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Any significant disruption of nitrification, denitrification or nitrogen fixing processes could have negative impacts for the functioning of entire ecosystems. There is also a risk that widespread use of antimicrobials will result in greater antibiotic-resistance among harmful bacterial populations.140
    Bioaccumulation of nanomaterials
    A number of studies have shown that plant species can take up nanomaterials from soils.141 This suggests a potential route for nanomaterials from sewage waste to return to the food chain. A recent report by the European Environment Agency concluded that “the extent to which specific nanomaterials are bioaccumulative or lead to irreversible impact is largely unknown, but the current state of knowledge suggest that the potential exists for such behavior under some circumstances.”142 Risks from pesticides with nanoscale active ingredients The use of pesticides with nanoscale active ingredients may pose particular risks because nanomaterials, which are more potent and behave differently than conventional chemicals, are applied in large quantities and over large areas in industrial agriculture. The term “nanopesticide” covers a wide variety of products and cannot be considered to represent a single category. Many nanoformulations combine several surfactants, polymers and metal nanoparticles in the nanometer size range.143 Conventional agrochemicals, such as pesticides, fertilizers and seed treatments, have already contributed to soil and water pollution, caused significant disturbance of ecosystems and driven a loss of biodiversity.144 It is feared that the broad use of nano-chemicals will exacerbate existing problems. The claim that nano agrochemicals will reduce the overall use of pesticides should be approached sceptically, given similar unfulfilled promises made by many of the same companies in relation to genetically modified crops. Nanotechnology also appears likely to intensify existing trends toward ever-larger industrial-scale farming operations, and an even more narrow focus on producing specialized crops.145,146 This could lead to further losses of agricultural and ecological diversity. The intentional environmental release of nano-agrochemicals is of great concern Nano-formulations of existing agrochemicals may be more reactive, more bioactive and may introduce even more serious environment and health hazards than the conventional agrochemicals they replace. The use of nanoscale agrochemicals is of great concern given the extremely limited understanding
    we have of how nano herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and plant growth treatments will behave in the environment and will affect non-target organisms,
    and the potential for serious eco-nanotoxicological hazards indicated by the small number of studies that has been carried out to date. It appears we are on the verge of repeating many of the mistakes associated with our enthusiastic adoption of conventional agrochemicals, whose long-term health and
    environmental costs are borne by farming communities and ecological systems worldwide. Conventional agrochemicals have polluted soils and
    waterways and have caused substantial disruption to these cosystems.147,148,149 Exposure to agrochemicals has also been linked with greater incidence of cancer and serious reproductive problems among agricultural workers and their families.150,151,152 It is consequently of great concern that nano-agrochemicals are now being used on farms and released into the environment in the absence of regulations that require product manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of new, more potent nanoscale formulations of existing chemicals. Perhaps ironically, there is a large degree of interest in the use of nanomaterials for environmental remediation, including cleanup of toxic plumes associated with past use of agricultural pesticides.153 Dozens of sites in the United States, Europe and elsewhere have already been injected with tens of metric tons of nanoparticles for environmental remediation or waste treatment purposes,154 despite no study having being carried out to assess the efficacy of these experiments and the safety of these nanoparticles for environmentally relevant species.155 There is little published, peer-reviewed information available about the outcomes of these releases; they are, however, of serious concern given early indications that nanomaterials present a whole new range of serious ecological threats.156 The United Kingdom’s Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering have warned that using nanomaterials in remediation of toxic plumes could introduce a whole new set of environmental pollutants that pose even greater ecological hazards. They have called for the environmental release of nanoparticles to be “avoided as far as possible,” and for their intentional release for pollution remediation or other purposes to “be prohibited until appropriate research has been undertaken and it can be demonstrated that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.”157
    Nanobiotechnology and synthetic biology pose even more uncertain hazards
    Next-generation agricultural nanoproducts — crops manipulated using nanobiotechnology, for example, or synthetic biology organisms developed to assist in the production of biofuels — will present even more complex ecological hazards than those associated with nano-agrochemicals. Genetic engineering is a technology that transfers genes from one species to another in a way that does not occur naturally. As nanoparticles are now being used by biotechnologists as a new tool for genetic engineering of plants and animals, many of the potential ecological hazards associated with nanobiotechnology-manipulated crops mirror those associated with genetically engineered organisms. [F23]These include the potential for use of herbicide-tolerant, insect- or virus-resistant crops to result in: increased weediness of wild relatives; development of herbicide/insect/ virus resistance among crops; negative impact on animal populations through reduced food availability; development of more virulent and difficult-to-control viruses; toxicity to non-target species; ecosystem-level disruption as a result of any or all of these.158 Despite the rapid commercial expansion of GE crops and the failure of the industry to prevent widespread genetic contamination of GE-free crops,159 the ecosystem-level impacts of genetic engineering remain very poorly understood. Batie observes that whereas research has demonstrated that GE crops can adversely impact lacewings, monarch butterflies, ladybugs and soil biota, and modelling has predicted a dramatic decline in the European skylark if there is widespread adoption of GE herbicide-tolerant sugar beets, it could take decades of larger-scale ecological monitoring to identify the ecosystem impacts of GE crop use.160 And our capacity to identify GE crop-driven ecological change is undermined by the wholly inadequate monitoring of environmental effects at field or ecosystem scales.161 In addition to the potential environmental hazards, there is also concern that aggressive global marketing of a small number of high-tech crops will result in further displacement of regional crop varieties, and further erosion of agricultural diversity. Moreover, herbicide-tolerant and pesticide-exuding crops not only entrench our dependence on toxic
    chemicals for farm management, they are also likely to reduce on-farm biodiversity, for example among beneficial insects and birds. Reliance on crops
    designed to withstand greater applications of agrochemicals, or to themselves exude pesticides, takes us further from establishing the ecologically safe
    integrated pest management systems that characterize organic and agro-ecological farming models. The environmental and biosafety risks associated
    with the emerging field of synthetic biology are even harder to quantify, let alone control. Synthetic biology is an extreme form of genetic engineering, in which scientists write entirely new genetic code on a computer, “print” it out and then insert it into organisms to serve specific functions. Synthetic biology organisms are being developed for agriculture, biofuels and energy production, nutraceuticals and food processing, carbon sequestration, environmental remediation, medicine, manufacturing and military applications, among others.162 Many synthetic biology organisms are being developed for intentional environmental release. The wide-scale and worldwide genetic contamination of both GE-free crops and GE-free food processing163 highlight the difficulties of preventing contamination in an industry that involves self-replicating organisms and millions of people. It suggests that we will fail in attempts to contain synthetic biology organisms. accidentally, synthetic biology organisms could present a range of serious ecological hazards. These include the potential for disruption, displacement or infection of other species; alteration of the environment in which they were introduced, to the extent that ecosystem function is compromised; and establishment within a system such that they become impossible to eliminate.164 Many synthetic biologists working with fairly simple genetic circuits report rapid mutation of the circuits as a key challenge
    to their work. The potential for synthetic biology organisms released into the environment to mutate in unpredictable ways is of great concern. For example, the worst-case scenario of an accidental introduction into the environment of a synthetic biology organism designed to turn corn waste into
    ethanol could be catastrophic. Nanotechnology in agriculture and food
    production has broader environmental costs Perhaps the most insidious environmental impact associated with the expansion of nanotechnology
    in agriculture is its entrenching our reliance on the dominant chemical-intensive industrial agricultural model. Nanotechnology will intensify the key
    characteristics of this agricultural model, including trends toward ever-larger farming operations, an even narrower focus on producing specialized
    crops, further loss of agricultural and ecological diversity, an even greater dependence on chemical inputs and an even more atomized approach to
    farm management. The net result will be that we move further from real farming, where a key emphasis is maintaining and enhancing agricultural and ecological diversity, and an agricultural alternative which has been demonstrated to deliver
    a range of other environmental benefits, including reduced use of water and fossil fuel energy, higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, and reduced soil
    erosion. Moreover, 60 international experts at the United Nations agree that “the world currently already produces sufficient calories per head to feed a global population of 12 to 14 billion.”165 The UN’s research confirms that “hunger and malnutrition are not phenomena of insufficient physical supply, but results of prevailing poverty, and above all problems of access to food.”166 According to a 2013 report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, “there is no informed, broad-based constituency to support regulating ENMs [engineered nanomaterials] in fertilizers and biosolids to protect soil health and soil
    biodiversity.”167 The expansion of nanotechnology in food processing and packaging will also result in a higher ecological footprint as food travels farther and is even more highly processed, requiring ever greater energy inputs. The United States agri-food system already uses more than 10,551 quadrillion Joules of energy each year, as much as France’s total annual energy consumption. Agriculture — growing food — accounts for only 20 percent of this; 80 percent of
    the energy is used to move, process, package, sell and store food after it leaves the farm.168 Incredibly, processing breakfast cereals requires 3,232 kilo-
    calories per kilogram — five times the energy contained in the cereal itself.169 Nano foods will be even more highly processed than today, requiring even greater energy inputs to produce. Similarly, nano food packaging, which has a primary goal of extending the shelf life of packaged food, will inevitably encourage manufacturers to transport food over even greater distances, resulting in an increase in food transport-related greenhouse gas emissions.
    TOP A
    [F1]Never Use anything nano—the other thing that happens it can be incorporated with other metals at that scale and size and cause unwanted distortions and mutations in the body
    [F2]Realistically no one knows what they are really eating unless it is grown yourself
    [F3]This is unrealistic –if they are not going to lable GMO foods —saying the public is to stupid to be able to know the difference the same logic is going to go here —this is about population control and regulating the level of poisonous or harmul materials one can consume
    [F4]The article is out dated a little—even the fresh foods are being sprayed with nano silver causing them to saturate the body internally into the brain and lungs liver and spleen and tissues throughout the body —so eat as clean as possible and use as much as required in peeling and cleansing your foods as well
    [F5]The organic label is BS today and has been for quite some time and if nano is on the fields then it will be in the organics as well via chemtrails and the spraying—once released this can cause issues on all farming—grow your own
    [F6]2 differing measurements
    [F7]this is where some companies get the idea that nano is safe due to this definition
    [F8]This is implying strongly that the more they are in an environment over a big area the more activity is going to happen—this also appears to be double speech here with the above articles mentioning the dangers of the nm size here thay are almost going to full accept it when the previous article showed how dangerious they are
    [F9]Still think the health food industry is healthy
    [F10]These are highly reactive —with the chemtrails being dumped on us with nano particles and th food supply allowing more aluminum to being spread this would further exasperate the nano bio attack on the body
    [F11]This is what makes these things so dangerous —they accumulate and then replicate —with every cell they choke out they further saturate the tissues and organs
    [F12]Another metal saturating the colon causing colon alterations and cellular death
    [F13]Nano particles can reach Intestinal and blood and other organs!!
    [F14]One of the components in chemtrails
    [F15]The characteristics of nanoparticles that are relevant for health effects are:
    Size – In addition to being able to cross cell membranes, reach the blood and various organs because of their very small size, nanoparticles of any material have a much greater surface to volume ratio (i.e. the surface area compared to the volume) than larger particles of that same material. Therefore, relatively more molecules of the chemical are present on the surface. This may be one of the reasons why nanoparticles are generally more toxic than larger particles of the same composition.
    Chemical composition and surface characteristics – The toxicity of nanoparticles depends on their chemical composition, but also on the composition of any chemicals adsorbed onto their surfaces. However, the surfaces of nanoparticles can be modified to make them less harmful to health.
    Shape – Although there is little definitive evidence, the health effects of nanoparticles are likely to depend also on their shape. A significant example is nanotubes, which may be of a few nanometres in diameter but with a length that could be several micrometres. A recent study showed a high toxicity of carbon nanotubes which seemed to produce harmful effects by an entirely new mechanism, different from the normal model of toxic dusts.
    [F16]Nano in the food—wonder where that comes from===pollution? Spraying the fields with nano silver—CHEMTRAILS???
    [F17]How they cause the damage to the colon and digestive system
    [F18]Anyone want a diet in aluminum—and beware a lot of health guru’s promote cleanser that have these in them
    [F19]Will kill off the bacterial properties required for the flora to grow and for the animals and us to have the right nutrition—without bacteria nothing grows or can be assimilated
    [F20]These 2 are the worse ones for male sterility and testicular cancr
    [F21]This is also part of the chemtrails
    [F22]This we are already seeing with glyphosates
    [F23]This will be called a nano biofilm—extremely dangerous once out hard to recall back
    Standards for Maple syrup.
    (TEXT EFFECTIVE UNTIL CONTINGENCY: See PL 2013, c. 117, §3) Maple syrup grades. The following grades are established as the official maple syrup grade standards for the State.
    A. “Grade A Light Amber” means pure maple syrup that is free of any material other than pure, clear liquid maple syrup in sanitary condition; has a color no darker than the federal Department of Agriculture’s visual color standard light amber or has a color for light transmittance not less than 75.0%Tc; has a delicately sweet, original maple flavor; and has a density of at least the equivalent of 66.0° Brix at 60° Fahrenheit Modulus 145. Grade A Light Amber maple syrup must be free of sugar crystals and may not be damaged in any way. [1991, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]
    B. “Grade A Medium Amber” means pure maple syrup that is free of any material other than pure, clear liquid maple syrup in sanitary condition; has a color no darker than the federal Department of Agriculture’s visual color standard medium amber or has a color for light transmittance between the range of 74.9%Tc to 60.5%Tc; and may have a flavor that is more pronounced than that of Grade A Light Amber, but that is not strong or unpleasant. Grade A Medium Amber must meet the density requirement of Grade A Light Amber. Grade A Medium Amber maple syrup must be free of sugar crystals and may not be damaged in any way. [1991, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]
    C. “Grade A Dark Amber” means pure maple syrup that is free of any material other than pure, clear liquid maple syrup in sanitary condition; has a color no darker than the federal Department of Agriculture’s visual color standard dark amber or has a color for light transmittance between the range of 60.4%Tc to 44.0%Tc; and may have a flavor that is stronger than that of Grade A Medium Amber, but that is not sharp, bitter, buddy or off-flavor. Grade A Dark Amber must meet the density requirement of Grade A Light Amber. Grade A Dark Amber maple syrup must be free of sugar crystals and may not be damaged in any way. [1991, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]
    D. “Grade A Extra Dark Amber” means pure maple syrup that is free of any material other than pure, clear liquid maple syrup in sanitary condition; has a color for light transmittance between the range of 43.9%Tc to 27.0%Tc; and may have a flavor stronger than Grade A Dark Amber. Grade A Extra Dark Amber must meet the density requirements of Grade A Light Amber. Grade A Extra Dark Amber maple syrup must be free of sugar crystals and may not be damaged in any way. [1991, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]
    E. “Commercial Grade” means pure maple syrup that is free of any material other than pure, clear liquid maple syrup in a sanitary condition; has a color for light transmittance less than 27.0%Tc; and may have a strong flavor. Commercial Grade maple syrup must be free of sugar crystals and may not be damaged in any way. Commercial Grade maple syrup may not be placed in packaged maple syrup containers and may not be sold, offered for sale or exposed for sale as packaged maple syrup. [1991, c. 326, §2 (NEW).]
    F. “Substandard” means bulk maple syrup that fails to meet the requirements of any other grade. Such syrup may not be placed in packaged maple syrup containers and may not be sold, offered for sale or exposed for sale as packaged maple syrup.
    Widely used food additive promotes colitis, obesity and metabolic syndrome, research shows
    Published: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 – 15:38 in Health & Medicine
    Georgia State University
    Don Morris
    Dr. Benoit Chassaing
    Emulsifiers[F1], which are added to most processed foods to aid texture and extend shelf life, can alter the gut microbiota composition and localization to induce intestinal inflammation that promotes the development of inflammatory bowel disease and metabolic syndrome, new research shows. The research, published Feb. 25 in Nature, was led by Georgia State University Institute for Biomedical Sciences’ researchers Drs. Benoit Chassaing and Andrew T. Gewirtz, and included contributions from Emory University, Cornell University and Bar-Ilan University in Israel.—Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, afflicts millions of people and is often severe and debilitating. Metabolic syndrome is a group of very common obesity-related disorders that can lead to type-2 diabetes, cardiovascular and/or liver diseases. Incidence of IBD and metabolic syndrome has been markedly increasing since the mid-20th century.–The term “gut microbiota” refers to the diverse population of 100 trillion bacteria that inhabit the intestinal tract. Gut microbiota are disturbed in IBD and metabolic syndrome. Chassaing and Gewirtz’s findings suggest emulsifiers might be partially responsible for this disturbance and the increased incidence of these diseases.–“A key feature of these modern plagues is alteration of the gut microbiota in a manner that promotes inflammation,” says Gewirtz.–“The dramatic increase in these diseases has occurred despite consistent human genetics, suggesting a pivotal role for an environmental factor,” says Chassaing. “Food interacts intimately with the microbiota so we considered what modern additions to the food supply might possibly make gut bacteria more pro-inflammatory.”–Addition of emulsifiers to food seemed to fit the time frame and had been shown to promote bacterial translocation across epithelial cells. Chassaing and Gewirtz hypothesized that emulsifiers might affect the gut microbiota to promote these inflammatory diseases and designed experiments in mice to test this possibility.–The team fed mice two very commonly used emulsifiers[F2], polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulsose, at doses seeking to model the broad consumption of the numerous emulsifiers that are incorporated into almost all processed foods. They observed that emulsifier consumption changed the species composition of the gut microbiota and did so in a manner that made it more pro-inflammatory. The altered microbiota had enhanced capacity to digest and infiltrate the dense mucus layer that lines the intestine, which is normally, largely devoid of bacteria. Alterations in bacterial species resulted in bacteria expressing more flagellin and lipopolysaccharide, which can activate pro-inflammatory gene expression by the immune system. Such changes in bacteria triggered chronic colitis in mice genetically prone to this disorder, due to abnormal immune systems. In contrast, in mice with normal immune systems, emulsifiers induced low-grade or mild intestinal inflammation and metabolic syndrome, characterized by increased levels of food consumption, obesity, hyperglycemia and insulin resistance.–The effects of emulsifier consumption were eliminated in germ-free mice, which lack a microbiota. Transplant of microbiota from emulsifiers-treated mice to germ-free mice was sufficient to transfer some parameters of low-grade inflammation and metabolic syndrome, indicating a central role for the microbiota in mediating the adverse effect of emulsifiers.–The team is now testing additional emulsifiers and designing experiments to investigate how emulsifiers affect humans. If similar results are obtained, it would indicate a role for this class of food additive in driving the epidemic of obesity, its inter-related consequences and a range of diseases associated with chronic gut inflammation.–While detailed mechanisms underlying the effect of emulsifiers on metabolism remain under study, the team points out that avoiding excess food consumption is of paramount importance.–“We do not disagree with the commonly held assumption that over-eating is a central cause of obesity and metabolic syndrome,” Gewirtz says. “Rather, our findings reinforce the concept suggested by earlier work that low-grade inflammation resulting from an altered microbiota can be an underlying cause of excess eating.”–The team notes that the results of their study suggest that current means of testing and approving food additives may not be adequate to prevent use of chemicals that promote diseases driven by low-grade inflammation and/or which will cause disease primarily in susceptible hosts.-This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America.-Source: Georgia State University
    [F1]Food emulsifiers act as an interface between the conflicting components of food like water and oil.
    While preparing the food, often conflicting natural components of food have to be combined into a consistent and pleasing blend. Each component of food (carbohydrate, protein, oil and fat, water, air, etc.) has its own properties which are sometimes conflicting to one another just like oil and water. To make the two components compatible, emulsifiers are used.——————- What is an Emulsifier?
    An emulsifier is a molecule with one oil-friendly and one water-friendly end. Water friendly end in food emulsifier is called hydrophilic tail and oil-friendly end is called hydrophobic head. Food emulsifiers are also called emulgents. In this way droplets of oil are surrounded by the emulsifier molecule, with the oil core hidden by the water-friendly tails of the emulsifier. A classic natural emulsion is milk, which is a complex mixture of fat suspended in an aqueous solution. Nature’s emulsifiers are proteins and phospholipids (lipids means fat soluble phosphate is water soluble). Egg is commonly used as an emulsifier. Some emulsifiers also act as anti-caking agents like Magnesium Stearate, Sodium, potassium and calcium salts of fatty acids. Few others like Sorbitan monostearate are emulsifier as well as stabilizer
    The most frequently used raw materials for emulsifiers include palm oil, rapeseed oil, soy bean oil, sunflower oil or lard/tallow. Egg happens to be the oldest emulsifier. Basic emulsifier production involves combining oil (triglyceride) with glycerol that results in monoglyceride. The type of triglyceride used in the reaction determines the type of emulsifier obtained. Unsaturated triglycerides produce fluid products such as oil while saturated triglycerides result in pasty or solid structures like butter. Monoglycerides can be combined with other substances, such as citric acid and lactic acid, in order to increase their emulsifying properties. Food drugs and cosmetics and pigment emulsions also require one or other kind of emulsifier.
    On the basis of their hydrophilic groups, there are basically four categories
    Food Emulsifier
    Egg Yolk emulsifying agent lecithinShow of the Month March 2015
    Soy lecithin
    CSL Calcium Stearoyl Di Laciate
    PolyGlycerol Ester (PGE)
    Sorbitan Ester (SOE)
    PG Ester (PGME)
    Sugar Ester (SE)
    Monoglyceride (MG)
    Acetylated Monoglyceride (AMG)
    Lactylated Monoglyceride (LMG)