New frontiers in Frankenfoods

[Guest guest]

" The Lord sends food, but the Devil sends cooks . . . "

 

[hsibaltimore.com]

 

Dear Reader,

 

Why don't we drink pig milk?

 

We could. Apparently it's very nutritious. But pigs are really hard to

milk. They just won't stay still and behave. So…no pig milk, unless

you go out there and milk them yourself.

 

What got me thinking about pig milk is this sentence from a recent FDA

News release: " Milk from clones of cattle, swine, and goats, and the

offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are

as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. "

 

Swine milk. Who knew?

 

Of course, the REAL news in that sentence is the decision by FDA

scientists that milk and meat from cloned animals is " …as safe to eat

as food from conventionally bread animals. "

 

Notice, they don't actually say it's " safe, " but rather " as safe. " And

knowing what we know about animals conventionally bread for food

(abnormally fattened in abysmal factory farms and shot full of growth

hormones and antibiotics), that's far from a ringing endorsement.

 

Of course, cloning is just another way to genetically modify a food

source, and genetically modified (GM) food has been on grocery shelves

for years. Executives for corporations that produce these foods assure

us that their products are perfectly safe, but there's plenty of

research that indicates we won't really know just how safe they are

until quite a bit more testing is done.

 

Meanwhile – eat up! And while you enjoy your " meal " (such as it is),

I'll tell you about another unsettling food " enhancing " technique that

scientists have dreamed up.

-----------

Think small…really small

-----------

If you've never heard of nanotechnology – or even if you have – you

might find it nearly impossible to conceive of something on the nano

scale.

 

A human hair is about 100,000 nanometers wide. In nanotechnology, matter

is controlled on a scale as small as one nanometer, but no larger than

100 nanometers. The smallest nanomachines are so small that some of

their parts are made up of single molecules. (If you Google

" nanotechnology " you'll find some amazing images of nanomachinery.)

 

Now…how do you feel about food manufacturers using nanoadditives in

spices to keep them from getting lumpy? Or how would you feel about

using nanoparticles to extend the amount of time that food looks

appealing?

 

When a German risk assessment company asked those questions of European

consumers, you can imagine the response. Nearly 70 percent said they

didn't want nanoadditives in spices, and more than 80 percent said no to

using nanoparticles to spiff up the way food looks.

 

The president of the risk assessment company told NutraIngredients-USA

that consumers use emotional criteria rather than facts when judging

nanotechnology. And that's probably a good thing for nanotechnologists,

because if consumers knew the facts they might judge this new technology

more harshly.

 

For instance – here's a headline from a 2006 LiveScience article:

" Scientists Worry About Potential Risks of Nanotechnology in Food "

 

So do you suppose the worry among SCIENTISTS is caused by emotional

criteria or facts?

-----------

Messing with DNA

-----------

In the 1980s, scientists created synthetic carbon nanoparticles they

named buckyballs. Hey! Sounds like fun! But when Duke University

scientists placed buckyballs in a laboratory aquarium, they prompted

brain damage in largemouth bass. And even worse: Buckyballs might harm

DNA.

 

Okay…maybe that's not so fun.

About two years ago, LiveScience interviewed Peter Cummings, the

director of the Nanomaterials Theory Institute at the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory.

 

Professor Cummings (who teaches chemical engineering at Vanderbilt

University) told LiveScience about a buckyball simulation he designed

with NTI colleagues.

 

Prof. Cummings: " We found, somewhat surprisingly, that these buckyballs

bond quite strongly to both double-stranded and single-stranded DNA.

They bond strongly enough that they distort the structure of DNA. " He

added that buckyballs insert themselves in a way that prevents the DNA

from self-repairing.

 

Suddenly, a cloned pork chop doesn't seem quite as disturbing as finding

a buckyball in my soup.