AMERICAblog: New Fanken-food is creepier than ever
Indigo
· 1 year ago
"Fanken-food"? You mean "Franken-food." And yes, it's scary. Even if it's safe, it's scary.
donotmakemecomedownthere
· 1 year ago
I think Al Fanken is running in MN.
jr
· 1 year ago
they price gouge on organic food making us buy this shit if we're not wealthy
loona_c
· 1 year ago
I have a new perspective on foods. I've recently been diagnosed with a disease that has damaged my "blood/brain barrier." Meaning things in my bloodstream can get into my brain. I am really watching my diet to avoid chemicals, addiitives, artificial sweeteners, etc. NOW I need to worry about "nano chemicals" getting into my brain? Great.
And that's why some of us do by organic because what can we trust?!
Brad
· 1 year ago
I love my nano-particle nutritional supplements. Been on them for nearly a decade. Wouldn't be without, nor has more than a few days gone by that I've run out of my supply. Nanoparticles in nature are common, though not in the same concentrations I'm enjoying. EDIT adding-- I would expect them to be labeled, since they increase uptake of nutrients and medicine also.
nwithers
· 1 year ago
/rant on
Alright, I need to step in here for a sec, because I actually know what the hell is going on. I'm a graduate student in optoelectronics that is working with colloidal nanoparticles, and recently did a lecture to a bunch of high-school teachers on what nanoparticles are. As hypercafe has said, they are pretty common, the first recipe for nanoparticles was used by the Greeks (although they didn't know that they were using nanotechnology) with a technique for blackening hair that caused Lead Sulfide nanoparticles to form in the hair itself. We have been using silver nanoparticles for about a thousand years with medieval lusterware, and many of the red stained glass pieces of medieval and renaissance churches use gold nanoparticles. Iron oxide nanoparticles have been used as a contrast agent for the liver in MRI scans for the past decade. If you use a sunscreen that has Zinc Oxide or Titanium Oxide in it, and it doesn't go on pasty white, you have just smeared nanoparticles on your skin, and have been doing so for the past five years at least.
Are buckyballs soluble in cell membranes? Yes. Do carbon walled nanotubes cause cellular irritation almost identical to what asbestos fibers do, and probably cause cancer in a similar fashion? Yes and probably yes. But both are formed naturally in soot, and the nanotubes at least are probably a causative agent for cancer in people who breathe the stuff regularly (if the black-lung doesn't get them first). Do we need to look at these guys with the same scrutiny that we look at any new generic chemical, sure. But if you think that the evil nanotechnology is going to eat your brains on this one then you are pants on the head stupid.
/rant off.
*edit*
/rant back on after reading the article.
HOW LARGE DO YOU THINK A SINGLE SCENT/PROTEIN MOLECULE IS??? YEAH!!! NANOMETER SCALE!!! ZOMG THE EVIL MOLECULES!!!! *froth* *foam* *spray spittle*
This guy is a twit, unless you have an irrational fear of random molecules and the biology that you run on, then feel free to ignore this person. "nano-" has been a buzzword in the scientific community for nearly a decade, and is nearly as meaningless as any buzzword that old.
/rant back off
cay
· 1 year ago
If you say "Franken-food" you are ignorant of basic biology, including genetics and digestion. Read a textbook, not random articles. I would rather eat a genetically engineered tomato than one that's susceptible to disease. In the end, my stomach will digest that tomato into simple sugars, nucleotides, et al.
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
Remember the slogan, "Better living through chemistry?" It's been going on for years.
Remember, margarine is only one molecule away from being plastic; Splenda is supposedly the reverse molecules of sugar. I'm not a chemist, of course, but manipulating molecules to make food is somewhat scary.
It seems nature has been doing it right for milennia--would we as a species have survived if it hadn't?--seeds are planted, they get nutrition from the soil with all its minerals, photosynthesis takes place, voila! something to eat for humans and animals. I just don't like slaughtering animals to get what our own bodies produce from eating earth's products, just as many animals do. Cows eating grass or grains are processing vegetation to make their own proteins, and humans do the same thing. So, my question is, why do we need meat in the first place? I think it was the first "fast" food that didn't require planting, tending and harvesting, taking time over months to produce food humans actually digest far better. Much easier to go out and slaughter something than planning ahead and preserving food you've harvested which of course was also developed in different forms, drying, canning, freezing, etc. And no wonder grain was used so extensively as well, easy to store (if somewhat buggy), used to make bread, of course (not the kind we know today), beer, a cereal product (also not the kind we know today), which was drunk by adults and children alike, just fermented grain, it's said it was discovered in Sumaria between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Iraq, anyone?) Beer as breakfast became common as it was for all meals and children drank it as well.
A friend of mine made mead once, from currants or raisins. Foul stuff, but it's also been enjoyed since ancient times. And sugar, except for that naturally occurring in food, was unknown for centuries--honey satisfied the sweet tooth. You've gotta admire our ancestors--they survived for milennia with none of the tinkering with food moderns are doing.
Eclectablog
· 1 year ago
Oh, stop with the "Franken food" stuff. Franken food is genetically-manipulated food, where they tinker with the genetic code of animals and plants to make new types of "life". This is just small-particle versions of the same things you're already eating. Want labeling? Fine. Demand labeling. But don't make yourself look dumb by calling this something it is most decidedly NOT. We can't condemn the Bush administration for using fear/scare tactics to sell their agenda and then turn around and do the same damn thing ourselves. BTW, this is coming from a guy who grows much of his own food (organically) and is a vegetarian.
loona_c
· 1 year ago
Again, I reiterate: I have damage to my blood brain barrier and I want nano stuff labeled. I can't make an informed decision without it! You guys with normal healthy brains can eat all the nanos you want.
Brad
· 1 year ago
Back to remark: "pretty quiet roll-out? Not for lack of trying. Nutritional supplement companies have been promoting nanotech (nanoparticles) as a selling point for years, along with caveats for those on medications to to work with their health-care provider to lower their drug intake commensurately. For myself, it's a comfort to discharge chlorine in tap water before drinking it on the go, which some of these products can do.
All Comments
And that's why some of us do by organic because what can we trust?!
EDIT adding--
I would expect them to be labeled, since they increase uptake of nutrients and medicine also.
Alright, I need to step in here for a sec, because I actually know what the hell is going on. I'm a graduate student in optoelectronics that is working with colloidal nanoparticles, and recently did a lecture to a bunch of high-school teachers on what nanoparticles are. As hypercafe has said, they are pretty common, the first recipe for nanoparticles was used by the Greeks (although they didn't know that they were using nanotechnology) with a technique for blackening hair that caused Lead Sulfide nanoparticles to form in the hair itself. We have been using silver nanoparticles for about a thousand years with medieval lusterware, and many of the red stained glass pieces of medieval and renaissance churches use gold nanoparticles. Iron oxide nanoparticles have been used as a contrast agent for the liver in MRI scans for the past decade. If you use a sunscreen that has Zinc Oxide or Titanium Oxide in it, and it doesn't go on pasty white, you have just smeared nanoparticles on your skin, and have been doing so for the past five years at least.
Are buckyballs soluble in cell membranes? Yes. Do carbon walled nanotubes cause cellular irritation almost identical to what asbestos fibers do, and probably cause cancer in a similar fashion? Yes and probably yes. But both are formed naturally in soot, and the nanotubes at least are probably a causative agent for cancer in people who breathe the stuff regularly (if the black-lung doesn't get them first). Do we need to look at these guys with the same scrutiny that we look at any new generic chemical, sure. But if you think that the evil nanotechnology is going to eat your brains on this one then you are pants on the head stupid.
/rant off.
*edit*
/rant back on after reading the article.
HOW LARGE DO YOU THINK A SINGLE SCENT/PROTEIN MOLECULE IS??? YEAH!!! NANOMETER SCALE!!! ZOMG THE EVIL MOLECULES!!!! *froth* *foam* *spray spittle*
This guy is a twit, unless you have an irrational fear of random molecules and the biology that you run on, then feel free to ignore this person. "nano-" has been a buzzword in the scientific community for nearly a decade, and is nearly as meaningless as any buzzword that old.
/rant back off
Remember, margarine is only one molecule away from being plastic; Splenda is supposedly the reverse molecules of sugar. I'm not a chemist, of course, but manipulating molecules to make food is somewhat scary.
It seems nature has been doing it right for milennia--would we as a species have survived if it hadn't?--seeds are planted, they get nutrition from the soil with all its minerals, photosynthesis takes place, voila! something to eat for humans and animals. I just don't like slaughtering animals to get what our own bodies produce from eating earth's products, just as many animals do. Cows eating grass or grains are processing vegetation to make their own proteins, and humans do the same thing. So, my question is, why do we need meat in the first place? I think it was the first "fast" food that didn't require planting, tending and harvesting, taking time over months to produce food humans actually digest far better. Much easier to go out and slaughter something than planning ahead and preserving food you've harvested which of course was also developed in different forms, drying, canning, freezing, etc. And no wonder grain was used so extensively as well, easy to store (if somewhat buggy), used to make bread, of course (not the kind we know today), beer, a cereal product (also not the kind we know today), which was drunk by adults and children alike, just fermented grain, it's said it was discovered in Sumaria between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Iraq, anyone?) Beer as breakfast became common as it was for all meals and children drank it as well.
A friend of mine made mead once, from currants or raisins. Foul stuff, but it's also been enjoyed since ancient times. And sugar, except for that naturally occurring in food, was unknown for centuries--honey satisfied the sweet tooth. You've gotta admire our ancestors--they survived for milennia with none of the tinkering with food moderns are doing.
For myself, it's a comfort to discharge chlorine in tap water before drinking it on the go, which some of these products can do.