
According to an article that appeared yesterday in British newspaper, The Guardian, the newest frontier in food is in the area of nanofood development. With nanotechnology, food could be manipulated to taste great, be low-fat and last forever, because it alters the food on an atomic level. For all the potential good this science could do, researchers are hesitant to move too far forward this work. Their reservations are due, in large part, to the backlash that genetically modified foods have received in recent years.
It's a lengthy article, with far more detail that I can neatly summarize here. It's eye-opening, in part because the possibilities are appealing and frightening. I personally believe that we should leave food alone, as it seems that every time we start messing with our food, we make the situation worse not better. However, with the food supply uncertainties we may in the years to come, it makes me wonder how science could help feed the world.
[via The Morning News]











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-27-2008 @ 2:14PM
Baron said...
What modifications of our food (I suppose we are speaking of plants in particular, though I have not made it to the article yet) have we made that outweighs the good the modification has done? Unless the store is out of regular food and I am forced to buy organic, I doubt I eat much of anything that isn't modified in some form or fashion.
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 8:19PM
jackiecat said...
Good question. I'm wary of modified foods and think we should go slowly and test every step.
Reply
3-27-2008 @ 10:18PM
ruth Foster said...
I was just watching a show on the
science Channel (I think it was) and they were discussing the case of extinct food varieties. I guess I'm the last to know that remote, ice-terrain depositories are being developed to keep all the currently available strains of different seed foods for posterity. In case of extreme emergency. What does that have to do with our food now? Well, it would seem that several (if not many) ancient seed varieties could save our food supply if and when new enemies to our food supplies arise. For instance, the show mentioned that wheat had been saved by a very old, ugly variety of wheat that no one would ever grow on purpose. It seems that this particular strain had biological defenses to a current wheat disease that no one had before been able to protect it from completely. It gives me pause to think about what we are doing to our food by modifying it with abandon. We didn't develop to this stage without having certain compatible food varieties. So we may really be doing ourselves a lot of future harm with the GMA's. And it is sad that not only so many animals go extinct, but so do plants - many of which could save our future crops. Of course, one could argue that the strain that saved a crop was genetically modified INTO the current variety. I don't really have an answer to this except to say - we should really leave all our options open - we may need them.
Reply
3-30-2008 @ 12:20PM
Sean said...
"What modifications of our food (I suppose we are speaking of plants in particular, though I have not made it to the article yet) have we made that outweighs the good the modification has done?"
Well cooking for one. Other modifications would include fermentation, preserving of various kinds (with brines, canning, flash freezing, processing), cheese making, tofu/soymilk/tempeh, and thousands of other examples. Even the simple act of cutting food into smaller sizes to make it easier to eat and digest is an act of modification (and it has biological significance in terms of insulin response among other things). It seems people are weary of employing 21st century science to food even when there is a rich cultural legacy of utilizing science stretching back thousands of years. I would argue for a cautious exploration and application of these technologies. I for one would love effectively fat free potato chips.
Reply
4-01-2008 @ 2:08PM
MJ said...
This looks so good reminds me of childhood.
Reply