No to nanotechnology?

Nano? No, no, no! A leading expert on organic farming warns against 'grey goo' technology

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243717/Nano-No-no-A-leading-expert-organic-farming-warns-grey-goo-technology.html#ixzz0cqY2Ouau
Listening to Lord Krebs speak of 'low-calorie chocolate and beer that would never go flat' last week, one could be forgiven for feeling a sense of déjà vu.

These were just some of the wonders that the former head of the Food Standards Agency informed us one could look forward to with the 'explosive growth' of the use of nanotechnology - dubbed 'grey goo' when it was first condemned by Prince Charles - in our food industry.

Not that the average consumer will be aware of the presence of these nanoparticles. Delivering the House of Lords' Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on nanotechnology, Lord Krebs said he and other peers see no requirement for products containing these microscopic compounds to be labelled.

Nanotechnology involves whittling common materials down to the size of microscopic particles, allowing them to acquire unusual properties. Nanofood is food in which nanotechnology is used during its cultivation, production, processing or packaging. The techniques can be employed to reduce fat, salt or sugar levels, enrich food with supplements or sometimes extend a product's shelf-life.

We have stood on the brink of this 'brave new world' of food technology before, when turkey twizzlers seemed the last word in sophistication and the future was full of the endless, still unfulfilled promises of the GM industry.

And it is a vision that has been rejected - vociferously - before, not least by leading scientists who advised the Government that the release of nanoparticles should be, 'avoided as far as possible'.

As consumers we have already made our feelings known. Thanks in part to this paper's campaigning, GM has been kept out of British food. As a nation, our whole approach to food has moved steadily away from the laboratory to the allotment.

There is growing support for local and seasonal food; food with no, or fewer, pesticides and additives; a desire to know who produced our food, how it was grown or reared and what, if anything, artificial it contains through clear labelling.

Yet still Lord Krebs believes that nanotech has a vital role to play in making our food 'healthier and tastier' and that the food industry's job is to make sure the public accepts a 'technology that is coming down the tracks'.

The truth is that there is little scientific understanding about how these substances affect living organisms, and initial studies show negative effects. Which is precisely why the select committee's report must be used as a chance to review what we do, and what we do not, know about it.

That alone should be enough to convince most people that there is no place for nanoparticles in health and beauty products or food.

Giving evidence to the Lords committee, Vyvyan Howard, Professor of Bio-imaging at the University of Ulster, said that when materials are converted into artificially-small, mobile nanoparticles, they become more mobile within the body. Nanoparticles can get through cell walls in the same way viruses do.

Most worryingly, research has demonstrated that if you expose animals or humans to nanoparticles, the particles can travel through the body, crossing things such as the blood-brain barrier which has evolved to keep molecules that we do not want out of our brains. In this way, Professor Howard says, nanoparticles can act as a Trojan horse, allowing potentially damaging chemicals into vulnerable areas of our bodies.

It is not too alarmist to suggest that the consequences could be fatal. There is a series of diseases called 'protein misfolding diseases', mostly occurring in the central nervous system, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and spongiform encephalopathy.

If we are exposed to large doses of nanomaterials, and they are able to get into areas like the brain, Prof Howard believes they might be able to increase the rate of protein misfolding diseases.

There is now, he says, 'firm evidence that some engineered nanoparticles entering intravenously or via lungs can reach the brains of small animals'. That alone should be enough to convince us that there is no place for nanoparticles in health and beauty products or food.

Indeed, last year we learned that nanoparticles added to sun creams are being investigated for just such links. Of the £5.5billion invested in nanotechnology globally each year, much goes into the development of cosmetics and health products.

In spite of this danger, we are being asked to accept their use in our foods. It should be quite clear, as Prof Howard stated, that 'when something is brand new. . . like some of the chemicals that we have created that bio-accumulate and persist and that have hormone-disrupting capabilities - you have to take a precautionary stance'.

The Government's failure to follow scientific advice and regulate nanotech products is inexcusably negligent.

While the UK Government turns a blind eye to the risks, the European Commission is reviewing EU laws that control the use of nanoparticles to ensure regulations are strong enough to cope with their unusual properties.

But although the risks are known, and have been widely acknowledged by the most eminent scientific bodies, the Washington-based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies has found that there are currently 84 foods or food-related products that use nanotechnology.

The food industry says none is manufactured in the UK, but with no labelling required, we simply cannot know. We may already be eating them - as the Lords committee admits, 'we are not clear what is out there in use at the moment'.

Five years ago, when top scientists advised in the strongest possible terms to avoid the use of nanoparticles, the Government acknowledged the risk but took no action.

Two years ago, the Soil Association banned the use of man-made nanomaterials from all our certified organic health and beauty products and textiles, as well as organic food. We are the first organisation in the world to take this action to safeguard public health.

I am well aware that the usual reaction to pleas for caution, for putting public safety first, is that public interest groups are anti-technology Luddites. But it isn't progress that we are against, nor science. The very basis for our opposition is science.

It is the continued drive towards nanotechnology that is outdated. Scientists working for big food companies started developing their nanotech ideas many years ago. Then it was still possible to believe that the future of food would be high-tech, that fast food would soon simply involve swallowing a little pink pill.

Nanotech food was part of a nightmarish vision for the future of global farming and food. Some thought that GM and nanotechnology were the keys to overcoming the multiple problems of falling yields from artificial fertiliser and pesticide-laden crops, continuing hunger and starvation, obesity and an increasing scarcity of the raw materials, such as oil, on which nonorganic food depends.

Food would be brewed in vast vats using GM ingredients, with added nanotech nutrients and vitamins. Scientists believed that the world could continue dramatic increases in dairy and meat consumption, even if the milk and steaks of the future actually came from laboratories, not cows.

Indeed, this vision relies on the greatest possible disconnection between farming and the public. That is why GM companies like Monsanto consistently oppose labelling of GM food, and why the Lords' report says that while consumers can expect to have access to information about the food they eat, 'blanket labelling of nanomaterials on packages is not, in our view, the right approach to providing information about the application of nanotechnologies'.

Thankfully, over the 20 years in which nanotech food has been on the drawing board, our food culture has started to change. No one wants a pharmaceutical approach to meals; that has been replaced by a desire for Fairtrade coffee, cereal and toast for breakfast. Most people value food that we grow or buy fresh, prepare ourselves and take time to eat with our friends of family. Nanotechnology is no longer a bold step forward, it is entirely retrograde.

The Soil Association is proud of its record for speaking up for the public good. We banned feeding cows' brains to other cows because it felt wrong to us, even though there was no scientific evidence to back our concern at the time. Many years later Mad Cow Disease was identified. We banned GM because of clear scientific uncertainties and risks and because it conflicts with organic values. All the recent evidence shows that there is a much greater health risk with GM foods than some scientist originally claimed.

We already know that this is the case with nanotechnology. In this the public's gut instincts are right and should be heeded.

Arizona and Yuma consider budget impact

Yuma lawmakers, officials consider budget impact


With the announcement of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's budget for fiscal year 2011, local lawmakers and officials are reacting to what could mean major changes for the Yuma area.

The governor and lawmakers are faced with a daunting task: to balance the current fiscal year 2010 budget with an estimated $1.4 billion shortfall and an even greater estimated $3.2 billion budget shortfall for 2011.

According to a letter to legislators Friday, the recession and Arizona government's structural deficit have combined to devastate the state's finances.

"Revenues have declined for three consecutive years, and, for FY 2010, they are projected to be 34 percent less than in FY 2007," she said in the letter. "While revenues have decreased sharply, we have had to accommodate enrollment growth in our K-12, community college and university systems; extraordinary mandated growth in our Medicaid population; and continued obligations for public safety and general governmental services."

With her version of the 2011 budget out, local lawmakers and officials are thinking about the changes that could affect Yuma.

One of the proposed changes would have counties housing juvenile offenders, which according to the governor's budget would save the state $63.3 million.

Yuma County Administrator Robert Pickels said that proposed cut would be among the ones to impact Yuma County the greatest.

"We're still kind of sorting through the issues and determining what the actual impact would be to Yuma County," said Pickels, who was in Phoenix Friday to meet about the proposed cuts.

He said officials are now trying to formulate a plan on how to absorb the additional costs.

State Sen. Amanda Aguirre, D-Yuma, said, "Of course, we're all opposed to the cuts and the impact in Yuma County. Certainly, we don't have the facility to do that in Yuma County."

State Rep. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma, said, "It really hurts my head to think that the most vulnerable of our state are the citizens that are going to be impacted by these cuts, plus our kids.

"You cut out the juvenile facility and any means of rehabilitating these kids is out," she said.

State Rep. Russ Jones, R-Yuma, said while he is still reviewing Brewer's proposed budget, there are certain things the county and the city government could take on because those entities would be better suited to run it.

"That's going to be part of the negotiation process - the give and take details."

Jones said the Joint Appropriations Committee will meet Wednesday to start on what is the beginning of the budget process. Both Jones and Aguirre sit on the committee.

Another proposed cut in Brewer's budget could reduce what cities receive from lottery proceeds that now help local governments with transportation needs and would reduce tourism funding.

City spokesman Greg Hyland said he hasn't seen the governor's proposed budget yet, "but any reduction in funding will seriously affect the services the city of Yuma provides to our citizens."

Texas braces for budget impact

Budget deficit looming -- Perry, Dewhurst, Straus ask agencies to submit plans to cut spending

By ARTHUR HAHN/Managing EditorA state budget crunch is barreling toward Austin, and top lawmakers are trying to get a headstart in easing the pain by asking agencies to submit plans for reducing their budgets.

Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus have sent letters to agency heads, asking them to outline ways to reduce expenditures by 5 percent.

Responses are due no later than Feb. 15.

The state operates on a two-year budget, with the latest hammered out during last year’s session. It allocated about $87 billion in state money to agencies.

*
The letter says:

“In Texas, we have been fortunate that our economy has fared better than most other states during the current national recession. Nevertheless, Comptroller Susan Combs noted in her November 2009 economic update that our revenues have ‘weakened substantially as the national recession began exerting its full influence on Texas.’

“Due to the uncertainty of the state’s short-term economic future, as well as potentially substantial long-term costs associated with the passage of federal legislation currently being debated in Washington, D.C., we are asking each state agency to thoroughly review all planned expenditures for the remainder of the biennium.

The letter also says, “Texas has a balanced budget and comparatively sound economic conditions. However, we owe it to the taxpayers to be especially prudent with their hard-earned dollars during these difficult times.”

State Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) said estimates are that the state will be facing a deficit of $12 billion to $16 billion when lawmakers sit down next year to develop the budget for the next biennium.

State leaders feel it is prudent to start finding ways to save money now, said Kolkhorst.

“What I think they’re trying to do is to start identifying areas where we can save money. Budgets can ebb and flow, and costs and expenses can ebb and flow,” she said.

“We know we are going to face a huge budget deficit next session, and that’s before health care reforms ... a shortfall of between $12 billion and $16 billion. And then the question becomes, do we use the ‘rainy day’ fund and how much do we use?’ That will certainly help lessen the impact.”

Kolkhorst said there are “warning signs ... that we have some issues here,” including a slowing of sales tax revenues.

“I think what they’re saying (Perry, Dewhurst and Straus) are saying now is that we’re about to hit really tough times and you need to put the brakes on now,” she said.

“Everyone agrees there will be a budget deficit and it will be much bigger than in 2003 (when lawmakers also faced a deficit). But it’s better than 2003 because we did not give them this much warning.”

Arizona decides to close most state parks

Arizona decides to close most state parks
Facing a multibillion-dollar shortfall, the state will shut 13 parks by June, including the Tombstone Courthouse and Yuma Territorial Prison. Several had already been closed.

Wrestling with a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, Arizona decided Friday to close nearly all of its state parks, including the famed Tombstone Courthouse and Yuma Territorial Prison.

The State Parks Board unanimously voted to close 13 parks by June 3. Eight others had already been closed, and the decision would leave nine open -- but only if the board can raise $3 million this year.

The action represents the largest closure of state parks in the nation, although several other states are considering similar moves.

"It's a dark day for the Arizona state parks system," said Renee Bahl, the system's executive director.

"We have 65,000 acres around the state and the majority of them are closing."

The Arizona parks receive about 2.3 million visitors per year who bring about $266 million into the state, Bahl said.

"It's unfortunate that a short-term recession is having an impact on our future," Bahl said.

Arizona isn't the only state struggling to support its parks.

In May, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed closing 220 of California's 278 state parks to help close a multibillion-dollar deficit but backed off after protests.

This month, Schwarzenegger proposed to expand oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast to provide up to $140 million for state parks in place of state funding, said Jerry Emory, the director of communications for the California State Parks Foundation.

Louisiana and Iowa may close parks due to budget problems. Other states have transferred their parks to local control to save money.

In Idaho, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter has proposed disbanding the state parks department, saving $10 million by selling the headquarters and shifting management of 30 state parks and recreation programs to another agency, said Jennifer Wernex, spokeswoman for the Idaho Parks and Recreation Department.

Phil McKnelly, the executive director of the National Assn. of State Park Directors, lamented the decision to close parks amid a recession.

"This is the time when people need to be getting out and releasing stress," he said.

The Arizona State Parks budget has gone from $26 million in the 2009 fiscal year to $7.5 million as the legislature has struggled to close its budget gap.

Some local jurisdictions that depend on the flow of tourist dollars have mobilized to protect their parks.

The town of Camp Verde came up with $18,000 of its own money to keep Ft. Verde State Historic Park operating.

For Mike Scannell, the Camp Verde town manager, closing the fort -- one of the best-preserved Army forts from the period of the Indian Wars -- simply wasn't an option for the community of 12,000.

"We clearly had to do something," he said.

Closing the park would have dealt a "catastrophic" blow to Camp Verde's economy, Scannell said. "It's a real important part of the history of the town."

But even with the extra funds, the town was able to only delay the closing of the park by a month, from Feb. 22 to March 29.

The town plans to use the time to come up with a funding plan to keep the fort open permanently.