May 28, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

Just as the battle over GMOs and their safety seems to be entering a phase of "semi-sanity," (well, at least on the part of some people and certain corporations), a new technology appears to be headed down the pike: nanotech in your food (and our thanks to Ms. K.F. for finding this one and passing it along to us!):

USDA Gives $3.8 Million in Grants to Develop and Promote Nanotech in Food

Now, before we concentrate on a few specifics in this article (one of which made me laugh), let's recall that nanotechnology is one of the four so-called "GRIN" technologies that co-author Scott de Hart and I talked about in our book Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas. GRIN stands for Genetics, Robotics, Information Technology, and Nanotechnology, the four technologies that some transhumanists predict will transform humanity - and human culture and consciousness - into a new golden age, and that other trangshumanists think will turn out to be an unimagineable hell. Similarly, we argued in that book that one means of "introducing" the transhumanist paradise (or hell), would be via the food supply. Our concentration there was, of course, on genetic modifications to food.

But we did not rule out nanotechnology being introduced into it, and, no sooner said than done. As the above article points out, some nanotechnologies are already in the food supply, in rudimentary form:

Nanotech is increasingly being pursued for use directly in the food we eat, rather than just in the packaging. According to Popular Mechanics:

“The most commonly used nanoparticle in foods is titanium dioxide. It’s used to make foods such as yogurt and coconut flakes look as white as possible, provide opacity to other food colorings, and prevent ingredients from caking up. Nanotech isn’t just about aesthetics, however. The biggest potential use for this method involves improving the nutritional value of foods.

“Nano additives can enhance or prevent the absorption of certain nutrients. In an email interview with Popular Mechanics, Jonathan Brown, a research fellow at the University of Minnesota, says this method could be used to make mayonnaise less fattening by replacing fat molecules with water droplets.”

There has been a 1000% increase in nanotech used for food since 2008 and is now being deployed by major companies including Kraft, General Mills, Hershey, Nestle, Mars, Unilever, Smucker’s and Albertsons. (Emphasis in the original)

However, in the field of nanotechnology, something far more extensive is implied than simply these simple functions, for nanotechnology most appropriately designates the design and engineering of ultra-small machines, visible only under microscopes, capable of performing functions on the scale of living cells, either repaining them individually, or... worse... Nanotechnology in food would thus provide the ultimate in vaccination, for example, as one simply ingested nanobots designed to make such repairs, or... worse...

It's that "worse" that bothers one, and it should, for how many of us would trust an industry already grown corrupt on government favoritism and its own mercentilist practices? Indeed, to extend the high octane speculation, destructive nanobots would be a convenient vehicle for population reduction or modification. The article points out the dangers by a comparison with the now-well-known history of the GMO issue:

What are the real implications of this? There’s one thing for sure; the element of power is a very necessary thing to consider. With all technology like this, monopolization and hierarchical structures are a potential problem. The USDA and other health oversight agencies have a long track record of approving controversial practices used in our food that later turn out to have deadly health and environmental impacts. Understanding the current players in the agro-tech business including Monsanto and Syngenta, you can see how this could end badly.

The implications of this are significant for the future of Agorism, sustainable food, independent agricultural business, monopolization of food, the health of the people consuming this food, and much more.

No one is saying that nanotech in food is inherently bad, but with the history of the organizations funding this technology, people are naturally suspicious. More research is needed and concerns must be addressed before nanotech in our food becomes our next big mistake.

That says it all.

See you on the...

...oh yea, I almost forgot. What was it in the article that made me laugh? It was this:

"Storage bins are being produced with silver nanoparticles embedded in the plastic. The silver nanoparticles kill bacteria from any material that was previously stored in the bins, minimizing health risks from harmful bacteria.”(Emphasis in the original)

Yes, that's right. For all you people out there who take colloidal silver when you get sick (which, in some circles of scientism, is tantamount to visiting a witch doctor to get rid of a flu), silver, once a very common cure,  really does kill bacteria. Now, I certainly don't recommend taking the stuff on a regular basis, but I can attest that when I get sick, silver usually knocks it out very quickly. I guess that one must have slipped through the censors.

See you on the flip side...