Dec. 26, 2022 - Epoch Times
17:18
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| This right here is what's known as an ingredients label. | |
| It's legally required to be printed on the packaging of food items. | |
| And if you happen to be one of those people who stands in the aisles of the supermarket looking for the names of ingredients that you can't pronounce, and therefore you don't want to ingest into your body, well, then you've most likely come across the names of several ingredients that, perhaps unbeknownst to you, are actually made using nanotechnology. | |
| Specifically, They're made through a process which converts things like silver, copper, gold, aluminum, silicon, carbon, as well as different metal oxides into tiny, tiny, tiny atom-sized particles that are quite literally one billionth of a meter in size. | |
| If you want a visual for how small that is, up on screen is a graph from the National Center for Electron Microscopy, and it shows you how a strand of DNA, which is about two nanometers in diameter, It's about a thousand times smaller than a bacteria organism and about a million times smaller than a raindrop. | |
| So that is to say, these nanoparticles in our food are very, very small. | |
| Now, some of the more common nano-sized ingredients that you might be able to find in your cupboard right now if you were to look include things like titanium dioxide, which is used to increase the whiteness of things like milk, yogurt, and sugar. | |
| You might find silicon oxide, which is added as an anti-caking agent. | |
| You might find iron and zinc dioxides, which are added to increase supposed nutritional value. | |
| You might find different silver derivatives, which are added for sterilizing properties. | |
| And you might find a host of other ingredients like calcium carbonate, tricalcium phosphates, and so on and so forth. | |
| The list is rather long. | |
| However, before we move on, in order to really set the stage for you properly here, let me back up for a quick moment and actually explain to you what this is all about. | |
| Starting back in the 1990s, so about 30 full years ago, nanotechnology became widely used in the production of food products. | |
| That's because scientists discovered that by adding these tiny little components, they were able to make our food more colorful, they were able to make it brighter, creamier, crunchier, and they were even able to keep it fresher for longer. | |
| And besides just adding it to the food itself, well, some manufacturers have also added these nanoparticles to the food packaging. | |
| As just one example, up on screen you can see a milk carton which utilizes nanotechnology to act essentially as an indicator of the freshness of the milk that's inside. | |
| And as you can see, the color of the box actually changes to coincide with the change of the food that's inside. | |
| Furthermore, different researchers also found that adding these nano-sized additives to some medicines made them more effective. | |
| However, according to more and more consumer protection groups, as well as different health experts, there appears to be a catch, which is that while these nanoparticles can provide a myriad of benefits, they might come at a price. | |
| And that price is our health. | |
| Because you see, these particles are so small, so tiny, that studies like this one here that you can see up on screen for yourself show that they can actually breach the blood-brain barrier. | |
| And the ironic part is that the researchers in that study, they were actually looking into this function of nanoparticles in order to treat neurological diseases. | |
| Because in order to treat them, they actually need medication that can breach the blood-brain barrier. | |
| But when it comes to food, for instance, when it comes to your breakfast cereal, that is not a feature of the ingredients that anyone is looking for. | |
| Furthermore, besides breaching the blood-brain barrier, other studies have shown that these particles are also able to circulate throughout the body, To get into and get absorbed by the bloodstream and different organs, they have the potential to penetrate our cell walls, and then they might also, at least potentially, create inflammation and disease. | |
| Here's, for instance, what Dr. | |
| George Piergiotakis, who is a researcher with the Harvard School for Public Health, here's what he said regarding this matter. | |
| Quote, Likewise, Dr. | |
| Rolf Halden, who is the director of the Center for Environmental Health Engineering over at Arizona State University, he was quoted in a recent article as saying this, quote, We really don't know what the impact of these particles is. | |
| Human exposure is increasing, and we lack the tools to even measure what is arriving in our bodies, where it is deposited and what it does there. | |
| Then, he actually went on to compare this unknown impact of nanoparticles to asbestos. | |
| Quote,"...asbestos itself is relatively benign. | |
| It's an inorganic material. | |
| What makes it toxic and makes it kill 90,000 people a year is that it has particles that lodges in human tissue." It's commonly added to things like gum. | |
| Candy, drinks, milk, desserts, and so on. | |
| And what these researchers did was that they gave titanium dioxide to two different groups of mice. | |
| And in order to isolate the effects specifically to this nanoparticle, one group of mice was fed a low-fat diet and the other group was fed a high-fat diet. | |
| And what wound up happening was that both groups experienced changes in their gut bacteria, including the inflammation of their colons, which can lead to abdominal pain and even diarrhea. | |
| And although both sets of mice experienced this inflammation, the obese mice that were fed the higher-fat diet, they had more pronounced symptoms. | |
| Now, you might look at the study and you might say, hey, Roman, that's great, but if these nanoparticles have been used in food production since the 1990s, And they are found in over quite literally 2,000 different food items, then why are you citing studies on mice? | |
| What about studies on humans? | |
| Well, that's the million-dollar question. | |
| Because looking at the situation, you would assume that surely the U.S. government wouldn't haphazardly allow food companies to introduce these new ingredients into the products that we buy on our store shelves without undergoing rigorous testing and authorization. | |
| And if you think that, well, you would only be half right. | |
| Because as it turns out, the FDA, which is of course the agency that's tasked with overseeing these additives, they are themselves trying their best to keep up with this new and evolving technology, and they're essentially playing a balancing game between the potential benefits while mitigating the risks that these nanoparticles actually cause. | |
| And as it currently stands, the FDA recognizes nanoparticles within food with a designation called GRAS, which stands for Generally Recognize the Safe. | |
| As long as the manufacturer is already using the same ingredient in its larger form, well, they can use it in its nanoparticle form. | |
| Meaning that if, let's say, a cereal manufacturer is, for instance, using titanium dioxide as an additive in their cereal, well, then they can also use titanium dioxide nanoparticles in their cereal as well, and the FDA will label that cereal as being GRAS. | |
| Here's specifically what a guidance document from the FDA said in this matter. | |
| And just for your reference, this document was released all the way back in 2007. | |
| Quote... | |
| The FDA's Nanotechnology Task Force concluded that the agency's authorities are generally comprehensive for products subject to pre-market authorization requirements such as drugs, biological products, devices, and food and color additives and that these authorities give the FDA the ability to obtain detailed scientific information needed to review the safety and, as appropriate, the effectiveness of the products. | |
| For products not subject to pre-market authorization requirements, Meaning, again, that the FDA's requirement for reviewing and confirming the safety and efficacy of nanotechnology ingredients only applies to a certain subset of food-related products. | |
| And so, if something is already recognized as being generally safe, Then the nanoparticle derivative of that same substance is also generally assumed to be safe. | |
| Now, this story actually gets a lot deeper, which we'll get into after I show you this beautiful coin. | |
| This right here is an American Walking Liberty one ounce gold coin. | |
| And typically, I order at least one of these from our sponsor, American Heart for Gold, every single month. | |
| The reason I do so is because, I mean, as you likely know, the inflation rate in this country is the highest that it's been in, what, the last 40 years now. | |
| Everything, like the price of food, The price of housing, the price of gas is absolutely going through the roof. | |
| And in fact, market experts like the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, he's not only predicting a recession, but he's even using words like unprecedented economic hurricane. | |
| And so listen, I absolutely do not give you any financial advice, but I would recommend that you do what I do. | |
| Which is pick up the phone and call American Hartford Gold. | |
| Their super friendly staff can help you diversify your portfolio by either getting physical gold and physical silver delivered directly to your doorstep like I do, or deposited directly into your IRA and your 401k accounts that make the entire process super simple. | |
| And actually, besides me, they have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau with quite literally thousands of satisfied clients around the country. | |
| And best of all, to our viewers, to the viewers of Facts Matter, they are currently throwing in $2,500 worth of free silver on your first qualifying order. | |
| So giving them a call is an absolute no-brainer. | |
| So pick up the phone and call 866-242-2352. | |
| That's 866-242-2352. | |
| Or text Roman to 65532. | |
| The link will also be dialed in the description box below. | |
| And then let's head on back to the studio. | |
| And so, if something is already recognized as being generally safe, then the nanoparticle derivative of that same substance is also generally assumed to be safe. | |
| However, the reason that this is so troubling is quite frankly rather obvious, given the fact that the sole purpose of using these nanotechnologies is because it's known that certain substances behave radically different at the nano level than they do at the much larger levels. | |
| And so, for the FDA to admit that ingredients that have previously received the GRASS label are exempt from screening, Is concerning, to say the least. | |
| Because if they're not going to look into the safety and the potential dangers of ingesting these nanoparticles, well then, who will? | |
| And the answer appears to be the manufacturers themselves. | |
| Because further down in this document from the FDA, specifically on page 33, there is a subsection titled, quote, Products not subject to pre-market authorization. | |
| And in that subsection it says this, quote, However, manufacturers are still responsible for ensuring that the products they market are safe. | |
| For example, cosmetic manufacturers are required to ensure the safety of their products but are not required to provide safety data to the FDA. In light of the evolving state of the science, the task force believes an appropriate course of action at this time would be for the agency to work with manufacturers of these products and assist them in identifying data to substantiate the safety of products containing nanoscale materials. | |
| And so you see, the FDA appears to recognize the potential dangers of these nanoparticles, but then they go on to suggest that it is still the manufacturer's own responsibility to ensure that their products are safe. | |
| And so what the FDA's plan appears to be, at least according to their own guidance documents, is to establish some sort of ad hoc relationships with the different product manufacturers in order to pull together the right data to demonstrate product safety. | |
| Which appears to rely heavily on the good nature of these different companies to be responsible. | |
| Which is actually evidenced further in another document that the FDA released back in 2018 called, quote, The FDA's approach to regulation of nanotechnology products. | |
| And in that document, there is a subsection which reads this, quote, Where statutory authority does not provide for pre-market review, consultation is encouraged to reduce the risk of unintended harm to human or animal health. | |
| In these cases, FDA relies on publicly available or voluntarily submitted information, adverse event reporting, where applicable, and on post-market surveillance activities to provide oversight. | |
| Where nanotechnology applications are involved, the FDA encourages manufacturers to consult with the agency before taking their products to market. | |
| Such consultation can help the FDA to advise companies, review safety information and design any necessary post-marketing safety oversight. | |
| Now again, I am generally the type of person that gives the benefit of the doubt to most people. | |
| However, it's hard not to make the comparison that this appears to be a case of having the fox guard the hen house, when the FDA basically is relying on the good nature of profit-driven food companies to use this new technology which fundamentally alters the state of food items We're good to go. | |
| That came from the FDA in 2007. | |
| Quote, Therefore, the task force is not recommending that the agency require such labeling at this time. | |
| Instead, the task force recommends that the agency take the following action. | |
| Address on a case-by-case basis whether labeling must or may contain information on the use of nanoscale materials. | |
| That is, quite frankly, rather cool. | |
| The recommendation is that since the science doesn't suggest that these food products with nanotech present a greater safety risk, well, then they don't need a label, even though that same science has no long-term studies on the impacts of such nanotech. | |
| And so we as the consumers are, quite frankly, just left in the dark. | |
| Which is, by the way, not even the first time that such a thing has happened in recent memory. | |
| For instance, it took the USDA quite literally over six full years in order to finally give in and force food companies to label their products if they are genetically modified. | |
| And that came quite literally after years of public outcry. | |
| However, at this moment, well, most people don't even know about this nanotech food technology, and so there is no real public outcry, at least not here in America. | |
| Regardless, if you head on over right now to the FDA's website, and then you go on over to the specific subsection on nanotechnology programs, you will find that after 2007, it took another 13 years for the task force to release another report, which came out in the year 2020. | |
| And in that report, there is a chart showing that the number of products using nanotechnology submitted to the FDA for approval has increased dramatically over the past 10 and 20 years. | |
| Now, of course, not all of that is food. | |
| It also includes things like cosmetics, medicines, as well as vaccines, which we'll get to in a moment. | |
| However, in regards to food, while the exact number is not exactly known, experts in this field estimate that somewhere between 1,900 and 2,500 food products are currently on the market using this nanotechnology. | |
| And this has created kind of an interesting juxtaposition between America and some other countries in the world. | |
| Because despite the fact that there is scant research on the long-term effects of ingesting nanoparticles, well, as we mentioned earlier, the FDA does not require any food items produced with nanoparticles to be labeled as such. | |
| And instead, the guidelines that they do have recommend oversight on a case-by-case basis. | |
| However, other nations are not as open-minded, you can say, as the FDA. In fact, many countries have taken steps to either limit or outright ban either all or some nanotechnology in their nation's food. | |
| For instance, in the year 2010, Canada moved to ban the use of all nanotechnology in their organic food production. | |
| Then in 2011, the European Union began requiring that all food to be labeled if it contains engineered nanomaterials. | |
| And then going even further, in 2015, the EU began to require additional testing to ensure proper health safety. | |
| Then in the year 2020, France, which is of course a member of the EU, they went a step further and they outright banned any foods containing titanium dioxide. | |
| In the summer of 2022, all of the EU will actually join France and no longer allow titanium dioxide. | |
| Their reasoning stems from a quote, potential concern over accumulation of titanium dioxide particles in the body and possible genotoxicity. | |
| Genotoxicity is the ability for a substance to damage DNA which may lead to cancer. | |
| Meaning that if you want that sweet, sweet titanium dioxide, well, you'll have to come all the way here to the US to get it. | |
| And for your reference, titanium dioxide gives food a nice white color, and so you can find it in things like milk, coffee creamer, toothpaste, cakes, pastries, and so on. | |
| Now again, I'm not saying that it's actually harmful, or I'm not saying that it's actually safe, but at this moment, it's not 100% known either way. | |
| However, what is known is that the FDA currently allows these nanoparticles to be included in our food items without requiring the actual manufacturing companies themselves to place them on the ingredients label. | |
| So take that for what you will. | |
| But the big question remains, what are the long-term effects of these nanoparticles? | |
| And given the fact that they have been shown to be capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, shouldn't their effects be mapped out over a long-term scale before they are injected into people, or even more pertinently, into our food? | |
| Because although at this moment the scientific consensus states that these nanoparticles are safe, Well, I believe it's worth reminding you that at one time, not too long ago, lead was used in gasoline, asbestos was used as a building material, and 20,000 doctors said that Lucky Strike cigarettes were better than the alternatives. | |
| Now, I'm not directly comparing nanotech and food to things like lead and asbestos, but at the very least, I think that we as Americans have a right to know what's in our food, as well as what's in the shots that are mandatory for some of us to take. | |
| If you'd like to go deeper into any of the research that we discussed in today's episode, I'll throw all those links down into the description box below this video for you to check out. | |
| And also, I'd like to give a big shout out to Mr. | |
| Eric Schumacher, who is one of the researchers here for Facts Matter, and he helped to pull together and make sense of all these different links and research. | |
| And then lastly, if you got something out of this video, I hope you consider sharing this video with your friends, your family, and even your neighbors, so that they can know as well about these nanotech particles that they are very likely unwittingly eating. | |
| The share button is right there below this video. | |
| And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times. |
Export Selection