|
FDA Watchdog for Nanotecnology????
MICHAEL R. TAYLOR gives a shout for
Nanotechnology. Others say FDA and EPA
others are not looking at the possible dangers.
Date: 8/11/2009 12:26:54 PM ( 15 y ) ... viewed 1246 times
10:22AM
August 11, 09
SHOUT FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY
FROM MICHAEL R TAYLOR, FDA Food
Czar 2006
"The amazing powers of nanotechology
have beneficial applications to almost every
product under FDA jurisdiction.."
Michael R Taylor
October 09 before Government Hearing
INDUSTRY CONCERN
y
Pesticide DDT, industrial lubricants PCBs and now plastic BPA (bisphenol A) are all widely used industrial chemical compounds that have been discovered to cause ills such as cancer and/or environmental damage. Worried that the latest chemical craze—nanoparticles (molecules and even atoms engineered at the scale of one billionth of a meter or smaller)—may follow suit, a panel of scientists is urging federal government agencies to assess the potential risks posed by such engineered chemicals and particles before they are used in any more substances.
The National Research Council, one of The National Academies in Washington, D.C., (scientific advisory bodies for the federal government) charges that the 18 government bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tasked with assessing chemical safety, have failed to prove that the diminutive particles are not dangerous. The group also charged in a new report that the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the government body created to oversee such efforts, lacks a coherent plan for ensuring that current and future uses of nanotechnology do not pose a risk to human health or the environment.
Nanotechnology risk research "needs to be proactive—identifying possible risks and ways to mitigate risks before the technology has a widespread commercial presence," the report says. Instead the NNI "does not have the essential elements of a research strategy—it does not present a vision, contain a clear set of goals [or] have a plan of action."
LEAFY GREEN HYGIENE
and FARM STERILITY on the
HORIZON???
THe lastest From Michael R. Taylor
on the path toward harmonizing with The
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION
Leafy Greens Guidelines from FDA 7/31/09
LEAFY GREENS GUIDELINES FROM FDA 7/31/09
Right on Schedule as Promised--Leafy Greens Guidelines from FDA.
Saturday morning thoughts before doing some
Finances.
FROM REP DENNIS KUCINICH
July 29, 2009, the same day
#HR 2749 was passing the House
of Representatives without
proper vetting.
While it is largely silent on key questions applying to upstream processing and distribution of Ready to Eat produce, CALGMA has a lot to say about farming practices and land stewardship. Small and organic farmers in particular have expressed concern about the costs and scientific justification for some of CALGMA’s requirements. Some of CALGMA’s metrics are seen to be in direct conflict with environmental protection and widely accepted agricultural practices. In some cases, streams have been contaminated, wildlife refuge destroyed, and biodiversity threatened by farmers’ efforts to remain in compliance with CALGMA metrics.
Today we hope to address why CALGMA’s regulatory framework has focused solely on farming practices, to the exclusion of the rest of the supply chain. It seems the farmers have taken the brunt of the burden of minimizing contamination, when it may make more scientific sense to focus attention on the processing, packaging and distribution of ready to Eat produce. Consumers have a right to expect that the food they eat is safe. It is in the public health interest that Americans consume greater amounts of raw vegetables. But whether or not nationalizing CALGMA, as the USDA has proposed, is the best way to achieve those goals is the question this hearing addresses. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today on this important issue.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
