Hot Topic News & Current Events

What's Happening and What's on our minds about It.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

The 1977 Yankees

ESPN Revisits Tumultuous Time in and Around Yankee Stadium

Mike Ross for The New York Times

Erik Jensen plays catcher Thurman Munson, left, and John Turturro is Billy Martin. Turturro lost weight to look as frail as Martin did. More Photos >

Published: October 26, 2006

NORWICH, Conn., Oct. 24 — The clubhouse at Dodd Stadium was full of actors Tuesday. They were portraying the 1977 Yankees, some in uniform, some in paisleys, double-knits and platform shoes, for an ESPN miniseries. They were supposed to be in Milwaukee in mid-July during the season in which Reggie Jackson designated himself the “straw that stirs the drink” on his new team.

M.L.B.

Yankees

Mets

Discuss and track the World Series between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Detroit Tigers.

Go to Blog »
Mike Ross for The New York Times

Daniel Sunjata as Reggie Jackson and the Sport Magazine reporter Robert Ward as himself shooting the ESPN miniseries "The Bronx Is Burning." More Photos »

Out of the manager’s office stepped John Turturro as Billy Martin.

Turturro lost weight to look as frail as Martin did. He wore latex ears to approximate Martin’s large, jutting ones. He stood timidly in street clothes and cowboy boots and read a statement in which he denied reports in which a “prominent Yankee” said that George Steinbrenner was dictating his lineup and making him miserable.

“I want everyone to know that Mr. Steinbrenner is in no way interferin’ with my day-to-day baseball decisions,” Turturro said in a quiet monotone, his voice tinged with the in-and-out Texas accent that Martin affected. He finished, looking abashed at his capitulation to the power of Steinbrenner, who is still the Yankees’ principal owner.

“Who wrote that for you, Billy?” a reporter said, but Martin ignored him, turned and walked into his office.

Down the corridor, visible in silhouette, stood Oliver Platt, who plays Steinbrenner in “The Bronx Is Burning,” an eight-hour adaptation of Jonathan Mahler’s 2005 book, “Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning,” an account of the 1977 Yankees. But the book follows several other threads, including a cantankerous brawl of a mayoral race starring the eventual winner, Edward I. Koch; Mario M. Cuomo, a future governor; and a former congresswoman, Bella Abzug; the citywide blackout on July 13 that led to looting in many neighborhoods; and the manhunt for the .44-caliber killer known as the Son of Sam. ESPN will carry the series over eight weeks starting in July.

Platt awaited his moment to stalk into the clubhouse. He is taller and heavier than Steinbrenner; at 46, he is a year younger than Steinbrenner was when the story takes place. Platt’s hair, usually parted in the middle, assumes the rigid contour of Steinbrenner’s swept coif. His below-the-earlobe sideburns are flecked with gray at their bottoms

He walked slowly out of the shadow. He glowered. Platt raised his voice to a higher pitch and blended it with Steinbrenner’s Midwestern inflections. He seethed about the “prominent Yankee” who had leaked the story. In reality, it was catcher Thurman Munson, who was angry enough at Steinbrenner to approach two reporters, one of them Steve Jacobson of Newsday, who is a consultant to the miniseries.

“I don’t know who did this,” Platt said — although Jacobson said that when Steinbrenner addressed the team, he knew it was Munson. Anyone who wears the pinstripes is a “prominent Yankee,” Platt said, and concluded, “This kind of monkey business sullies the character of everyone in this organization.” He tossed a copy of The Daily News on the floor and walked off.

On the right side of the clubhouse, Erik Jensen, as Munson, with a droopy mustache and tousled hair, looked pained; he knew that confiding in the reporters had placed Martin in a more precarious position.

“Cut,” said the director, Jeremiah S. Chechik. “That’s good.”

Like most films based on true events, ESPN took liberties. What Turturro said was not from a verbatim account. And Steinbrenner spoke to the players a few days later in a hotel meeting room in Kansas City, Mo., with no reporters present.

Jacobson, who was on the set at Dodd Stadium, said the scene was “true to the essence” of Steinbrenner and Martin, although he believed that Steinbrenner would have been more forceful than Platt was.

Ron Semiao, the senior vice president of ESPN Original Entertainment, said, “We wouldn’t have had Steinbrenner address the team if he hadn’t.”

One consultant to the project is Graig Nettles, the former third baseman. Another is Fran Healy, the former backup catcher, who recently described to Daniel Sunjata, who plays Jackson, his character’s reaction to his tussle with Martin in the visitors’ dugout at Fenway Park.

Nettles said he gave a crucial tip to the actor playing Lou Piniella, Mather Zickel.

“Lou had this nervous habit of smelling his hair,” Nettles said, smiling with the knowledge that their teammates will chuckle when they see Zickel smell his hair.

He told Alex Cranmer, who portrays the young Nettles, “Don’t hurt yourself diving.” Nettles often flung his body left and right to retrieve ground balls and line drives.

“I never practiced it,” he said. “It just happened in a game.”

Jeffrey Maier, the fan who deflected Derek Jeter’s fly ball into a home run during Game 1 of the Yankees-Orioles American League Championship Series in 1996 and then played for Wesleyan University, is playing third in the baseball sequences.

ESPN will not rely only on what it shoots at Dodd Stadium, home of the Connecticut Defenders of the Eastern League; it has a 40-hour archive of game action and news footage from the tumult beyond the House That Ruth Built. Close-ups of actors playing the Yankees will be intercut with video, like that of Jackson hitting three home runs in Game 6 of the 1977 World Series.

But the heart of the miniseries will be the power struggles between, and among, Turturro’s Martin, Platt’s Steinbrenner and Sunjata’s Jackson.

Turturro and Platt are not impersonating their characters, but Nettles said the actors had captured their personalities.

“Oliver’s got George,” Nettles said. “He’s got that blusteriness.” Turturro “is scary,” Nettles added. “Just watching him sit in the dugout — he’s Billy.”

Marty Appel, a former Yankees public-relations director and another consultant to the production, said that when he heard Platt, in character, shout, “You!” he jumped with the memory of Steinbrenner’s voice.

Turturro has adopted Martin’s style: his leanness, his slouch, his habit of placing one, or both hands, in his uniform back pockets, his pugnacity. On Monday night, he re-enacted the incident when Martin blew up at the umpire Bruce Froemming, and was ejected for throwing baseballs on the field, during Game 4 of the 1976 World Series. The actors danced unhappily around each other and Turturro kicked dirt on the actor playing Froemming, even though Martin did not actually do it.

“Billy moved like a cat,” Turturro said.

Platt, a Red Sox fan, said he had to purge preconceptions about Steinbrenner. He said he admired Steinbrenner’s accomplishments and was not playing him as a tyrant.

“I seriously think he never thought of himself as a tyrant,” he said. “I’m not trying to candy coat the guy, but I need to understand him.”

Platt added: “You have to play him small. You can’t do a circus-clown version. You want to give him his dignity.”

Turturro views Martin as a street tough from his father’s generation, a tragic, riveting character and societal outsider who never found the love or satisfaction he needed.

“He could never love his family like he loved baseball,” he said, adding that “George bought him and he broke him.”

Late Tuesday night, Platt was in a luxury box (which doubled as a suite at Royals Stadium) surrounded by well-dressed actors playing Steinbrenner’s friends and associates. Nettles stood among them, pretending to watch the Yankees lose Game 3 of the 1977 A.L.C.S. to the Royals. The intention was to collect an array of Steinbrenner’s frustrated reactions to Yankees failures.

As extras on the field below enacted pop-ups and double plays, Chechik, the director, asked Platt to stand grimly with his arms folded, stare balefully, turn from the glass window, or walk away. Finally, Platt offered a signature Steinbrenner gesture: Rankled by a Jackson pop-up, he raised his hands and brought them down in an ultimate act of disgust.



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Shocking Therapy

Doctors Say Electric Pulses Aided Brain-Damaged Man

Published: October 16, 2006

ATLANTA, Oct. 15 — A team of neuroscientists reported Sunday that they had restored some movement and speech to a severely brain-damaged man by stimulating his brain with pulses of electric current.

The 38-year-old man, who had been barely conscious for six years, gradually regained the use of his left arm and began to utter coherent words for the first time since his injury in an assault, the doctors said.

Before surgery to implant two wire electrodes deep in his brain, he could respond to questions and commands occasionally, by moving his thumb or nodding, but was otherwise virtually mute and unable to move.

Experts said the case, presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in Atlanta, could revive interest in electrical stimulation for the estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Americans subsisting in states of partial consciousness.

But they added that it was far from clear how many would benefit, and that there were knotty ethical questions about operating on patients who could not give their consent.

Doctors have long used the implant surgery, known as deep brain stimulation, to treat the rigidity and tremors of Parkinson’s disease. They have also tried it in the past two decades on a handful of brain-damaged people, including Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman who died last year after her feeding tube was removed amid a national debate over her care.

But in those patients, the treatment was usually performed too soon after the injury to rule out spontaneous improvements, and in most cases, including Ms. Schiavo’s, it made no difference at all. The new case provides the first convincing evidence that the surgery can be helpful for some patients.

“I think this case suggests that this surgery probably will be one of the choices of treatment we can give to certain patients who have some chance of recovery, “ said Dr. James L. Bernat, a professor of neurology at Dartmouth Medical School, who was not involved in the case.

Dr. Bernat said he did not expect the treatment to help brain-damaged patients who had been totally unresponsive for more than a year. But for those who become occasionally or partly responsive after an injury, he said, “I think we should be aggressive and do whatever it takes” to induce improvement.

The research team, from NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell, the JFK Johnson Rehabilitation Institute in Edison, N.J., and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, chose the patient as a test case for several reasons. He was partly conscious. His condition had been stable for years. And imaging tests showed that widely distributed language circuits running through his prefrontal cortex — the thinking, purposeful region of the brain — were intact.

Brain injuries from blows to the head, like the injury this man suffered, typically sever nerve connections widely throughout the brain but can leave some circuits still functional when stimulated.

The doctors threaded two wires through the man’s skull and into a subcortical area called the thalamus, which acts as a switching center for circuits that support arousal, attention and emotion, among other functions. The wires were connected to a pacemakerlike unit, implanted under the man’s collarbone.

Soon after the operation, and after the device was turned on to adjust the stimulation dose, the patient began to speak words, identifying pictures in a battery of tests, and became gradually more attentive. Some members of the research team then tracked the man’s abilities over four weeks while the current was turned on, and four weeks when it was off, without knowing when the device was activated.

They found a “consistent trend of improved verbal and behavioral responsiveness during the on condition,” said Dr. Nicholas D. Schiff, a neurologist at Cornell who was the lead author of the study, in an informal presentation of the work to other scientists on Sunday.

“He could be more independent chewing and swallowing,” and needed less help to eat, Dr. Schiff said.

Dr. Michele Tagliati, who runs the brain stimulation program for movement disorders at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said that no one knew how the stimulation affected brain circuits but that targeting the thalamus was a natural choice.

“If you want to restart the engine, so to speak, that is where you would go,” Dr. Tagliati said in a phone interview. “It’s a fascinating case.”

He said he had decided against recommending the surgery in the past for a severely brain-damaged patient after reviewing mixed results from previous studies in Japan and France. The new research, if replicated, could make the operation more attractive for some patients, he said.

Neuroscientists interviewed on Sunday said the operation also raised many ethical questions. Brain-damaged patients cannot give their consent to the surgery, and there is no way to predict the outcome.

The 38-year-old man, though improved, is still unable to say what he thinks about the surgery or to describe his own conscious state, said doctors not involved with the study who are familiar with the case.

The researchers withheld the patient’s name to protect his privacy. They said they had received consent for the operation from a family member legally authorized to give it.

“Given the legacy of psychosurgery, and that states of unconsciousness, like the vegetative state, can be so contentious, we have to be very concerned about ethical issues” like informed consent, said Dr. Joseph J. Fins, chief of medical ethics at Cornell and an author of the study. Dr. Fins added that any ethical framework to guide such treatment should not only affirm qualified patients’ right to care, but also “preserve their right to refuse it.”

A patient who regained decision-making ability with the surgery could very well decide not to continue treatment, he said.

But for all the hopes and questions it raises, experts said, this case represents a culmination of years of growing knowledge about brain imaging, rehabilitation techniques, stimulation surgery, and data from animal studies revealing which circuits are important for arousal.

“Even though this is a first step, it is of utmost importance, because is shows that this therapeutic approach is worth studying,” said Dr. Steven Laureys, a neurologist at the University of Liège in Belgium. “I can only hope that further cases will confirm this result, because if that would fail, we would see this whole idea go back into the fridge for a long time.”



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Sunday, October 15, 2006

married vs unmarried

To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered

Peter DaSilva for The New York Times

Amanda Hawn and Nate Larsen recently in their apartment near San Francisco. “Moving in together has simplified life,” Ms. Hawn said.

Published: October 15, 2006

Married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have finally slipped into a minority, according to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times.

Skip to next paragraph
Michael Falco for The New York Times

Lisa Weiss, a social worker, and Jonathan Bander, an accountant, are living together in New York City and are planning to marry in May.

The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.

The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.

“It just changes the social weight of marriage in the economy, in the work force, in sales of homes and rentals, and who manufacturers advertise to,” said Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “It certainly challenges the way we set up our work policies.”

While the number of single young adults and elderly widows are both growing, Professor Coontz said, “we have an anachronistic view as to what extent you can use marriage to organize the distribution and redistribution of benefits.”

Couples decide to live together for many reasons, but real estate can be as compelling as romance.

“Owning three toothbrushes and finding that they are always at the wrong house when you are getting ready to go to bed wears on you,” said Amanda Hawn, a 28-year-old writer who set up housekeeping near San Francisco with her boyfriend, Nate Larsen, a real estate analyst, after shuttling between his apartment and one she shared with a friend. “Moving in together has simplified life,” Ms. Hawn said.

The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples. In all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried. (One in 20 households consisted of people living alone).

And the numbers of unmarried couples are growing. Since 2000, those identifying themselves as unmarried opposite-sex couples rose by about 14 percent, male couples by 24 percent and female couples by 12 percent.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said gay couples were undercounted because many gay people were reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation. But he said that inhibition seemed to be fading.

“I would say the increase is due to people feeling more comfortable disclosing that they are gay or lesbian and living with a partner,” he said.

The survey did not ask about sexual orientation, but its questionnaire was designed to distinguish partners from roommates. A partner was defined as “an adult who is unrelated to the householder, but shares living quarters and has a close personal relationship with the householder.”

Some of the biggest gains in unmarried couples were recorded in unexpected places. In the rural Midwest, the number of households made up of male partners rose 77 percent since 2000.

The survey revealed wide disparities in household composition by place. The proportion of married couples ranged from more than 69 percent in Utah County, Utah, which includes Provo, to 26 percent in Manhattan, which has a smaller share of married couples than almost anyplace in the country. But Manhattan registered a 1.2 percent increase in married couples since 2000, in contrast to the rest of New York City and many other places.

Among counties, the highest proportion of unmarried opposite-sex partners was in Mendocino, Calif., where they made up nearly 11 percent of all households.

The highest share of male couples was in San Francisco, where, according to the census, they accounted for nearly 2 percent of all households. In Manhattan, they made up 1 percent of households. Hampshire County, Mass., home to Northampton, had the highest proportion of female couples, at 1.7 percent. Some of the highest numbers of unmarried couples were recorded in the South, which as defined by the census, has the largest population of any region.

David Blankenhorn, president of the marriage advocacy group the Institute for American Values, said married couples had become a minority largely because of the growing number of households made up of people who planned to marry or who used to be married.

Steve Watters, the director of young adults for Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group, said that the trend of fewer married couples was more a reflection of delaying marriage than rejection of it.

“It does show that a lot of people are experimenting with alternatives before they get there,” Mr. Watters said. “The biggest concern is that those who still aspire to marriage are going to find fewer models. They’re also finding they’ve gotten so good at being single it’s hard to be at one with another person.”

But Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, said her research — unaffiliated with the Census Bureau — found that the desire for strong family bonds, and especially marriage, was constant.

“Even cohabiting young adults tell us that they are doing so because it would be unwise to marry without first living together in a society marked by high levels of divorce,” Ms. Smock said.

A number of couples interviewed agreed that cohabiting was akin to taking a test drive and, given the scarcity of affordable apartments and homes, also a matter of convenience. Some said that pregnancy was the only thing that would prompt them to make a legal commitment soon. Others said they never intended to marry. A few of those couples said they were inspired by solidarity with gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry in most states.

Jennifer Lynch, a 28-year-old stage manager in New York, said she had lived on the Lower East Side with her boyfriend, who is 37 and divorced, for most of the five years they have been a couple.

“Cohabitating is our choice, and we have no intention to be married,” Ms. Lynch said. “There is little difference between what we do and what married people do. We love each other, exist together, all of our decisions are based upon each other. Everyone we care about knows this.”

If anything, she added, “not having the false security of wedding rings makes us work even a little harder.”

With more competition from other ways of living, the proportion of married couples has been shrinking for decades. In 1930, they accounted for about 84 percent of households. By 1990 the proportion of married couples had declined to about 56 percent.

Married couples have not been a majority of households headed by adults younger than 25 since the 1970’s, but among those aged 25 to 34 the proportion slipped below 50 percent for the first time within the past five years. (Among Americans aged 35 to 64, married couples still make up a majority of all households.)

“It’s partially fueled by women in the work force; they don’t necessarily have to marry to be economically secure,” said Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College of the City University of New York, who conducted the census analysis for The New York Times. “You used to get married to have sex. Now one of the major reasons to get married is to have children, and the attractiveness of having children has declined for many people because of the cost.”

William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, attributed the accelerated trend to the lifestyles of baby boomers.

“It’s the legacy of the boomers that have finally caused this tipping point,” Dr. Frey said. “Certainly later generations have followed in boomer footsteps, with high levels of living together before marriage, and more flexible lifestyles. But the boomers were the trailblazers, once again, rebelling against a norm their parents epitomized.

“This would seem to close the book on the Ozzie and Harriet era that characterized much of the last century,” he said.



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Food nanotechnology

Engineering Food at Level of Molecules

BASF

At the BASF Beverage Lab in Ludwigshafen, Germany, Andreas Hasse, left, and Clemes Sambale assess drinks that were made with synthetic beta-carotene, a nanoparticle used to add color and health benefits.

Published: October 10, 2006

What if the candy maker Mars could come up with an additive to the coating of its M&M’s and Skittles that would keep them fresher longer and inhibit melting? Or if scientists at Unilever could shrink the fat particles (and thereby the calories) in premium ice cream without sacrificing its taste and feel?

These ideas are still laboratory dreams. The common thread in these research projects and in product development at many other food companies is nanotechnology, the name for a growing number of techniques for manipulating matter in dimensions as small as single molecules.

Food companies remain wary of pushing the technology — which is named for the nanometer, or a billionth of a meter — too far and too fast for safety-conscious consumers. But they are tantalized by nanotechnology’s capacity to create valuable and sometimes novel forms of everyday substances, like food ingredients and packaging materials, simply by reducing them to sizes that once seemed unimaginable.

Most of the hoopla and a lot of the promise for nanotechnology lies in other industries, including electronics, energy and medicine. But the first generation of nanotechnology-based food industry products, including synthetic food colorings, frying oil preservatives and packaging coated with antimicrobial agents, has quietly entered the market.

The commercial uses of the technology now add up to a $410 million sliver of the $3 trillion global food market, according to Cientifica, a British market research firm that specializes in nanotechnology coverage. Cientifica forecasts that nanotechnology’s share will grow to $5.8 billion by 2012, as other uses for it are developed.

Mindful of the adverse reaction from some consumers over the introduction of genetically engineered crops, the food industry hopes regulators will come up with supportive guidelines that will also allay consumers’ fears. That has put a spotlight on the Food and Drug Administration’s first public hearing today on how it should regulate nanotechnology, with a portion of the agenda specifically about food and food additives. No policy changes are expected this year.

“To their credit, the F.D.A. is trying to get a handle on what’s out there,” said Michael K. Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, one of 30 groups that have signed up to speak at the meeting.

But coping with nanotechnology will be a daunting challenge for the agency, according to a report last week by a former senior F.D.A. official, whose analysis was sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington policy group. Michael R. Taylor, a former deputy commissioner for policy at the agency, said the F.D.A. lacked the resources and, in the case of cosmetics, dietary supplements and food, the full legal authority needed to protect consumers and also foster innovation.

Industry representatives and analysts are worried that nanotechnology will suffer the same fate as genetic engineering, which was quickly embraced as a breakthrough for drug makers but has been fiercely opposed, especially in Europe, when used in crops, fish and livestock.

Many of the same groups fighting genetic engineering in agriculture have been arguing for regulators to clamp down on nanotechnology, in general, and its use in food and cosmetics, in particular, until more safety testing has been completed.

“I’m amazed at how far it’s gone already,” said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Group, an advocate for organic products based in Finland, Minn. “Compared to nanotechnology, I think the threat of genetic engineering is tame.”

So far, there have been no confirmed reports of public health or environmental problems related to nanotechnology. But troubling laboratory tests suggest some nanoscale particles may pose novel health risks by, for instance, slipping easily past barriers to the brain that keep larger particles out. Thus, the same attributes that could make the technology valuable for delivering drugs could also make it hazardous.

More important, everyone agrees that there have been few rigorous studies of the actual behavior of the newly engineered nanoscale materials in humans and the environment. Those that have been completed fall far short of duplicating the range of conditions the nanoparticles would encounter in general commerce. And few laboratory studies have focused on the fate of particles that are eaten rather than inhaled or injected.

“Lack of evidence of harm should not be a proxy for reasonable certainty of safety,” the Consumers Union said in testimony submitted to the F.D.A. for today’s meeting. The language was carefully chosen. “Reasonable certainty of safety” is what food companies must demonstrate to the F.D.A. before they can introduce a new food additive.

The Consumers Union and some other groups are suggesting that the agency automatically classify all new nanoscale food ingredients, including those now classified as safe in larger sizes, as new additives. And they want the same standards extended to cover food supplement companies, some of which have been marketing traditional herbal and mineral therapies in what they say are new nanoscale forms that increase their effectiveness. Some are also calling for mandatory labeling of products with synthetic nanoscale ingredients, no matter how small the quantity.

F.D.A. officials said last week that treating every new nanotechnology product that consumers swallow as a food additive might compromise the agency’s mandate to foster innovation and might not be within its authority. Such a move would also be hobbled by the lack of agreement on safety testing standards for the wide range of nanoscale innovations in the pipeline. In addition, the agency lacks the staff to handle that scale of oversight.

“That would be a sea change for us,” said Laura Tarantino, director of the F.D.A.’s Office of Food Additive Safety.

Simply defining nanotechnology may also be a hurdle. BASF has been widely considered a pioneer for products like its synthetic lycopene, an additive that substitutes for the natural lycopene extracted from tomatoes and other fruits. Lycopene, widely used as a food coloring, is increasingly valued for its reported heart and anticancer benefits. But BASF’s particles average 200 to 400 nanometers in diameter, about the same as the natural pigment, and well above the 100-nanometer threshold that many experts consider true nanotechnology.

Unilever has never disclosed the dimensions of its shrunken fat particles. Trevor Gorin, a Unilever spokesman in Britain, said in an e-mail message that reports about the project have been misleading.

Given the uncertainty about the risks of consuming new nano products, many analysts expect near-term investment to focus on novel food processing and packaging technology. That is the niche targeted by Sunny Oh, whose start-up company, OilFresh, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., is marketing a novel device to keep frying oil fresh. OilFresh grinds zeolite, a mineral, into tiny beads averaging 20 nanometers across and coats them with an undisclosed material. Packed into a shelf inside the fryer, the beads interfere with chemical processes that break down the oil or form hydrocarbon clusters, Mr. Oh says. As a result, restaurants can use oil longer and transfer heat to food at lower temperatures, although they still need traditional filters to remove food waste from the oil.

Mr. Oh said OilFresh will move beyond restaurants into food processing by the end of the month, when it delivers a 1,000-ton version of the device to a “midsized potato chip company” that he said did not want to be identified.

The desire to avoid controversy has made even the largest food companies, like Kraft Foods, leery about discussing their interest in nanotechnology. Kraft, the second-largest food processor after Nestlé, was considered the industry’s nanotechnology pacesetter in 2000. That is when it announced the founding of an international alliance of academic researchers and experts at government labs to pursue basic research in nanotechnology sponsored by Kraft.

The Nanotek Consortium, as Kraft called the group, produced a number of patents for the company, but Kraft pulled back from its high-profile connection with nanotechnology two years ago. Manuel Marquez, the research chemist Kraft appointed to organize the consortium, moved to Philip Morris USA, a sister subsidiary of Altria that now sponsors the consortium under a new name — the Interdisciplinary Network of Emerging Science and Technologies.

Kraft still sends researchers to industry conferences to make what it calls “generic” presentations about the potential uses of nanotechnology in the food industry. But the company declines to specify its use of or plans for the technology.

F.D.A. officials say companies like Kraft are voluntarily but privately providing them with information about their activities. But many independent analysts say the level of disclosure to date falls far short of what will be needed to create public confidence.

“Most of the information is in companies and very little is published,” said Jennifer Kuzma, an associate director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota, who has been tracking reports of nanotechnology use in food and agriculture.



Check Out My Other Blogs (click on blog name to go there) = / 1.3rd Eye Blog / 2. Favorites Blog/ 3. Vita Excolatur (Living Well ...) Blog/ 4. Humor Me Blog/ 5. News and Current Events Blog/ 6. Consider This ... Blog/ 7. Consumer Warnings Blog/ 8. New Orleans Pentimento Blog/ 9. We Constant Gardeners Blog/ 10. Chaillot Family Blog/