Nanotechnology used to create foods is more environmentally friendly because the very small particles break down easier than, say, plastic bottles and Styrofoam containers. Nanotechnology is the wave of the future--everything gets smaller and faster as human engineering becomes more advanced. Nanotechnology would also be healthier for humans in that food can be altered at the molecular level in order to suit our needs.
If nanotechnology is used to remove harmful diseases or fight pests, and it is disposed of properly, then it may not be harmful. Technology is a gift, when used for the right purposes, and is only harmful when it is misused or used negligently. It should be fine, if used properly.
While all the data is not out yet, scientists make food using nanotechnology to be both healthy for consumption and environmentally friendly. So long as the food they help create is chemically identical to the food you would grow in the soil, it is perfectly safe to eat. Moreover, this is done with the idea of preserving nature as well.
Everything that humans make, we make from things that we get from the earth. There is no such thing as unnatural. As far as being good for the environment, I can not see how this would effect that at all, except maybe giving the ground time to become fertile and healthy again.
People are sometimes too obsessed with things being "natural". The scare tactics used to worry people about Frankenfood are generally based on a lack of understanding of science or an irrational glorification of things that are seen as natural. Nothing about the domestication of plants was natural, and this is merely a further step along that route.
The process of creating food through nanotechnology is in question when asserting this question to opinion. Simply put, nanotechnology, in itself, has no fault in making food unhealthy or unfriendly to the environment. On the other hand, if the nanotechnology involves using irradiated chemicals, there may be a problem. But remember, nanotech foods include foods packaged with nanotechnology, which means the food itself is fine.
All new technologies come with some risks, and there is nothing inherently good about using nanotech for food production. However there is also nothing inherently bad about it. We could certainly do with more food and more resilient crops in the world, and genetically modified food, nanotech, and other emerging technologies offer multiple routes toward this. As the pace of development is so quick, we will have to be careful in how we introduce what we create into the world. But the need for more food in the world balances the argument in favor of taking a calculated risk on nanotech.
Science creates many fantastic advances that enhance and better our lives, but, sometimes, the long term effects of our actions are not seen for decades. I remember learning about DDT when I was young, and I have never forgotten the lessons of acting too quickly. We have to make sure that our advances do not cause more damage than good.
While creating food artificially may be cost-effective, it probably isn't beneficial to our health. Naturally, by the time we know the dangers of its consumption, it will be too late to manage the consequences. Food that comes naturally from the earth has been good enough for millennial, and it should still be good enough today.
There are some amazing advents of technology these days, and the idea of food created via nanotechnology is fascinating. But it cannot be declared as safe, without extensive research and tests. It may be perfectly fine, but that cannot be declared so early after it's inception. I would expect years of research to go into this before foods like this were released to market.
Artificially created food is not safe because there is never enough testing done on the long-term effects of food on humans. They may test what effects the food has on several generations of rats, but food companies are out to make money and they would never wait 5, 10, or 100 years of testing before releasing a product to the public. Because of this we have no idea what any food created in a lab will do in the long term, to people or the environment. There have been plenty of cases where genetically engineered and non-native plants have gotten out of control and decimated the local environment; nanotechnology is just the next step down that path.
Any kind of food that is created in a lab by scientists isn't healthy. The only kind of healthy food is the stuff that grows naturally. The food created in labs is nothing more than chemicals, and those are anything but healthy. They may taste just as good but they are not the same.
Native Americans have a tradition of making no changes in the way they live their lives without considering how it will affect the 7th generation to come. Unfortunately, we do not do that. We create something in a laboratory, do some short-term testing on it and declare it "safe." The point is, we do not know what the effect will be in 10 years, much less what the effect will be on the 7th generation...the 7th generation of those consuming the food as well as the 7th generation of the environment that will inevitably be impacted in some manner by introducing laboratory creations into nature.
It is possible to create computer simulations that will show the effect of most laboratory inventions on future generations...right on down to the 7th. These are complex and are, of course, subject to manipulation by those whose careers are invested in these new creations. But they are possible. They are not used...or they have been used and the results were not what was wanted.
Whether nanotechnology is safe has not been determined.
We tend to solve problems with science, even when they are human problems such as hunger, poverty, ignorance. It doesn't seem to work.
Nanotechnology is being studied by all of the major food companies. Although there are some things that might be beneficial to humans, like incorporating the delivery of medicines, I believe that introducing foreign substances into our bodies will untimately have an effect on humankind. I feel that we have found throughout history, that we end up paying a price when we go against the natural way. We have enough diseases that we can't conquer already, so why begin something that has the potential for more disasterous results to humans.
Food created using nanotechnology poses risks to the health of human beings. Altering natural foods is not good for our health and well being. The only thing it is good for is the temporary fattening of the pocketbooks of scientists and whoever else profits economically. Even if processed food is fortified with nutrients, our bodies are not made for that, and therefore, our health will deteriorate. Health care costs will skyrocket and doctors will get richer but as a society, we will all be much weaker.
I understand the need to create a larger supply of food at a cheaper price, and in the smallest time span possible; obviously there are food shortages/crises all around the world, but as we do not yet know what kind of negative effects consuming such products may have on us, I don't think it's the best choice. Instead, I think governments should create programs to teach individuals how to live off of the land naturally and be somewhat self-sufficient. I also think developmental planning organizations (NGOs) in countries were starvation occurs often should teach individuals what they need to know to survive, and educate them that their government should supply them with at least the bare essentials.