Difficulty Level: Medium

#30

Abstract: Almost all of the processed foods we eat contain nanoparticles, which are
atomic sized flavor enhancers manufactured in labs. Unfortunately, as these are
unregulated, we know absolutely nothing about how these influence our bodies.
Vocabulary: Nanotechnology, Cajoled, Aroma, Voodoo, Pristine, Liasons, Candid,
Precedents, Thwart

Regulated or Not, Nano-Foods Coming to a Store Near You

Andrew Schneider Senior Public Health Correspondent
AOL News - Second in a Three-Part Series
(March 24) -- For centuries, it was the cook and the heat of the fire that cajoled taste,
texture, flavor and aroma from the pot. Today, that culinary voodoo is being crafted by
white-coated scientists toiling in pristine labs, rearranging atoms into chemical particles
never before seen.
At last year's Institute of Food Technologists international conference, nanotechnology
was the topic that generated the most buzz among the 14,000 food-scientists, chefs and
manufacturers crammed into an Anaheim, Calif., hall. Though it's a word that has
probably never been printed on any menu, and probably never will, there was so much
interest in the potential uses of nanotechnology for food that a separate daylong session
focused just on that subject was packed to overflowing.
In one corner of the convention center, a chemist, a flavorist and two food-marketing
specialists clustered around a large chart of the Periodic Table of Elements (think back to
high school science class). The food chemist, from China, ran her hands over the chart,
pausing at different chemicals just long enough to say how a nano-ized version of each
would improve existing flavors or create new ones.
One of the marketing guys questioned what would happen if the consumer found out.
The flavorist asked whether the Food and Drug Administration would even allow
nanoingredients.
Posed a variation of the latter question, Dr. Jesse Goodman, the agency's chief scientist
and deputy commissioner for science and public health, gave a revealing answer. He said
he wasn't involved enough with how the FDA was handling nanomaterials in food to
discuss that issue. And the agency wouldn't provide anyone else to talk about it.
This despite the fact that hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have shown that
nanoparticles pose potential risks to human health -- and, more specifically, that when
ingested can cause DNA damage that can prefigure cancer and heart and brain disease.

Despite Denials, Nano-Food Is Here

Officially, the FDA says there aren't any nano-containing food products currently sold in
the U.S.
Not true, say some of the agency's own safety experts, pointing to scientific studies
published in food science journals, reports from foreign safety agencies and discussions
in gatherings like the Institute of Food Technologists conference.
In fact, the arrival of nanomaterial onto the food scene is already causing some big-chain
safety managers to demand greater scrutiny of what they're being offered, especially
with imported food and beverages. At a conference in Seattle last year hosted by leading
food safety attorney Bill Marler, presenters raised the issue of how hard it is for large
supermarket companies to know precisely what they are purchasing, especially with
nanomaterials, because of the volume and variety they deal in.
According to a USDA scientist, some Latin American packers spray U.S.-bound produce
with a wax-like nanocoating to extend shelf-life. "We found no indication that the
nanocoating ... has ever been tested for health effects," the researcher says.
Craig Wilson, assistant vice president for safety for Costco, says his chain does not test
for nanomaterial in the food products it is offered by manufacturers. But, he adds, Costco
is looking "far more carefully at everything we buy. ... We have to rely on the accuracy of
the labels and the integrity of our vendors. Our buyers know that if they find
nanomaterial or anything else they might consider unsafe, the vendors either remove it, or
we don't buy it."
Another government scientist says nanoparticles can be found today in produce sections
in some large grocery chains and vegetable wholesalers. This scientist, a researcher with
the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, was part of a group that examined Central
and South American farms and packers that ship fruits and vegetables into the U.S. and
Canada. According to the USDA researcher -- who asked that his name not be used
because he's not authorized to speak for the agency -- apples, pears, peppers, cucumbers
and other fruit and vegetables are being coated with a thin, wax-like nanocoating to
extend shelf-life. The edible nanomaterial skin will also protect the color and flavor of the
fruit longer.
"We found no indication that the nanocoating, which is manufactured in Asia, has ever
been tested for health effects," said the researcher.
A science committee of the British House of Lords has found that nanomaterials are
already appearing in numerous products, among them salad dressings and sauces. Jaydee
Hanson, policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, says that they're also being added
to ice cream to make it "look richer and better textured."
Some foreign governments, apparently more worried about the influx of nano-related
products to their grocery shelves, are gathering their own research. In January, a science
committee of the British House of Lords issued a lengthy study on nanotechnology and

food. Scores of scientific groups and consumer activists and even several international
food manufactures told the committee investigators that engineered particles were already
being sold in salad dressings; sauces; diet beverages; and boxed cake, muffin and
pancakes mixes, to which they're added to ensure easy pouring.
Other researchers responding to the committee's request for information talked about
hundreds more items that could be in stores by year's end.
For example, a team in Munich has used nano-nonstick coatings to end the worldwide
frustration of having to endlessly shake an upturned mustard or ketchup bottle to get at
the last bit clinging to the bottom. Another person told the investigators that Nestl and
Unilever have about completed developing a nano-emulsion-based ice cream that has a
lower fat content but retains its texture and flavor.
The Ultimate Secret Ingredient
Nearly 20 of the world's largest food manufacturers -- among them Nestl, as well as
Hershey, Cargill, Campbell Soup, Sara Lee, and H.J. Heinz -- have their own in-house
nano-labs, or have contracted with major universities to do nano-related food product
development. But they are not eager to broadcast those efforts.
A team in Munich, the House of Lords investigators also learned, is using nano-nonstick
coatings to make it easier to get the last drops of ketchup out of the bottle.
Kraft was the first major food company to hoist the banner of nanotechnology.
Spokesman Richard Buino, however, now says that while "we have sponsored nanotech
research at various universities and research institutions in the past," Kraft has no labs
focusing on it today.
The stance is in stark contrast to the one Kraft struck in late 2000, when it loudly and
repeatedly proclaimed that it had formed the Nanotek Consortium with engineers,
molecular chemists and physicists from 15 universities in the U.S. and abroad. The
mission of the team was to show how nanotechnology would completely revolutionize
the food manufacturing industry, or so said its then-director, Kraft research chemist
Manuel Marquez.
But by the end of 2004, the much-touted operation seemed to vanish. All mentions of
Nanotek Consortium disappeared from Kraft's news releases and corporate reports.
"We have not nor are we currently using nanotechnology in our products or packaging,"
Buino added in another e-mail.
Industry Tactics Thwart Risk Awareness
The British government investigation into nanofood strongly criticized the U.K.'s food
industry for "failing to be transparent about its research into the uses of nanotechnologies

and nanomaterials." On this side of the Atlantic, corporate secrecy isn't a problem, as
some FDA officials tell it.
Investigators on Capitol Hill say the FDA's congressional liaisons have repeatedly
assured them -- from George W. Bush's administration through President Barack Obama's
first year -- that the big U.S. food companies have been upfront and open about their
plans and progress in using nanomaterial in food.
But FDA and USDA food safety specialists interviewed over the past three months
stressed that based on past performance, industry cannot be relied on to voluntarily
advance safety efforts.
These government scientists, who are actively attempting to evaluate the risk of
introducing nanotechnology to food, say that only a handful of corporations are candid
about what they're doing and collaborating with the FDA and USDA to help develop
regulations that will both protect the public and permit their products to reach market.
Most companies, the government scientists add, submit little or no information unless
forced. Even then, much of the information crucial to evaluating hazards -- such as the
chemicals used and results of company health studies -- is withheld, with corporate
lawyers claiming it constitutes confidential business information.
Both regulators and some industry consultants say the evasiveness from food
manufacturers could blow up in their faces. As precedent, they point to what happened in
the mid-'90s with genetically modified food, the last major scientific innovation that was,
in many cases, force-fed to consumers. "There was a lack of transparency on what
companies were doing. So promoting genetically modified foods was perceived by some
of the public as being just profit-driven," says Professor Rickey Yada of the Department
of Food Science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.
"In retrospect, food manufacturers should have highlighted the benefits that the
technology could bring as well as discussing the potential concerns."
Questions:
1) Why would food companies not advertise nanotechnologies?
2) Do you think the benefits of nanotechnology in food outweigh the health risks?
3) What can the FDA and USDA do to regulate these technologies?

Difficulty Level: Medium

#31

Abstract: Venezuela, a rich oil producing country in South America, is one of the most
influential countries in the Western Hemisphere. Although their leader, Hugo Chavez, has
done a lot to improve the international standing of Venezuela, he is also famous for
certain human rights abuses, such as this one.
Vocabulary: Disseminate, Dissent, Prohibit, Detain, Utilize, Impose, Trample,
Allegation, Punitive, Autonomous

Chavez critic arrested in Venezuela

By the CNN Wire Staff
Caracas, Venezuela (CNN) -- The president of a Venezuelan TV station that has been
critical of leftist President Hugo Chavez was arrested Thursday on charges that he abused
his right to free speech, then released after a two-hour hearing before a judge.
An arrest warrant was issued this week for Guillermo Zuloaga after a complaint by
National Assembly Deputy Manuel Villalba, who said the Globovision owner and
president had broken the law by disseminating false information that caused panic and
dissent among Venezuelans.
Globovision is the last remaining nationwide private TV broadcaster critical of Chavez.
Zuloaga was released Thursday evening but prohibited under court order from leaving
the country.
In brief comments to reporters outside the justice building in Caracas, the executive -who was detained at the airport in the city of Punto Fijo -- said that he was shocked by
the days events.
"In no way was I trying to flee the country," Zuloaga said. His plan had been to fly his
own plane on a day trip to and from Bonaire, he said.
He also denied that he said anything defamatory against President Chavez, as
prosecutors claim.
Venezuelan Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz said an investigation was started after
comments Zuloaga made at a recent Inter American Press Association meeting in Aruba.
"The president of the republic, Hugo Chavez Frias -- it's true that he won some elections
in 1998 and has legitimacy from that," Zuloaga said at the gathering. "But after that,
instead of being president of all Venezuelans, he has dedicated himself to be president of

a group of Venezuelans and try to divide Venezuela for a reason, that is 21st-century
socialism."
Zuloaga added, "You can't talk about true freedom of expression when you have a
government that uses force to repress the media ... [and] a president of the republic
utilizing the force that he has and the authority that he has to manipulate public opinion
and to try to impose a way of thinking."
Zuloaga's family and supporters said after the arrest that freedom of expression is being
trampled in Venezuela.
"In Venezuela, it's a crime to offer an opinion," said Alejandro Aguirre, president of the
Inter American Press Association.
Zuloaga's son, Carlos Alberto, offered the same observation to CNN en Espaol. "Here in
Venezuela, to offer an opinion is becoming a crime," he said.
Villalba, the congressman who brought the complaint against Zuloaga, disputed that
allegation. Venezuelans, he said in an interview with CNN en Espaol, have freedom of
speech but cannot abuse it by making comments that cause division or hatred among
citizens.
An Organization of American States commission criticized Zuloaga's arrest late
Thursday, saying the panel sent a letter to the Venezuelan government asking for more
information.
It was the second criticism of Venezuela issued Thursday by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights.
Earlier, the commission expressed its "deep concern" about human rights conditions in
Venezuela. That statement focused on the arrest this week of former Zulia state governor
and 1993 presidential candidate Oswaldo Alvarez Paz.
The opposition politician said two weeks ago on Globovision that "Venezuela has
become an operation center that facilitates narcotrafficking dealings." He also accused
Venezuela of having ties to Marxist rebels in Colombia and Spain.
Venezuelan prosecutors charged him with conspiracy against the government, public
instigation to commit a crime and spreading false information.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had issued two complaints about
Venezuela in the past seven months.
The commission issued a 319-page report last month that said Venezuela routinely
violates human rights, often intimidating or punishing citizens based on their political
beliefs.

The rights commission also issued a statement in August that said it "is deeply concerned
about the deterioration of the situation of freedom of expression in Venezuela."
On Thursday, the OAS panel said the Chavez government has used "the punitive power
of the state to criminalize human rights defenders, judicialize peaceful social protests, and
persecute through the criminal system persons the authorities consider political opponents
in Venezuela."
The commission said, "The space for public debate about Venezuelan government
authorities is being increasingly reduced through the use of instruments such as the
criminal justice system to silence critical or dissident expressions."
OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza also joined the criticism Thursday evening,
saying in a news release, "I worry about the national and international political
repercussions of this situation, and that is why I request the Venezuelan authorities to
promptly free Mr. Zuloaga and, should he be tried, that it be done with respect for the
presumption of innocence and with all the guarantees offered to him by the law."
The Venezuelan Embassy in Washington did not have an immediate comment.
Spokeswoman Marielba Alvarez said officials there had not seen the commission's
statement. The embassy issued a release Wednesday, however, addressing what Venezuela
called "distortions and inaccuracies in the U.S. media coverage" of Alvarez Paz's arrest
Monday.
"This case is a legal one, not a political one," the embassy release said, adding that
"Alvarez Paz's rights and guarantees are being fully respected."
Although Zuloaga and Globovision face more than 40 legal and administrative
complaints, the station owner said in November that he would not be deterred.
"Globovision will not cease to inform the truth," he said.
Prosecutors accused Globovision in June of not paying about $2.3 million (5 million
bolivares fuertes) in taxes for certain advertisements the station broadcast in 2002 and
2003.
That week, national guard troops and authorities from Venezuela's environmental agency
staged a late-night raid on Zuloaga's Caracas home to see whether the avid hunter had
killed any protected prey. It was the second raid on Zuloaga's home in two weeks.
Zuloaga, who owns two Toyota dealerships, also was accused last year of overcharging
on 24 cars he had sold and was storing on his property. Those vehicles were seized in a
May 21 raid on the house.
On Wednesday, Insulza said in an interview with CNN en Espaol that he is powerless to
have the 34-nation organization look into human rights in Venezuela.

"I am not the president of the OAS. I am not the president of the Americas," Insulza said.
"I am the secretary general, who fulfills the resolutions of the Permanent Council, which
consists of representatives from the 34 member nations, and nobody is going to change
that. And that is the entity that should make decisions with respect to member nations."
Asked whether trade and economic considerations are keeping some Latin American
countries from speaking out against conditions in Venezuela, Insulza answered, "And
what are we going to do about it?"
Insulza, who was elected to another five-year term as OAS secretary general Wednesday,
said that only former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked him to investigate
Venezuela. He is bound by OAS regulations to ask permission of the host nation to bring
a delegation into the country; Venezuela rejected the request.
Insulza said the only OAS entity allowed to address human rights issues is the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, which has done so.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is an autonomous panel created by
the OAS. The commission consists of seven independent members who act in a personal
capacity, without representing a particular country. They are elected by the OAS General
Assembly.
Questions:
1) Why is freedom of speech considered to be so valuable in the United States? Do you
agree with its importance?
2) If Hugo Chavez has the support of most of his people does that give him a mandate to
abuse his opponents? Why or why not?
3) Should the United States do anything to help ensure freedom of expression for
Venezualans? Why or why not?

Difficulty Level: Hard

#32

Abstract: Immigration reform, one of the most intensely political issues in American
politics, is reentering the national conversation in the wake of the passage of the health
care bill. This article presents one opinion on what exactly the debate should be about?
Vocabulary: Consulate, Resonance, Emblem, Simmering, Demarcated, Hybrid,
Reconcile, Transgressions, Sanguinary, Alleviate

Mexican border an imaginary line?

By Marcela Davison Aviles, Special to CNN
San Jose, California (CNN) -- Like many people, I have been following the Obama
administration's preparation for the renewed debate on immigration reform in Congress, a
debate that largely concerns Mexicans living in the U.S. So when I read the tragic news
about the murder of American consulate workers in Ciudad Juarez, there was an added
resonance.
In one instance, a murdered couple's baby -- the product of a Mexican-born mother and
an American-born father -- was left in the back seat of the victims' car, a living emblem
of the long mingling of heritage and conflict at the Mexico/U.S. border. Communities on
both sides of the line cry for this child and grieve for the families, as we have done for
generations.
At the same time the authorities in Washington and Mexico City must step up their
cooperative military and police actions to ensure the safety of citizens on the border, I
fear that the tragedy will renew the simmering "us vs. them" mentality with the
American public.
And yet as we approach immigration reform, we should recognize more than ever that
this is a moment involving critical decisions relating to our sense of identity and unity as
a nation. Rather than finding new divides, the times require an affirmation of our origins.
As the child left behind in this horrible tragedy will find a new embrace, perhaps with
extended family, so should our shared heritage and cultures find embrace and not be
olividado, discarded as a missing and forgotten piece of the dialogue between the U.S.
and Mexico on the issues that concern us.
Taking a step back and looking at the situation with a bit of cultural and historical
perspective could help frame a new way forward. Much has been written about our
shared lots: the economics, impact of NAFTA, increase in drug traffic, demographics,
social justice and post-September 11 national security issues. Crucially missing from the
current debate is this acknowledgment of our common Mexican and American cultural
heritage. It's as if, on this issue, the world began on September 11.

In fact, it is not an accident that popular culture has achieved what immigration policy
makers have not: full integration of Latino culture within the American dream through
television programs and films; fiestas in places like Chicago, Illinois, and Tucson,
Arizona; the crossover success of music; and the ready availability of goods, food and
services con sabor Latino.
In the hearts and minds of many on the border (U.S. Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement notwithstanding), there is no border. The psychology of the frontier is
characterized by what Mexicans might call a Mestizo reality, a community demarcated
by a line but which actually is a hybrid territory.
The couple murdered in Ciudad Juarez is an example: one from Mexico, the other from
El Paso, Texas. In the words of Octavio Paz, how do we reconcile a coexistence once
characterized as a "relationship of a mutual and stubborn deceit, usually involuntary,
though not always so"? (And, how do we do it in the midst of a brutal drug war?)
Recalling our heritage is one way. The origins of the present situation can be traced to the
Mexican-American War, which began in 1846 and was carried out in the context of the
long-running debate over slavery.
In speeches to Congress in 1847-48, Rep. Abraham Lincoln recognized the Mexican war
for what it was: an attempt to resolve the growing debate over free vs. slave territories,
and the nation's identity as an industrial- vs. agricultural-based economy, by gaining
access to territory that could be apportioned to appease both sides.
In 1846, the border was much farther north, and Mexico's territory included many of the
present-day's southwestern states. To many people in the region today, especially those
with family histories dating generations, it's not the people who moved; the border did.
When I read opinions proclaiming national security as justification for keeping "them"
out, my first reaction is to remember that in September 1847, the Americans made it all
the way "to the halls of Montezuma." There, on the pretext of defending Mexico's
"invasion" of her own territory, U.S. soldiers defeated a band of young cadets at
Chapultepec and occupied Mexico City.
The end game was the ceding of a major portion of Mexico's territory to the U.S. while
Americans continued to argue over which new states would be slave or free. Ulysses S.
Grant put it in perspective when he said: "The Southern rebellion was largely the
outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their
transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of
modern times."
In 2010, it's enlightening to read Lincoln's 1848 speech on the Mexican War. Many
Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are deeply conscious of the blood of these border
wars and the pain of our "inconvenient" history.

Can the memory of our heritage and history serve today to alleviate the current tension
on the subject of immigration? We must not allow our shared culture to be another victim
-- to become olividado. Instead, we must claim our heritage, our mixed identities, and call
upon ourselves to recover the dream of our anthem: Out of many, one.
Questions:
1) What is a border? How does living on one side of a border influence who we are as
people?
2) What exactly should we do to defend the U.S. Mexican border?
3) How might our border policy be tied in with the enormous drug gang war currently
plaguing Mexico? What can we do to solve both of these problems at once?

Difficulty Level: Medium

#33

Abstract: Nate Silver is one of the worlds top pollsters, and his political commentary
often predicts the future better than any crystal ball. In this article he analyzes exactly
how much the passage of health care influenced the immediate future of the Democratic
Party, and his results are not exactly what one may have expected.
Vocabulary: Implied, Perception, Parallel, Framework, Effectual, Valiant, Dynamic,
Concede

Are Democrats Better Off for Having Passed Health Care? Yes -- and No.
By Nate Silver
More polling data is starting to pour in on health care reform and it generally contains
decent, but not great, numbers for Democrats. Most of the polls show a bump of some
kind in approval for health care reform -- but it's not as large as that implied by the USA
Today/Gallup one-day poll that was released on Tuesday. If we take an average of the
four polls that have been conducted entirely after the health care bill passed the House,
rather (those from Gallup, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac and CBS), they average out to 43
percent in favor and 46 percent opposed. Those are numbers that I think Democrats
would gladly take relative to where health care has been in the past, but it's not exactly as
though the bill has become wildly popular -- nor is it likely to do so in advance of the
midterms.
Of the polls that have come out so far, I would most recommend the one from
Quinnipiac, who in essence did two separate large surveys just before and after the health
care bill was passed. Quinnipiac's is by far the deepest of the post-health care polls, both
in terms of the sample size and the breadth of the questions that were asked. And unlike
some of the other pollsters, they used the same question wording when talking to both the
befores and the afters.
Quinnipiac found about a 4-5 point bump in support for the health care bill itself,
although a larger bump (8 points) in Obama's handling of the issue. Obama's overall
approval rating, on the other hand, was little changed.
What's a bit more surprising is that Quinnipiac also found a decent-sized bump in
approval of the Democrats in Congress: from a pathetically low 30 percent to a not-quiteas-awful 36 percent. And most of the bump came from independent voters, among whom
approval increased from 19 percent to 33.

Perceptions of Republicans in Congress also improved somewhat -- from 31 percent to

34 percent -- but almost all of the bounce came from Republicans themselves:

These results parallel those found in February by Public Policy Polling, whose poll
showed that health care reform was actually thought of more highly by swing voters than
by voters (mostly Republicans) who had already picked a side.
What I think we're seeing are sort of two competing frameworks for how voters evaluate
the performance of the Congress. One is more literal-minded: do we like the policies that
the Congress has enacted or tried to enact? And the Democrats don't score so well there --

the numbers on health care are perhaps marginally improved, but they still aren't very
good and perceptions of the Democrats in Congress remain poor overall. On the other
hand, voters may also be responding -- perhaps more at a subconscious level -- to the
extent to which each party in Congress looks effectual or not. There, the numbers seem
to be a bit better for Democrats -- they've at least managed to do what Democrats with
large majorities are supposed to do. Moreover, the gains may be coming from relatively
important groups, such as independents who would still consider a vote for the
Democratic party Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, have also gotten some credit for
their valiant goal-line stand -- but most of it seems to becoming from Republicans
themselves, who were already highly motivated to turn out to vote.
There is arguably a similar dynamic with respect to President Obama: the numbers on his
handling of health care have improved more than the numbers on the health care bill
itself. Voters are certainly not enamored of the policy, but at least he appears to have
some follow-through. On the other hand, Obama's overall approval ratings have not
improved much -- although could also reflect the fact that health care reform actually isn't
quite that essential in voters' minds as compared to things like the economy.
On balance, I think if you polled Republican strategists right now and they were being
honest, they'd probably concede that Democrats are better off for having brought health
care to completion after having invested so much energy in it before. The Democrats
have a case they can make now -- we're making the tough decisions and getting things
done -- which may not be horribly persuasive to much of the electorate but is at least
marginally better than the complete directionlessness they seemed to be exhibiting a few
weeks ago.
On the other hand, I think if you polled Democratic strategists and they were being
honest, they'd probably concede that -- electorally-speaking -- Democrats would have
been better off if they'd found a different direction last year, focusing perhaps on financial
reform and then only turning to health care if their numbers warranted it. One of the risks
in undertaking health care in the first place, indeed, is that there was essentially no exit
strategy: no matter how badly the electorate reacted to the policy -- and they reacted quite
badly -- Democrats would probably have been even worse off if they'd abandoned it
somewhere along the way.
Questions:
1) Are you happy with the passage of the health care reform? Why would this be good or
bad?
2) Why do you think that asking the same question in slightly different ways yields such
wildly different answers?
3) Why do you think health care is such a 'wedge issue', meaning, why do you believe
that health care debate caused such strong emotions in people?