Sludge Watch ==> What is Nanotechnology - Ask Natural Life

[Maureen Reilly]

Excellent article in Natual Life Magazine in the current issue (also copied 
below).
Wendy Priesnitz is an award winning writer.

http://www.life.ca/nl/120/asknlnano.html



Ask Natural Life:
What is Nanotechnology and
Should We Be Concerned About it?
by Wendy Priesnitz

Q: I’ve just heard that an organic certification agency has added 
nanotechnology to its list of forbidden things. What is it and should I be 
concerned about it?

A: Nanotechnology is a powerful platform for manipulating matter at the 
level of atoms and molecules in order to alter their properties. 
Nanomaterials are defined as particles having one or more dimensions of 
100nm or less. One nanometer (nm) is one millionth of a millimeter and one 
billionth of a meter – or approximately one 80,000th of the width of a human 
hair. A strand of DNA is 2.5nm wide and a red blood cell 7,000 nm.

The fundamental properties of matter change at the nanoscale. According to 
research conducted at the University of Rochester’s Department of 
Environmental Medicine and published in Environmental Health Perspectives in 
2005, altered properties can include color, solubility, material strength, 
electrical conductivity, magnetic behavior, mobility (within the environment 
and within the human body), chemical reactivity and biological activity.

The manufacture of products using nanotechnology has exploded in recent 
years, creating something akin to a gold rush mentality. More than 720 
products containing nanomaterials are now on the market. They include 
sunscreens and cosmetics, food additives, temperature-moderating clothing, 
food packaging, agricultural fertilizers, computer chips and mobile phones, 
inks, computer storage devices and displays, football stadium lights, tennis 
racquets, burn dressings and dental binding agents. Nanotechnology 
proponents envision it being used in the future to create cheaper ways of 
producing electricity from the sun, earlier and better diagnostics and 
treatment of diseases and water purification in developing countries. 
Currently, there is an estimated $9 billion a year worth of research being 
done.

There is no doubt that nanotechnology will have a massive impact on all 
industries and sectors of the economy, society and ecology. Opinion is 
divided as to whether these changes will be positive or negative. But there 
is enough concern that The Soil Association in the U.K. – one of the world’s 
pioneers of organic agriculture – announced in January that it has banned 
human-made nano- materials from the organic cosmetics, foods and textiles 
that it certifies. A 2007 survey by 15 governments estimates there are at 
least 70 nanotech food-related applications already on the market and most 
major food and beverage corporations are investing in nanotech R&D.

In a statement, The Soil Association explained its motivation: “Our concern 
with nanoparticles lies in the fact that the properties of materials at this 
size can differ significantly from those at larger scales. Nanoparticles are 
so small they can sometimes bypass the body’s natural protective boundaries 
such as skin…Industry and government are belatedly conducting safety tests 
that will take several years to reach firm conclusions. Therefore we’ve 
applied the precautionary principle.”

And that’s the problem: Products containing nanomaterials have been released 
commercially in the absence of regulatory oversight and in spite of warnings 
from some of the oldest and most respected scientific bodies in the world, 
such as the U.K.’s Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, which 
published a report in 2004 urging tighter controls on the industry, 
suggesting that nanomaterials be treated like new chemicals.

In particular, the report highlighted the potential risk of “free” 
nanoparticles that it said could escape into the atmosphere, be inhaled and 
have an effect on health, in the same way that ultra fine particles that are 
a by-produce of forest fires, volcanoes and processes like welding and 
vehicle combustion can be harmful to health. Professor Mark Welland, head of 
the University of Cambridge Nanoscale Science Laboratory, says that we know 
inhaled nanoparticles found in the bloodstream have dispersed throughout the 
brain. But, he adds, it is not known if this poses a health risk. According 
to a 2006 report prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Congress by that 
country’s National Research Council, there is also evidence that engineered 
nanoparticles can have adverse effects on the health of laboratory animals, 
enter human cells and trigger chemical reactions in soil, interfering with 
biological and ecological processes. That report also urged precaution to 
protect the health and safety of workers, the public and the environment.

Oxford University’s Dr. Alexis Vlandas is Nanotechnology spokesperson for 
International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility 
also worries about nanoparticles entering the human body. He says, “A much 
more proactive effort is needed to understand the complex phenomena 
(bio-accumulation, degradation, unforeseen chemical reactions, etc.) which 
could lead to negative impact on human health or the environment.”

Nevertheless, there is still no legal requirement anywhere in the world for 
manufacturers to conduct new safety tests on nano-scale ingredients. Nor is 
there any requirement for manufacturers to demonstrate that they do not 
present a negative impact to the environment or to indicate the presence of 
nano-scale ingredients on product labels. In fact, there is not even an 
internationally accepted nomenclature, set of definitions and measurement 
systems for nanotechnology, although that is being worked on. And, finally, 
the social, economic and ethical challenges posed by nanotechnologies have 
yet to be addressed.

Nowhere are untested nanomaterials entering consumer products faster than in 
the personal care and cosmetics industries. And their use is of concern 
because these products are used daily and are designed to be used directly 
on the skin. They may be inhaled and are often ingested. While the jury is 
still out on whether nanomaterials can enter intact skin, studies show that 
broken skin is an ineffective barrier. This suggests that the presence of 
acne, eczema or shaving wounds is likely to enable the uptake of 
nanoparticles into the body. Furthermore, in preparing its 2006 report 
Nanomaterials, Sunscreen and Cosmetics: Small Ingredients, Big Risks, 
Friends of the Earth (FOE) found that many cosmetics and personal care 
products contain ingredients that intentionally act as “penetration 
enhancers,” raising concerns they may increase the likelihood of skin uptake 
of nanomaterials and possible entry into the blood stream

Nano-scale carbon molecules called “fullerenes” or “buckyballs” are among 
the ingredients currently being used in face creams and moisturizers. They 
have been found to cause brain damage in fish. Even low levels of exposure 
to fullerenes have been shown to damage human liver cells. Chemistry 
professor Tony Ryan of the University of Sheffield in England has questioned 
their safety. “I wouldn’t put buckyballs anywhere near my face,” he says. 
“We need to understand more about the toxicology. One of the potential 
dangers…is: Are we creating a new asbestos? The asbestosis response is based 
on the shape of the particle. Part of the issue is in the shape of the 
molecule and how they’re introduced. We just need to be careful about the 
risk versus the benefit.”

Nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are used to make sunscreens 
transparent but, says FOE, they have been shown to be photoactive, producing 
free radicals and causing DNA damage to skin cells when exposed to UV light. 
In 2007, Consumer Reports asked an outside lab to test for nanoparticles of 
zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in eight sunscreens that listed either 
compound on their label. All eight contained the nanoparticles, yet only one 
disclosed their use.

The ETC Group, a pioneering Ottawa-based organization working on global 
issues like biotechnology, conservation of agricultural biodiversity and 
food security, takes a strong stand on nanotechnology. It cautions that 
while it offers opportunities for society, it also involves profound 
ethical, social and environmental risks, not only because it is an enabling 
technology to the biotech industry, but also because it involves atomic 
manipulation and will make possible the fusing of the biological world and 
the mechanical. In 2003, the ETC Group called for a moratorium on research 
involving molecular self-assembly and self-replication until the 
ramifications have been studied.

They’re not the only organization calling for a moratorium. FOE-US has 
called for a moratorium on all commercial release of nanotechnological 
materials and products. They say, “Given the serious risks and impacts 
associated with nanotechnology’s introduction, public involvement in 
decision making regarding nanotechnology and the introduction of a 
regulatory regime based on the precautionary principle must be prerequisites 
to further commercialization of nanoproducts.”

In July of 2007, an international coalition of consumer, public health, 
environmental, labor, and civil society organizations spanning six 
continents called for strong, comprehensive oversight of nanotechnology and 
its products. Over 40 groups released a paper entitled Principles for the 
Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, citing risks to the public, 
workers and the environment and demanding a moratorium on it pending 
research and regulation.

“Even though potential health hazards stemming from exposure have been 
clearly identified, there are no mandatory workplace measures that require 
exposures to be assessed, workers to be trained or control measures to be 
implemented,” explains Bill Kojola of the AFL-CIO, which was part of the 
coalition. “This technology should not be rushed to market until these 
failings are corrected and workers assured of their safety.”

“Nanomaterials are entering the environment during manufacture, use and 
disposal of hundreds of products, even though we have no way to track the 
effects of this potent new form of pollution,” agrees Ian Illuminato of FOE. 
“By the time monitoring catches up to commerce, the damage will already have 
been done.”

There is also a concern that nano- technology will provide the tools for 
continuous surveillance, with implications for civil liberties. And then 
there’s the growing nano arms race, which could create a whole new 
generation of weapons of mass destruction including nano-biological 
weaponry. Over a decade ago, retired U.S. Admiral David Jeremiah told a 
conference on nanotechnology and global security that nanotechnology will 
prove more significant than nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, public pressure seems to be goading governments into action. 
The Environment, Healthy and Safety Division of the Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Development has made the safety of nanomaterials a 
priority. Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia the U.K. and the U.S. have 
created working groups to look into the implications of nanotechnology 
commercialization.

However, the amounts of money being spent are minuscule in comparison to the 
$6 billion spent last year by governments worldwide on nanotech. (The U.S. 
government’s $5 billion between 2001 and 2006 is the biggest publicly funded 
science endeavor since the Apollo moon landing, with the largest portion 
funding military applications.)

In Canada, the Consumers Council has recently received a $60,000 grant from 
Canada’s Office of Consumer Affairs to study the impact of nanotechnology on 
consumers and to improve the capacity of consumers to advocate re- garding 
regulatory decisions.

Here’s hoping other organic certification agencies follow The Soil 
Association’s lead and add nanotech to their lists of outlawed ingredients. 
Meanwhile, we think that product manufacturers and distributors must bear 
the burden of proof to demonstrate the safety of their products: If there is 
no independent health and safety data review for a nanotech product, then 
their products shouldn’t be sold.

For references and contacts accompanying this article, read the March/April 
issue of Natural Life.  Author Wendy Priesnitz is the Editor of Natural Life 
Magazine and a journalist with 30 years of experience. She has also authored 
nine books. Read her blog.