Nanotechnology:
Are we risking too much?
Can policymakers and scientists be
trusted to judge the potential and acceptability of nanotechnologies?
Tom Levitt
Nanotechnology is already here and used in hundreds of everyday
products from food packaging to computer keyboards.
The manipulation of materials on a nano-scale (a nanometre is a
millionth of a millimetre or about one eighty thousandth the size of a
human hair), enables them to take on new properties compared to their
larger form. For example, UV filters used in sunscreens produced in tiny
nano form become clear rather than white when compared to their larger
form.
But away from the buzz of excitement that often surrounds a new
technology there have been real concerns about the risk and hazards
these new materials present to both humans and the environment. The
early criticism from NGOs has focused not necessarily on the technology
itself but the ways in which it is being used and the lack of government
regulation and risk assessment.
Much of that concern still remains. A new report from Landmark
Europe, a PR agency, surveyed stakeholders across the EU and found that
knowledge and understanding of nanotechnology even amongst well-informed
groups was low. There was scepticism about the current regulations and
support for tougher labelling rules on products that were ingested or
applied to the body, i.e. food, drink, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.
Untested
A Friends of the Earth report last year found that untested
nanotechnology was being used in more than 100 food products and
packaging including; nutritional supplements, flavour and colour
additives, cling wrap and chemicals used in agriculture. It said
existing regulations in the US did not require testing or labelling for
nanomaterials when they were created from existing approved chemicals,
despite major differences in potential toxicity.
“Nanotechnology can be very dangerous when used in food,” said report
co-author Dr Rye Senjen. “Early scientific evidence indicates that some
nanomaterials produce free radicals which destroy or mutate DNA and can
cause damage to the liver and kidneys.”
There have also been strong concerns expressed about the widespread
use of nanosilver and the use of nanotechnologies in sunscreen.
Suncreen manufacturers are adding nanoparticles to make sun-blocking
ingredients like titanium dioxide and zonc oxide rub on clear instead of
white. These nanoparticles can pass through human skin into the blood
stream and then enter the brain, heart or liver. No-one fully
understands yet what, if any, impact they will have once inside the
human body.
Nanosilver
In the case of nanosilver the concern from NGOs is that silver, a
useful anti-bacterial agent, once scaled to nano size is far more
potent. But again, researchers don’t know enough about the effect that
potency can have on human health.
Despite the concerns, nanosilver has still become one of the most
commonly used nanomaterials in consumer products, predominately as a
bactericide in kitchen crockery, cosmetics and even children’s toys.
“Major corporations are putting nano-silver into a wide variety of
consumer products with virtually no oversight, and there are potentially
serious health consequences as a result,” said Friends of the Earth
health campaigner Ian Illuminato.
Silent debate
Despite the significant potential of nanotechnology the public debate
has actually been rather quiet. The UK has been running a rather low-key
public consultation in advance of a planned strategy in February 2010.
NGOs and academics worry that the lack of knowledge, as shown by the
Landmark Europe survey, is allowing nanotechnology to spread without the
necessary regulation.
In addition, they see that safe or positive technologies such as the
use of nanosilver as coatings for medical devices or as wound care for
severe burns victims are already getting tarnished by what is being
perceived as poor regulation.
“As always the regulation is trailing behind the knowledge,” said
Professor Howard. “We’ve never been exposed to these types of nano
particles with high atomic numbers (metals like nanosilver) so we don’t
yet know all the hazards which we’re researching.
“I don’t think we should expose the whole world to something and then
release later that we shouldn’t have. Some of the hazards may be
illusionary but some may not,” he added.
GMWatch co-editor Claire Robinson agreed. “The industries that are
already using nanotechnology, for example, in food, packaging and
cosmetics, are way ahead of the regulators. It’s likely that we are
storing up problems for the future by prematurely implementing a
technology we know so little about,” she said.
“Members of the public who know about GM often haven’t heard of
nanotechnology. But just as with GM, the application of nanotechnology
is racing ahead of the health and safety research, which is still in its
infancy,” she said.
However, Professor Howard pointed out, unlike GM, there was already a
substantial body of research about the hazards of small particles on
human health. “They’re defiantly more engaged in the debate than the GM
crowd were but then this is research that couldn’t just be sidestepped,”
he said.
EU gets tough?
While the technology may be ahead of the research there are
indications that, at a European level at least, there is a willingness
to take a tough stance.
In what Green MEP Caroline Lucas called a “radical departure” from
previous positions, the European Parliament voted in March 2009 to
introduce new rules on nanomaterials in cosmetics. Any cosmetic
containing nanomaterials will have to list the ingredient on product
packaging, followed by the word “nano” in brackets.
But labelling on its own is not enough. What campaigners and
scientists like Professor Howard want is tougher regulation from
policymakers.
Safety warning
Earlier this year, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) warned
that current toxicological tests on nanomaterials used in food products
and packaging were inadaquate.
EFSA also pointed out that the current risk assessments were, “likely
to be subject to a high degree of uncertainty”, and called for more
research on the toxicity of nanoparticles in the body.
- Third World Network Features -
|