Food Industry Secretive About Its Use of Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is the science and engineering of particles at atomic and molecular scales. Nanotechnology structures are typically less than 100 nanometers in size. It’s hard to visualize such small things, but if you look at the end of your small finger, before it narrows, it’s probably about 1 centimeter across. It would be possible to fit ten million nanostructures end to end across that width. Nanotechnology is being applied to a wide range of disciplines, including medicine, electronics and engineering.

You probably already have something in your house that uses nanoparticles without knowing it. It might be a waterproof or wrinkle proof fabric, ink in a computer printer cartridge, sunscreen lotion or a coating on food packaging. It has also been used to produce odor-free socks and in novel cancer therapeutic methods. The range of potential applications is huge and increasing.

Lord Krebs, chairman of an inquiry on “Nanotechnologies and Food” by the United Kingdom’s (UK) House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, said the industry “wants to keep a low profile” to avoid controversy. He said that there are no clear dangers, but there are gaps in knowledge. The writers of the report commented that they found it “regrettable that the food industry was refusing to talk about its work in the area. We are not clear what is out there in use at the moment.” They added that it was exactly this behaviour that could prompt public backlash against the use of a technology that could bring many benefits to the public.

Lord Krebs also said that the industry was “very reluctant to put its head above the parapet and be open about research on nanotechnology. They got their fingers burnt over the use of genetically modified (GMO) crops and so they want to keep a low profile on this issue. We believe that they should adopt exactly the opposite approach. If you want to build confidence you should be open rather than secretive.” The report also says insufficient research has been carried out into the safety of the use of nanotechnology in foods. It urges the UK government to commission more research on the behaviour of nanomaterials, particularly in the human gut. The committee suggests a public register of foods or packaging that make use of nanotechnology.

Potential risks feed growing fears
Despite its huge potential, nanotechnology presents a new challenge because conventional knowledge on biological, chemical and physical effects on human beings and the environment is not necessarily useful when it is applied at the nanoscale. We are all familiar with substances that change their characteristics as the temperature varies. Water can be a solid (ice), liquid or a gas (water vapor and steam) at different temperatures. Many substances also act differently as particles rather than an solids. Small particles of combustible materials, such as sawdust, flour, sugar and coal dust, can explode if they are highly concentrated in a small space and a spark, or other heat source, ignites the particle+air mixture. Likewise, materials can behave completely differently at the nanoscale than they do in their more familiar form. This has made research on the health and environmental effects of nanotechnology a high priority at both the national and the international level.

It was because of this lack of knowledge that the UK study concluded that – “There is currently no clear and present danger from nanotechnology, but there are significant gaps in our knowledge for regulators to adequately assess the risk of nanomaterials in food.” In 2009, Canada became the first nation in the world to require companies to detail their use of engineered nanomaterials. It required reports from companies and institutions that manufactured or imported more than 1kg (2.2 U.S. pounds) of a nanomaterial during the 2008 calendar year.

There are legitimate concerns that some of the recently developed nanoparticle products may have unintended consequences. For example:

• We wrote about the potential for silver nanoparticles to reduce cross-contamination in nursing homes. Researchers found that silver nanoparticles used in socks, to reduce foot odor, are being released into the wash with possible negative consequences. Silver nanoparticles, which are bacteriostatic, may then destroy beneficial bacteria which are important for breaking down organic matter in waste treatment plants or farms.
• A study at the University of Rochester found that when rats breathed in nanoparticles, the particles settled in the brain and lungs.
• A major study published more recently in Nature Nanotechnology suggests some forms of carbon nanotubes could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in sufficient quantities. Asbestos causes mesothelioma, a potentially lethal disease.
• Workers in a Chinese paint factory developed serious lung disease. Two of them died and nanoparticles were then found in their lungs.

“Groups such as the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology have advocated that nanotechnology should be specially regulated by governments for these reasons. Others counter that overregulation would stifle scientific research and the development of innovations which could greatly benefit mankind. Other experts, including director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, David Rejeski, have testified that successful commercialization depends on adequate oversight, risk research strategy, and public engagement. Berkeley, California is currently the only city in the United States to regulate nanotechnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts in 2008 considered enacting a similar law, but ultimately rejected this.” – Wikipedia.

In January 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives Technology Committee reintroduced legislation to reauthorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative and beef up environmental and health research related to nanotechnology. It was essentially the same one overwhelmingly passed by the full House the previous fall, but then defeated in the Senate. It appears to still be in Committee. Notably, President Obama appointed a nanotechnology expert to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in April, 2009.

Should we be concerned?
There is clearly enough concern over the issue of nanotechnology and its potential impact that it warrants more research. It may very well turn out that the concerns aren’t legitimate, but, in the meantime, there should be monitoring and some form of limited regulation, particularly regarding the use of nanotechnology in food and its packaging. Making manufacturers register, and perhaps label, all goods that contain nanoparticles, could be a good way to start. As with pharmaceuticals, the onus should eventually be on them to prove that their use of nanotechnology is safe, rather than waiting for cases where it turns out to be unsafe. With billions of Dollars of potential profits at stake, it will be interesting to see how the food industry reacts. Let’s hope that it doesn’t use the model adopted by the Big Pharmas and Wall Street – conceal, distract, confuse, bribe and lie.

The Woodrow Wilson Center maintains an inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. We’ve included it and other useful links to nanotechnology resources in the Useful Sites page.