Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Study: Potential Hazards of Nanotechnology Not Known
Without research into risks, "the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology-based materials, products, and processes is uncertain"
Not enough is known about the potential hazards of nanotechnology, and millions of dollars more a year are needed to study the potential health and environmental effects of it, said the National Research Council yesterday.
The panel's findings come from a study sponsored by the EPA.
photo: EMSL
Reuters reports:
Nanotechnology involves designing and manufacturing materials on the scale of one-billionth of a meter. It is used in areas ranging from stain-resistant clothing and cosmetics to food additives. [...]
"Despite the promise of nanotechnology, without strategic research into emergent risks associated with it -- and a clear understanding of how to manage and avoid potential risks -- the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology-based materials, products, and processes is uncertain," said the study by a committee of 19 scientists.
The New York Times adds:
The panel called for a four-part research effort focusing on identifying sources of nanomaterial releases, processes that affect exposure and hazards, nanomaterial interactions at subcellular to ecosystem-wide levels and ways to accelerate research progress.
Last month, a coalition of consumer safety and environmental groups sued the FDA over inaction on nanoparticles:
More and more novel nanomaterials are being sold infused into new consumer products every day, while FDA sits idly by.
The lawsuit demands FDA respond to a petition the public interest organizations filed with the agency in 2006, nearly six years ago. The coalition is led by the International Center for Technology Assessment, on behalf of fellow plaintiffs Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch, the Center for Environmental Health, the ETC Group and the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy.
"Nano means more than tiny; it means materials that have the capacity to be fundamentally different. Yet more and more novel nanomaterials are being sold infused into new consumer products every day, while FDA sits idly by," said George Kimbrell, ICTA Attorney. "The agency's unlawful delay unnecessarily places consumers and the environment at risk."
The eighty-page petition documents the scientific evidence of nanomaterial risks stemming from their unpredictable toxicity and seemingly unlimited mobility. The 2006 petition requested that the FDA take several regulatory actions, including requiring nano-specific product labeling and health and safety testing, and undertaking an analysis of the environmental and health impacts of nanomaterials in products approved by the agency.
"Year after year goes by but we have yet to see the FDA do the bare minimum and require nanosunscreens to be labeled as such. This is a basic consumer right," said Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth. "We're well past the 1800s -- nobody likes or should be forced to use mystery chemicals anymore."
"We're well past the 1800s -- nobody likes or should be forced to use mystery chemicals anymore."
"It is unacceptable that the FDA continues to allow unregulated and unlabeled nanomaterials to be used in products consumers use every day," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "It is past time for this agency to live up to its mission and protect public health by assessing the health and environmental risks of nanomaterials, and to require labeling so that consumers know where these new materials are being used."
"The scientific consensus is that nanomaterials require specific testing to account for their novel capacities and potential risks. The FDA must do such testing as part of a pre-market safety assessment in a broader regulatory initiative to protect public health," said Steve Suppan of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
A 2009 report from Food & Water Watch titled "Unseen Hazards: from Nanotechnology to Nanotoxicity" (pdf) looked at the ubiquity of nanotechnology in the food system:
For a snapshot of nanotechnology in the food system, consider the following:
At the farm, fertilizers and pesticides containing nanoparticles of clay and other materials are touted for their slow-release mechanisms and potency.
Food itself can contain nanoparticles, such as cured meats and sausages, nano-tea, and the wide variety of nutritional supplements containing nanosilver. Research and development is underway to use nano- technology in myriad aspects of food processing.
In the kitchen, we prepare food using kitchenware and cutting boards that employ anti-microbial nanosilver technology, and store food in refrigerators also coated with nanosilver.
When we package food to put in the refrigerator or take with us to work, a large number of food containers and wrappings are incorporating nanotechnologies into their manufacture, even though there is a threat that nanoparticles could actually migrate from the packaging into the food itself.
The report also linked nanoparticles to:
- Damage to DNA
- Disruption of cellular function and production of reactive oxygen species
- Asbestos-like pathogencity
- Neurologic problems (such as seizures)
- Organ damage, including significant lesions on the liver and kidneys
- Destruction of beneficial bacteria in wastewater treatment systems
- Stunted root growth in corn, soybeans, carrots, cucumber and cabbage
- Gill damage, respiratory problems and oxidative stress in fish
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has an overview of sunscreens and cosmetics containing nanoparticles.



37 Comments so far
Show AllAs i wrote in one of the network surveillance threads, i sure wish more of us took these threats as seriously as we take the ecological, economic, and political threats we face.
Yes we face "the 6th extinction," capitalism fascism and war.
But genetic engineering, cybernetics, and nano-technology are equally threatening to our humanity, our civilization and our lives, to everything we are, need, and treasure.
We meander along, buying the latest toy marvels, participating in the latest network apps, feeling uncomfortable with developments but not considering a resistance effort.
Yet fire --plain old fire, one of the most primitive of all technologies-- might yet be the death of us all, and will be if we don't stop using it to burn fossil fuels.
Without the technologies of optics, chemistry, and vaccination, we'd still be prey to smallpox and polio, among other killers.
Nanotech, I'd bet money, will be the tool that ends the threat of cancer and the truly terrifying brain and CNS wasting disorders such as Alzheimers, PCA, CJD, supranuclear palsy, Gehrig's, Guthrie's, etc.
The trick is not to fear nanotech (or any other technology), but to make its premature use in any trivial application a major felony. Keep the hard-of-thinking and the greedy away, because as we see everyday around here with nukes and fire, even people with high IQs are sometimes no better than uneducated peasants at focusing on the real danger.
We truly do live in a Neo-Dark Ages. People who champion our temporary war against nature never consider the consequences of our corporate for-profit technology actions. Small pox vacs for sale and other vaccinations have disturbed the process of Natural Selection, and now we face a planet with billions more living on it than the atmosphere is capable of supporting.
And then there's these fanciful, non-scientific delusions held by some, that somehow contaminating the Biosphere with untested, unregulated Corporate Nano-Pollution will somehow cure cancer rather than cause it. Even when that flies in the face of all genetic research showing just how delicate our cellular machinery is. True objective scientists (non-corporate-pushed-scientists) know the most important tenet of research is knowing when not to let something out of the lab.
But you "Corporate Communists" don't believe in true democracy where the citizens will convene at the street level and vote either for or against FrankenFood, for example. No, no. You want a greedy CEO on Wall Street to decide this for us in subversion of the Constitution and the long-honored principle of free societies.
Corporate Communism: The belief that all power and wealth of a society should be in the Wall Street hands of One Percent of the population.
TJ
Stick to subjects you know, like the American history that we debated previously, if you want my respect. If you don't have at least an introductory background in the science relevant to the subject on this CD article: like Biology or Biological Anthropology, or Genetics, don't advise people not to fear reckless experimentation of our food and consumer products we come in close contact with! Your post was irresponsible, imho, and contradicts the sordid history of Wall Street disregarding public safety in favor of profit.
Since you seem unaware of all this, you might want to review the same path we took on gene splicing in consumer food and the innocent victims who unknowingly consumed this Unlabeled Frankenfood and in some cases died:
http://www.amazon.com/Biotech-Century-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/0874779537/ref=sr...
Best Regards,
TJ
p.s., Don't take my rebuke personally. Like SR, I love to argue. I'm not arguing against you personally; I'm arguing against the idea we should not fear a greedy CEO on Wall Street who has no background on genetics either and is pumping this crap into our product supply since his VP's used to be in the FDA and has corrupted that watchdog body. That is my perception of the dismal world we are sitting in right now. I must thank you for setting the table for me. It was most invigorating.
Maybe you should move to Arizona. I hear they ban books over there. You'll feel right at home. Chief Inquisitor....
A good example of the Empire's "Wonder Weapons" run amuck, is the emergence of Lyme Disease, at the Town of Lyme, Connecticut, just 16 miles downwind of the Secret Bio-Weapons lab at Plum Island, NY.
From wiki:
Bio-weapons research. The original anti-animal Bio Weapons mission was "to establish and pursue a program of research and development of certain anti-animal (BW) agents".[13] By August 1954 animals occupied holding areas at Plum Island and research was ongoing within Building 257.[9] The USDA facility, known as the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, continued work on biological warfare research until the U.S. program was ended by Richard Nixon in 1969.[8] The bio-weapons research at Building 257 and Fort Terry was shrouded in aura of mystery and secrecy.[10][14] The existence of biological warfare experiments on Plum Island during the Cold War era was denied for decades by the U.S. government. In 1993 Newsday unearthed documents proving otherwise and in 1994, Russian scientists inspected the Plum Island research facility to verify that these experiments had indeed ended.[14] ...
...In response to the two 2004 incidents, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Congressman Tim Bishop wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security regarding their concerns about the center's safety: "We urge you to immediately investigate these alarming breaches at the highest levels, and to keep us apprised of all developments."[4] ...
...Lab 257, a book by Michael C. Carroll, Ph.D., has alleged a connection between Plum Island Animal Disease Center and the outbreaks of three infectious diseases: West Nile virus in 1999, Lyme disease in 1975, and Dutch duck plague in 1967.[6] ... UNQUOTE
The more we fool around with FrankenLabs, in the name of new markets and national security, the more we expose everyone to the consequences of this evil enterprise when it proliferates, by accident, or on purpose, around the globe. Again, great insightful posts samosamo.
TJ
I went to wikipedia and found that interesting, and especially the government's 'Army Chemical Review' review was interesting, as well by refuting the book's intent. I believe even amazon books calls it for some part a hypothetical thesis of sorts but based on actual information. So, as is the main reason for this conundrum, who am I to believe, me or him. I am tired of believing our government and that in itself is dangerous. But truth can be analogous to fiction and vice versa. It is amazing how I see so much in the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy that is so analogous to today.
Again thanks. ss
It is unconscionable to experiment with the public and Children this way and not to label such bio-experimentation as such. If the FDA, FEMA, EPA, Congress won't ever do it's job, then why even fund a federal government at all? It's proven to be nothing but 100 percent oppression and tyranny this century. it's much worse to have the illusion of protection, or illusion of democracy, for example, than nothing at all.
Let's start over again, building the government up from the street level. Let's liquidate dangerous Wall Street, which proves everyday that greed is an unacceptable ruler.
TJ
Coming up on a recent predator kill and eating the remains.
Reaching into the water and pulling out a fish.
Climbing a tree and eating eggs from a nest.
Granted some of that isn't appetizing but it fed hominids sufficiently to allow those ancestors to leave us at our pathetic and arrogant selves to this point in time. But that is the way we evolved. And thanks to a bunch to the technology of the M$M we are all but totally remiss in paying attention to history which is a sure way of getting to the dire straights this world is in today.
No humans are too spoiled with the ever newer and expanding technology of entertainment, taste and restaurants. Living in the wild was the way to live and can be done today. But it just might take the technology of picking up a rock and taking prey in that way. Certainly, the world was a much more settled place without the stinking technology that exists today because all one miscreant has to so today is push a button or flick on a switch and things are taken care of for better or worse according to one's ideology.
And now, today, people are inundated with redundant technology that only provides the least of any kind of quality in life. Such as spectator sports. Just think of all that convenient technology that allow ones to go sit on one's ass just to feel emotional trauma for a couple of hours and then technologizes one's self back home.