Anne at Agrarian Grrl’s Muse made some posts recently about nanotechnology.
It made me realize this blog is approaching it’s third year, and I’ve never done a post on this very important subject.
Nanoparticles are increasingly making their way into consumer products, like cosmetics and sunscreen. Their use in this way is because they are quickly absorbed into the skin and so lotions become invisible soon after being applied. As far as I’m aware they fall into a regulatory category of ‘Generally Presumed Safe’, which basically means their are no rules concerning their use, no safety testing and no requirement to label products containing them. Like Anne pointed out, they are beginning to research their use as food additives.
Just like GM technology that’s now a worldwide reality, even though there has been no meaningful safety testing and consumers overwhelming reject it, it’s quickly looking like nanotechnology will become a reality in the same way.
I don’t really have the time to research this and do any in-depth posts on the topic right now. If anyone is looking for somthing to write about while the winter garden is dormant, you might have a go yourself. I’d like to hear more about the state of this technology in the world right now, and the best ways to avoid it. I’ll try to spend some time on covering this topic later.
They are much further along than initial research are available in N.A., amyway, in Nutritional Supplements, and other products now.
“Report finds Miller Light, Cadbury and other brands have toxic risks
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Untested nanotechnology is being used in more than 100 food products, food packaging and contact materials currently on the shelf, without warning or new FDA testing, according to a report released today by Friends of the Earth.
The report, Out of the Laboratory and onto Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture, found nanomaterials in popular products and packaging including Miller Light beer, Cadbury Chocolate packaging and ToddlerHealth, a nutritional drink powder for infants sold extensively at health food stores including WholeFoods.
“Nanotech food was put on our plates without FDA testing for consumer safety,” said Ian Illuminato, Friends of the Earth Health and Environment Campaigner. “Consumers have a right to know if they are taste-testing a dangerous new technology.”
http://action.foe.org/pressRelease.jsp?press_release_KEY=343
Or see a company page http://www.smartwomensupplements.com/
“smart food” for smart women is the marketing…..
anne
A quick surf around shows Europe is strongly embracing the technology, but I haven’t come across anything that suggests it is already being added to food here. I suspect it’s not, and there would be a big uproar here if they tried to do it without labelling.
If anyone knows any different, please let me know!
I think you are fortunately right Patrick. I can’t seem to find anything on nano released in Europe. Netherlands seems to be a hotspot for reseach. The Observer has a good article.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/futureoffood/story/0,,1971266,00.html#article_continue
Putting up a hoophouse today now that its warm again. Any ideas on oils or other organic treatments for the plate/sill?
I wouldn’t panic. All sorts of natural processes produce nanoscale particulate matter. Sea air, smoke particles and bluejay feathers are some of the more common examples.
Smoking foods is an ancient tradition – even though many of the chemicals deposited in foods during the smoking process are carcinogenic. So are the soot particles produced from diesel engines, particularly if they’re inhaled.
There’s no reason to become especially concerned about something just because it’s labeled ‘nanotechnology’.
I don’t agree with you melendwyr. I think there’s a big difference between incidental exposure to naturally occurring particles and high concentrations of man made particles. Your example of diesel soot is a good one, and increasingly they are discovering how dangerous it is.
The issue of if nanotechnology is not so much if it’s good or bad, it’s more if environmental concerns will be addressed, if we as consumers will be properly protected with meaningful and independent safety testing, if products will be labelled and if enough alternatives will be available on the market so those of us who wish to avoid it can.
Watching them watching us
I just noticed this post was linked to by a website gathering information on the Internet on what people are saying about nanotechnology:
http://bx.businessweek.com/nanotechnology-companies/blogs/
I’ve seen this before when I’ve posted about GM related things, that it gets picked up by industry websites.
If anyone is interested, there are lots of other nanotechnology related websites there…
“Your example of diesel soot is a good one, and increasingly they are discovering how dangerous it is.”
Certainly. Becoming more upset once the soot is labeled nanotechnological isn’t reasonable, though – it’s just a knee-jerk reaction to the label. There are already lots of reasons to be concerned about diesel soot – and food additives. The fact that they involve nanotechnology isn’t one of them.
Hi melendwyr,
I still don’t agree with you. It’s only in the last few years they are really beginning to understand just how serious a health problem diesel soot really is. The problem was they didn’t understand the nano-particles it contained before, and so they just didn’t understand what was going on.
While there may not be anything to fear from the label ‘nanotechnology’, we just don’t know right now. It may very well be decades before it is understood sufficiently to justify polluting our environment with it or adding it to our foods.
We also have to ask ourselves exactly what the benefits are, and why do we need it. It’s clear, not many people are interested in having it in their foods. If they were, these foods would be honestly labelled and the subject would be openly discussed by the industry.
If no one wants it and there are no clear benefits, then there is no reason to adopt nanotechnology together with it’s associated risks.
“If no one wants it and there are no clear benefits, then there is no reason to adopt nanotechnology together with it’s associated risks.”
I think we can agree on this.
But the real point is that, just as with putting corn syrup in everything, there are differences between what consumers might want and what the producers want. Corn syrup offers few benefits to consumers, but it’s cheap and convenient to the manufacturers, and the consumers don’t care enough to avoid foods with it – so it gets in.
I’m sure there are plenty of reasons for food manufacturers to use nanoparticles. Whether they are reasons that benefit consumers is ultimately irrelevant as long as consumers don’t care.
I support your attempt to make people aware of the issue so that they can formulate a position and decide for themselves.