Is Nanotechnology A Threat to Our Food?

Is nanotechnology a threat to our food or even to our food supply? This is a question I do not have an answer for at this time. I can only give you what I am learning and raise additional questions. You can go about business as usual or start researching for facts yourself. We already have alarmists crying about this with few facts in hand. On the scientific side, we are being told that they are safe, but again no proof is being presented. The driving force seems to profit behind the advances in nanotechnology.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finally issued two draft guidance documents on nanotechnology on April 20, 2012. This means they are looking at the issues, but have not made any decisions or formed any planned actions. With nanotechnology having been in existence for more than a decade, we should have had firm rules and regulations. Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is only studying the subject and has not decided whether to take action. In the meantime, the barn door has been left wide open and the horses have gotten out.

We will probably not know what damage has been done for another decade or longer and then the good work of some nanotechnology will be suspect when the bad side of nanotechnology is discovered. Farm chemical companies and food manufacturing and related industries are adding nanoparticles to our fertilizers, pesticides, and other processes in the name of food production, safety, and storage. No scientific proof that this works or is safe for humans has been studied or proved. Does this remind you of another problem that we have very little science proving that the food is safe? It should remind you of genetically modified foods (GMF). Even the US Department of Agriculture is silent on both subjects. They only repeat what agribusiness is promoting.

Until the appropriate government agencies do appropriate scientific studies, all nanotechnology should be held and not put into use until proven safe for the environment and human health. As of yet neither side had proven anything about nanotechnology and its uses are safe. There are great potential benefits to be derived in many fields, medical, medical devices, human health, but until it is proven, we are playing Russian roulette with our lives and the lives of our children. We don't know that the packaging advances with nanotechnology that can wrap our foods and prevent spoilage will not have a health impact on our lives.

Some of the alarmist’s cries may have validity, but until scientific research proves one way or the other, can we accept that advances in nanotechnology will really be a benefit.

With this in mind, read what this alarmist is saying. A reasoned voice can be read here about nanotechnology in our cosmetics and food. If you have an interest, follow the links provided in the article. This second article also points out something we need to have in our minds. That is the legal way that many companies are bypassing putting information on our food and cosmetic labels.

I can envision many of the good benefits from nanotechnology such as medications being delivered to areas of the body and deposited where they will give the greatest benefit. They would not being broken down by our stomachs and intestines before getting where they are needed. In addition, these delivery nanoparticles can bypass healthy cells and not damage them while delivering the medications to the unhealthy cells.

I do not have definitive answers, and until I can find them, I will continue to have doubts about the current use of nanotechnology in our food production and food. We need to encourage the FDA and EPA to step up and promote scientific research to give us answers. Forget about the USDA, as they will continue to shield the food industry and agribusiness. For that, I will find them complicit in any harm resulting from nanotechnology.

Even Nanotechnology Has Safety and Ethics Issues

This is a topic that is due and much needed at this time. While I am in favor of nanotechnology for the greater good that it can do, some issues could cause more harm than intended. Kathleen Eggleson, a research scientist in the Center for Nano Science and Technology (NDnano) at the University of Notre Dame, provides an example of a nanotechnology-related safety and ethics problem that is unfolding right now.

She realizes that nanotechnology is here and there are some ethical and problematic sides to our new found and potentially great tool for treatment of diseases. Not only will they affect people in real ways, but nanotechnology may also become a harm to people. This is why she is in charge of the Center for Nano Science and Technology last year to study and prompt discussion of problems involving nanotechnology.

"NDnano is expanding its scope into studies of the societal impact of nanotechnology," explains Wolfgang Porod, Frank M. Freimann Professor of Electrical Engineering at Notre Dame and director of the center. "This is the background for bringing Kathy on board."

As part of her duties, she has established a monthly meeting group, called Nano Impacts Intellectual Community. This taps into Notre Dame researchers from the campus, visiting scholars, and others from outside the university to probe nanotechnology topics in depth. Some of the issues on the table have been ethics in nanomedicine, the commercialization of nanotechnology products, and the interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology research.

Eggleson has some excellent thoughts about nanotechnology and its usage. She is concerned about how nanotechnology may affect our own beneficial and internal bacteria needed to synthesize vitamins and aid digestion. Some bacteria are needed to maintain appropriate levels of nitrogen in the air.

She discusses at length a potential good and potential harm from one use of nanotechnology. This is the nano-sized particles of silver that are used in hospitals and clinics. Silver is an element that is known for its antimicrobial properties. These nano-sized particles are being applied to hard surfaces, like bed rails and doorknobs, and to fabrics, such as sheets, gowns and curtains, by a growing number of medical supply companies. These new materials are proving effective.

"Nanosilver coatings have made life-saving differences to the properties of typical hospital items," Eggleson says. "Just this last December, a textile made by a Swiss company was the first nano-scale material approved as a pesticide by the EPA."

“The possible new danger is that the vast majority of bacteria and other microorganisms are actually neutral, or even beneficial, to human life and a healthy environment. So overuse of nanosilver products, especially outside of clinical environments, could pose a danger to needed microorganisms, and enable resistant strains to flourish.”

"Under most conditions, the preservation of microbial biodiversity is a benefit,"  explains Eggleson. "In fact, those who would use these potent new antimicrobial technologies for frivolous uses, such as for odor control, work directly against the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative's goal of responsible nanotechnology development."

This is the purpose for Kathleen Eggleson and I do not envy her and the tasks she has ahead of her. Read the article here.