Pesticide DDT, industrial lubricants PCBs and now plastic BPA (bisphenol A) are all widely used industrial chemical compounds that have been discovered to cause ills such as cancer and/or environmental damage. Worried that the latest chemical craze—nanoparticles (molecules and even atoms engineered at the scale of one billionth of a meter or smaller)—may follow suit, a panel of scientists is urging federal government agencies to assess the potential risks posed by such engineered chemicals and particles before they are used in any more substances.
 
The National Research Council, one of The National Academies  in Washington, D.C., (scientific advisory bodies for the federal government) charges that the 18 government bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tasked with assessing chemical safety, have failed to prove that the diminutive particles are not dangerous. The group also charged in a new report that the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the government body created to oversee such efforts, lacks a coherent plan for ensuring that current and future uses of nanotechnology do not pose a risk to human health or the environment.

Nanotechnology risk research "needs to be proactive—identifying possible risks and ways to mitigate risks before the technology has a widespread commercial presence," the report says. Instead the NNI "does not have the essential elements of a research strategy—it does not present a vision, contain a clear set of goals [or] have a plan of action."

More than 800 widely available products, including cosmetics, sporting goods and video displays, contain some form of nanotechnology, whether engineered particles or compounds, according to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (a Washington, D.C. think tank created by Congress in 1968). That number is set to grow as nanotech comes to items such as food additives and medical treatments.

"There's definitely an exposure, especially from nanosilver that's really common in consumer products as well as buckyballs and titanium dioxide in skin creams," says toxicologist Jennifer Sass, a senior health scientist at the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "Nanomaterials, because of their size, are more bioavailable; and because of their surface area to mass, they are more chemically reactive. How that relates to toxicity needs to be looked at."

Gaps in the research—despite more than $14 billion in government and private investment—include a basic understanding of how nanomaterials are absorbed and metabolized by the human body as well as how toxic they may be to people already working with them. The NNI also does not have a plan for managing accidents or spills involving nanomaterials, according to the report.

Instead, the bulk of research is focused on developing medical therapies and roughly $15 million has been spent to assess human health and environmental risks, according to the Wilson Center. "Where you've got somebody in a workplace working with nanoengineered materials, the questions are: How much am I breathing in? What's the toxicity? How do I reduce the risk? Those are things we know we need answers to and don't have answers to," says physicist Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor to the Wilson Center's project on emerging nanotechnologies. "We know there's a potential for risk. We don't know if there is actual risk."

Both industry and environmental groups agreed that the government needs a better plan, including a joint letter from eight groups, such as  the American Chemistry Council industry organization and the Environmental Defense Fund, calling for a government research strategy.

"What this means is that we are learning from past lessons with some of the pesticides or [genetically modified] foods that we do need to show that these materials are going to be safe all the way through their life cycle[s]," says toxicologist Raymond David of the chemical company, BASF Corporation, which also signed the letter. "One of the risks is a risk that the consumer will not accept nanotechnology because of not having understood what happens when people are exposed and what are the downstream consequences of that exposure."

"If you're serious about making sure nanotechnology succeeds and to reap the economic benefits of its development, then you've got to invest in health and safety research," Maynard adds. "There's no shortcut there."

5 Comments

1. 1. jsass 06:15 PM 12/18/08

   Thanks for the great article. Many public interest groups, including mine, NRDC, are advocating for enforceable regulations to ensure that these materials will be used safely. In advance of regulations, NRDC recommends that manufacturers and retailers require that their supply chain identify where materials or ingredients are nanoscale, and provide all available safety data on those materials. More info on my blog at: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jsass/nanomaterials_failure_to_warn.html

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. knowcosmosu 09:44 AM 12/20/08

   "If you're serious about making sure nanotechnology succeeds and to reap the economic benefits of its development, then you've got to invest in health and safety research," Maynard adds. "There's no shortcut there."
   ~~~~~~~~~
   Sure there is: fake the data, like Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, et al., and esp. Big Government (cf, our foreign policy produced by "fixing" intelligence to fit the occasion for war). I could look up the number, but I'll ask rhetorically: how many times has the Bush Admin. interfered with science?
   
   If you live to exploit, damn the consequences, then health and safety always will be afterthoughts. Ask the people of Libby, MT, who were assured by WR Grace & Co. and the gov't that the vermiculite they mined, brought home on their clothes, and allowed their kids to play in, was safe when they knew that to be a lie.
   
   If you approach life only as an opportunity to make money, the truth is inconvenient, making science into a tool of propaganda.
   
   Dear readers, can you say "mesothelioma"? The "health and safety" inspectors in Libby couldn't, at least not to the people who most needed to hear it.
   
   Sure, Science qua Science may be objective, it's the uses to which we put it that reveal who we really are: humans, or apes with advanced technology? Isn't it quintessentially inhuman to machine other humans like mere objects?
   
   Science itself, of course, is inhuman by definition. This is the language of Science: the declarative sentence. WOOHOO! That's just me, whooping.
   
   My question for other scientists is, are you a human tool-user, or a human tool using Science as a shortcut to fame and fortune, like any other ape would?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. JaydeeHanson 12:29 PM 1/5/09

   The International Center for Technology Assessment and several other groups filed a legal petition with the EPA in May 08 asking the EPA to regulate nano-silver products as pesticides. That petition can be viewed on our website http://www.nanoaction.org/detail/news.cfm?news_id=205&id=244
   
   The EPA is still taking comments on the petition. If you wish to comment please go to: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650
   
   Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director, International Center for Technology Assessment, Washington DC

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Freedem 03:42 PM 3/24/09

   There needs to be another level of thought here. Some nano particles do not exist in nature and need special study. However some do and have all along. The best example of this is the bucky balls that after years of research trying to carefully grow them, were discovered to be a common ingredient of everyday soot!
   
   As that is the case bucky balls have been around for a very long time and are very common in nature, even if only recently dealt with. Research them for effects including cancer, sure, but restricting their creation or use would be silly. I do not know what else already exists as nano particles but that too should be known.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. WALT 08:56 PM 8/24/10

   WHY DO WE EVEN NEED THIS SHIT IN OUR ECO SYSTEM? IT SEEMS TO BE TOTALLY UNKNOWN, AND UNSTABLE. THEY NEED TO BAN IT OUT RIGHT. OTHERWISE, HUMAN KIND COULD FACE A MYRIAD OF EPIDEMICS DUE TO THESE UNSTABLE NANO PARTICLE GONG TOXIC. SCIENTISTS NEED TO FOCUS ON ORGANIC CLEAN AND GREEN. I HATE SCIENCE WHEN IT GOES TOXIC. WATCH OUT NOW.. HERE COMES THE HULK

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this