From GMOs to AMOs
 
Nanoscale science and bio-molecular systems
© Robert Anderson PhD
 
 
Almost everyone is now familiar with the terms genetically engineered or genetically modified organisms: GEOs or GMOs. I would surmise that few readers would recognize AMOs or “atomically modified organisms” yet this technology is proceeding at a frightening pace throughout the Western world. Its common term nanotechnology would also mean little to the average person in the street.

Why frightening? Because nanotechnology is, like the initial work on genetic engineering (GE), proceeding in a regulatory vacuum and has probably greater environmental risks. Its results could well be even more appalling than those of GE with which we are still struggling. Even HRH Prince Charles, realising the imminent dangers offered by nanotechnology, wrote a cautionary article[i]for which, like his GE cautionary remarks, he was reprimanded by the establishment.
So what is nanotechnology? It is the manipulation of matter at the scale of atoms and molecules. It is the quest to build man-made machinery of exceedingly small size, in the order of 100 nanometers, or one hundred billionths of a metre. Such ‘machines’ would be about 1000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Pundits predict these tiny machines will provide everything from miniaturized computer components to new cancer treatments to new weapons of war.

How may this effect the ordinary citizen? Nanotechnology is converging with biotech, infotech and agriculture to create the world's most potent technological platform. No government has developed a regulatory regime that addresses safety issues of the nanoscale – and there are many - or the impact on societies that this technology will inevitably bring. An enquiry to Food Standards Australia New Zealand concerning nanotechnology was not encouraging:
 
FSANZ has not received any applications to amend the Code in relation to nanotechnology. There is a National Nanotechnology Taskforce that is chaired by the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. The Taskforce is looking into health, safety and environment issues and FSANZ is participating in meetings with other regulatory agencies.
Jim Gruber, Principal Food Technologist.
 
Scientists from Friends of the Earth made the point that, “In one of the most dramatic failures of regulation since the introduction of asbestos, corporations around the world are rapidly introducing thousands of tons[ii]of nanomaterials into the environment and onto the faces and hands of millions of people, despite the growing body of evidence indicating that nanomaterials can be toxic to humans and the environment.[iii] Early this year saw the first ever reported case of a nano product recall[iv]as a result of health problems. In Germany, there were 97 cases of serious respiratory problems and six people were hospitalized in late March after using the nanotech bathroom cleaner “Magic Nano.” There is concern that we will see more in the future.

To give some idea of the importance attached to this new technology, the US allotted US$270 million in 2000 and increased this to $423 million in 2001 (up 57%) for nanotechnology. When in office, President Clinton requested $495 for 2001, so the $423 million was about 85% of his target. The US government forecasts a trillion-dollar industry by 2011. Similar money is being invested in other countries keen to keep them on the cutting edge of this technological revolution.

Hot on the heels of the GE-food controversy, nanotech has extreme implications. Nanotech items are already on the market, but the promise of governments has been protracted in addressing the seismic shifts and disruptions that nanoscale technologies will inevitably bring - especially for the farmer, human health, and the environment. It could imperil the livelihoods of workers and basic producers everywhere. Nanoscale technologies are enabling industry to restructure our agricultural and food systems with atomically modified seeds, new pesticide delivery systems, and nanoscale food additives. And, also like GE, we can expect the patenting nature’s products to continue. In the US alone, the number of nanotech patents awarded annually has tripled since 1996.[v]

Like all science, it is a double-edged sword. There is good as well as bad. For example, nanoparticles can be used to speedily detect dangerous bacteria such as Escherichia coli. A research team, headed by Dr Weihong Tan at the University of Florida, attached antibodies specific to the E. coli strain that causes food poisoning to silica particles measuring just 60 nanometers across.[vi] The particles also contained molecules of a fluorescent dye. When tested on contaminated ground beef, the antibodies immediately locked the silica onto the bacteria. The signal given off by the dye allowed Dr Tan to detect a single bacterium in a sample in less than 20 minutes. E coli is one of the most dangerous agents of food poisoning. Ingesting contaminated food can be deadly, especially for children or elderly folk, so rapid testing is crucial and a bonus.
 
What about risks?
 
Although escaping public notice, the food and agriculture sector is among the most intensely researched areas of nanotechnology. The applications of nanotechnology will enable industrial agriculture to alter the way our food is grown and produced. It will have effects on the manner in which it is processed, packaged and possibly even eaten. According to the German Helmut Kaiser Consultancy,[vii]some 200 food industries are currently investing in nanotech and beginning to commercialise products. The list includes some of the largest companies: e.g. Heinz, Kraft Foods, Campbell Soup, Nestlé.

Let's look at just a few developments to date:
 
Nano foods: Companies such as Nestlé, Kraft, Unilever and others are using nanotech to radically alter the structure of food. Examples include creating “interactive” drinks containing nanocapsules that can change colour and/or flavour (Kraft), and ice cream with nanoparticle emulsions (Unilever, Nestlé) to “improve” texture.
 
Nanoceuticals: Nanocapsules are being concocted to smuggle “nutrients” and “flavours” into the body.
 
Nanoparticle pesticides: Monsanto and Syngenta are developing pesticides made up of nanoparticles or enclosed in nanocapsules that can more easily be taken up by plants. They can also, believe it or not, be “programmed” for time-release.
 
Nanoseeds: Nuclear scientists in Thailand have rearranged the DNA of rice by blasting nano-sized holes through the rice cell wall and inserting a nitrogen atom. They are hoping to make the rice less light sensitive and have a longer stem. To date, they have changed the colour of the grain from purple to green.
 
Nano packaging: “Shelf life” - Kraft, BASF and others have developed packaging nanomaterials that extend a food's shelf life and also signal when the food spoils by changing colour.
 
Nano Chicken Feed: The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are aiding University researchers to feed bioactive polystyrene nanoparticles that bind with bacteria to chickens as an alternative to feeding normal drug antibiotics in the chicken production industry.
 
Nano Ponds: One of the largest US fish farming companies, Clear Spring Trout, is adding nanoparticle vaccines to their trout ponds to be taken up by fish.
 
Cosmetics: There is grave concern[viii]that the FDA is ignoring the health effects of nanoparticles being used in face creams, sunscreens and many other personal care products. Some of the known harmful impacts of these particles include:
<>···www.psgr.org.nz. He authored The Final Pollution: Genetic Apocalypse, Exploding the Myth of Genetic Engineering and several other publications on environmental, health and social justice issues.

 

 
Robert Anderson BSc (Hons) PhD 
4 February 1942 to 5 December 2008
 
 
Robert Anderson was a Trustee of Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility: www.psgr.org.nz 
 
 
View Robert Anderson’s Nanotechnology and other lectures on this site.
 
Address enquiries for Robert Anderson's publications to naturesstar@xtra.co.nz.
 
Read more about Nanotechnology on www.psgr.org.nz
 

For further information see:

GE Free New Zealand in food and environment www.gefree.org.nz/

GE Free Northland in food and environment http://web.gefreenorthland.org.nz/

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility www.psgr.org.nz

Sustainability Council of New Zealand http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/

The Soil & Health Association / Organic New Zealand http://organicnz.org.nz/

 

References:
[ii] The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, UK (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Available at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/
[iii] For excellent overviews of the emerging field of nanotoxicology, see Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E and Oberdörster J (2005). “Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline from studies of ultrafine particles”. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(7):823-839; Hoet P, Bruske-Holfeld I and Salata O (2004). “Nanoparticles – known and unknown health risks”. Journal of Nanobiotechnology 2:12; and Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J, Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai
D, Olin S, Monteiro-Riviere N, Warheit D, and Yang H (2005). “Principles for characterising the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy”. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2:8
[iv] First ever nano product recall. http://nano.foe.org.au/node/88
[v] Antonio Regalado, “Nanotechnology Patents Surge as Companies Vie to Stake Claim,” Wall Street Journal, June
18, 2004.
[vi] That’s 0.000,000,06 of a meter!
[vii] http://www.nanovip.comThe company offers a detailed nanotechnology study: For the first time, the study Nanotechnology scientifically examines, collects and evaluates all companies, markets, branches, applications, developments, state of science and expected developments world-wide and provides a prognosis for the next 15 years.
[viii] http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/nanotech/index.html Nanomaterials: Small Ingredients, Big Risks., Take Action!