Do Nanoparticles in Food Pose a Health Risk?

[Guest guest]

Do Nanoparticles in Food Pose a Health Risk?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=do-nanoparticles-in-food-pose-health-risk

 

A new study reveals that nanoparticles are being used

in everything from beer to baby drinks despite a lack

of safety information

By David Biello

 

NANO-SIZED RISK: Nanoparticles, like the one modeled

here next to a mouse, are appearing in food and food

packaging in a range of products.

©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/SCHWARTZ

 

Plastic imbued with clay nanoparticles helps make

Miller Brewing Co. beer bottles less likely to break

as well as improves how long the brew lasts in

storage. Simply H's Toddler Health nutritional drink

mix includes 300-nanometer (300 billionths of a meter)

iron particles. And a wide range of cooking and

cleaning items now employ nanosize silver particles to

kill microbes.

 

Yet, the Washington, D.C.–based environmental group

Friends of the Earth (FoE) reports that none of the

more than 100 food or food-related products it

identified that contain nanoparticles—puny particles

between 100 and one nanometers—bears a warning label

or has undergone safety testing by government

agencies.

 

" Products created using nanotechnology have entered

the food chain, " says report author Ian Illuminato,

FoE's health and environment lobbyist. " Preliminary

studies indicate there is a serious risk…. We should

know that it's safe before we put it in our food. "

 

The report builds on several studies in recent years

that have shown that some nanoparticles may cause

harm. A 2005 study in Environmental Science &

Technology showed that zinc oxide nanoparticles were

toxic to human lung cells in lab tests even at low

concentrations. Other studies have shown that tiny

silver particles (15 nanometers) killed liver and

brain cells from rats. " They are more chemically

reactive and more bioactive, " Illuminato says, because

of their size, which allows them to easily penetrate

organs and cells. " Products should be at least labeled

so consumers can choose whether they want to be part

of this experiment. "

 

FoE says it is probably underestimating the number of

foods and food products containing the miniscule

particles, because they depended on self-reporting by

companies and a list of 600 nanotechnology products

compiled by the Woodrow Wilson International Center

for Scholars (a think thank created by Congress in

1968 to foster links between scholars and politicians)

as part of its project to study the implications of

nanotechnology.

 

The environmental group charged that the federal

government has failed to protect consumers from the

potential dangers of nanoparticles and called for a

ban on their use in food and food-related products

until they have been thoroughly tested to rule out

health risks.

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently

does not specifically require nanoparticles to be

proved safe but does require manufacturers to provide

tests showing that the food goods employing them—be it

beer or baby products—are not harmful. " Industry would

bear the burden of demonstrating the safety of the

material under its intended conditions of use, " says

FDA spokesperson Christopher Kelly. " Nanoparticle

versions of [FDA-approved] materials may well be new

materials " that would trigger new investigations, " and

this is considered on a case-by-case basis. "

 

To date, there are few published industry, government

or scientific studies on the health and environmental

impacts of nanoparticles. Further complicating the

matter is the fact that nanoparticles have been in the

food supply for years. " Nanoparticles have been in

food products for decades, we just never realized they

were there, " says physicist Andrew Maynard, chief

science advisor to the Wilson Center project. " We need

to better understand how nano can be benign in foods,

but [also] where the dangers are. "

 

For example, it remains unclear whether nanoparticles

used in food packaging might migrate or leach into

food or beverages. And it is completely unknown what

impact a wide variety of these nanoparticles might

have on human health.

 

A wide variety of government agencies, including the

FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), have taken an interest in nanotechnology. The

federal government spent more than $1.4 billion on

nanotechnology research last year as part of the

National Nanotechnology Initiative, a joint effort of

25 federal agencies investigating the promise and

potential perils of the emerging technology. Of that,

roughly $40 million was devoted to health and safety

research (an amount set to nearly double to $76

million in the fiscal year 2009 proposed budget).

 

The FDA could not provide figures on how much it

spends on assessing the safety of nanoparticles.

 

The EPA received $8.6 million of that $40 million,

some $3 million of which went directly to labs to

research potential health and environmental risks,

according to Jim Willis, director of the EPA's

Chemical Control Division.

 

The EPA and its counterparts in Canada, Europe, Asia

and Australia also began in February a three-year

study into the effects of 14 nanomaterials—including

silver, iron and other elemental nanoparticles as well

as carbon nanotubes and nanoballs. " Once we get the

results of phase one, we'll look at moving into more

in-depth testing on some of those or maybe some other

nanomaterials, " Willis says, adding that any new

chemical submitted for approval that contains 10

percent or more nanosize elements receives special

attention from EPA reviewers. " We've seen about 30 or

so in the past three years, " he says.

 

In 2006 the EPA began to regulate nanosilver as a

pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act. As a result, companies employing such

nanosilver particles (as an antimicrobial in a wide

array of merchandise from computers to cooking pans)

are required to register them as pesticides. Last

week, the agency fined computer equipment maker IOGEAR

of Irvine, Calif., $200,000 for failing to register

the antimicrobial nanosilver in some of its wireless

computer keyboards and mouses.

 

In January the agency also asked companies that use

nanoparticles to begin voluntarily providing the

results of any health and safety studies they had

conducted. Willis says that the EPA will review

company response to determine whether voluntary

compliance is enough this summer.

 

Friends of the Earth insists that such reporting

should be mandatory, given the potential risks. The

lobby also says the definition of what constitutes a

nanosize particle should include anything 300

nanometers or smaller. But the Wilson Center's Maynard

notes it is the effect rather than the size that is

significant.

 

" It all comes down to the need for more research. We

can't fly blind here. We need to know what's going

on, " Maynard says. " There is no hard evidence that

nanomaterials in products on the market will harm

humans or the environment, but there is enough

evidence to say that we need to reexamine.''