Nano-foods: The next consumer scare?

1 Recommendation

By Barbara Liston

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - Those consumers already worried about genetically engineered or cloned food reaching their tables may soon find something else in their grocery carts to furrow their brows over -- nano-foods.

Consumer advocates taking part in a food safety conference in Orlando, Florida, this week said food produced by using nanotechnology is quietly coming onto the market, and they want U.S. authorities to force manufacturers to identify them.

Nanotechnology involves the design and manipulation of materials on molecular scales, smaller than the width of a human hair and invisible to the naked eye. Companies using nanotechnology say it can enhance the flavor or nutritional effectiveness of food.

U.S. health officials generally prefer not to place warning labels on products unless there are clear reasons for caution or concern. But consumer advocates say uncertainty over health consequences alone is sufficient cause to justify identifying nano-foods.

"I think nanotechnology is the new genetic engineering. People just don't know what's going on, and it's moving so fast," Jane Kolodinsky, a consumer economist at the University of Vermont, said at the conference.

American consumers are generally more complacent about genetically modified or cloned foods than their counterparts in Europe.

But Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with the Consumers Union, said polls show that 69 percent of Americans are concerned about eating cloned meat.

He said that in focus groups run by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, no parents were willing to feed their children meat from cloned animals or their offspring.

In a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 53 percent of Americans said they wouldn't buy genetically modified foods.

SCANT AWARENESS

Hansen said there is scant public awareness, however, about foods produced through nanotechnology.

New consumer products created through nanotechnology are coming on the market at the rate of 3 to 4 per week, according to an advocacy group, The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), based on an inventory it has drawn up of 609 known or claimed nano-products.

Nano-products in common use today include lightweight tennis rackets and bicycles, and sunscreens containing clear, nonwhite versions of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

They also include lipsticks, and many items labeled as anti-microbial that contain silver ions such as socks, washing machines, salad spinners and food containers.

On PEN's list are three foods -- a brand of canola cooking oil called Canola Active Oil, a tea called Nanotea and a chocolate diet shake called Nanoceuticals Slim Shake Chocolate.

According to company information posted on PEN's Web site, the canola oil, by Shemen Industries of Israel, contains an additive called "nanodrops" designed to carry vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals through the digestive system.

The shake, according to U.S. manufacturer RBC Life Sciences Inc., uses cocoa infused "NanoClusters" to enhance the taste and health benefits of cocoa without the need for extra sugar.

The tea, says manufacturer Shenzhen Become Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. of China, is prepared with nanotechnology to "release effectively all of the excellent essences of the tea" and increase by a factor of 10 "the selenium supplement function."

Hansen, whose organization publishes the nonprofit product-testing magazine Consumer Reports, said there is no requirement that nano-products be identified as such.

He called for stronger federal regulations to require safety testing and labeling.

"Just because something is safe at the macro level, doesn't mean it's safe at the nano size," Hansen said. "All scientists agree that size matters."

Hansen said recent studies have shown that nano-sized particles in some cases can invade cells and breach the blood-brain barrier, and that some forms of nano-sized carbon could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in quantity.

"This represents science at the cutting edge. These technologies raise basic scientific issues," Hansen said.

(Editing by Michael Christie, Maggie Fox and David Wiessler)


http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3044875220080730

5 replies

I have never heard of this AND it really concerns me that the FDA is taking no stance on labeling foodstuff and items that are used in food preparation.

Any alteration to food/food stock should definately be a concern to everyone.

Here's a link:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section~fulltext=713240929~dontcount=true~ content=a791090932~db=all

to a pretty long paper titled "Applications and implications of nanatechnologies for the food sector". It's five pages of varying length (though the last page is just its 79 references).

While it is pretty technical, and its discussion of legal concerns is limited to laws in the UK (being a UK paper), it does give a good idea of the current worldwide manifestations of nanotechnology in foods, supplements, pesticides, packaging materials, etc.

It also has a complete section on "potential consumer safety issues".

What's nice about it is that, as those 79 references might suggest, it's summarizing much of the total current knowledge and concerns of nanotechnology. The paper itself is dated March 2008.

While the paper makes it clear to me that nanotechnology has the potential for dramatic benefits in many ways, it also makes it clear that nanotechnology is so new that there are very big holes in respect to its potential dangers, including in already available forms that the public can purchase.

One scary part is that, at such small size, nanoparticles are often able to bypass our physiology's protective barriers. Another scary part is that nanoparticles are often able to pass through such things as cell membranes, even when they're not wanted there.

Such issues are scary not only when such particles are purposely a part of a food. Nanoparticles are also being used in packaging materials, which could be releasing those particles into the foods within the package, including potentially toxic ingredients in the packaging.

In addition, nanoparticles have also been incorporated into such things as pesticides and herbicides to, among other things, disperse more easily or enter the targeted host more easily. Needless to say, the same could be the case if a human came into contact (such as inhalation) with those particles.

While such concerns should be obvious, there has been nowhere near enough studies to show most of nanotechnology's potential dangers that come with most (perhaps even all) of its beneficial uses.

Nelson

I saw this article too, Nelson. It's a topic I know nothing about. Sounds like a good topic for the radio show. I will see if I can find a good person to interview. If you have a suggestion, please let me know.

Thank you,
Joyce

I received the following in today's e-mail. I do not know anything about this watchdog group.

Copying the e-mail:

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone

Just weeks after Monsanto decided to divest of rBGH, Eli Lilly has acquired the artificial dairy hormone. Not surprisingly, Eli Lilly is now spreading the same misinformation about rBGH's safety and environmental benefits as Monsanto once did. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Tell Eli Lilly that consumers want rBGH-free milk, and they want it to be labeled plain and simple.

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone is a genetically engineered hormone that is injected into cows to make them produce more milk. Besides the documented increase of infections in dairy cows injected with rBGH, which necessitates increased use of antibiotics, there are ongoing questions about links to cancer in humans.

Despite Eli Lilly's claims, rBGH is not a 'vital technology.' It's a questionable technology that has been shunned by several major dairy retailers this year alone. Help us maintain the momentum against the use of rBGH. Tell Eli Lilly no thanks.

http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/t/5915/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=25389

Thanks for taking action,
Filmona
Food & Water Watch
goodfood(at)fwwatch.org

Sorry, Joyce, I'm not familiar with that group either. But that doesn't mean they're not a sound and reasonable group.

I use to be a member of several strongly environmental groups, but over the years I stopped renewing my membership to every one of them, especially after VHL entered my life.

Years and years of reading their magazine, newsletter and online articles can be depressing to the extreme. Just those of one group, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, can be enough to turn one into a diehard pessimist for life. LOL

Anyway, I don't doubt that what that article says about milk is all true and even scarier if one delves into the finer details of it. That seems to be the case with just about everything that's being done with nanotechnology.

Also sorry that I don't have any good ideas about who you might interview.

Nelson

Add to the discussion

New user? Join here.
Forgot password?
Keep me signed in on this computer until I sign out

Search

Find information and discussion about health topics in 303,895 posts by members like yourself. Learn more...

Join

Join safe, secure groups sponsored by trusted organizations that care about your health. Learn more...

Connect

Connect with 80,742 members and make friends who share your interests, learn about conditions and treatments, find support and more. Learn more...

You