By STEPHANIE STROM
Nanomaterials, substances broken down by technology into molecule-size particles, are starting to enter the food chain through well-known food products and their packaging, but there is little acknowledgment by the companies using them, according to a new report from a nonprofit group that works to enhance corporate accountability.
Some companies may not even know whether nanomaterials are present in their products, the corporate accountability group As You Sow said.
Only 26 out of 2,500 companies, including PepsiCo, Whole Foods and the corporate parent of Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, responded to a survey from As You Sow about their use of nanomaterials.
“Only 14 said they don’t use nanomaterials, and of those only two had any policies on the use of nanomaterials,” said Andy Behar, chief executive of As You Sow. Various food companies have said they are interested in nanotechnology, which can help make products creamier without additional fat, intensify and improve flavors and brighten colors.
Their small size allows nanoparticles to go places in the body where larger particles cannot and enter cells. They have been found in the blood stream after ingestion and inhalation, and while research on their health effects is limited, studies have shown them to have deleterious effects on mice and cells.
“We’re not taking a no nano position,” Mr. Behar said. “We’re saying just show it’s safe before you put these things into food or food packaging.”
He noted that the European Union requires labeling of foods containing nanomaterials and that the European Food Safety Authority has published guidance for assessing nanomaterials in food and animal feed.
Last April, the Food and Drug Administration issued an unusually emphatic statement on nanomaterials, saying it did not have enough data to determine the safety of nanomaterials in food.
The Environmental Protection Agency is evaluating various nanoparticles used in consumer products, like sunscreens.
As You Sow tested 10 varieties of powdered doughnuts for the presence of nanoparticles. With the help of an independent lab, it found that Hostess Donettes and Dunkin’ Donuts Powdered Cake Donuts tested positive for the presence of titanium dioxide materials of less than 10 nanometers. Titanium dioxide is used to brighten white substances. The nano variety is under investigation by the E.P.A.
Michelle King, a spokeswoman for Dunkin’ Donuts, said the company was working with its supplier to validate As You Sow’s findings. Hostess Brands went out of business during the test and closed its factories.
With Prevalence of Nanomaterials Rising, Panel Urges Review of Risks
By CORNELIA DEAN
Tiny substances called nanomaterials have moved into the marketplace over the last decade, in products as varied as cosmetics, clothing and paint. But not enough is known about their potential health and environmental risks, which should be studied further, an expert panel of the National Academy of Sciences said on Wednesday.
Nanoscale forms of substances like silver, carbon, zinc and aluminum have many useful properties. Nano zinc oxide sunscreen goes on smoothly, for example, and nano carbon is lighter and stronger than its everyday or “bulk” form. But researchers say these products and others can also be ingested, inhaled or possibly absorbed through the skin. And they can seep into the environment during manufacturing or disposal.
Nanomaterials are engineered on the scale of a billionth of a meter, perhaps one ten-thousandth the width of a human hair, or less. Not enough is known about the effects, if any, that nanomaterials have on human health and the environment, according to a report issued by the academy’s expert panel. The report says that “critical gaps” in understanding have been identified but “have not been addressed with needed research.”
And because the nanotechnology market is expanding — it represented $225 billion in product sales in 2009 and is expected to grow rapidly in the next decade — “today’s exposure scenarios may not resemble those of the future,” the report says.
The panel called for a four-part research effort focusing on identifying sources of nanomaterial releases, processes that affect exposure and hazards, nanomaterial interactions at subcellular to ecosystem-wide levels and ways to accelerate research progress.
“A lot of things are being done right, but we need to think about how to regroup those efforts to get more power from the punch,” said Mark R. Wiesner, an engineering professor at Duke University and a member of the panel. As director of the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology at Duke, he leads a group studying the movement and effects of nanomaterials in the environment.
“We cannot knock these things off on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Wiesner said in a telephone interview. “The number and variety of nanomaterials that is possible is just mind-boggling. There are not enough beakers to do all the experiments required.”
The last time the academy weighed in on this was in a report in 2008 that included a sweeping critique of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the federal body that coordinates nano-related activities across agencies. In its report on Wednesday, the academy acknowledged the initiative’s progress, but added that “there has not been sufficient linkage between research and research findings and the creation of strategies to prevent and manage risk.”
The report noted that the initiative lacked budget and management authority to direct research and added that its dual goals of promoting nanotechnology and mitigating its risks “impede implementation and evaluation” of risk research.
The panel was convened by the National Research Council, the academy’s research arm, at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency. It posted its report on Wednesday.
Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, an epidemiologist at the University of Southern California and the chairman of the panel, said his group would revisit the issue in 18 months. By then, he said, “We will hope the planning is in place and the N.N.I. and others are moving forward” with research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/sc...anel-says.html
Nanomaterials, substances broken down by technology into molecule-size particles, are starting to enter the food chain through well-known food products and their packaging, but there is little acknowledgment by the companies using them, according to a new report from a nonprofit group that works to enhance corporate accountability.
Some companies may not even know whether nanomaterials are present in their products, the corporate accountability group As You Sow said.
Only 26 out of 2,500 companies, including PepsiCo, Whole Foods and the corporate parent of Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, responded to a survey from As You Sow about their use of nanomaterials.
“Only 14 said they don’t use nanomaterials, and of those only two had any policies on the use of nanomaterials,” said Andy Behar, chief executive of As You Sow. Various food companies have said they are interested in nanotechnology, which can help make products creamier without additional fat, intensify and improve flavors and brighten colors.
Their small size allows nanoparticles to go places in the body where larger particles cannot and enter cells. They have been found in the blood stream after ingestion and inhalation, and while research on their health effects is limited, studies have shown them to have deleterious effects on mice and cells.
“We’re not taking a no nano position,” Mr. Behar said. “We’re saying just show it’s safe before you put these things into food or food packaging.”
He noted that the European Union requires labeling of foods containing nanomaterials and that the European Food Safety Authority has published guidance for assessing nanomaterials in food and animal feed.
Last April, the Food and Drug Administration issued an unusually emphatic statement on nanomaterials, saying it did not have enough data to determine the safety of nanomaterials in food.
The Environmental Protection Agency is evaluating various nanoparticles used in consumer products, like sunscreens.
As You Sow tested 10 varieties of powdered doughnuts for the presence of nanoparticles. With the help of an independent lab, it found that Hostess Donettes and Dunkin’ Donuts Powdered Cake Donuts tested positive for the presence of titanium dioxide materials of less than 10 nanometers. Titanium dioxide is used to brighten white substances. The nano variety is under investigation by the E.P.A.
Michelle King, a spokeswoman for Dunkin’ Donuts, said the company was working with its supplier to validate As You Sow’s findings. Hostess Brands went out of business during the test and closed its factories.
With Prevalence of Nanomaterials Rising, Panel Urges Review of Risks
By CORNELIA DEAN
Tiny substances called nanomaterials have moved into the marketplace over the last decade, in products as varied as cosmetics, clothing and paint. But not enough is known about their potential health and environmental risks, which should be studied further, an expert panel of the National Academy of Sciences said on Wednesday.
Nanoscale forms of substances like silver, carbon, zinc and aluminum have many useful properties. Nano zinc oxide sunscreen goes on smoothly, for example, and nano carbon is lighter and stronger than its everyday or “bulk” form. But researchers say these products and others can also be ingested, inhaled or possibly absorbed through the skin. And they can seep into the environment during manufacturing or disposal.
Nanomaterials are engineered on the scale of a billionth of a meter, perhaps one ten-thousandth the width of a human hair, or less. Not enough is known about the effects, if any, that nanomaterials have on human health and the environment, according to a report issued by the academy’s expert panel. The report says that “critical gaps” in understanding have been identified but “have not been addressed with needed research.”
And because the nanotechnology market is expanding — it represented $225 billion in product sales in 2009 and is expected to grow rapidly in the next decade — “today’s exposure scenarios may not resemble those of the future,” the report says.
The panel called for a four-part research effort focusing on identifying sources of nanomaterial releases, processes that affect exposure and hazards, nanomaterial interactions at subcellular to ecosystem-wide levels and ways to accelerate research progress.
“A lot of things are being done right, but we need to think about how to regroup those efforts to get more power from the punch,” said Mark R. Wiesner, an engineering professor at Duke University and a member of the panel. As director of the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology at Duke, he leads a group studying the movement and effects of nanomaterials in the environment.
“We cannot knock these things off on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Wiesner said in a telephone interview. “The number and variety of nanomaterials that is possible is just mind-boggling. There are not enough beakers to do all the experiments required.”
The last time the academy weighed in on this was in a report in 2008 that included a sweeping critique of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the federal body that coordinates nano-related activities across agencies. In its report on Wednesday, the academy acknowledged the initiative’s progress, but added that “there has not been sufficient linkage between research and research findings and the creation of strategies to prevent and manage risk.”
The report noted that the initiative lacked budget and management authority to direct research and added that its dual goals of promoting nanotechnology and mitigating its risks “impede implementation and evaluation” of risk research.
The panel was convened by the National Research Council, the academy’s research arm, at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency. It posted its report on Wednesday.
Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, an epidemiologist at the University of Southern California and the chairman of the panel, said his group would revisit the issue in 18 months. By then, he said, “We will hope the planning is in place and the N.N.I. and others are moving forward” with research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/sc...anel-says.html
Comment