Tag Archives: Environmental Working Group

First lawsuit on risks of nanotechnology?

3 Replies

I got this Dec. 21, 2011 news release this morning,
 

Consumer Safety Groups File First Lawsuit on Risks of Nanotechnology

San Francisco, CA – Concerned by the growing body of scientific reports cautioning against the unregulated use of nanotechnology in consumer products, a coalition of nonprofit consumer safety and environmental groups sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today.  The case is the first lawsuit over the health and environmental risks of nanotechnology and nanomaterials.

Nanotechnology is a powerful platform technology for taking apart and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level.  Just as the size and chemical characteristics of manufactured nanomaterials give them unique properties, those same properties – tiny size, vastly increased surface area to volume ratio, and high reactivity – can also create unique and unpredictable health and environmental risks.

The lawsuit demands FDA respond to a petition the public interest organizations filed with the agency in 2006, nearly six years ago.  The coalition is led by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), on behalf of fellow plaintiffs Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch, the Center for Environmental Health, the ETC Group, and the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy.

“Nano means more than tiny; it means materials that have the capacity to be fundamentally different.  Yet more and more novel nanomaterials are being sold infused into new consumer products every day, while FDA sits idly by,” said George Kimbrell, ICTA Attorney.  “The agency’s unlawful delay unnecessarily places consumers and the environment at risk.”

The eighty-page petition documents the scientific evidence of nanomaterial risks stemming from their unpredictable toxicity and seemingly unlimited mobility.  The 2006 petition [http://www.icta.org/doc/Nano%20FDA%20petition%20final.pdf] requested FDA take several regulatory actions, including requiring nano-specific product labeling and health and safety testing, and undertaking an analysis of the environmental and health impacts of nanomaterials in products approved by the agency.

Nanomaterials in sunscreens, one of the largest sectors of the nano-consumer product market, were also a focus of the action.  The petitioners called on the agency to regulate nano-sunscreens to account for their novel ingredients rather than assume their safety, and to pull such sunscreens from the market until and unless the agency approves them as new drug products.

“Year after year goes by but we have yet to see the FDA do the bare minimum and require nanosunscreens to be labeled as such. This is a basic consumer right,” said Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth.  “We’re well past the 1800s — nobody likes or should be forced to use mystery chemicals anymore.”

Since 2006, numerous studies and reports, including agency publications by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of the Inspector General, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, acknowledge significant data gaps concerning nanomaterials’ potential effects on human health and the environment.  Most troubling are studies using mice that show that nano-titanium dioxide when inhaled and when eaten can cause changes in DNA that affect the brain function and may cause tumors and developmental problems in offspring.  One study found titanium dioxide nanoparticles were found in the placenta, fetal liver and fetal brain.

“It is unacceptable that the FDA continues to allow unregulated and unlabeled nanomaterials to be used in products consumers use every day,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “It is past time for this agency to live up to its mission and protect public health by assessing the health and environmental risks of nanomaterials, and to require labeling so that consumers know where these new materials are being used.”

“The scientific consensus is that nanomaterials require specific testing to account for their novel capacities and potential risks.  The FDA must do such testing as part of a pre-market safety assessment in a broader regulatory initiative to protect public health,” said Steve Suppan of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

For more, see generally (http://www.icta.org/about/).

Despite the headline ICTA gave this news release, I found a 2008 news release for another nanotechnology law suit where they were suing the US Environmental Protection Agency,  GROUPS DEMAND EPA STOP SALE OF 200+ POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS NANO-SILVER PRODUCTS; Nanotech Watchdog Launches First-Ever Legal Challenge To EPA Over Unregulated Nanotech Pesticide Pollution.

If I understand this rightly, the ICTA along with its coalition partners is suing the FDA for not responding to its petition, which would have made for a much less compelling headline. I didn’t have much luck accessing the 2006 petition (clicking on the link brought up an error page) but will try again later.

I notice that sunscreens with with nanoscale titanium dioxide are used as an example of the use of dangerous nanomaterials in consumer products. It seems the general consensus is that nanoscale titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide used in nanosunscreens are relatively safe. You can read more about this on the Cancer Council of Australia or the Environmental Working Group (EWG) websites. From the EWG,

EWG reviewed the scientific literature on hazards and efficacy (UVB and UVA protection) for all active ingredients approved in the U.S. Though no ingredient is without hazard or perfectly effective, on balance our ratings tend to favor mineral sunscreens because of their low capacity to penetrate the skin and the superior UVA protection they offer.

I really wish they would stop using the nanosunscreens as their ‘go to’ concern as I think it damages these groups’ credibility.

Still, the FDA should respond to a petition and six years seems like a long time to wait.

Misunderstanding the data or a failure to research? Georgia Straight article about nanoparticles

4 Replies

It’s good to see articles about nanotechnology. The recent, Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem, article written by Alex Roslin for the Georgia Straight (July 21, 2011 online or July 21-28, 2011 paper edition) is the first I’ve seen on that topic in that particular newspaper. Unfortunately, there are  some curious bits of information included in the article, which render it, in my opinion, difficult to trust.

I do agree with Roslin that nanoparticles/nanomaterials could constitute a danger and there are a number of studies which indicate that, at the least, extreme caution in a number of cases should be taken if we choose to proceed with developing nanotechnology-enabled products.

One of my difficulties with the article is the information that has been left out. (Perhaps Roslin didn’t have time to properly research?) At the time (2009) I did read with much concern the reports Roslin mentions about the Chinese workers who were injured and/or died after working with nanomaterials. As Roslin points out,

Nanotech already appears to be affecting people’s health. In 2009, two Chinese factory workers died and another five were seriously injured in a plant that made paint containing nanoparticles.

The seven young female workers developed lung disease and rashes on their face and arms. Nanoparticles were found deep in the workers’ lungs.

“These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs,” wrote Chinese medical researchers in a 2009 study on the incident in the European Respiratory Journal.

Left undescribed by Roslin are the working conditions; the affected people were working in an unventilated room. From the European Respiratory Journal article (ERJ September 1, 2009 vol. 34 no. 3 559-567, free access), Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma,

A survey of the patients’ workplace was conducted. It measures ∼70 m2, has one door, no windows and one machine which is used to air spray materials, heat and dry boards. This machine has three atomising spray nozzles and one gas exhauster (a ventilation unit), which broke 5 months before the occurrence of the disease. The paste material used is an ivory white soft coating mixture of polyacrylic ester.

Eight workers (seven female and one male) were divided into two equal groups each working 8–12 h shifts. Using a spoon, the workers took the above coating material (room temperature) to the open-bottom pan of the machine, which automatically air-sprayed the coating material at the pressure of 100–120 Kpa onto polystyrene (PS) boards (organic glass), which can then be used in the printing and decorating industry. The PS board was heated and dried at 75–100°C, and the smoke produced in the process was cleared by the gas exhauster. In total, 6 kg of coating material was typically used each day. The PS board sizes varied from 0.5–1 m2 and ∼5,000 m2 were handled each workday. The workers had several tasks in the process including loading the soft coating material in the machine, as well as clipping, heating and handling the PS board. Each worker participated in all parts of this process.

Accumulated dust particles were found at the intake of the gas exhauster. During the 5 months preceding illness the door of the workspace was kept closed due to cold outdoor temperatures. The workers were all peasants near the factory, and had no knowledge of industrial hygiene and possible toxicity from the materials they worked with. The only personal protective equipment used on an occasional basis was cotton gauze masks. According to the patients, there were often some flocculi produced during air spraying, which caused itching on their faces and arms. It is estimated that the airflow or turnover rates of indoor air would be very slow, or quiescent due to the lack of windows and the closed door. [emphases mine]

Here’s the full text from the researchers’ conclusion,

In conclusion, these cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs. It is impossible to remove nanoparticles that have penetrated the cell and lodged in the cytoplasm and caryoplasm of pulmonary epithelial cells, or that have aggregated around the red blood cell membrane. Effective protective methods appear to be extremely important in terms of protecting exposed workers from illness caused by nanoparticles.

There is no question that serious issues about occupational health and safety with regards to nanomaterials were raised. But, we work with dangerous and hazardous materials all the time; precautions are necessary whether you’re working with hydrochloric acid or engineered nanoparticles. (There are naturally occurring nanoparticles too.)

Dr. Andrew Maynard (at the time he was the Chief Science Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, today he is the Director of the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center) on his 2020 Science blog wrote a number of posts dated Aug. 18, 2009 about this tragic industrial incident, including this one where he culled comments from six other researchers noting some of the difficulties the Chinese researchers experienced running a clinical study after the fact.

The material on silver nanoparticles and concerns about their use in consumer products and possible toxic consequences with their eventual appearance in the water supply seem unexceptionable to me. (Note:  I haven’t drilled down into the material and the writer cites studies unknown to me but they parallel information I’ve seen elsewhere).

The material on titanium dioxide as being asbestos-like was new to me, the only nanomaterial I’d previously heard described as being similar to asbestos is the long carbon nanotube. I am surprised Roslin didn’t mention that occupational health and safety research which is also quite disturbing, it’s especially surprising since Roslin does mention carbon nanotubes later in the article.

There is a Canadian expert, Dr. Claude Ostiguy, who consults internationally on the topic of nanotechnology and occupational health and safety. I wonder why he wasn’t consulted. (Note: He testified before Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Health meeting in June 2010 on this topic. You can find more about this in my June 23, 2011 posting, Nanomaterials, toxicity, and Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.)

Quoted quite liberally throughout the article is researcher, Dr.Robert Schiestl (professor of pathology and radiation oncology at the University of California at Los Angeles [UCLA]). This particular passage referencing Schiestl is a little disconcerting,

Schiestl said nanoparticles could also be helping to fuel a rise in the rates of some cancers. He wouldn’t make a link with any specific kind of cancer, but data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute show that kidney and renal-pelvis cancer rates rose 24 percent between 2000 and 2007 in the U.S., while the rates for melanoma of the skin went up 29 percent and thyroid cancer rose 54 percent.

Since Schiestl isn’t linking the nanoparticles to any specific cancers, why mention those statistics? Using that kind of logic I could theorize that the increase in the number and use of cell phones (mobiles) may have something to do with these cancers. Perhaps organic food has caused this increase? You see the problem?

As for the number of nanotechnology-enabled products in use, I’m not sure why Roslin chose to cite the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ inventory which is not scrutinized, i. e., anyone can register any product as nanotechnology-enabled. The writer also mentioned a Canadian inventory listing over 1600 products  cited in an ETC Group report, The Big Downturn? Nanogeopolitics,

Has anyone ever seen this inventory? I’ve been chasing it for years and the only time the Canadian government reports on this inventory is in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report (cited by the ETC Group [no. 79 in their list of references] and noted in both my Feb. 1, 2011 posting and my April 12, 2010 posting). Here’s the OECD report, if you’d like to see it for yourself. The top three questions I keep asking myself is where is the report/inventory, how did they determine their terms of reference, and why don’t Canadian taxpayers have easy access to it? I’d best return to my main topic.

As for the material Roslin offers about nanosunscreens I was surprised given the tenor of the article to see that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) was listed as an information source since they recommend mineral sunscreens containing nanoscale ingredients such as titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide as preferable to sunscreens containing hormone disruptors.  From the EWG page on sunscreens and nanomaterials,

Sunscreen makers offer mineral and non-mineral formulations, as well as products that combine both mineral and non-mineral active ingredients. Mineral formulations incorporate zinc oxide or titanium dioxide in nano- and micro-sized particles that can be toxic if they penetrate the skin. Most studies show that these ingredients do not penetrate through skin to the bloodstream, but research continues. These constitute one in five sunscreens on the market in 2010 and offer strong UVA protection that is rare in non-mineral sunscreens.

The most common ingredients in non-mineral sunscreens are oxybenzone, octisalate, octinoxate, and avobenzone found in 65, 58, 57, and 56 percent of all non-mineral sunscreens on the market, respectively. The most common, oxybenzone, can trigger allergic reactions, is a potential hormone disruptor and penetrates the skin in relatively large amounts. Some experts caution that it should not be used on children. Three of every five sunscreens rated by EWG are non-mineral, and one in five sunscreens combines both mineral and non-mineral active ingredients.

EWG reviewed the scientific literature on hazards and efficacy (UVB and UVA protection) for all active ingredients approved in the U.S. Though no ingredient is without hazard or perfectly effective, on balance our ratings tend to favor mineral sunscreens because of their low capacity to penetrate the skin and the superior UVA protection they offer. [emphasis mine]

(I did find some information (very little) about Health Canada and sunscreens which I discuss in June 3, 2011 posting [if you’re impatient, scroll down about 1/2 way].)

There was some mention of Health Canada in Roslin’s article but no mention of last year’s public consultation, although to be fair, it seemed a clandestine operation. (My latest update on the Health Canada public consultation about a definition for nanomaterials is May 27, 2011.)

I find some aspects of the article puzzling as Roslin is an award-winning investigative reporter. From the kitco bio page,

Alex Roslin is a leading Canadian investigative journalist and active trader based in Montreal. He has won a Canadian Association of Journalists award for investigative reporting and is a five-time nominee for investigative and writing prizes from the CAJ and the National Magazine Awards. He has worked on major investigations for Canada’s premier investigative television program, the fifth estate, and the CBC’s Disclosure program. His writing has appeared in Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, The Financial Post, Toronto Star and Montreal Gazette. He regularly writes about investing for The Montreal Gazette.

I notice there’s no mention of writing in either science or health matters so I imagine this is an early stage piece in this aspect of Roslin’s career, which may explain some of the leaps in logic and misleading information. Happily, I did learn a few things from reading the article and while I don’t trust much of the information in it, I will investigate further as time permits.

In general, I found the tenor of the article more alarmist than informational and I’m sorry about that as I would like to see more information being shared and, ultimately, public discussion in Canada about nanotechnology and other emerging technologies.

Not enough data to assess risk for nanoscreens?

7 Replies

I’m glad to see that the Friends of the Earth (FOE) civil society group (or nongovernmental agency) have responded to Andrew Maynard’s challenge. As I thought, the FOE has stated that it is impossible to assess the risk that nanoscreens (specifically the sunscreens’ titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles) present as there is not enough data.

The statement (posted in a June 15, 2010 posting on the 2020 Science blog) was made in response to a challenge by Dr. Andrew Maynard (blog owner) first issued in his June 8, 2010 posting (Friends of the Earth come down hard on nanotechnology – are they right?) and further detailed in another June 8, 2010 posting (Just how risky could nanoparticles in sunscreens be?).

FOE goes on to detail some of the problems associated with providing an answer (you can view the full statement in the first link provided in the second paragraph),

Andrew – thanks for the invitation to perform some complex risk assessment using several poorly understood variables. However we do have to point out that the world’s best minds don’t yet have enough information even to design reliable nanomaterial risk assessment processes, let alone to come up with a single ‘worst case scenario’ figure for long term health impacts of using nano-sunscreens.

The huge knowledge gaps plaguing nanomaterials toxicity and exposure assessment (along with preliminary studies suggesting the potential for serious harm) are key reasons for calls by Friends of the Earth Australia and United States for a precautionary approach to management of nanotoxicity risks.

I don’t think the sarcasm with which the authors (Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato) open their statement is absolutely necessary but their main point is well made as it opens the door to a discussion about one’s perspective on and philosophy towards risk.

The impact that engineered nanoparticles of any kind could have on life is poorly understood and research is urgently needed. The research that has been undertaken on titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles does suggest some potentially serious problems could occur. I want to emphasize my phrasing here ‘could occur’ because to date we have no evidence that anyone using nanoscreens has had any health issues as a consequence of their use. Still, the laboratory research is concerning. So, how are we as a society and as individuals going to approach the risk?

The school of thought which supports the FOE’s application of the precautionary principle seems to be that any element of risk should curtail use until the engineered nanoparticles have been extensively tested and then declared safe. I’m not clear how testing under those conditions could ever proceed to human clinical trials. It would not be possible to test every single variable or, more importantly, every combination of variables which could result in a risk. The net result would be: no nanoscreens while people use possibly inferior to nanosunscreen products to protect themselves from the sun’s effects.

I’ve commented about the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and their assessment of nanosunscreens previously (here). Last year (2009), they, reluctantly, after an extensive meta analysis of the available research recommended nanosunscreens on the basis that there was no compelling data to suggest undue risks. The EWG has not adjusted its stance since then and, this year, are warning against sunscreens that use Vitamin A and oxybenzone as well as sunscreens that are applied in spray or powder forms.

In most circumstances I imagine that the FOE and the EWG would be natural allies as both NGOs are focused on health and safety issues. So it’s strange that the FOE did not mention the EWG report (as I noted here) in the FOE’s own 2009 report on sunscreens although they did cite research from Japan that supports the FOE’s position but was released after the EWG’s 2009 recommendations.

In the instance of nanosunscreens, there appears to be a sharp division of opinion between the two groups. I think this points to a major philosophical difference in their approaches to risk. Faced with identical (or almost so) data sets, the FOE wants to halt use until these nanoparticles are declared safe while the EWG suggests that these nanosunscreens might be safer than conventional products currently in the marketplace and recommends their use.

The approach as exemplified by the FOE is to insist on extensive testing and guarantees as to how and when nanotechnology-enabled products are safe before they ever get near the marketplace. This is the precautionary principle being applied. Given the complex environment we all navigate on a daily basis, I can certainly understand the stance. However, I am pragmatic by nature and since testing every single possible variable and combination of variables is impossible I am more inclined to consider the data that we currently have available as inconclusive. I have read some (not all) of the materials and I’ve noticed that the scientists’ conclusions are always expressed in very measured tones.

To illustrate my point about the “measured tones”, I’ve excerpted this from FOE’s response to Andrew’s challenge in the June 15, 2010 posting on 2020 Science,

FOE: Transparent micron-particle sized zinc oxide sunscreens are commercially available; a recent article suggests most titanium dioxide nano-sunscreens on the market could be doing more harm than good. No-one need use nanoparticles in order to produce a cosmetically and functionally acceptable sunscreen.

The article is in Nature Nanotechnology (behind a paywall) and it’s the published version of Dr. Amanda Barnard’s work using a computer simulation to establish potential toxicity. From the Nature Nanotechnology article,

… using this technique [computer simulation] it is possible to draw direct comparisons between the SPF, transparency and potential toxicity of nanoparticles used in sunscreens, based on fundamental nanoscale properties, and optimize these parameters numerically. In general, optimization decisions of this type are usually based on product testing under expected usage conditions, but the results presented here do complement traditional product and consumer testing activities, and can also be applied to other thermal or chemical conditions, or applied to any other material where a trade-off is necessary when balancing efficacy, aesthetics and an undesirable side effect. [emphases mine]

I gather Dr. Barnard is viewing the use of a computer simulation in research as a complement and not as a replacement for or an equivalent to traditional testing. In an interview with Anna Salleh for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science Online website,

Dr Barnard found that the size and concentrations of nanoparticles that gave the best transparency and sun protection also gave the highest potential for production of free radicals.

“Where we have the highest sun-protection factor – and it’s pretty – it [the sunscreen] is also toxic, potentially,” she said.

“Ultimately we have to trade off. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.”

I’m not sure what sort of trade-off Dr. Barnard might be suggesting but it’s clear that she’s aware that the use of nanotechnology-enabled products such as nanosunscreens is not a simplistic ‘good (conventional sunscreens) vs. bad (nanosunscreens)’ situation.

Dexter Johnson makes note of the FOE’s response to Andrew’s challenge in his essay (Daring to Challenge NGOs on Nanotech Risk) on the Nanoclast blog with some pithy and thought-provoking comments.

I do have one major point of difference with Dexter, I find the FOE’s suggestion that the companies selling the nanosunscreen products should provide their testing information to be a good idea although I first saw it in a comment from Hilary Sutcliffe in the comments section of one of Andrew’s June 8, 2010 postings.

I do believe that NGOs are important players in the debate but the tenor of the FOE’s response to Andrew’s challenge makes it a little harder to hold on to that belief. From the June 15, 2010 posting on Andrew’s blog,

Andrew, we respectfully suggest that someone of your expertise and stature could play a more constructive role in these debates – debates which should not be limited to a question of technical risk assessment. [emphasis mine]

I think the challenge was very constructive indeed.

I did comment on this latest sunscreen discussion last week, Part 1 and Part 2 where I discuss the nature of risk, uncertainty and nanosunscreens.

Sunscreen season and the latest from the Environmental Working Group

Leave a reply

Last year (July 9, 2009), I wrote about the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and their meta-analysis of the studies conducted on the use of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens. Much to the EWG’s surprise, they gave the sunscreens with nanoparticles a passing grade. The EWG still examines sunscreens and, according to an article by Ariel Schwartz on the Fast Company site, have some concerns,

Sunscreen is supposed to protect us from cancer, but a new report from the Environmental Working Group claims that many products don’t do what they’re supposed to. Some sunscreens contains ingredients that might even trigger skin tumors and lesions, according to the EWG’s 2010 Sunscreen Guide.

This year’s problem (from the EWG site),

A surge in exaggerated SPF claims above 50 and new disclosures about potentially hazardous ingredients, in particular recently developed government data linking the common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A to accelerated development of skin tumors and lesions.

If you plan to spend some time investigating  the EWG’s report on sunscreens, be prepared to receive a request to sign up (but it’s not required) before viewing the report.

Nanotechnology, risk, science literacy and feelings; Canada’s Science and Technology Week 2009

4 Replies

The Swiss-based Innovation Society has waded into the discussion about nanoparticles and sunscreens  in the wake of the Friends of the Earth (FOE) report (mentioned here yesterday August 20, 2009).

They point out something I forgot. Despite disagreeing on the “risk  profile,” both the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and FOE advise that nanomaterials should be labelled so that consumers can make informed choices,  (I’m not sure if I’ve seen the phrase risk profile or if I just coined it but I hope it makes sense in this context.) You can read about the Innovation Society’s perspective in their media release on Nanowerk News where they also offer links to the society’s August 2009 newsletter. You have to register to receive it and the form is in German as is the page which houses the public portion of the August 2009 newsletter. So, I’m not sure what language the newsletter is written in although most of what I saw on their site is in English.

As this last week has featured a published study about two women workers who died due to nanoparticle exposure and the FOE report, I’ve been reminded of the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School (mentioned here on this blog last week). One of the conclusions in the paper I read about nanotechnology and risk is that people will make judgments about emerging technologies quickly, with little information, and in line with their feelings (affect), and cultural values. In the experimental investigation they found that increasing scientific literacy (i.e. giving the respondents more factual information about nanotechnology) did nothing or very little to alter someone’s opinion once it was formed.

I can agree with this conclusion as far as it goes. I’ve observed the same process of adhering to an opinion despite any evidence to the contrary in myself and others. I noted yesterday that the FOE report did not mention the EWG findings which, in my opinion, damages their credibility and bears out the conclusions made by the team at the Cultural Cognition Project.

There is one thing which niggles at me. Technologies have emerged before, e.g. electricity. At the time, during the 19th century, it was highly contested (do take a look at Carolyn Marvin’s book, When Old Technologies were New) . Very inflammatory language was used; all kinds of “experts” emerged; scientists engaged in lots of public outreach; there were deaths and injuries; and there were predictions that life on earth would end.  Seems familiar, doesn’t it? Still, electricity has become ubiquitous for much of the world. If cultural values and feelings trump science literacy, how did electricity become ubiquitous?

The Cultural Cognition Project team seemed to suggest in their paper that once opinions have been formed they are largely intractable. If that’s so, regardless of which group’s narrative gains dominance wouldn’t the other group continue to resist? (Note: the Amish opted out from using electricity.) History tells us otherwise.

I am getting ready for my presentation at the International Symposium on Electronic Arts (ISEA) so y9u may find that my posting schedule is interrupted. Happy weekend and here are a few final nuggets,

The Government of Canada, in the person of Rona Ambrose, Minister of Labour, has recognized Quantium Technologies (Edmonton, Alberta) for its innovation in the areas of “linking scientific research to commercialization, jobs and economic growth.” More can be found  in the media release on Nanowerk News.

Nanowerk News has also published a guide to the materials on their site, 10 things you should know about nanotechology. I highly recommend checking this out. Go here.

Canada’s 2009 Science and Technology Week will take place Oct. 16 – 25, 2009 (seems more like 10 days to me). You can check out the currently scheduled events (I’m sure this will be updated) for your province here,

There’s an interesting  story about the first copyright trial in 6th Century Ireland here on Techdirt.

Friends of the Earth and sunscreens; update on RUSNANO

1 Reply

In a bit of interesting timing given that it’s on the heels of the publication of a study about two tragic deaths which are being attributed to exposure to nanoparticles, the Friends of the Earth (FOE) organization has released a report titled Nano-Sunscreens: Not Worth the Risk.The media release can be found on Azonano or Nanowerk News.

I have read the report (very quickly) and noted that they do not cite or mention the recently released report on the same topic by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) which stated that after an extensive review of the literature, there was no evidence that the titanium dioxide or zinc oxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens were dangerous. (posting here).

Shortly after the EWG report’s release, a new study (which I mentioned here … if you are inclined, do read the comments as some additional points about reading research critically are brought out)  suggested concerns based on the work of researchers in Japan.  The new study from Japan is cited in the Friends of the Earth report.

While the overall tone of the FOE report is fairly mild (they suggest precaution) they cite only a few studies supporting their concern and they damage their credibility (in my book) by ignoring a report from a well respected group that reluctantly admitted that there is no real cause for concern about nanoparticles in sunscreens based on the current evidence. FOE didn’t have to agree with the EWG’s conclusions but some counter-argument or discussion suggests that they don’t have a counter-argument or that they will ignore any opinions, and in the EWG case it’s based on evidence, contrary to their own.

More about this tomorrow when I tie it into science literacy, critical thinking, affect (feelings), and values.

Meanwhile, RUSNANO (Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies) has announced $1.25B US  (40billion rubles) of investment will be approved this year. I blogged (here) about RUSNANO when their executives visited Canada with an eye to investing in Canadian nanotechnology companies. I will be eagerly waiting to find out if RUSNANO has followed up with investments in Canadian nanotechnology.

Nanoparticles in sunscreens and other places

6 Replies

Whodathunkit? Sunscreens with titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles are safer and more effective than the sunscreens without them. Thanks to Andrew Maynard at 2020 Science there’s an overview of the results, the study, and, most importantly, the source for the study’s report. Maynard (chief science advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies) also offers a few comments about environmental and health concerns and the need for more research into the use of nanoparticles in cosmetic/beauty products.

The EWG (Environmental Working Group) is, according to Maynard, not usually friendly to industry and they had this to say about their own predisposition prior to reviewing the data (from EWG),

When we began our sunscreen investigation at the Environmental Working Group, our researchers thought we would ultimately recommend against micronized and nano-sized zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sunscreens. After all, no one has taken a more expansive and critical look than EWG at the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics and sunscreens, including the lack of definitive safety data and consumer information on these common new ingredients, and few substances more dramatically highlight gaps in our system of public health protections than the raw materials used in the burgeoning field of nanotechnology. But many months and nearly 400 peer-reviewed studies later, we find ourselves drawing a different conclusion, and recommending some sunscreens that may contain nano-sized ingredients.

There is a proviso to their evaluation and it’s standard science talk. The conclusion is based on the current evidence, which means that someone might or might not discover a problem tomorrow.

I commented about an article on sunscreens, which covered some material about nanoparticle concerns, in a fashion magazine here.

Meanwhile, the concern over silver nanoparticles continues. The Australian branch of Friends of the Earth (FOE) has issued a report urging caution. From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article by Anna Saleh

Associate Professor Tom Faunce, an expert in the medical and regulatory aspects of nanotechnology at the Australian National University in Canberra says because nano-silver is very useful in medicine, he does not support the call for a total moratorium on nano-silver.

But he thinks there does need to be some restraint on its use.

“There is accumulating evidence now that if nano-silver use is left unrestrained and it enters the waterways in large amounts, this will be dangerous to the environment,” says Faunce.

I am relieved to hear about the nanoparticles in sunscreens and not surprised about the caution regarding silver nanoparticles. After scanning the internet for information about nanotechnology over the last 2.5 years or so, there are two major areas of concern (from my neophyte’s perspective), silver nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes (the ones that resemble asbestos fibres).

Regardless of the EWG’s conclusions, I’m pretty sure there are people out there who will reject the findings because they don’t like the idea of nanoparticles in anything, anywhere, anytime.

Tomorrow a little nano haiku courtesy of NISE network.