Tag Archives: Nanotechnologies and food report 2010

Canada, nanotechnology, and food

On the heels of last week’s House of Lords report (Nanotechnologies and food) I thought I’d take a look at the Canadian scene. Here’s what I found after a fast online search.  Health Canada has a nanotechnology web page here. It doesn’t seem to have been updated since early 2007.  There are no links or reports posted, just a promise such as this found on the web page,

Regulating products to ensure the health and safety of Canadians and the environment is a priority for Health Canada. Currently, the Department is using the existing legislative and regulatory frameworks to regulate applications of nanotechnology, but it is recognized that new approaches may be necessary in the future to keep pace with the advances in this area.

There is a description of the Canadian situation on a webpage hosted by the International Union of Food Science and Technology and Institute of Food Technologists here, titled An Overview of Food Related Nanoscience in Advanced Foods and Materials Network (AFMNet) and in Canada authored by Rickey Yada and Lorraine Sheremata [sic]. This doesn’t appear to have been updated after late 2007. From the web page,

In conclusion, although nanoscience research efforts in Canada have progressed substantially over the past few years with the activities of AFMNet, NINT [National Institute of Nanotechnology] and regional nodes, a number of issues still remain to be addressed: major gaps still exist in our understanding of the health, safety, environmental and societal impacts of nanotechnology – filling these gaps will be critically important to the long term success of nanotechnology; in order for the benefits of science and technology at the nanoscale level (e.g. reproductive and genetic technologies, regenerative medicine, synthetic biology, food science) to be realized and accepted, public trust will have to be gained via a coherent and rational approach to stewardship and finally; careful planning and strategic research coordination is necessary to avoid duplication of research efforts, thereby, allowing for synergistic and complementary efforts.

You can visit AFMNet here if you’re curious about this academic organization which gives information useful to researchers.

Interestingly and since the last time I looked (probably mid-2009), the National Institute of Nanotechnology has added a NE3LS (Nanotechnology Ethical, Environmental, Economic, Legal and Social Issues) research programme here. Coincidentally, Lorraine Sheremeta (one of the authors of the food science and nanotechnology web page I referenced just previously) is a member of this research group. From the web page,

The NE3LS researchers focus on understanding the development of nanoscience and technology within a broader societal and transnational context. Current and ongoing research is focused on the development of a deeper understanding of issues related to the environment, human health and safety, law, policy and ethics, public opinion, commercialization and the development of a socio-historical analysis of the growth of nanoscience and technology.

NE3LS research has an important role to play in ensuring that acceptance or rejection of nanotechnology by society is based on a genuine understanding of specific technologies and the appropriate weighing of risks and benefits (both known and potential).

As I’m coming to expect, there are no posted reports and no links to more information.

I gather the Canadian government believes that food, health, and safety as regards nanotechnology is important but no additional information is to be shared with the rest of us.

Other responses to the nanotechnologies and food report by UK House of Lords Committee; The Economist weighs in on Canada’s prorogued parliament; Typographic amusement

After posting my responses to the report (House of Lords Committee on Science, Technology and Industry: Nanotechnologies and food) late yesterday, it’s interesting to see what other people are saying. As per the headlines, most of the focus has been on the food industry’s secrecy about its nanotechnology research. Here are a couple samples at BBC News and at Nanowerk. I was a little surprised to see that Andrew Maynard extolled the two sections (regulation and communication) that I thought were the weakest.  Andrew’s review is here. He also deconstructs a ‘tabloid science’ article about the report in the UK’s Daily Mail here to discover that there’s some good reporting hidden after the headlines.

I don’t usually comment on the doings of the Canadian Parliament and I’m not breaking with my own tradition since Stephen Harper, for no apparent reason, has prorogued parliament until March 2010. I gather I’m not the only one who’s somewhat upset, The Econ0mist has been scathing in its criticism of the move as per this article at CBC News and at least one poll indicates that the Canadian populace is not amused.

For a complete change of pace (and thanks to an article by Fast Company’s Cliff Kuang), I’m going to direct you to a website where you can discover which typeface best expresses your personality,

What Type are You? (Password: Character)

Typefaces are fascinating to me and this sit is a lot of fun if you share the interest. You might want to read Cliff Kuang’s article first so the analyst doesn’t surprise you. Also, I must confess it took me a few too many minutes to figure out what to do and the analyst made sure I was aware of it in a most amusing fashion.

Happy weekend!

Quick peek at nanotechnologies and food report from UK House of Lords

After getting  an advance copy of the new report from the UK’s House of Lords Science, Technology and Industry Committee (mentioned in my post of Jan.5.10), I spent a good chunk of the day reading it. These are fast impressions:

  • it seemed quite thorough relative to the scope of the investigation and from the perspective of a Canadian who hasn’t seen her own government investigate and make public information about the state of any nanotechnology research, I found this to be quite refreshing
  • there was something strange about the benefits and that strangeness was the focus on obesity and waste…much else is mentioned but obesity and waste (i.e. reducing both) are strongly emphasized as possible areas where benefits could be experienced.
  • secrecy on the part of the food industry’s nanotechnology research was noted and discussed at length with an analysis that was both sympathetic to the industry’s concerns (i.e. that there would be a replay of the GM and food irradiation controversies and/or competition would be inhibited) and adamant that adopting secrecy as a strategy is wrong-minded.
  • nanotechnology research in the UK is coordinated through a single agency (I believe that’s true in the US as well but it’s definitely not the case in Canada).
  • they were quite critical of the current toxicology research efforts, irrespective of nanotechnology, there aren’t enough toxicology researchers in the UK as well there’s a specific problem with the nanotoxicology, i.e. knowledge gaps (from the report [and they are quoting from a previous report], pp. 34-5 ),

EMERGNANO report states that “this review of ongoing studies has failed to demonstrate that there is any comprehensive attempt to gain the toxicokinetic … data required to reach the aims of hazard identification” and there have been “no systematic studies on the potential of different kinds of nanoparticles to get into the blood, the lymph or the brain”. We find this conclusion worrying.

We are disappointed and concerned that the Research Councils have not adopted a more pro-active approach to encourage and stimulate research bids in areas where existing mechanisms have so far proved ineffective. Dr Mulkeen told us that the MRC would take “more active steps if needed” to develop research into the safety of nanotechnologies (Q 420). We feel that a more pro-active stance is essential given the lack of progress in several key areas to date.

  • some of the difficulty re: nanotoxicology research seems to be attributable to the funding structure (from the report p. 35),

The 2007 review by the CST concluded that the primary reason for the Government’s slow progress on health and safety research was due “to an over-reliance by Government on responsive mode funding, rather than on directed programmes by Government departments to deliver the necessary research”.44 A number of witnesses supported this view. Professor Donaldson, for example, told us: “If we look at the Royal Academy/Royal Society report, there was a really important paragraph that there should be a central core-funded chunk of research and expertise brought together to design a programme that would look systematically at nanoparticle toxicology, and that was ignored. We had response mode funding where people just put forward what they wanted to do, so what you get is piecemeal” (Q 267).
Professor Jones also alluded to the relative strength of research investigating nanoparticle toxicology in the lung compared to a lack of research into the
gut as a result of response-mode funding (Q 494).

  • there is a huge difference between the funds for nanotechnology research (one agency spent 220 million pounds on nanotech research over a 5 year period) and funds for nanotoxicology research (less than 600,000 pounds per annum or less than 3 million pounds in a five year period) which I imagine is much  the same elsewhere.
  • they do mention Canada as a country that has announced a mandatory register of nanomaterials which will include information on safety data (this register has been referred to in other reports but no one ever cites a source and I’ve never been able to confirm that this register is actually being developed).
  • in their recommendations for regulatory enforcement they seemed to be reinforcing the status quo or bringing the UK into line with current European Union practices.
  • in the last bit they discuss communication, i.e. there should be yet another survey of public attitudes although this will be about nanotechnologies and food, they acknowledge the government’s decision to create a new website on the subject, they’d like it if the government would work with the industry folks to become more open about their research, there won’t be blanket labelling of nanotechnology on  food products, and they think public engagement should be undertaken.

The last two bits, regulation and communication, are the least developed sections of the report. I found that overall there was a good balance between sympathy for industry interests and concern for health issues. Some of the strongest language in the report was used in the sections on nanotoxicology and its lack of research.