Nanotech Under the Microscope

Article Tools

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

According to Jim Thomas in The Ecologist (Feb. 2004), the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies are 'privately admitting they have made a mistake in letting nanoproducts onto the market without safety studies, and are looking for ways to tweak existing regulations.' Thomas, whose Nanowatch column appears in the London-based magazine, is the European program manager for the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, or ETC Group. A 2003 communiqu? posted by the Winnipeg-based ETC Group (www .etcgroup.org) highlights the central problem with the current push to commercialize nanotech. Many companies have dismissed the idea that particles approved for commercial use at much larger sizes ought to be retested in their nano form, the watchdog group notes. That's ironic, given that 'the impetus for their development stemmed from the radical changes that can happen when a substance is reduced to the nano scale.'

Although billions of U.S. federal dollars are now slated for nanotech research and development, only about 11 percent of that money is earmarked this year for health and environmental studies. Some of the studies will take years to complete; others could yield results more quickly. While the call for more research is spreading along with concern, there are currently no specific regulations to control the release of products containing nanoparticles in any country -- and no labeling requirements either. With the widespread use of nanotechnology now looming in agriculture, medicine, and other crucial fields, critics call it another example of an industry moving ahead without fully investigating potential long-term consequences.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print