Blogs

I was recently invited to participate in the 2nd Nanosafety Dialogue for Success, organised by the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers of the European Commission in October 2008 in Brussels. This was one of many dialogues occurring in many countries. Sometimes it may appear, from a civil society point of view, that we could spend all our time travelling and dialoguing: but what do we have to show for this?

On the 12th of November 2008 the Royal Commission’s study of “Novel Materials in the Environment: the case of nanotechnology” was released. The report, while long and detailed, makes shocking reading.

I was recently invited and attended an expert meeting on nanotechnology and ethics hosted by the UNESCO, Division of Ethics and Science and Technology in Paris (Nov 16/17th 2006). I was the only NGO representative amongst twenty invited 'experts'. Other participants included representatives of the Japanese, US, French, Dutch and EU governments, OECD and ISO representatives, as well as a selection of academics from Hungary, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Qatar and the UK.

In early July 2006 I was invited and journeyed as the FOE Australia Nanotechnology Projects representative to Zurich to participate in the International Risk Governance Council Conference on Nanotechnology. The purpose of the conference was for the invited speakers and conference participants to comment on the IRCG whitepaper on 'Nanotechnology Risk Governance'.

The scientific and business community are still struggling to understand the global public rejection of genetically engineered (GE) foods, and with the growing discourse around the risks and disruptive impacts of nanotechnology, many are becoming increasingly worried that history is about to repeat itself.

A new study by researchers at the US Environmental Protection Agency's research laboratories in North Carolina has found that nano particles used in some sun creams have the potential to cause neurological damage.

Go figure? It turns out that 'Magic Nano,' the protective glass and bathroom sealant that was recalled in late March in Germany after causing severe breathing problems for some consumers, did not contain any nanoparticles. That's according to Rene Zimmer of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, quoted in an article in small times .

According to the article, not only were there no nanoparticles in Magic Nano, but it appears that it didn't even include the active ingredients it was supposed to contain. It was supposed to have molecules that contain silicon that, once sprayed on surfaces, generate an oil and water repelling "nanothin" layer of silicon dioxide. But according to Zimmer, the analysis did not find much silicon in 'Magic Nano.' For the most part the spray contained solvents.

Apart from raising the obvious questions about the honesty of the company's representations of their product, it also raises an interesting question over whether 'nano' branding is a positive or a negative

It seems that at least for now, companies see the 'nano' label as a marketing boon - although it's not clear whether this will continue as evidence of nanotoxicology continues to mount.

The earlier story reporting on the recall of 'magic nano' can be found here.

Canberra Times, 8th May 2006, by John Hepburn

The release last month of a Federal Government discussion paper on the development of a national nanotechnology strategy created 'nano ripples' throughout the community – so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye.

The Synthetic Biology Biology 2.0 conference on the 21st May in Berkeley, USA has released a public statement in support of self-governance of the emerging nanobiotechnology industry. In the lead up to the conference 35 civil society groups, including Friends of the Earth International, signed an open letter (available below)outlining urgent concerns surrounding synthetic biology. However the declaration by the synthetic biologists failed to address key concerns, including the ethical problems of nanobiotechnology, broader environmental risks and the socio-economic and human rights implications of its use.

The synthetic biologists called for enhanced tools for monitoring DNA synthesis orders to better detect those that could be used to make bioweapons. However they did not propose a mechanism to oversee the use of such monitoring, or to assess its adequacy as a safeguard.

Synthetic Biology is a new area of science made possible by recent breakthroughs in genetic engineering and nanotechnology. It encapsulates the design and construction of new biological parts, devices, and systems, as well as the re-design of existing, natural biological systems. It is a powerful new technology that raises profound ethical questions as well as posing very obvious and serious risks of bioterrorism among otherthings.

Early this year saw the first ever reported case of a nano product recall as a result of health problems. In Germany, there were 97 reported cases of serious respiratory problems and six people were hospitalized in late March after using the nanotech bathroom cleaner "Magic Nano".