Nanotechnology and biosafety

Shoreline, WA.    I have always been drawn to the “natural” sciences and as an undergraduate student at the University of Texas I almost majored in biology with, I am sure you could have guessed, an emphasis on ecology. I usually fall asleep if I am watching the "Science Channel" because it seldom presents any program that is not tainted by reductionist assumptions or a propaganda-like bias favoring the goals and values of high technology companies and an uncritical acceptance of capitalist economics.

More often, instead of watching TV programs on science, I feed my life-long fascination by reading a wide variety of scientific journals. About two years ago, I was reading through a journal, Aquatic Toxicology, and found that it included an article on bioaccumulation of “nanoparticles” in living organisms. This article had been in the back of my mind for some time and then yesterday I came across a website with a PowerPoint presentation on the health and environmental risks of nanotechnology.  

As I read through the presenter’s notes, a molecular materials scientist at Arizona State University (ASU), which is one of the nation’s preeminent centers for nanotechnology research and development, I realized that (1) nanotechnology products are already ubiquitous and in widespread use and not just in industrial products and processes but in everyday consumer goods like sunscreen, “age abatement” cosmetics, and kitchenware; and (2) this ubiquitous presence is occurring in the context of an inadequate data base of empirical studies in predictive ecology, epidemiology, and toxicology related to the uses of nanotech.  Note that nanotechnology is basically a materials engineering field that builds materials and objects from the molecular level up and is made possible by the invention in 1981 of the "scanning tunneling microscope."  For more information, see the Wikipedia entries on Scanning tunneling microscope and Nanotechnology.

In other words, the government is allowing nanotechnology to be commercialized into ever wider areas of application without a sufficient understanding of the environmental and public health implications. This is the same path our government followed with transgenic crops and foods and we all know what that resulted in: Endless political controversy, heated technical debates and protest movements, failures to address the real and now empirically verified adverse impacts of transgenics on the genomic integrity of native land race varieties (heirloom cultivars), infringement of freedom to farm organically and indeed litigation against farmers because their seeds were “introgressed” by transgenes through “genetic drift” from patented genetically-engineered seeds and their pollen, failure to significantly reduce the use of agro-industrial chemicals (herbicides and pesticides), neglect of continued oppressive and exploitative conditions experienced by farm workers, and a great deal of public confusion.

As I continued my search for sources on the environmental and health implications of nanotech, it became clear that the discourse and policymaking surrounding this emergent industry is following the exact same trajectory that we witnessed with the rise of commercial agricultural biotechnology. Government agencies are proceeding to let the “nano” out of the materials labs just like they let the “gene-ie” out of the flask with commercial agricultural biotechnology (transgenic crops); that is, before we have systematically assessed the environmental and health impacts.   

I will note that many proponents of nanotech are themselves concerned that commercial applications are accelerating well ahead of the risk science required to empirically determine the threats posed to the health of ecosystems and humans. Many thus urge adoption of the “Precautionary Principle.”

Molecularizing the commodity form 

When the biotech industry (Monsanto, Novartis, Pioneer, etc.) first emerged, their public relations offensive made three big promises: (1) genetically-engineered crops would save the world from hunger and starvation by increasing yields and reducing the uses of herbicides, pesticides, and other agrichemicals; (2) genetically-engineered crops would thus present opportunities for sustainable and environmentally-friendly agriculture; and (3) genetically-engineered crops were safe for humans to consume and would not adversely affect public health.  

None of these claims have turned out to be close to true. Genetically-engineered or transgenic crops have not reduced world hunger or malnutrition; indeed, the recent IAASTD (International Assessment of Agriculture Knowledge, Science, Technology for Development) report cites clear and indisputable evidence that the adoption of transgenic crops has failed to reduce hunger and malnutrition and may have even increased it by reducing the number of resilient local subsistence farmers, especially in the “two-thirds” world. Please see my blog entry on IAASTD of April 26, 2008.  IAASTD

The development and commercial application of the two most dominant transgenic technologies – the Bt and Roundup-Ready lines – have not reduced the consumption of agrichemicals like herbicides and pesticides. These technologies were clearly designed to promote profits from Monsanto’s flagship chemical, Roundup Ready, a form of glyphosate that is used as a broad spectrum herbicide. These technologies also sought to enlarge the company’s share of the market for Bt corn, soy, and cotton. Please see the various earlier blog “GEO Watch” entries on Monsanto and transgenics.  This was not about feeding the masses or saving the Earth; it was about a powerful corporation’s hunger for profit.

It is also now well established that transgenic crops are not “safe” for either the environment or human health. Scientific studies have revealed that transgenic crops are “contaminating” native land races with “transgenes” that affect the genomic integrity of these original cultivars and perhaps their wild relatives as well. There is one supreme irony for me here: It turns out that a form of native “pigweed” (Amaranthus palmeri), a plant that we in the Rio Arriba acequia farming communities consider a delightful edible weed that we call quelites, may turn out to be Monsanto’s undoing. This is at least the case with respect to the commercial viability of Roundup-Ready cotton. Pigweed has developed fierce resistance to Roundup herbicide in cotton fields and this is diminishing the returns to the "bioserfs" (growers), making the transgenic route less economically appealing and thus threatening Monsanto's control of the transgenics market.

Moreover, there are now a growing number of documented cases of human allergic reactions to transgenic foods and some toxicological studies verify a wide range of oncogenic, mutagenic, and other adverse health effects. Problems related to bioaccumulation of toxics and the related issue of metrics that account for cumulative risks add uncertainty to this assessment of the human health effects of transgenics. Obviously, we are well past the point of precautionary ethics. I have discussed these issues and findings in the ejfood blog for several years now and ask you to, among others, visit or revisit the blog entry on “Franken-Rice.”

Now similar claims are being made to champion the cause of commercial nanotechnology. Like the computer and biotechnology revolutions that preceded the current nano-craze, the proponents of this new technology are declaring that this will generate trillions of dollars in economic growth and millions of jobs; that it will help solve hunger and reduce the use of pesticides and other chemicals; that it will protect the environment by enhancing energy efficiency and conservation. The same process that marked the rise of transgenic foods is now unfolding with the case of commercial applications of nanotechnology, and once again the universities are playing a key role in accelerating the commodification of scientific research and technology design well ahead of the curve related to empirical research in predictive ecology, toxicology, and related fields.   

Let me return to that obscure article on nanotech and bioaccumulation that set all this off. The authors of the article (Baun, Sørensen, Rasmussen, Hartmann, and Koch 2008) basically found that engineered nanoparticles “have the ability to act as vectors” and are able not only to “bind [with] and carry other chemicals and pollutants,” they are able to move “throughout...biological systems” and thus may “enhance” the “toxicity and biological availability” of chemicals and pollutants. This has been referred to as the “Trojan Horse effect.”

The emerging implications of toxicological research, like those presented in the article on nanoparticle bioaccumulation, are not encouraging. It should behoove us to pause and reflect and, more crucially, demand that the Obama Administration incorporate meaningful and broad-based public participation, education, and accountability in the evaluation and regulation of commercial nanotechnology. Participation and accountability, as well as a commitment to the ethics of detoxification of industrial processes, remain key tenets of the principles of environmental justice relevant to the critical realist assessment of nanotechnology.