Civil Liberties, Health Care, Food Policies

The Use of Nanomaterials in Food and the Dangers Posed to the Human Body

January 8, 2010

Guardian - The UK food industry comes under attack from peers today for being secretive over its development of nanotechnology in food and drink.

The Lords science and technology committee is urging the government and research councils to carry out more checks into the use of nanomaterials in food and in particular the dangers for the human body.

Nanotechnology involves whittling common materials down to the size of microscopic particles, allowing them to acquire unusual properties.

Nanoparticles have been used in cosmetics and sun-cream products. They can help create foods which taste the same as conventional alternatives but have lower fat, salt or sugar levels, or enrich foods with supplements, or even be used in packaging to extend products' shelf-life.

Nanotechnology is also being seen as a successor to genetically modified (GM) techniques. This week Professor John Beddington, the government's chief scientist, said GM crops and developments such as nanotechnology must be embraced to avoid catastrophic food shortages and future climate change.

But today's warning from eminent scientists including Lord Krebs – the former chairman of the Food Standards Agency – is the third in two years, after calls from the Royal Society and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution for more stringent safety checks.

Research has shown that nanoparticles can penetrate into places larger particles cannot go, such as through the "blood-brain barrier,,which stops toxic molecules passing from the blood into the brain. They find their way into vital organs including the kidneys and liver, but precisely what they do in them has yet to be fully investigated.

In a 112-page report, Nanotechnologies and Food, the Lords committee says transparency is key to ensuring public trust in food safety but warns that the food companies' failure to publish details of their research in this area is "unhelpful."

He warns the industry that appearing to be secretive about its research "is the type of behaviour which may bring about the public reaction it is trying to avert."

The report recommends that the Food Standards Agency watchdog should keep a public register of food and food packaging containing nanomaterials.

But Julian Hunt, of the Food and Drink Federation, said:

"Given that nanotechnology is in its infancy in the food and drink sector and that bringing new innovations to market is a long and complex process, we are surprised that the report seems to criticise the food industry for an apparent reluctance to communicate extensively on this subject."

Which? chief policy adviser Sue Davies said:

"We must fill in the significant gaps in our knowledge about how nanomaterials behave in the human body to ensure that there are no safety concerns in this rapidly developing area."

Peter Melchett, the policy director of the Soil Association, added:

"The report is good in drawing attention to the huge risks and uncertainties of nanotechnology. This is a ticking time-bomb."

Chief Scientist Says GM and Nanotechnology Should Be Part of Modern Agriculture

Genetically modified (GM) crops and nanotechnology will have to be used in British agriculture to avoid food shortages, the Government's chief scientist has warned.

January 6, 2010

Telegraph - Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference (OFC), Professor John Beddington said the world will have to produce 50 per cent more food by 2030 in order to feed the growing population.

He said the only way to do this is to grow more crops on less land by using the latest scientific innovation, including GM and nanotechnology.

"We need a greener revolution, improving production and efficiency through the food chain within environmental and other constraints. Techniques and technologies from many disciplines, ranging from biotechnology and engineering to newer fields such as nanotechnology, will be needed," he said.

Environmentalists, including the Prince of Wales, have warned against using both GM and nanotechnology because of the risk of upsetting delicate ecosystems in nature.

But Prof Beddington insisted that the UK must at least research the new technology to ensure agriculture can cope with population growth in the future.

The Government is supportive of research into GM and farmers want more funding to go into developing new crop breeds.

Caroline Boin, Environment Programme Director at International Policy Network, said the public will have to accept GM eventually.

“Modern agricultural technologies will be even more important going forward in the 21st Century, to increase food production while making agriculture more sustainable. Manure and back-breaking manual labour are not the answer to attaining food security in the UK or the rest of the world," she said.

But speaking at the "Oxford Real Farming Conference," arranged by campaigners to coincide with the OFC, Colin Tudge, the science writer, said natural methods could feed the growing population.

“For decades politicians have starved agriculture of resources on the mistaken notion that the market would deliver a secure food supply," he said. “As a result tens of thousands of farmers have gone to the wall and Britain has been robbed of the skills it needs to feed the people.

“Finally the Government has recognised that we’re now in trouble and are desperately pinning their hopes on untried GM technology to save us. But scientists who truly understand agriculture know that this can’t solve our food supply problems.

“The real answer is to redesign agriculture from first principles. But this time our prime objective must be feeding people, not making profits for large business corporations as now.”

Suppressed Study Found Genetically Modified Corn Killed Ladybugs

January 1, 2010

Prevent Disease - A recent article in Nature Biotechnology on how biotechnology companies restrict independent research described a study showing that a genetically modified corn killed ladybugs and that the study was suppressed by the corn’s developer.

In 2001, Pioneer Hi-Bred developed a GM corn variety that contained two Bt toxins, Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1, to kill corn rootworms.

The company asked university laboratories to test for unintended consequences on ladybugs. Scientists fed the corn to ladybugs and found that nearly 100% died after the eighth day in the life cycle.

Pioneer forbade the scientists from publicizing the data. A scientist with the group who wants to remain anonymous said “The company came back and said ‘you are under no circumstances able to publicize this data in any way.’”

Pioneer submitted data to the EPA showing no harm to ladybugs and received government approval to commercialize the corn in 2003.

A Pioneer scientist says the commercialized variety contains a different genetic construct than the corn that killed the ladybugs.

The EPA was told about the independently produced data, but did nothing, according to the anonymous scientist. The same scientist also says Pioneer’s data is flawed.