Nanotechnology
On the face of it, looking for products that make our lives easier and better seems like a progressive thing to do. But there’s a fine line between genuine progress through technological innovation and acts of technical hubris or materialism. Take the burgeoning field of nanotechnology, a revolutionary approach to creating things from particles engineered at the level of atoms and molecules. The potential is vast—health maintenance and disease prevention at the cellular level, early diagnoses of cancer, minimally invasive surgical procedures, green chemistry, environmentally safe wastewater treatment, and a host of techniques and technologies as yet only dreamed about. This cornucopia of future blessings dwarfs the current applications, among which anti-aging cosmetics and their material counterparts, wrinkle-free and stain-resistant clothing, predominate.
Perhaps that’s too harsh a comparison. We all want to look young, or at least great, for our age. And who could object to fabrics that stay clean and fresh, or to a new alcohol-free deodorant that works all day and all night—yet doesn’t leave any yucky residue on your skin? These and the many other consumer products made with the first wave of nanotechnology could be considered harmless indulgences—no different really from the torrent of products we normally produce. And we could just let the market decide on their utility if it weren’t for one very big fact: We don’t really know enough about nanotechnology to declare whether it is reasonably safe or not.
Should you be concerned? Maybe, if only because many scientists, government specialists, and environmental and health advocates have urged industry to use nanomaterials cautiously, particularly in consumer products such as cosmetics, clothing, furnishings, electronics, and food.
It’s a Small World After All
Just what is nanotechnology anyway? A number of commentators have likened it to earlier transformative discoveries—the steam engine, electricity, and the Internet—that revolutionized the way people lived. While the nanoparticles appearing in products today vary considerably in size (and the larger ones might better be called “marketing” particles), the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) describes nanotechnology as “the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications.” (The prefix “nano” signifies the scientific notation for one billionth, 10-9, so a nanometer is one billionth of a meter.) To give you some idea of just how small that is, a grain of sand measures 1 million nanometers across, the average human hair is 80,000 nanometers in diameter, and a red blood cell is 10,000 nanometers wide.
Not only are these particles minuscule, but at this size they behave quite differently than their bulk counterparts because they operate under the rules of quantum mechanics—which takes the world as we know it and turns it on its head. At the nanoscale, materials can behave very differently than their large-scale parents. This includes changing shape and crystalline structure as well as magnetic, optical, and electrical properties. For example, gold nanoparticles are red, and zinc oxide nanoparticles are transparent, instead of white.
These changes excite researchers, because they provide opportunities for them to explore new possibilities for a material’s chemical and physical properties—and that opens up a world of possibility for new products. In addition to the concepts already mentioned, nanophiles envision nanochips for faster communication and nanorobots to perform work. They point to the remarkable potential nano has for improving the environment with new energy systems that will reduce our dependence on oil and new methods for cleaning up polluted water, air, and soil.
With the enthusiasm of kids in a candy store, industry is pursuing nano with gusto. According to the Environmental Protection Agency at least 80 consumer products and more than 600 raw materials, intermediate components, and industrial products already contain nanomaterials. (See Finding Nano on page 78 for products that claim nanotechnology on their labels.) And people in the know predict that this explosive growth isn’t going to slow anytime soon. In fact, some industry experts think the market for nano products and technology will exceed the $1 trillion mark worldwide by 2010.
All of this makes for an exciting introduction to the 21st century, but some of the experts we spoke to remain wary. They agree that nano may provide all the wonderful benefits its cheerleaders suggest, but they also think it may have a dark side, and we just don’t know enough to go forward in such a rush.
“Given the fact that things at the nano scale display such different properties and reactivity than those on a bulk level, there is definitely concern about their safety,” says Lisa Archer, who works for Friends of the Earth as a program coordinator for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “Since nano is going to be such a huge part of the economy, it needs to be developed with public safety, worker safety, and the health of the environment in mind. And frankly, that is just not happening right now.”
In fact, under NNI, the US government underwrites nano research to the tune of roughly $1 billion a year, but only a small percentage of that money goes to health and safety concerns. “The government estimates have been around $38 million or $39 million, but the best we can come up with, even if we err on the optimistic side, is probably $15 million,” says Dave Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). “That’s not an insignificant figure in a global context . . . but given the number of unknowns and questions, there’s always an issue of are we spending enough?”
It Could Be a Scary World, Too
The very things that make nanoparticles so useful—their small size and their variable new properties—also makes them potentially dangerous. “We don’t know exactly what they do once they’re in our bodies—what effects they have on the body’s chemical and physiological processes—but without a doubt, we know they pass through body tissue and cell membranes more easily than larger particles,” says Jennifer Sass, PhD, a toxicologist working for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We know that they pass between the blood and lung tissue, and we know that they pass through the blood-brain barrier. And they likely pass through the placenta and into fetal circulation.”
In other words, research has already shown that these particles can penetrate the very defenses that our bodies have developed over the millennia to protect our organs (and a developing fetus) from potential threats. Yet, that hasn’t stopped companies from jumping on nano big time—with the beauty business leading the way. (Cosmetics giant L’Oréal ranks sixth among nanotechnology patent holders in the US, with 192 patents.) And that has a lot of people worried. “We are already concerned about cosmetic safety, because 89 percent of the ingredients in traditional cosmetics have not been assessed for safety by any publicly accountable body,” says Friends of the Earth’s Archer. “Then, with the use of these nanoparticles, there is a whole new level of concern, because there is so little known about how those particles will behave once they are in the body.”
Prior to the advent of nanotechnology, cosmetic industry research focused primarily on active ingredients like vitamin E. Now that focus has shifted dramatically to using nanoparticles as delivery systems for both newly discovered ingredients and those in current product lines. L’Oréal has patented dozens of “nanosome particles,” which measure about 100 nanometers, to deliver nutrients to skin cells. Dior has patents on similar particles called “liposomes,” and Elson Research talks about cosmeceuticals “formatted with dynamic intra-dermal nano-vehicles” on its ER Topicals website.
In defending these new products, which unlike traditional cosmetics are designed to work beneath the skin’s surface, the industry stresses that its nanoparticles penetrate no farther than the stratum corneum—the outermost layer of skin. They don’t need to prove that, of course, because the FDA long ago made a distinction between cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and decided to regulate only the latter (aside from prohibiting certain chemicals and a few colorings in cosmetics). Nanotechnology has certainly blurred that distinction and the FDA has taken notice. That government agency recently called for voluntary regulation of the use of nanotechnology, particularly in cosmetics, and it and the Federal Trade Commission monitor the product claims made by the cosmetic industry in an effort to find products that they might classify as drugs.
More questions than answers
Karen Florini, a senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, DC, has been working actively with federal agencies and industry to increase pre-market testing of nano-based products for safety and environmental concerns. Her terse appraisal of the current state of affairs: “The unknowns dwarf what we know.”
Florini and other experts concerned with the explosive growth of nanotechnology say we need increased research dollars to boost our understanding of its potential impact on human health and the environment. And we need to answer some basic questions. Where do nanoparticles end up? How do they affect the way our bodies function? Will they cause cancer? Will they cause other kinds of health problems? The experts also want to know more about how these particles move in air, water, and soil and where they tend to accumulate in the environment. Are they toxic to other organisms? And perhaps most importantly, will they bio-accumulate and move up the food chain the way other toxins, like mercury or DDT, have already been shown to do?
So what do we know? “The bottom line is that for the limited tests completed so far there are a number of brightly flashing yellow lights that indicate proceed with caution,” says Florini. “To date, these tests clearly indicate that nanomaterials are certainly not uniformly innocuous.”
While few completed studies exist, those that have seen publication contain some troubling results. Take, for example, the work of Eva Oberdörster, PhD, of Southern Methodist University’s Department of Biological Sciences in Dallas. Oberdörster placed “fullerenes,” the carbon-based, soccer-ball-shaped nanoparticles discovered by Richard Smalley, into aquaria containing juvenile largemouth bass. After just 48 hours of exposure, she documented significant evidence of oxidative stress in the brains and gills of the fish.
Research has demonstrated negative health outcomes for other nanoparticles as well. In 1997, a study at Oxford University found that nanoparticles used in sunscreens created free radicals that damaged DNA, and a 2002 University of California, San Diego study revealed that quantum dots—cadmium selenide nanoparticles used in electronics—can cause cadmium poisoning in humans. In 2004, C. Vyvyan Howard, PhD, of Liverpool University demonstrated that gold nanoparticles could pass through the placenta.
Protect yourself
How do you decide whether nanotechnology is safe? You might take a cue from the reinsurance company Swiss Re, which issued a report in May 2004 that described uncertainty about the risks of nanotoxicity and nanopollution. It urged a “better safe than sorry” approach and implied that until more is known, nanotechnology may not make a good insurance risk.
A complicated regulatory environment and scant labeling requirements definitely put the onus on the consumer. “The consumer has to beware,” says PEN’s Rejeski. “It’s their responsibility. They can’t assume that the government’s doing the testing.”
You can bank on one thing, though: The nanotech revolution will continue barreling along, full-steam ahead. We, as consumers, need to educate ourselves about the potential downside of nano, as well as about the wonderful things it may provide. We vote each time we spend money, so we owe it to ourselves, and to our children, to use our buying power to express our desire for the responsible development of such a powerful new technology. Our future may depend on it.
Nano-Free Cosmetics
The following companies told Alternative Medicine they have specifically chosen not to use nanoparticles in their products:
Alba Botanica
Avalon Organics
Aveda
GratefulBody
Kiss My Face
MyChelle Dermaceuticals
Pangea Organics Ecocentric Bodycare
Finding Nano
The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies recently posted a website listing consumer products that proclaim their use of nanomaterials. “We haven’t made any judgments here at all,” says Andrew Maynard, PhD, the Project’s science advisor. “If they say their product is nano-based, we include it unless it is clearly not.” Among those excluded: the Nano Kayak.The site currently lists more than 200 products, a number that is sure to grow. You can search or browse the site by going to www.nanotechproject.org and clicking on Visit the Consumer Products Inventory.
This article originally appeared in Alternative Medicine magazine.