OT Amid Nanotech's Dazzling Promise, Health Risks Grow

[Guest guest]

" Scientists have engineered nanoparticles to target some types of cancer cells,

and this is truly wonderful, " says Dr. Harbut, director of the

Environmental Cancer Initiative at Michigan's Karmanos Cancer Institute. " But

until we have sufficient knowledge of, and experience with, this 21st-century

version of the surgical scalpel, we run a very real risk of simultaneously

destroying healthy cells. "

Amid Nanotech's Dazzling Promise, Health Risks Grow

Updated: 10 hours 5 minutes ago

Schneider

Senior Public Health Correspondent

http://www.aolnews.com/nanotech/article/amid-nanotechs-dazzling-promise-health-r\

isks-grow/19401235?icid=main|netscape|dl10|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2F\

nanotech%2Farticle%2Famid-nanotechs-dazzling-promise-health-risks-grow%2F1940123\

5

AOL News First in a Three-Part Series

(March 24) -- For almost two years, molecular biologist Bénédicte Trouiller

doused the drinking water of scores of lab mice with nano-titanium dioxide, the

most common nanomaterial used in consumer products today.

She knew that earlier studies conducted in test tubes and petri dishes had shown

the same particle could cause disease. But her tests at a lab at UCLA's School

of Public Health were in vivo -- conducted in living organisms -- and thus

regarded by some scientists as more relevant in assessing potential human harm.

Halfway through, Trouiller became alarmed: Consuming the nano-titanium dioxide

was damaging or destroying the animals' DNA and chromosomes. The biological

havoc continued as she repeated the studies again and again. It was a

significant finding: The degrees of DNA damage and genetic instability that the

32-year-old investigator documented can be " linked to all the big killers of

man, namely cancer, heart disease, neurological disease and aging, " says

Professor Schiestl, a genetic toxicologist who ran the lab at UCLA's

School of Public Health where Trouiller did her research.

Courtesy Benedicte Trouiller

UCLA molecular biologist Bénédicte Trouiller found that nano-titanium dioxide --

the nanomaterial most commonly used in consumer products today -- can damage or

destroy DNA and chromosomes at degrees that can be linked to " all the big

killers of man, " a colleague says.Nano-titanium dioxide is so pervasive that the

Environmental Working Group says it has calculated that close to 10,000

over-the-counter products use it in one form or another. Other public health

specialists put the number even higher. It's " in everything from medicine

capsules and nutritional supplements, to food icing and additives, to skin

creams, oils and toothpaste, " Schiestl says. He adds that at least 2 million

pounds of nanosized titanium dioxide are produced and used in the U.S. each

year.

What's more, the particles Trouiller gave the mice to drink are just one of an

endless number of engineered, atom-size structures that have been or can be

made. And a number of those nanomaterials have also been shown in published,

peer-reviewed studies (more than 170 from the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health alone) to potentially cause harm as well.

Researchers have found, for instance, that carbon nanotubes -- widely used in

many industrial applications -- can penetrate the lungs more deeply than

asbestos and appear to cause asbestos-like, often-fatal damage more rapidly.

Other nanoparticles, especially those composed of metal-chemical combinations,

can cause cancer and birth defects; lead to harmful buildups in the circulatory

system; and damage the heart, liver and other organs of lab animals.

Also in This Series:

- Regulated or Not, Nano-Foods Coming to a Store Near You

- Obsession With Growth Stymies Regulators

- Why Nanotech Hasn't (Yet) Triggered the 'Yuck Factor'

- Nano-Products Are Everywhere

Background:

- Primer: How Nanotechnology Works

- Timeline: Nanotech's Evolution

- Chart: Funding Shortchanges Safety

- Key Findings of This Investigation

Yet despite those findings, most federal agencies are doing little to nothing to

ensure public safety. Consumers have virtually no way of knowing whether the

products they purchase contain nanomaterials, as under current U.S. laws it is

completely up to manufacturers what to put on their labels. And hundreds of

interviews conducted by AOL News' senior public health correspondent over the

past 15 months make it clear that movement in the government's efforts to

institute safety rules and regulations for use of nanomaterials is often as flat

as the read-out on a snowman's heart monitor.

" How long should the public have to wait before the government takes protective

action? " says Jaydee Hanson, senior policy analyst for the Center for Food

Safety. " Must the bodies stack up first? "

Big Promise Comes With Potential Perils

" Nano " comes from the Greek word for dwarf, though that falls short of conveying

the true scale of this new world: Draw a line 1 inch long, and 25 million

nanoparticles can fit between its beginning and end.

Apart from the materials' size, everything about nanotechnology is huge.

According to the federal government and investment analysts, more than 1,300

U.S. businesses and universities are involved in related research and

development. The National Science Foundation says that $60 billion to $70

billion of nano-containing products are sold in this country annually, with the

majority going to the energy and electronics industries.

FDA.gov

Both the promise and the potential peril of nanomaterials come from their

staggeringly small size, which is highlighted by the chart above. (Note, for

example, how it shows that the periods on this page are equal to 1 million

nanometers.)

Despite the speed bump of the recession, a global market for nano-containing

products that stood at $254 billion in 2005 is projected to grow to $2.5

trillion over the next four years, says Holman, research director of

Boston-based Lux Research. Another projection, this one from National Science

Foundation senior nanotechnology adviser Mihail Roco, says that nanotech will

create at least 1 million jobs worldwide by 2015.

By deconstructing and then reassembling atoms into previously unknown material

-- the delicate process at the heart of nanotechnology -- scientists have

achieved medical advancements that even staunch critics admit are miraculous.

Think of a medical smart bomb: payloads of cancer-fighting drugs loaded into

nanoscale delivery systems and targeted against a specific tumor.

Carbon nanotubes, rod-shaped and rigid with a strength that surpasses steel at a

mere fraction of the weight, were touted by commentators at the Vancouver

Olympics as helmets, skis and bobsleds made from nanocomposites flashed by.

Those innovations follow ultralight bicycles used in the Tour de France,

longer-lasting tennis balls, and golf balls touted to fly straighter and roll

farther.

Food scientists, meanwhile, are almost gleeful over the ability to create

nanostructures that can enhance food's flavor, shelf life and appearance -- and

to one day potentially use the engineered particles to craft food without ever

involving a farm or ranch.

Yet for all the technology's promise and relentless progress, major questions

remain about nanomaterials' effects on human health. A bumper sticker spotted

near the sprawling Food and Drug Administration complex in Rockville, Md., puts

it well: " Nanotech -- wondrous, horrendous, and unknown. "

Adds Jim Alwood, nanotechnology coordinator in the Environmental Protection

Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics: " There is so much

uncertainty about the questions of safety. We can't tell you how safe or unsafe

nanomaterials are. There is just too much that we don't yet know. "

What is known is by turns fascinating and sobering.

Courtesy Nanotechnology Project

The carbon nanotubes in this vial are part of a booming industry. According to

one consulting firm, the global market for nano-containing products is projected

to grow to $2.5 trillion by 2014.Nanoparticles can heal, but they can also kill.

Thanks to their size, researchers have found, they can enter the body by almost

every pathway. They can be inhaled, ingested, absorbed through skin and eyes.

They can invade the brain through the olfactory nerves in the nose.

After penetrating the body, nanoparticles can enter cells, move from organ to

organ and even cross the protective blood-brain barrier. They can also get into

the bloodstream, bone marrow, nerves, ovaries, muscles and lymph nodes.

The toxicity of a specific nanoparticle depends, in part, on its shape and

chemical composition. Many are shaped roughly like a soccer ball, with multiple

panels that can increase reactivity, thus exacerbating their potential hazards.

Some nanoparticles can cause a condition called oxidative stress, which can

inflame and eventually kill cells. A potential blessing in controlled clinical

applications, this ability also carries potentially disastrous consequences.

" Scientists have engineered nanoparticles to target some types of cancer cells,

and this is truly wonderful, " says Dr. Harbut, director of the

Environmental Cancer Initiative at Michigan's Karmanos Cancer Institute. " But

until we have sufficient knowledge of, and experience with, this 21st-century

version of the surgical scalpel, we run a very real risk of simultaneously

destroying healthy cells. "

When incorporated into food products, nanomaterials raise other troubling

vagaries. In a report issued in January, the science committee of the British

House of Lords, following a lengthy review, concluded that there was too little

research looking at the toxicological impact of eating nanomaterials. The

committee recommended that such " products will simply be denied regulatory

approval until further information is available, " and also raised the concern

that while the amount of nanomaterial in food may be small, the particles can

accumulate from repeated consumption.

" It is chronic exposure to nanomaterials that is arguably more relevant to food

science applications, " says Bernadene Magnuson, a food scientist and

toxicologist with Cantox Health Sciences International. " Prolonged exposure

studies must be conducted. "

Given the potential hazards, public health advocates are calling for greater

restraint on the part of those rushing nano-products to market. " The danger is

there today in the hundreds of nano-containing consumer products being sold, "

says Sass, senior scientist and nano expert for the nonpartisan Natural

Resources Defense Council. " Things that are in the nanoscale that are

intentionally designed to be put into consumer products should be instantly

required to be tested, and until proper risk assessments are done, they

shouldn't be allowed to be sold. "

Hobson, chief scientific officer for international risk assessment firm

nanoTox, adds that the questions raised by the growing body of research " are

significant enough that we should begin to be concerned. We should not wait

until we see visible health effects in humans before we take steps to protect

ourselves or to redesign these particles so that they're safer. "

Hobson says that when he talks to university and industry nano scientists, he

sometimes feels as if he's talking with Marie Curie when she first was playing

around with radium.

" It's an exciting advancement they're working with, " he says. " But no one even

thinks that it could be harmful. "

More on Why Size Matters

At a weeklong Knight Foundation Science Workshop on nanotechnology at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in June, five professors -- four from the

Cambridge school and one from Cornell University -- dazzled their fellow

participants with extensive show-and-tells on the amazing innovations coming out

of their labs.

At one point, one played a video of a mouse with a severed spine dragging his

lifeless rear legs around his cage. A scaffolding made of nanomaterial was later

implanted across the mouse's injury. Further footage showed the same rodent, 100

days later, racing around his enclosure, all four legs churning like mad.

When the five nanotech pioneers were asked about hazards from the particles they

were creating, only one said she was watching new health studies closely. The

others said size had no impact on risk: No problems were expected, since the

same chemicals they had nano-ized had been used safely for years.

It's an argument echoed by researchers and nano-manufacturers around the globe.

But those assumptions are challenged by the many research efforts presenting

strong evidence to the contrary, among them Trouiller's study, which was

published in November.

" The difference in size is vital to understanding the risk from the same

chemical, " says Schiestl, who was a co-author on the UCLA study. " Titanium

dioxide is chemically inert and has been safely used in the body for decades for

joint replacements and other surgical applications. But when the very same

chemical is nanosized, it can cause illness and lead to death. "

Regulators Take a 'Wait-and-See' Approach

Many public health groups and environmental activists fear the government's

lethargy on nanotechnology will be a repeat of earlier regulatory snafus where

deadly errors were made in assessing the risk of new substances. " The unsettling

track record of other technological breakthroughs -- like asbestos, DDT, PCBs

and radiation -- should give regulators pause as they consider the growing

commercial presence of nanotech products, " says Patty Lovera, assistant director

of Food & Water Watch. " This wait-and-see approach puts consumers and the

environment at risk. "

While the agency has many critics, the EPA, for its part, is pursuing an

aggressive strategy on nanotechnology. Among nano-titanium dioxide's other uses,

the particle is deployed as an agent for removing arsenic from drinking water,

and last year, the EPA handed out 500-page books of health studies on the

particles to a panel of scientists asked to advise the agency on the possible

risk of that practice. (Another EPA science advisory board held hearings into

the hazards from nanosilver used in hundreds of products, from pants, socks and

underwear to teething rings.)

Corbis

Dr. Goodman, the FDA's chief scientist and deputy commissioner for science

and public health, says that " there is a most definite requirement that

manufacturers ensure that the products be safe. " But he adds that compliance is

essentially voluntary. The FDA takes action only after an unsafe product is

reported.The Food and Drug Administration's handling of nano-titanium dioxide

provides a more emblematic example of the government's overall approach. Public

health advocates and some of the FDA's own risk assessors are frustrated by what

they perceive as the agency's " don't look, don't tell " philosophy. The FDA

doesn't even make a pretense of evaluating nanoparticles in the thousands of

cosmetics, facial products or food supplements that have already flooded the

market, even those that boast the presence of engineered particles. Nano Gold

Energizing Cream ($420 a jar) and Cyclic nano-cleanser ($80 a bar) are among the

many similar products unevaluated by the agency.

Dr. Goodman, the FDA's chief scientist and deputy commissioner for science

and public health, says the exclusion of cosmetics and nutritional supplements

from its regulations is what Congress wants. Goodman adds that " there is a most

definite requirement that manufacturers ensure that the products be safe " but

says that compliance is essentially voluntary, with the FDA taking action only

after an unsafe product is reported.

AOL News repeatedly asked what steps the FDA was taking regarding nano-titanium

dioxide, whose risks are acknowledged by other regulatory bodies, including the

EPA and the NIOSH. The slow-to-arrive answer from spokeswoman Rita Chappelle:

" If information were to indicate that additional safety evaluation or other

regulatory action is warranted, we would work with all parties to take the steps

appropriate to ensure the safety of marketed products. "

Chappelle says FDA scientists are conducting research that focuses on

nano-titanium dioxide, but declines to offer any details. Several of the

agency's own safety experts say they specifically have urged that the engineered

structures not be used in any products they do regulate without appropriate

safety testing.

Why Nano-Optimists Hold the Upper Hand

Many government investigators join civilian public health specialists in

denouncing the scant money that goes to exploring nanomaterials' possibly wicked

side effects. The 2011 federal budget proposes spending $1.8 billion on

nanotechnology, but just $117 million, or 6.6 percent, of that total was

earmarked for the study of safety issues.

The Obama administration says it is being appropriately vigilant about nanotech.

" This administration takes nanotechnology-related environment, health and safety

very seriously. It is a significant priority, " says Earles, assistant

director for nanotechnology in the White House Office of Science and Technology

Policy. After taking office, he adds, " We were able to immediately increase the

spending in those areas. "

But Earles, in what has become standard federal practice, is more fixated on

nanotech's upsides. " We are talking about new jobs, new markets, economic and

societal benefits so broad they stretch the imagination, " he says. Yes,

" absolutely, " there are reasons for caution, he says. " But you can't refer to

nanotechnology as a monolithic entity. Risk assessment depends fundamentally on

context -- it depends on the specific application and the specific material. "

There's some scientific basis for this emphasize-the-positive position. " Every

time you find a hazardous response in a test tube, that should not necessarily

be construed as a guarantee of a real-life adverse outcome, " notes Dr. Andre

Nel, chief of the division of nanomedicine at the California Nanosystems

Institute at UCLA.

But there are two ways to proceed in the face of such uncertainty. One is to

forge ahead, assuming the best -- that this will be one of those times where the

lab results don't correlate to real-world experiences. Another is to hit pause

and do the additional testing necessary to be sure that sickened lab animals do

not portend human harm.

For advocates of more precautions for nanotech, the latter is the only

responsible course.

" From cosmetics to cookware to food, nanoparticles are making their way into

every facet of consumer life with little to no oversight from government

regulators, " says Lovera from Food & Water Watch. " There are too many unanswered

questions and common-sense demands that these products be kept off the market

until their safety is assured. "

With a moratorium not a realistic option, the U.S. government, along with its

counterparts abroad, is left to tread gingerly in responding to the emerging

evidence of nanotechnology's potential hazards.

" They don't want to cause either a collapse in the industry or generate any kind

of public backlash of any sort, " says Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC

Group, an international safety and environmental watchdog. " So they're in the

background talking about how they're going to tweak regulations -- where in fact

a lot more than tweaking is required.

" They've got literally thousands of [nano] products in the marketplace, and they

don't have any safety regulations in place, " Mooney continues. " These are things

that we're rubbing in our skin, spraying in our fields, eating and wearing. And

that's a mistake, and they're trying to figure out what to do about it all. "

Return to The Nanotech Gamble home page.

To provide feedback on this series, please write to us at

nanotechreport@....

Filed under: Nation, Science, Health, Tech