Consumer fear. Is it driving nanotech underground?

Consumer fear. Is it driving nanotech underground?

Eur Activ article: “Finding reliable information about products on the European market that contain nanomaterials is becoming increasingly difficult, according to high-level experts addressing a meeting of consumer groups from the EU and US at a conference in Brussels (10 June)” – which I tried to find a url for, but can’t sorry.

So why is this….

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) at the Woodrow Wilson Center, has collated an inventory of about 800 products currently on the market which manufacturers claim contain nanotechnology.

Dr Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor to PEN, is concerned that controversy surrounding nanotechnology – some of which, he says, is not grounded in scientific fact – has led manufacturers to remove any mention of nanomaterials from their products.

He says in the EurActiv article that, “We have seen some companies drop the ‘nano’ claim while continuing to use nanotechnology. This suggests nanotechnology is going underground.”

This blog post comes because for sometime now I have been wondering, with the media coverage in Australia of nanotech being the next asbestos, or nanoparticle-containing sunscreens and cosmetics possessing unknown dangers whether the same might be happening in Australia.

More evidence

In the same EurActiv article, Harald Throne, researcher at the National Institute for Consumer Research in Norway, searched a website run by a major international cosmetics company to estimate how many products contain nanotechnology. His search turned up 29 products in 2007, but when he repeated the exercise recently, he got zero hits.

Which?, the EU equivalent of Australia’s Choice, wrote to 67 cosmetics companies, including all of the main brands as well as smaller ones, asking them about their use of nanotechnology, what benefits they thought it brought and how they ensured product safety. Only 17 responded, and of these, just eight were willing to give up information about how they use nanotechnology. Their report on this is called Small Wonder: Nanotechnology in Cosmetics (November 2008).

I don’t have evidence to suggest the same is happening in Australia, but the same companies sell the same products here…

In my opinion, most cosmetic advertising is simply marketing hype anyway. Having nano on their label is another version of the “active ingredient” which is usually a molecule totally meaningless to most consumers, but is supposed to give scientific credibility to their product. The same goes for the nano label: meaningless, but portraying scientific credibility, which may or may not be real.

If industry is truly trying to drop any marketing-linked association with nano, there is a danger, I think, of this only exacerbating the problem of facts getting lost in the hype – again. This can only harm the debate and people’s ability to make informed choices. I understand why companies might want to drop the nano label, but in the long run it might come back to bite them as in my experience from the GM and similar issues, this behaviour only makes people suspicious of products or brands and gets them wondering what industry is trying to hide. In the context of nano safety, I continually here phrases such as thalidomide, DDT, asbestos, the same as I still do with GM foods.

EurActiv article again: Steffi Freidrichs, director of the Nanotechnology Industries Association, said the industry has been upfront about its use of promising new technologies and that companies go to great lengths to ensure products are safe. She says, “Varying definitions leads to claims that the industry is not open with information. But nobody is lying and nobody is misleading the public or authorities.”

She may be right, maybe companies do go to great lengths to ensure their products are safe and I don’t think they purposely arrange to lie, but unless you engage your customers and talk to them about this, how are they supposed to know the facts. Having a young girl in a shopping centre who doesn’t even know what nanotechnology is, or can only repeat the sciency jargon written in the promotional brochure is pointless (and I have had been in both situations) , nor is it upfront or dialogue. This is my Australian experience anyway. It may not apply elsewhere.

My advice is to be open and willing to have a constructive dialogue with the public, especially your customers. Explain the science, why you use it, how it works, where the risks are, how and if you manage those risks…and so on. Trust in science is already lagging on a number of fronts. Don’t make it worse by going all clandestine on us.

Jason Major

Manager

GNTIS

Nano roadmap predicts liklihood and time to nano grail

Nano roadmap predicts liklihood and time to nano grail

H+ mag summary: http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/nano/how-close-are-we-real-nanotechnology

Nano Roadmap: http://e-drexler.com/d/07/00/1204TechnologyRoadmap.html

Nanotech claims 'dropped' for fear of consumer recoil

Nanotech claims ‘dropped’ for fear of consumer recoil

EurActiv: http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/nanotech-claims-dropped-fear-consumer-recoil/article-183183

Electronic nano nose sniffs out kidney disease

Electronic nano nose sniffs out kidney disease

Scientists in Israel have identified the key substances in exhaled breath associated with healthy and diseased kidneys and have developed an experimental electronic nose that has the potential to provide early and accurate diagnosis of chronic renal failure.

At the moment, the blood and urine tests now used to diagnose chronic renal failure (CRF) can be inaccurate and may come out “normal” even when patients have lost 75 percent of their kidney function. The most reliable test, a kidney biopsy, is invasive and may result in infections and bleeding.

The experimental “electronic nose” was tested on the exhaled breath of laboratory rats with no kidney function and normal kidney function. The device, which consists of an array of carbon nanotubes coated with organic materials, identified 27 volatile organic compounds found only in the breath of rats with CRF. The results raise expectations for the diagnosis, detection, and screening of various stages of kidney disease. If the tests detect patients with early CRF they could be treated in ways that to slow its progression.

The report is in the current issue of the monthly journal, ACS Nano

IBM atomic probe gets ultra-sensitive

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10262640-76.html

Nanoparticles can cause lung damage

Nanoparticles Can Cause Lung Damage

Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610192431.htm

New evidence for genetic discrimination

Discrimination in any form has always been a morally touchy subject: race, disability, sexual preference, gender, Volvo drivers…the list is long.

The 21^st century addition to this list will likely be genetic discrimination. A paper in the recent British Medical Journal has found people with a family history of genetic diseases are often discriminated against by insurance companies and their relatives and friends.

This is not new as similar Australian research (see ref below) last year found much the same thing. What is different about the BMJ paper is that their findings suggest that it is the family history of the genetic disease that is the main cause of genetic discrimination, not the participation in genetic testing. That is, family members that aren’t showing symptoms of any familial diseases, have yet to have any test, but are at risk, are still likely to face discrimination.

The authors of the paper surveyed 233 individuals in Canada who were at risk of developing Huntington’s disease. None of them had any symptoms. About 40% said they experienced discrimination. The survey was sent to each participant, who answered the question based on their perception. This might be one limitation to the survey, in that perception might deviate from reality, but it still highlights an issue that needs serious consideration as our knowledge about genetics increases and the testing technology is leaping ahead at a rate beyond the speed of any Volvo.

At this stage I have only found good evidence that such genetic discrimination applies to situations where there is a reliable genetic test for a particular disorder, such as Huntingtons’ disease.

But there are loads of private companies out there claiming to be able to screen for everything from IQ, susceptibility to heart disease, even ability to taste bitterness. For a differing but generally pricey number of $$ you can find all this out. None of the results are definitive, especially the slippery character of intelligence. See GNTIS blog on this Such companies include 23andMe and deCODE Genetics – a web search will turn up heaps more.

When we do start getting more definitive tests for some of these characteristics, insurance companies sporting teams, or employers will have a more evidence-based justification for their decision making.

British Medical Journal study

Bombard, Y, Hayden, M, British Medical Journal, 338, 9 June 2009

Australian study

Taylor S, Treloar S, Barlow-Stewart K, Stranger M, Otlowski M.. Clinical Genetics, 2008: 74, 20-30, Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: a large-scale survey of clinical

Jason Major

Manager, GNTIS