Nanotechnology in Food & Agriculture - denix

More documents

Recommendations

Info

30 in packaging films designed to extend food’s shelf life (FoodQualitynews.com 2005). The environmental risks of carbon nanotubes remain poorly researched, however preliminary studies demonstrate that byproducts associated with their manufacture can cause increased mortality and delayed development of the small estuarine invertebrate Amphiascus tenuiremis (Templeton et al. 2006) and delayed hatching of zebra fish (Danio rerio) embryos (Cheng et al. 2007). Nano agrochemicals may introduce more problems than the chemicals they replace Conventional agricultural chemicals used in pesticides, chemical fertilisers, seed and plant growth treatments have been implicated in polluting soils and waterways, have caused substantial disruption to these ecosystems and have led to biodiversity loss (Beane Freeman et al. 2005; Petrelli et al. 2000; van Balen et al. 2006). Proponents claim that the greater potency of nano-formulated pesticides, and the greater capacity to target their application or release to specific conditions, will deliver environmental savings through reduced applications and reduced run off. However the same characteristics which make nanopesticides more effective than their bulk counterparts - increased toxicity, more bioavailability to target pests and greater longevity in the field - also present new risks to humans and the environment. Because nano agrochemicals are being formulated for their increased potency, it is possible that they will introduce even greater ecological problems than the chemicals they replace. Nano formulated agrochemicals may result in more persistent residues and create new kinds of contamination in soils and waterways. The United Kingdom’s Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering have called for the environmental release of nanoparticles to be “avoided as far as possible”, and for their intentional release | NANOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD & AGRICULTURE to “be prohibited until appropriate research has been undertaken and it can be demonstrated that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks” (U.K. RS/RAE 2004, Section 5.7: paragraph 63). This recommendation should be applied in respect of all nano agrochemicals. The claim that nano agrochemicals will reduce the overall use of pesticides should be received critically given similar, unfulfilled, promises made by many of the same companies in relation to GE crops. Nanobiotechnology and synthetic biology pose even more uncertain ecological risks The ecological risks posed by crops genetically engineered using nanoparticles rather than other vectors are likely to be very similar to those associated with existing GE crops. The significance of the use of nanoparticles may simply lie in their overcoming some of the technical barriers previously faced by genetic engineers (Zhang et al. 2006), thereby enabling a new generation of GE crops to be released commercially. If this occurs, it could result in a new wave of erosion of genetic diversity of food crops as existing strains and species are displaced. It would also present a new source of the same ecological risks identified with contemporary GE crops. These include: genetic contamination of wild relatives and other crops resulting in increased weediness or development of herbicide/ insect/ virus resistance, a negative impact on animal populations through reduced food availability or toxicity to non-target species; the use of insect or virus resistant crops encouraging the development of more virulent and difficult to control viruses. Ecosystem level disruption could result from any or all of these (Ervin and Welsh 2003). Given that synthetic biology organisms will be artificially created, potential environmental and biosafety risks are impossible to predict. Synthetic biology organisms could disrupt, displace or infect other species, alter the environment in
which they were introduced to the extent that ecosystem function is compromised, and/ or establish within a system such that they become impossible to eliminate (ETC Group 2007; Tucker and Zilinskas 2006). Many synthetic biologists, working with fairly simple genetic circuits, report preventing rapid mutation of the circuits as being a key challenge to their work. The potential for synthetic biology organisms, released into the environment, to mutate in unpredictable ways is therefore of great concern. The wide scale and worldwide genetic contamination of both GE free crops and GE free food processing highlight the difficulties of contamination in an industry that involves self-replicating (living) organisms and millions of people (Friends of the Earth International 2007). Although no one has yet succeeded in manufacturing a self-replicating synthetic organism, given the growing number of researchers active in the field, and the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in research, there are compelling reasons to establish strict regulation of synthetic biology before it becomes a reality. Nanotechnology used in agriculture and food production has broader environmental implications Nanotechnology could entrench our reliance on chemical and fossil fuel intensive industrial agriculture at a time when there should be greater efforts to move away from chemical-intensive agriculture. The use of nanotechnology in agriculture will compete with and undermine agricultural alternatives such as organic farming which have been demonstrated to deliver a wide range of other environmental benefits Long-term studies how that organic farming results in reduced use of water and fossil fuel energy, higher soil organic matter and nitrogen, reduced soil erosion and greater agricultural and ecological diversity (Hisano and Altoé 2002; Pimental et al. 2005). Nanotechnology also appears likely to intensify existing trends towards ever larger scale farming operations, and an even more narrow focus on Friends of the Earth producing specialised crops (ETC Group 2004; Scrinis and Lyons 2007). This could lead to further losses of agricultural and ecological diversity. The potential for nano-strengthened bioplastics to reduce our reliance on plastic food packaging has been touted as a key environmental benefit. Packaging accounts for about 40% of the entire plastic production worldwide and roughly half of this is used for food packaging (Technical University of Denmark 2007). If safe and effective nanobioplastics can be developed, that do not result in greater overall use of plastics, these could deliver environmental savings. However the potential for nano fillers to present new environmental risks once the bioplastic degrades remains poorly understood. Unfortunately, nano-sensor and chemical release nano-packaging appear likely to expand our overall use of packaging by increasing the food industry’s use of packaging for individual food items, including fruit and vegetables. To date there is no life cycle analysis of the energy required to produce, package and transport nanofoods compared to conventional production. However it appears likely that the expansion of nanotechnology in food processing and packaging could result in a higher overall ecological footprint. Nano food packaging, which has a primary goal of extending the shelf-life of packaged food, is likely to encourage manufacturers to transport food over ever greater distances, and thus contribute to the growth of food transportrelated greenhouse gas emissions. If nanotechnology results in people eating nano-fortified processed foods at the expense of fruit and vegetables, this could also expand the energy demands associated with food production. NANOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD & AGRICULTURE | 31
Page 1 and 2: OUT OF THE LABORATORY AND ONTO OUR
Page 3: OUT OF THE LABORATORY AND ONTO OUR
Page 6 and 7: 2 Executive Summary In the absence
Page 8 and 9: 4 A short introduction to nanotechn
Page 10 and 11: 6 each new nanomaterial must be sub
Page 12 and 13: 8 than 100nm. However given the evi
Page 14 and 15: 10 contain manufactured nanomateria
Page 16 and 17: 12 Nanotechnology and food processi
Page 18 and 19: 14 ingredients delivers greater bio
Page 20 and 21: 16 Table 3: Examples of chemical re
Page 22 and 23: 18 Table 6: Development of nano-com
Page 24 and 25: 20 Table 7: Nano agrochemicals unde
Page 26 and 27: 22 Nanofoods and nano agrochemicals
Page 28 and 29: 24 microparticles can be taken up t
Page 30 and 31: 26 has warned that safety regulator
Page 32 and 33: 28 amounts of a toxin, but also be
Page 36 and 37: 32 Time to choose sustainable food
Page 38 and 39: 34 requirements, but increase capit
Page 40 and 41: 36 University has confirmed that, c
Page 42 and 43: 38 (Section 8.3.2: paragraphs 18 &
Page 44 and 45: 40 nano form in food ingredients, a
Page 46 and 47: 42 product is considered safe. This
Page 48 and 49: 44 The right to say no to nanofoods
Page 50 and 51: 46 Recommendations for sustainable
Page 52 and 53: 48 for the food sector. Demand that
Page 54 and 55: Appendix A 50 Appendix A: List of a
Page 56 and 57: Table 3: Nanomaterials in kitchen e
Page 58 and 59: Table 4: Nanomaterials in foods and
Page 60 and 61: 56 Table 6: Nanomaterials in food/
Page 62 and 63: 58 REFERENCES Acello R. 2007. EPA r
Page 64 and 65: 60 Thamnocephalus platyurus. Chemos
Page 66: 62 Australia March 2007. Available

Nanotechnology in Food & Agriculture - denix

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?