Nanotechnology in Food & Agriculture

More documents

Recommendations

Info

amounts of a toxin, but also be able tosample the whole of the food product orbeverage.Canadian-based civil societyorganisation The ETC Group (2004) hassuggested that while useful in foodmonitoring, nano-sensor packaging andnano track and trace barcodes will notaddress the root problems of the industrialagriculture and food system that resultin contaminated foods. They suggestthat “faster meat (dis)assembly lines,increased mechanisation, a shrinkinglabour force of low-wage workers, fewerinspectors, the lack of corporate andgovernment accountability and thegreat distances between food producers,processors and consumers” are ultimatelyresponsible for the rising incidence of foodcontamination.While any illness as a result of foodcontamination is unacceptable, it isimportant to remember that for everyperson who suffers illness as a result offood poisoning, there are 50 who sufferill health as a result of poor diets andinadequate consumption of fruit andvegetables (Lang and Rayner 2001).If processed, nano-packaged foodis marketed successfully as safer thaneating fresh, unpackaged foods, andconsumption of fresh foods declinesfurther, it is possible that the net outcomewill actually be poorer health.Health risks associated withnano agrochemicalsExposure to conventional pesticideshas been linked to greater incidenceof cancer and serious reproductivehealth problems among agriculturalworkers and their families (Davidson andKnapp 2007; Hanazato 2001; Relyea andHoverman 2006). Nano-formulations ofexisting agrochemicals are designed tobe more reactive and more bioactivethan conventional agrochemicals. Thereis the real possibility that although smallerquantities of chemicals may be used,nano agrochemicals may introduce evenmore serious environment and health risksthan the conventional chemicals thatthey replace.28| NANOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD & AGRICULTURE
Nanofoods and nano agriculture posenew environmental risksThe production, use and disposal of foods,food packaging and agricultural productscontaining manufactured nanomaterialswill inevitably result in the release of thesenanomaterials into the environment.This may be the result of waste streamsassociated with manufacturing, wearduring the product’s use, or following endof life product disposal or recycling. Othernanomaterials will be released into theenvironment intentionally, for example aspesticides or plant growth treatments.Although commercial use ofnanomaterials by the agriculture andfood sectors is increasing, the ecologicalrisks associated with nanomaterialsremain very poorly understood. Someaquatic organisms appear to concentratemanufactured nanomaterials, buttheir uptake into plants has not beenstudied, and it is unknown whether or notnanomaterials will accumulate alongthe food chain (Boxhall et al. 2007; Tranet al. 2005). Early studies demonstratingthe potential for nanomaterials now incommercial use to be environmentallyharmful underscore the urgent needfor further research (Moore 2006). Theenvironmental risks associated with cropswhich have been genetically engineeredusing nanomaterials and synthetic biologyorganisms being developed for agricultureare even more poorly understood.Nanomaterials now in commercial usepose serious ecological risksDespite the limited number of studiesexamining the ecological effects ofnanomaterials, there is already evidencesuggesting that nanomaterials incommercial use by the agriculture andfood industry may cause environmentalharm. This is especially true forantibacterial nanomaterials such as silver,zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, whichare increasingly being added to foodpackaging and food contact materialsincluding cling wrap, chopping boards,cutlery and food storage containers.Nano titanium dioxide, one of the mostwidely used nanomaterials, caused organpathologies, biochemical disturbances,and respiratory distress in rainbow trout(Federici et al. 2007). Nano titaniumdioxide is also toxic to algae and to waterfleas, especially after exposure to UV light(Hund-Rinke and Simon 2006; Lovern andKlaper 2006). Other preliminary studieshave also found that nano zinc is toxic toalgae and to water fleas (Luo 2007) andthat nano zinc oxide is toxic to bacteriaand to water fleas (Heinlaan et al. 2007).These findings are concerning, especiallyas water fleas are used by regulators asan ecological indicatcor species.The effects of nanomaterials onbacteria, microbes and fungi in naturalsystems remain very poorly understood.It is possible that the increased presencein waste streams of highly potentantibacterial nanomaterials could disruptthe functioning of beneficial bacterial inthe wider environment, for example thoseperforming nitrification and denitrificationin freshwater and the marine environment(Throback et al. 2007). Nano-antimicrobialagents could also disrupt the functioningof nitrogen fixing bacteria associatedwith plants (Oberdörster et al. 2005a).Any significant disruption of nitrification,denitrification or nitrogen fixing processescould have negative impacts forthe functioning of entire ecosystems.There is also a risk that widespread useof antimicrobials will result in greaterresistance among harmful bacterialpopulations (Melhus 2007).Although not currently in commercial useby the food industry, carbon nanotubeshave been touted for future use asantibacterials in food packaging andfood manufacturing (ElAmin 2007c) andFriends ofthe EarthNANOTECHNOLOGY IN FOOD & AGRICULTURE | 29
Page 5 and 6: OUT OF THE LABORATORYAND ON TO OUR
Page 7 and 8: nanomaterials in food additives,ing
Page 9: commercial activities into entirely
Page 14 and 15: contain manufactured nanomaterialin
Page 18 and 19: ingredients delivers greater bioava
Page 23: Nanotechnology used in agricultureN
Page 28 and 29: microparticles can be taken up thro
Page 30 and 31: has warned that safety regulators w
Page 34 and 35: in packaging films designed to exte
Page 36 and 37: Time to choose sustainable food and
Page 38 and 39: equirements, but increase capital c
Page 40: University has confirmed that, comp
Page 44 and 45: nano form in food ingredients, addi
Page 46 and 47: product is considered safe. This ha
Page 48 and 49: The right to say no to nanofoodsThe
Page 50 and 51: Recommendations for sustainablefood
Page 52 and 53: for the food sector. Demand thatgov
Page 54 and 55: Appendix AAppendix A: List of agric
Page 56 and 57: Table 3: Nanomaterials in kitchen e
Page 58 and 59: Table 4: Nanomaterials in foods and
Page 60 and 61: Table 6: Nanomaterials in food/ hea
Page 62 and 63: REFERENCESAcello R. 2007. EPA regul
Page 64 and 65: Thamnocephalus platyurus. Chemosphe
Page 66: Australia March 2007. Available at:

Nanotechnology in Food & Agriculture

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?