Nanotechnology: Environmental Superhero or Ticking Time Bomb?

by Tanya Brouwers

Imagine a field of wheat outfitted with tiny, dust-sized sensors gathering crop information and delivering exact amounts of structurally modified fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide based on computer formed conclusions. Envision a herd of dairy cows embedded with another minute sensor that detects and treats illness long before the farmer ever could. Science fiction? No. This is nanotechnology, a global industry worth over $9 billion annually and it can be found in everything from cosmetics, food packaging and yes, even agriculture. It is expected that in the next 5 to 10 years the above mentioned scenarios will become a reality.

What is nanotechnology? At its most basic, it is the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules to create new, ‘nano-sized’ structures that would not normally exist in nature. These tiny, engineered creations possess different properties than their larger counterparts. They can be stronger, more reactive or conductive and, in some cases, more toxic. For example, carbon in its natural form is malleable. In its “nano” state it is stronger than steel. Simply put, nano-particles give their creators and their users, more bang for the buck.

Large corporations like Bayer and BASF, recognizing the value of this increased potency, have developed pesticides and pesticide vehicles in which the nano-sized active ingredient is more soluble, more adherent to the leaf and possesses a much greater killing capacity than its traditional counterpart. Less input, they claim, will result in less pollution. Other scientists are attempting to atomically modify the characteristics of plants altogether. In Thailand researchers are introducing nitrogen atoms into rice cells in order to stimulate the rearrangement of the DNA. Their hope is to create a plant that would grow all year, have shorter stems and, curiously enough, exhibit a more appealing color.

Proponents of nanotechnology argue that nano-particles have, given their unique nature, the potential to eliminate world hunger. Sceptics point out the unknown consequences and compare claims to those of the creators of genetically modified seeds (GM) which have been less than advertised. Most disturbing is the fact that nanotechnology has, like genetic engineering, been developed and pushed into the market place without any form of public debate or political legislation regarding its potential health, environmental and socio-economic risks.

The little amount of publically documented research that does exist regarding human health and nanotechnology demonstrates that nano-particles can be taken up from the air, food, drink and through the skin, and can, given their unnaturally small size, pass through cell membranes into tissues like the brain or a developing fetus. What is unclear is how these particles will react once they are there. Even less research exists regarding the reaction of nano-particles in the environment. Questions remain regarding their movement through tissue, soil, air and water. For example, research by Eva Oberdoerster, the results of which are published in the 2004 edition of Environmental Health Perspectives, indicated that nano-particles caused brain damage in sea-bass.

Some organic certifiers are banning the use of engineered nano-particles until more questions can be answered. The UK’s Soil Association and the OCIA have excluded all uses of nano materials and processes in crop, livestock and processing production. Austria Bio Garantie (AE) has banned the use of nano-particles in cosmetics. The Canadian organic standard has yet to apply the precautionary principle to nano-particles or nanotechnology. Given the recent backlash to genetic engineering, a similar response is expected for products of nanotechnology. It is quite possible that the organic industry will attract a whole new clientele: those that prefer their food “nano-free”.

Does nanotechnology have the potential to rid the world of starvation? If one looks the world over, it is not often the lack of a technology that results in starvation but is more frequently the result of corruption. Unproductive soils and unhealthy crops have less to do with the absence of chemicals and technology and more to do with the lack of diversity, crop rotation and other soil building techniques that embody the feeding-the-soil philosophies of organic agriculture. Perhaps nanotechnology is a poorly considered solution to an ill-defined problem. Arguably, the onus should be on proponents of nanotechnology to present the public sector with a reliable and extensive body of research regarding its environmental, health and socio-economic consequences before it is adopted in organic or any other form of agriculture.

 

More information is available:

 

Tanya Brouwers is a Consultant for the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. Please send comments or questions by phone to 902-893-7256 or by email to oacc@nsac.ca.

 

Posted February 2009