EHJ August 2005, pages 8-10

Multinationals are ploughing millions into developing nano food products which can detect pathogens in food and its packaging early on. Nick Warburton investigates the debate surrounding nano foods and nanotechnology and asks, should we be worried about potential health and environmental effects?

Imagine a world where smart foods with colour-changing agents on the food or the packaging can alert consumers to unsafe food. The same world where "nutraceutical" foods can recognise individual cells in the human body and deliver vital nutrients or drugs directly to the site, and where personal food products can recognise an individual's allergies or nutritional deficiencies. Welcome to the world of nanotechnologies where new materials with entirely new properties can be engineered by manipulating the structure of materials at the atomic level.

Whether you've heard of them or not, nanotechnologies (see info box on page 10) are on their way to a store near you. Some products, in fact, are already commercially available and can be found on our shelves. As the environmental magazine the Ecologist notes in its special report on nanotechnology, Seeing is believing, consumer brands across a number of product ranges such as sunscreens and cosmetics, stain-resistant clothing and synthetic tooth enamel already contain nanoparticles.

To date, only a limited number of nano food products can be found on the global market. Even so, food experts readily agree that the food and food processing industry will increasingly be shaped by nanotechnology. The markets are already seeing a change.

The Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, which carried out a study into nanotechnology in the food industry in 2004, estimates that there will be a massive surge in the nano food market from today's $2.6bn to $20.4bn in 2010. Its study Nano food suggests that functional foods will be the first to benefit from the new technologies, followed by standard food and nutraceuticals.

The race is now on to exploit the growing market. More than 200 companies around the world are investigating the commercial benefits of nanotechnology, undertaking research and development into new products across a wide range of fields, not just food.

The United States currently leads the world in R&D in nanotechnologies, although Japan and China are fast catching up. Even the UK is starting to recognise its potential. According to the Royal Society, researchers at Birmingham University were awarded a £1.4m government grant in 2004 to develop a new generation of micro Rheometers (capable of measuring the viscosity of liquid). The award is the latest round of UK government funding into nanotechnology, which totals £15m.

Professor Qingrong Huang at Rutgers University in New Jersey is arguably the world's leading figure when it comes to nanotechnology in food and health-related application. Since his appointment in the university's food science department in September 2002, Prof Huang has been researching two areas of nano-scale technologies - nutraceutical foods and biosensors (detecting pathogens in food and its packaging at an early stage). He sees a number of benefits in using the technology to improve food safety. "We can simultaneously detect and diagnose multiple pathogens at one time using biosensors," he argues. "We can also lower the amount of antibody that you need to use to detect pathogens. The other advantage is that it is a very sensitive technique. By that I mean we can detect pathogens when there are only a few numbers of them existing in the food system."

It is potential benefits like being able to detect the presence of pathogens like E. coli, listeria, Campylobacter and salmonella in food packing that are exciting scientists and businesses alike. The food industry has not been slow to grasp the possibilities. According to international research and advocacy organisation the ETC Group in its report From genomes to atoms: the big down, the US food giant, Kraft Foods established the industry's first nanotechnology food laboratory in 1999. A year later, it launched the NanoteK consortium, which funds 15 universities and national research laboratories to undertake basic research for nano-tech innovations in food technology. Food will never be the same again.

But while interest groups have lauded the benefits of going down the nanotechnology route, concerns have mounted over the potential risks to human health and the environment. One of the main fears relates to deliberately manufactured "free" nanoparticles (those that are not fixed to surfaces) and nanotubes (see information box on page 10), and how they will react in the human body and the environment.

Last year, the UK government commissioned the Royal Society (RS) and the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) to carry out a study to consider the current and future developments in nanotechnology, and one of its areas of inquiry looked at this very issue. The joint report, Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties came up with some interesting findings, one of which was that the technology's development should be guided by appropriate safety assessments and regulation to ensure risks are minimised.

Professor Ann Dowling, chair of the study's working group, explains why. "Most areas present no new health or safety risks, but where particles are concerned, size really does matter," she says. "Nanoparticles can behave quite differently from larger particles of the same material and this can be exploited in a number of exciting ways. But it is vital that we determine both the positive and negative effects that they might have."

To do this, the RS/RAEng have made a number of recommendations. One is that nanoparticles and nanotubes should be treated as new chemicals under UK and European legislation. This is so that appropriate safety tests and clear labelling can be triggered. The RS/RAEng also recommend that an independent scientific safety committee should approve these materials separately from chemicals in a larger form before they are allowed for use in consumer products.

None of the report's 21 recommendations, however, make any mention of placing a moratorium on the development and environmental release of manufactured nanoparticles or nanotubes. Instead, the RS/RAEng recommend a precautionary approach, in which the releases are minimised until the effects are better understood. Their rejection of a moratorium is based on the assumption that the government will secure an appropriate and effective regulatory regime as quickly as possible.

For Jim Thomas, researcher at the ETC Group, this does not go far enough. He argues that key issues need to be considered before regulation can work effectively. "First you need to have a clear understanding of how the toxicology of nanoparticles works," he explains. "And nobody properly understands how the body will handle these particles and how it will react."

Mr Thomas points out that while a whole range of initiatives is currently being developed to come up with a standard way to describe and measure nanoparticles, there is still no standardised surveillance in place. For this very reason, the ETC wants to see an immediate moratorium stopping the products from going into commercial use. That is until laboratory protocols and regulatory regimes are in place, which take into account the special characteristics of the materials, and until they are shown to be safe.

In its 2004 report, Down on the farm: the impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture, the ETC Group recommends that all food, feed and beverage products that incorporate manufactured nanoparticles should be removed from the shelves. It also wants all new products to be prohibited from commercialisation until companies and regulators have shown that they have taken nano-scale property changes into account.

The ETC Group is not alone in voicing its concerns. The re-insurance company, Swiss Re, is a major risk carrier, and has raised a number of concerns in its report Nanotechnology: small matter, many unknowns. The company is calling for an "open risk dialogue" involving scientists, industry, regulators and the insurance sector. "Too little is known about the risks," it warns "and the paucity of data gives rise to a host of fears and alarmist scenarios."

The government's response to the RS/RAEng report, published in February, agrees that precautionary measures should be adopted to minimise exposure in the workplace and the environment until the risks are better understood. The government has also identified two main priority areas for research. The first is the development of robust and reliable measurement and detection technologies for nanoparticles and nanotubes, aimed at determining and monitoring potential exposure routes. The second is to investigate the toxicity of nanoparticles and nanotubes, both in humans and the wider environment.

In its efforts to ensure that nanotechologies are developed responsibly, the government has agreed to conduct independent two and five year reviews, looking at the progress made on the actions set out in its response to the RS/RAEng report. The Council for Science and Technology has agreed to conduct these reviews on the government's behalf. Aside from looking at the progress made, the council's remit will include assessing how science and engineering has developed in the interim and examining what ethical, social, health, environmental, safety and regulatory implications these developments may have.

Earlier this year, the interdepartmental Nanotechnology Issues Dialogue Group, chaired by the Office of Science and Technology, took on the role of coordinating these activities. The grouping includes representatives from the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency and nearly 20 other government departments, agencies and research councils. "This response is an example of where the government is looking ahead of the curve and trying to ensure the appropriate regulations are in place," says Dr Adrian Butt, who chairs the interdepartmental group.

Like all departments and agencies, the FSA is keeping a watching brief. "We are undertaking a review of the implications of nanotechnology for the operation of relevant food regulations, for example on food additives and novel foods, over the summer months," an FSA spokesman told EHJ. "Once this and similar reviews in other government departments and agencies have been completed, the OST, as part of the work of the NIDG, will draw all the findings together to provide an overall picture."

But Mr Thomas is not convinced that the government's current safeguards go far enough. "The Royal Society rejected a moratorium on the basis that there would be a swift regulatory system put in place. When you look at what they are doing, they are putting in place a set of reviews. We're not really looking at regulations," he argues. "When I talk to civil servants, they're saying 'three or four years' at the very earliest. In the meantime, you've hundreds of products already on the market and plenty of products trying to get 'squatter rights' because they've got a window of three or four years to get on the market before there's any kind of assessment or regulation."

All the while, major food producers are increasingly using nanotechnology in a bid to improve the quality of their foods and to counteract disease. The technology promises a host of benefits to the consumers and industry but what about the risks to people's health and the environment? Perhaps now is the time for a public debate on the future of food.