Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem

Comments

Nanotechnology was supposed to revolutionize the world, making us healthier and producing cleaner energy. But it’s starting to look more like a nightmare.

Some nanoproducts on the market, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies inventory:

Benny the Bear Plush Toy (made by Pure Plushy Inc.) Includes nanosilver to fight bacteria, moulds, and mites.

Precious Protechtor Baby Blanket (made by Olivers Babycare Ltd.) Made with nanosilver, which the company’s website says “helps protect premature babies from infection”.

Kids Tear-Free SPF 30 (sunscreen made by Banana Boat) Incorporates titanium dioxide and iron oxide in nano form.

Chemical-Free Sunscreen SPF 15 (made by Burt’s Bees) Includes nano-sized titanium dioxide.

Slim Shake Chocolate (made by RBC Life Sciences Inc.) The company’s website says its “nanoclusters” are “designed to carry nutrition into your cells”.

Nanomaterials—tiny particles as little as 1/100,000 the width of a human hair—have quietly been used since the 1990s in hundreds of everyday products, everything from food to baby bottles, pills, beer cans, computer keyboards, skin creams, shampoo, and clothes.

But after years of virtually unregulated use, scientists are now starting to say the most commonly used nanoproducts could be harming our health and the environment.

One of the most widespread nanoproducts is titanium dioxide. More than 5,000 tonnes of it are produced worldwide each year for use in food, toothpaste, cosmetics, paint, and paper (as a colouring agent), in medication and vitamin capsules (as a nonmedicinal filler), and in most sunscreens (for its anti-UV properties).

In food, titanium-dioxide nanoparticles are used as a whitener and brightener in confectionary products, cheeses, and sauces. Other nanoparticles are employed in flavourings and “nutritional” additives, and to reduce fat content in “health” foods.

In the journal Cancer Research in 2009, environmental-health professor Robert Schiestl coauthored the first comprehensive study of how titanium-dioxide nanoparticles affect the genes of live animals. Mice in his study suffered DNA and chromosomal damage after drinking water with the nanoparticles for five days.

“It should be removed from food and drugs, and there’s definitely no reason for it in cosmetic products,” said cancer specialist Schiestl, who is also a professor of pathology and radiation oncology at UCLA’s school of medicine.

“The study shows effects [from the nanoparticles] on all kinds of genetic endpoints,” Schiestl told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his office. “All those are precursor effects of cancer. It’s a wake-up call to do something.”

After Schiestl’s study came out, he said, he started getting calls from nervous people saying they had discovered titanium dioxide was listed as a nonmedicinal ingredient in their prescription medication. “They wanted to know how to get it out,” he said. “I said, ”˜I don’t know how to get it out.’ ”

Schiestl’s study is cited by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in their calls for a moratorium on nanomaterials in food and consumer products.

“They were thought to be safe. Our study shows a lot of harm,” Schiestl said.

Nanoparticles can be harmful because they are so tiny they can pass deep into the skin, lungs, and blood. They are made by burning or crushing regular substances like titanium, silver, or iron until they turn into an ultrafine dust, which is used as a coating on, or ingredient in, various products.

Schiestl is now studying two other common nanoparticles, zinc oxide and cadmium oxide, and he has found they also cause DNA and chromosomal damage in mice.

Yet two years after Schiestl’s first study, titanium dioxide and other nanoparticles remain virtually unregulated in Canada and the U.S. Products containing nanoparticles still don’t have to be labelled, and manufacturers don’t have to prove they are safe for health or the environment.

In fact, only a small fraction of the hundreds of nanomaterials on the market have been studied to see if they are safe.

“The public has had little or no say on this. It’s mostly industry guiding government to make sure this material isn’t regulated,” said Ian Illuminato, a nanotech expert with Friends of the Earth, speaking from his home office in Victoria.

“Consumers aren’t given the right to avoid this. We think it’s dangerous and shouldn’t be in contact with the public and the environment,” he said.

Meanwhile, the number of products using nanomaterials worldwide has shot up sixfold in just a couple of years, from 212 in 2006 to more than 1,300 in 2011, according to a report in March by the Washington, D.C.–based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Those numbers are based on self-reporting by industry, and the real numbers are thought to be much higher. A Canadian government survey in 2009 found 1,600 nanoproducts available here, according to a report in December from the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based nonprofit that studies technology.

Nanotech is worth big money. More than $250 billion of nano-enabled products were produced globally in 2009, according to Lux Research, a Boston-based technology consultancy. That figure is expected to rise 10-fold, to $2.5 trillion, by 2015.

Lux Research estimated in 2006 that one-sixth of manufactured output would be based on nanotechnology by 2014.

Nanotech already appears to be affecting people’s health. In 2009, two Chinese factory workers died and another five were seriously injured in a plant that made paint containing nanoparticles.

The seven young female workers developed lung disease and rashes on their face and arms. Nanoparticles were found deep in the workers’ lungs.

“These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs,” wrote Chinese medical researchers in a 2009 study on the incident in the European Respiratory Journal.

When inhaled, some types of nanoparticles have been shown to act like asbestos, inflaming lung tissue and leading to cancer. In 2009, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research declared titanium dioxide to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans” after studies found that inhaling it in nanoparticle form caused rats to develop lung cancer and mice to suffer organ damage.

Nanoparticles can also hurt the skin. All those nanoparticles in skin creams and sunscreens may be behind a rise in eczema rates in the developed world, according to a 2009 study in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine. The study found that titanium-dioxide nanoparticles caused mice to develop eczema. The nanoparticles “can play a significant role in the initiation and/or progression of skin diseases”, the study said.

Schiestl said nanoparticles could also be helping to fuel a rise in the rates of some cancers. He wouldn’t make a link with any specific kind of cancer, but data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute show that kidney and renal-pelvis cancer rates rose 24 percent between 2000 and 2007 in the U.S., while the rates for melanoma of the skin went up 29 percent and thyroid cancer rose 54 percent.

Schiestl said workers who deal with nanoparticles could be the most affected. That concern prompted the International Union of Food, Farm, and Hotel Workers to call in 2007 for a moratorium on commercial uses of nanotechnology in food and agriculture.

But despite all the health risks, we may already have run out of time to determine many of nanotech’s health impacts, Schiestl said.

“Nanomaterial is so ubiquitous that it would be very difficult to do an epidemiological study because there would be no control group of people who don’t use it.”

Comments (20) Add New Comment
NANO CANCER AND DEATH
Nano particles in Toothpaste, Sunscreen & Food Products is INSANE.

ANYTHING that gets into a living cell that is MAN MADE will KILL or DAMAGE the DNA leading to CANCER & DEATH.

The same it's Safe Denials just like Tobacco & Food with Chemicals are being made today with Nano laced Consumer Products.

There is NO SAFE levels, it increases in the Environment everyday, Ground Water IS and WILL be infested with Nano man made pollution particles.

Enjoy :)
3
2
Rating: +1
NANO DEATH
Welcome to Nano Death from your Toothpaste [you do use toothpaste right?] & your Anti Bacterial Socks & Clothes...

Source...

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/science_technology/Health_concerns_raised_ov...

The researchers from Lausanne University, Orléans University and the French National Centre for Scientific Research in France investigated the inflammatory capacity of TiO2 nanoparticles by testing them on human cells and in lab experiments using mice.

They found that TiO2 nanoparticles cause similar effects to asbestos and silicone, activating the inflammasome NLRP3 – a complex mechanism responsible for activating inflammation processes – and releasing molecules capable of attacking DNA, proteins and cell membranes.

“With titanium dioxide you accumulate, like asbestos, particles in the lung. You get chronic inflammation and this can last ten or 15 years and the next step is cancer,” Jí¼rg Tschopp, the lead researcher and professor of biochemistry at Lausanne University, told swissinfo.ch.

Tschopp, who was awarded the 2008 Louis-Jeantet Prize for Medicine for his pioneering work in the fields of cell death and inflammation, said he was concerned that nanoparticles could become “the asbestos of the future”.
1
3
Rating: -2
Nano Asbestos
Nano particles in food & consumer products is just like Asbestos, it will kill you in 10-15 years with Cancer resulting in a horrible & painfully drawn out DEATH!!!
2
2
Rating: 0
John Turner
I wonder what damage the cadmium and aluminum nanoparticles used in Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering are capable of?
6
7
Rating: -1
Curt DeMille
One of the reasons that this sort of article is not given much notice by the public is that it contains broad generalizations inferring that the reported effect is wide spread. Another reason is that the public is assaulted by alarmist claims about virtually every topic. Perhaps if researchers spent more time to 1) get the facts right and 2) to carefully narrow their study conclusions without generalizing and over-reaching to speculative adverse effects, we would have an informed public which appreciated validated work rather than minimizing it as just another piece of 'noise'.
Accurate information about the titanium dioxide (TiO2) market and end use is easily found and validated. It shows that TiO2 has been safely manufactured and used for 90+ years and is the principle colourant (pigment) associated with all things white. It is on the walls of virtually every home and industrial property world wide. Equally easy to find and validate is the fact that nano size TiO2 is NOT a colouring agent as it will not impart a colour to products. Therefore, it is not used in foods or toothpaste as reported here. It is primarily used as an industrial catalyst and in pollution control applications.
Studies about skin contact to TiO2 and nano size TiO2 have been conducted by Australia, US and European orgnaizations. Each and every one clinically demonstrate that TiO2 does not penetrate the skin, contrary to the generalized conclusions reported in alarmist articles such as this.
News articles and research studies cited in this article reporting factually incorrect information have the effect of discrediting the sources. More attention should be paid to reporting the facts rather than promoting public hysteria.
5
2
Rating: +3
You
Ah, fear mongering at its finest.

Yes, let's all fear things that are "nano". Meanwhile, things on the micron scale can also be dangerous (eg. silica dust). Some things on the nanoscale are dangerous (asbestos), but no need for this gross hysteria over everything. There are more dangerous particles in the air, from pollution and dust, that will destroy your lungs far quicker than something like titania is ever going to hurt you when in dispersion.

Relax.
7
4
Rating: +3
Ray I
Typical Georgia Straight "scientific" article. Stick to reviewing food, movies and live gigs.
3
4
Rating: -1
Shithead Specialist
@Curt DeMille...

TI02 has been used for a long time but NOT NANO TI02 which is a more recent [Nano] technology.

Time & again SCIENTIFIC trials have SHOWN NANO TI02 DOES DAMAGE DNA & CAUSES CANCER...

NANO TI02 is USED in both FOOD & TOOTHPASTE !!!

[your statement that it is not used in toothpaste is FALSE and/or MISINFORMED like you].

Source...

http://www.omsj.org/issues/health-care/amid-nanotechs-dazzling-promise-h...

UCLA molecular biologist Bénédicte Trouiller found that nano-titanium dioxide — the nanomaterial most commonly used in consumer products today — can damage or destroy DNA and chromosomes at degrees that can be linked to “all the big killers of man,” a colleague says.

Nano-titanium dioxide is so pervasive that the Environmental Working Group says it has calculated that close to 10,000 over-the-counter products use it in one form or another. Other public health specialists put the number even higher.

It’s “in everything from medicine capsules and nutritional supplements, to food icing and additives, to skin creams, oils and toothpaste,” Schiestl says. He adds that at least 2 million pounds of nanosized titanium dioxide are produced and used in the U.S. each year.

Finally your assurance of Nano particles safety sounds much like the Tobacco Industry & the Neo-Con Government backing of Asbestos as "safe", it is both disturbing and laughable in it's "trust me it's safe" statement. In other words BOGUS.
2
2
Rating: 0
cleanandsober
"Over the last decade safety concerns have arisen about the use of metal-based nanoparticles in the cosmetics field. Metal-based nanoparticles have been linked to both environmental and animal toxicity in a variety of studies. Perhaps the greatest concern involves the large amounts of TiO2 nanoparticles that are used in commercial sunscreens. As an alternative to using these potentially hazardous metal-based nanoparticles, we have isolated organic nanoparticles from English ivy (Hedera helix). In this study, ivy nanoparticles were evaluated for their potential use in sunscreens based on four criteria: 1) ability to absorb and scatter ultraviolet light, 2) toxicity to mammalian cells, 3) biodegradability, and 4) potential for diffusion through skin. Results: Purified ivy nanoparticles were first tested for their UV protective effects using a standard spectrophotometric assay. Next the cell toxicity of the ivy nanoparticles was compared to TiO2 nanoparticles using HeLa cells. The biodegradability of these nanoparticles was also determined through several digestion techniques. Finally, a mathematical model was developed to determine the potential for ivy nanoparticles to penetrate through human skin. The results indicated that the ivy nanoparticles were more efficient in blocking UV light, less toxic to mammalian cells, easily biodegradable, and had a limited potential to penetrate through human skin. When compared to TiO2 nanoparticles, the ivy nanoparticles showed decreased cell toxicity, and were easily degradable, indicating that they provided a safer alternative to these nanoparticles. Conclusions: With the data collected from this study, we have demonstrated the great potential of ivy nanoparticles as a sunscreen protective agent, and their increased safety over commonly used metal oxide nanoparticles." Abstract. Journal of Nanobiotechnology. 2010(8)

Does anyone honestly believe that substances foreign to our organism will have no ill long-term effect on it?
5
5
Rating: 0
GOT
Is it just the tiny nanoparticles we should worry about? Are the medium-sized and big ones OK? More info please!!
5
4
Rating: +1
Got Shit
For people like you don't think too hard about any particles natural selection will take care of idiots like you.
3
3
Rating: 0
tome22
Got - up until now it has not been established exactly what size of nanoparticle causes adverse effects, although there has been some research showing that particles 50nm and less cause some biological effects, by passing through the blood brain barrier which is of major concern. Generally particle size from 100nm to 50nm do not show having adverse effect, although all of this is subject to further examination. You can find further info at website, http://midgetechnology.com/NanoToxicology.aspx
2
4
Rating: -2
GOT
@ Got Shit...oh yeah? Well, while you're busy picking tiny nanoparticles out of your sunscreen, a whopping big meteorite is going to hit you in the ass and destroy All Life As We Know It, Especially You. So there. That'll teach ya. In the meantime, work on your punctuation.
2
4
Rating: -2
Mark Fornataro
I am grateful for articles such as this; it is in the spirit of the late great Rachel Carson who almost 50 years ago, warned of DDT and other toxic compounds poisoning the environment. Environmentalists are the angels of our time, and 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread.' And a few of those fools are posting here. Isn't it high time we embraced the precautionary principle? I've never been a big fan of playing Russian roulette.
2
3
Rating: -1
GOT
@ tome22...thanks for the link. My original question about 'tiny nanoparticles' was meant to be tongue in cheek, as my understanding of 'nano' is that it means very small, as in tiny... so 'tiny nanoparticles' is a bit redundant. Of course this has serious implications if toxic chemicals are thereby able to be absorbed into our bodies as particles, and I hope there will be more information forthcoming to enlighten 'idiots' such as myself.
1
3
Rating: -2
sina
"Mice in his study suffered DNA and chromosomal damage after drinking water with the nanoparticles for five days."
Water can kill human if one drinks a huge amount. The amount of nanomaterial that goes inside the body determines the damage. In the specified case, the mice drank water mixed with nanoparticles for five days, but it didn't say how much of nanoparticles had been used compare the real life products. Different types of nanoparticles have different effect on human health, and some types of particle would stay in body tissues and some don't. I personally agree with more regulations specially in food products, and not only for nanoparticles but also for other chemical additives. This is the role of government to provide research fund to regulate nanomaterials.
3
4
Rating: -1
cleanandsober
The sad part is that, like all articles in general access media, this one only provides a general glimpse at some research that is being done in the field. It is up to the reader to go further and noone seems to be willing. It also arms the industry with the ability to say that their product is not harmful enough and so planet Earth with all of its inabitants is the giant experiment at the mercy of money hungry corporations. Since science is never conclusive and politicians/lobbyists have decided that chemicals and plastics are the way of the future, we, public are completely screwed. Warnings about GM foods, plastics and climate change can be found in scientific literature from the 70s. Lets take BC, look at the amount of people protesting and petitioning against various projects just to see them getting approved...
3
3
Rating: 0
Xtina
Oooh! You -who "Ray I" . Let's wait for the local corporate monoply birdcage liners to do some investigative journalism on this topic....a hahahahah! What wonderful arrogance, maybe the nanobots got you!
3
1
Rating: +2
Vanessa
What about all the particles from the nuclear leak in Japan? Those nano particles are F#$#ing us up too.
2
2
Rating: 0
Lisa Penney
Please, consumers, especially parents, don't slather, spray your children with sunscreen that contains titatnium but doesn't go white (means it's nano). Badger is a good physical sunblock that uses zinc oxide and specifically says 'Non Nano' on the label. Thank you for such a needed article.
3
2
Rating: +1
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.