New evidence of long-term persistence of genetically modified crops and new concerns about gaps in monitoring of nanotechnology underscore the risks from failing to embed the Precautionary Principle in regulatory policy. The first of the two developments is the stunning revelation from a British study that genetically modified crops "contaminate the countryside for up to 15 years after they have been harvested," according to the British newspaper The Independent. Researchers studied five sites across the UK in which genetically modified oilseed rape had been cultivated for one season but later turned over to conventional crops. The researchers found that the GM crops persisted in those fields years after they had been harvested: there were, on average, two GM rape plants per square meter nine years later and one plant per square meter 15 years later. The second major development is a pair of announcements of gaps in the monitoring of nanoparticles at a recent Environmental Protection Agency nanotechnology workshop held Oct. 26-28, as reported by BNA's Daily Report for Executives:

• Federal agencies currently lack methods to monitor environmental releases of nanoparticles, declared Mihail Rocco, co-chair of the National Science and Technology Council, at the opening of the workshop. Although there are initial indications that some engineered nanoparticles may pose little risk to consumers because they are embedded so firmly into the final product, Rocco observed that environmental releases of the particles from the manufacturing process are not being monitored. "We do not even monitor" environmental releases of nanoparticles, Rocco added, "yet we know they can go to the brain" and potentially cause health damage equivalent to the known harms of ultrafine particles. Another participant added that "some companies are incinerating carbon nanotubes," some types of which have been shown to damage the lungs of laboratory rodents.
• Another workshop presentation covered developing research into the ways that nanoparticles can pass through skin, causing inflammation and potentially other health consequences. Nancy Monteiro-Riviere, a professor at North Carolina State University, presented results from an ongoing examination of a range of engineered nanoparticles and the conditions that affect the speed with which they enter the skin. Andrew Maynard, scientific advisor to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' nanotechnology project, told BNA that toxicologists are not accustomed to studying "all aspects of nanoparticles, including their size, shape, and charge" but need to begin doing so. "If we can't characterize the material we're dealing with," he told BNA, "we can't say anything serious or significant about them." The finding that some nanoparticles can enter through the skin is alarming, given that some products meant to be applied on the skin, such as sunscreen and baby products, are on the market with nanoparticles.

Brave New World, Strange New Risks Both new developments spotlight the new risks created by the emergence of advanced technologies and the insufficiency of current regulatory policy to address those risks. The potential harms to the public health and the environment may, in some cases, be irreversible. Nanoparticles may, as was pointed out in the EPA workshop, pose risks similar to ultrafine particles released through combustion and welding, which are known to cause a range of health problems that include respiratory and cardiac ailments. Other potential risks and uncertainties include the following:

• "Once in the blood stream, nanoparticles can 'move practically unhindered through the entire body,' unlike larger particles that are trapped and removed by various protective mechanisms."
• "During pregnancy, nanoparticles would likely cross the placenta and enter the fetus."
• "In water, nanoparticles spread unhindered and pass through most available filters. So, for example, current drinking water filters will not effectively remove nanoparticles."
• "Even in soil, nanoparticles may move in unexpected ways, perhaps penetrating the roots of plants and thus entering the food chains of humans and animals."
• "The smaller the particle, the larger its surface in relation to its mass. . . . [T]heir large surface means nanoparticles are highly reactive in a chemical sense. . . . 'As size decreases and reactivity increases, harmful effects may be intensified, and normally harmless substances may assume hazardous characteristics.'"
• "Nanoparticles may harm living tissue, such as lungs, in at least two ways -- through normal effects of chemical reactivity, or by damaging phagocytes, which are scavenger cells that normally remove foreign substances."
• "Nanoparticles may disrupt the immune system, cause allergic reactions, interfere with essential signals sent between neighboring cells, or disrupt exchanges between enzymes . . . ."

Genetically modified crops likewise give rise to substantial concerns for public health and the environment. Different species and modifications pose specific risks of their own, but there are also several "clear reasons, a priori, to be concerned about GM crops," according to an article in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health:

• Gene spills: GM crops could contaminate non-GM landraces through cross-breeding and thus "could potentially threaten biodiversity, destabilize important ecosystems, or limit the future agricultural possibilities in a given region." Such contamination could well be irreversible. Cases have already been observed in the United States, Mexico, and Australia.
• Consequences for human health: The risk of health hazard is "particularly [notable] when genetic engineering introduces the possibility of unpredictable physiologic or biochemical effects in the target varieties." Such fears have increased with news of a secret industry study finding that "[r]ats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood," harms that were "absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project."
• Environmental harms: Aside from biodiversity concerns, GM crops could result in secondary environmental effects, such as increased pesticide use following the planting of pesticide-resistant varieties, such as Monsanto's RoundUp Ready crops.

Yet more risks are posed by biopharming, or genetically modifying crops to produce specialty proteins for pharmaceutical and industrial uses -- essentially using crop fields as factories. Notes law professor Rebecca Bratspies, "Many such crops are currently being planted in small test plots throughout the country. Once they are fully developed and approved, these biopharm crops will be grown in the same agricultural fields that are currently devoted to producing traditional agricultural crops." Open-air field tests of biopharm crops in the Corn Belt put the food chain at risk of contamination by crops that produce substances intended for pharmaceutical or industrial uses but not human consumption. Precaution and Obstacle The monitoring gap in nanotechnology and the almost complete regulatory gap in GM crops are symptoms of a larger failure to adopt the Precautionary Principle as a guiding force in regulatory policy. The precautionary approach can be contrasted with the reactive approach. In the reactive approach, risk creators are generally free from regulation until it is certain or nearly certain that the risky activity results in harm; the people exposed to those risky actions are forced to bear those risks and the burden of proving the case for regulation. In the precautionary approach, by contrast, absolute certainty is not a condition precedent of regulation; inconclusive, uncertain, and preliminary scientific conclusions can be the basis of regulatory protections, and the companies undertaking the risky endeavors bear the burden of showing that their activities are appropriately safe. The Precautionary Principle is just that -- a principle, not a system of decisional criteria that rigidly apply the same way in all cases. Because it is associated with regulation putting the public above the private interests of corporate special interests, the Precautionary Principle has become the target of a vigorous and unrelenting campaign opposing it. Critics argue, among other things, that the Precautionary Principle must be rejected because it is not ultimately dispositive of policy questions (even though many of those same critics argue that cost-benefit analysis deserves a primary role in regulatory policy, despite its lack of neutrality, on the ground that it is not meant to be ultimately dispositive but, instead, merely a guide to sound decisions). Attacks on the Precautionary Principle are part of a larger campaign against regulation in the public interest, funded by corporate special interests which believe themselves to be under attack by the public's demand for protections. This larger campaign includes the use and abuse of scientific uncertainty and promotion of cost-benefit analysis as a government-wide implementation of the reactive approach. The Precautionary Principle is often unfairly characterized as demanding an absolute ban on all emerging technologies, even though there are many precautionary approaches that can apply in any given policy setting, including the cases of nanotechnology and GM crops. For example, it is conceivable that a precautionary approach to biopharming would stop short of an absolute ban by barring open-air field testing and requiring safeguards to prevent contamination of the food chain. Similarly, precautionary approaches to the environmental release of nanoparticles could respond with monitoring requirements and treatment of nanoparticles as hazardous substances. (Stringent protective policies could even benefit the industry by stimulating innovation and developing green technologies that give the United States a competitive advantage once other countries follow the precautionary lead.)