
Nanotech, Genetically Modified Crop News Spotlights Regulatory Gaps
by Guest Blogger, 11/1/2005
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.
- "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 . . . ."
- 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.
