Are Nanoparticles a Health Hazard?

No No, Nano!
While nanosilver, on account of its bacteria killing prowess, seems like manna from heaven for consumer product manufacturers, environmentalists aren’t that excited. Because, they say, not all bacteria are bad and meant to be killed. Good bacteria perform a host of functions in nature ranging from helping plants and soil fix nitrogen, removing excessive nitrates released by fertiliser usage from water sources and allowing animals to digest their food. Critics contend millions of nanosilver-based products are collectively releasing tons of it to the environment. This, they claim, not only destroys good bacteria but also increases the risk of bad bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics by virtue of constant contact with nanosilver. It also has the potential to affect large numbers of marine organisms.

The second charge against nanoparticles is that they affect organisms in ways not yet fully researched. Because nanoparticles are just a few hundred atoms big, they can penetrate through skin, tissue and in many cases even cell walls. They can ride along with the blood stream to various vital organs like the liver, heart, spleen or the brain. Though laboratory tests, albeit at much higher concentrations than those currently found in nature, have shown nanoparticles damaging and killing cells in mice, fish and other small living things, no one really knows their long term effect on the human body.

Dr. Samuel Epstein, professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois’ School of Public Health, calls nanoparticles in consumer products “the next asbestos.” He says, “Nanoparticles pose an overwhelming public health risk. We have evidence that they penetrate through the skin, invade blood vessels, become distributed through the body, and have been associated with toxic effects.” Epstein adds, “We are dealing with something relatively new and dangerous. I think it’s even more dangerous than asbestos because the latter at least came with warnings.”

Not there on the Label
In spite of the rapid proliferation of nanomaterials in consumer products — the Woodrow Wilson’s Nanotech consumer inventory lists over 1,000 products — there is still little to no regulation that deals with it exclusively. Most drug and consumer product regulators around the world treat nanoparticles within the frameworks designed for bulk chemicals. Therefore, if silver was an approved ingredient, nanosilver too would be.

This, critics contend, ignores two important facts. First: The same material displays radically different properties in bulk form vis-à-vis nanoparticle form. Second: Toxic effects of nanoparticles on living beings are likely to manifest themselves after longer periods and in different manners compared to the bulk varieties. As early as 2004, UK’s Royal Society called for nanoparticles to be treated as new chemicals and for studies on their effects on human health and the environment.

In India too there is no specific regulation on the use of nanotechnology in consumer products. Meanwhile, if you were planning to read the label of a product to discern its nano-ingredients, you’d be disappointed. That’s because no regulator mandates separate listing of nano-ingredients, and therefore no manufacturer does so. In fact, many manufacturers are deliberately avoiding the word “nano” on their product labels to avoid getting caught in any controversy.

The word “nano” will rarely be found on the ingredient lists of cosmetic products like L’Oreal Foundation, Olay Complete, Revlon Colorstay or Nivea Visage, yet all of them do contain nanoparticles according to ‘Skin Deep’, the cosmetics database maintained by the US-based Environmental Working Group (EWG). L’Oreal, Hindustan Unilever (Olay) and Beiersdorf (Nivea) all declined to answer Forbes India queries on the subject.

“There is no regulation on label claims in India, no trial mechanism to demonstrate the claims.

Therefore, in a court of law it’s the consumer’s word versus the manufacturer’s word.” says Muralidharan Nair, a partner at Ernst & Young. What India needs, he says, is stricter labelling laws like in Japan, where manufacturers have to list not just ingredients but also their specific properties and effects on the body.

In the absence of precise labelling, even an advanced laboratory has no way of finding out which nano-ingredient is present in a product if they don’t already know which one to look for, says Rao. “If they [manufacturers] don’t label it, you have no way of finding out.”

“When people use nanoparticles in close association with their bodies, like a skin lotion for instance, we owe to the customer to be told that the product contains nanoparticles,” he says.

Infographics: Malay Karmakar

Single Page View « Prev Page Page 2 of 2

+ Comment now

Email Print