Last Friday's Washington Post carried an interesting story on the report issued jointly the previous day by Britain's Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
Among the findings were that the cosmetics containing nanoparticles of zinc oxide and iron oxide, currently being sold in the U.S., should be banned.
In response, Linda M. Katz, director of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors (cool name, huh?), said the agency is examining the issue and expects results within two years.
Two years? You could be "grey goo" by then.
Katz went on to say that cosmetic manufacturers are responsible for ensuring the safety of their products, and the agency does not have a list of products that contain nanomaterials.
Gee, that's reassuring.
Why not drop all the government Mad Cow testing and surveillance, and just let the cattle ranchers handle it?
I'm sure they're responsible people, and will do their best.
Unfortunately, not for us but, rather, for themselves.
Why is it that organizations that investigate their own malfeasance never seem to get quite the results that outsiders do?
Ya think maybe self-preservation is a human instinct?
Lenin once said, "Quantity has its own quality."
He was referring to the large end of things, but it would appear his observation applies equally well to the minuscule.
At nanoscale sizes, things take on new properties, new behaviors, and present novel problems.
Here's Rick Weiss's Post story:
_________________
Nanotechnology Precaution Is Urged
Minuscule Particles in Cosmetics May Pose Health Risk, British Scientists Say
The invisibly small particles and fibers that scientists are producing in the hot new field of nanotechnology pose health and environmental risks great enough to justify banning, for now, certain cosmetics now found on the U.S. market and also halting the deliberate release of nanomaterials into the environment, according to an independent report commissioned by the British government.
Most products of nanotechnology, including atom-scale electronic components and super-strong materials, will probably prove harmless, the report concludes, offering a modicum of reassurance for the nascent research field that has been buffeted by science-fiction scenarios of techno-doom.
But the joint report by Britain's Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering also strongly warns that the manufactured specks at the heart of nanotechnology - tens of thousands of which can fit on the tip of a needle - behave in unpredictable ways and in some cases appear surprisingly toxic.
Article comments
1 - Sean
I encourage all of you to read the actual report upon which the Post article was based, or at least the 10 page summary at http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/summary.pdf
It did NOT call for cosmetics to be banned. In fact, it explicity said that nanoscale titanium dioxide has been shown safe, and that nanoscale zinc oxide should undergo more testing.
None of us are served well by misrepresentation. Look into these matters for yourself.
The author above implies that regulators and businesses have their own agendas. Consider the agendas of the folks who make posts like the one above.
2 - Gregory Bloom
One thing regulators never seem to do as part of their risk assessment is to compare the level of risk of whatever they're focussing on with the risk posed by stuff already in nature. Nanoparticles exist in abundance in nature. Love the smell of the ocean breeze? You're getting a snootful of nanoparticles from the remnants of dissolved salt that was in micro-sized water droplets that evaporated. Virusus measure in the 100s of nanometers. Common dust has components down in the dozens of nanometer range as well. Though it may be possible that Zinc Oxide has unknown nasty properties when presented in nano-sized particles, the darn stuff's so chemically inert, I'd be very surprised. Especially when used externally, bound up in some sort of creamy goo.
3 - Cafewriter
To Gregory Bloom:
At first blush it appears your
conclusion that Zinc Oxide would be relatively harmless "especially when bound with some white goo" could be right. Except that a huge percentage of cosmetics are made with what's known as 'penetration enhancers', meaning that chemicals are added to products that make them more penetrable into the skin and thus absorbed into the blood stream. So the toxic or questionable chemicals/elements used in cosmetics which might normally have only minimal particle absorption (considered the safe level), suddenly have an elevated particle level into the blood stream, for which no safety testing has been done. One chemical by itself isn't so much of a concern as what happens to it and what it is capable of when it suddently becomes part of a cocktail of inadequately studied or regulated substances. This is the big issue with cosmetics. Zinc Oxide by itself may be relatively benign in the permitted exposure levels. It may not be when it's suddenly rendered many more times potent than normal. HTH
4 - Oriflame
oh yeaah.. I love it