of approximately 1 to 100 nanometer range.”
The recommendation then stated that nanotechnology would be
prohibited as an excluded method in 7CFR205.105, as is the case for
genetic engineering, irradiation and the use of sewage sludge. A mi-
nority opinion was put forth from the committee that disagreed with a
complete ban on the technology and recommended that materials de-
veloped from nanotechnology be classified as synthetic and be re-
viewed on a case-by-case basis.
The public comments and discussion primarily centered around
four issues:
1. The definition of nanotechnology
2. Whether or not it should be considered an excluded method
3. How to define it so as not to exclude ordinary food processing
methods, such as flour milling or milk homogenization, which create particles in the nano- range
4. Whether or not banning nanotechnology would also include noncontact packaging technologies, such as Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFIDs).
In general, the definition of nanotechnology was thought to be too
narrow in the size range, with some advocating sizes up to 300 nm,
since these larger particles may exhibit unique properties. While most
standard definitions of nanotechnology use the 1 to 100 nm range,
they do not exclude the possibility of larger particles also being included. The Soil Association has indicated that its licensees must not
use ingredients containing manufactured nanoparticles, where the
mean particle size is 200 nm or smaller.
Most of the consumer advocacy and environmental groups, such as
the Consumers Union, Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth,
the National Organic Coalition and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), supported considering nanotechnology an excluded
method. Other groups, such as the Organic Trade Association (OTA)
and the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) felt that excluding nanotechnology could put organic production at a disadvantage in the future. Consequently, they supported the minority opinion to treat the
materials as synthetic and review on a case-by-case basis.
The Materials Committee could not reach a consensus on a new
recommendation, so it was tabled. According to Dan Giacomini, chair-
person, Materials Committee and consultant, Pacific Nutrition-Con-
sulting, “The recommendation will be revised by the Materials
Committee and brought back to the full NOSB at a future meeting.”
It is likely that the U.S. will look to our neighbors to the north,
Canada. They recently agreed on a policy to exclude engineered nan-
otechnology from their newly implemented organic standard. Ac-
cording to Dag Falck, organic program manager for Nature’s Path
Foods, and a member of the Canadian General Standards Board
Committee on Organic Agriculture, “Regulating the application of
nanotechnology in organic becomes a fine balance between protect-
ing organic products from exposure to non-compatible technologies,
and not restricting organic operators from using normal and safe
practices.”
The definition of nanotechnology used was consistent with that of
Environmental Health Canada: “Nanotechnology is a field described
generally as the control and structur-
ing of matter at dimensions typically
between 1 and 100 nm to create ma-
terials, devices and systems with fun-
damentally new properties and
functions. Nanoscale chemical sub-
stances, or nanomaterials, behave dif-
ferently from their macroscale
counterparts, exhibiting different me-
chanical, optical, magnetic and elec-
tronic properties.”
The Canadian standard bans nan-
otechnology, but does so without in-
cluding normal food processing
technologies in the ban, stating:
“When producing or handling or-
ganic products, it is forbidden to use
any of the following substances or
techniques: intentionally manufac-
tured nanotechnology products, or
nano-processes involving intentional
manipulation of matter at the nano-
scale to achieve new properties or
functions that are different than
properties and functions of the mate-
rials at the macro-scale, except natu-
rally occurring nano-sized particles,
or those produced incidentally
through normal processes such as
grinding flour, or nano-sized particles
used in a way that guarantees no
transference to product.”
Learning from the Past
The future of nanotechnology
rests on public acceptance that the
benefits outweigh the risks. One of
the main conclusions of the House of
Lords’ report is that the development
of nanotechnology should acknowledge lessons learned from the past,
including issues with genetically modified foods, mad cow disease and vaccines. “If policy-makers and
communicators recognize and act on
these lessons, it may help enable consumers to make informed judgments
about the risks and benefits of novel
technologies,” stated the report.
These lessons include:
• Recognizing the limitations of sci-
entific knowledge and not making
