Details re concerns regarding NETS-PACE or DIISR sponsored materials
Material
Nanotechnology
and you: Safety
and regulations,
Commonwealth of
Australia 2011
Concerns re bias
‘Nanomaterials have always existed in nature.’
While the statement is true, it and the rest of this
para appears to be intended to reassure the
reader of its benevolence.
Many mentions of potential social and economic
benefits, but no mention of social and economic
costs or negative consequences; the only
potential ‘downside’ acknowledged is risk to
safety. This excludes any consideration of ethical,
human rights, equity, sustainability, privacy,
security/ military or other dimensions raised by
community groups and social scientists
The term used for benefits is ‘predicted’, whereas
the term used for the opposite is ‘possible
unintended consequences’. Bias in language
used.
Concerns re inaccuracy
The brochure states ‘In Australia, products and chemicals are
dealt with according to the hazards and risks associated with
them. Regulatory agencies continually assess chemicals and
products to ensure their safety. One factor in their assessment is
whether a product or chemical contains any nanomaterials that
are considered hazardous.’
This implies that nanomaterials are also ‘dealt’ with in this way
and that regulatory agencies are or have assessed nano and
nanoproducts and ‘ensured their safety’. This is incorrect. To
date, only very few ‘existing’ chemicals have been assessed
with regard to the presence or otherwise, much less the hazard
of nanoparticles.
Brochure states that regulators are “proposing amendments to
legislation and regulations and to associated documents, where
necessary, to ensure the health and safety risks posed by
nanotechnology are effectively managed” also that regulators
are ”amending regulations or guidelines to require relevant
information on the presence or impact of nanomaterials in areas
of concern”. The brochure also provides a risk management flow
chart that “may” be used by regulators, stakeholders and
community members. This gives a false impression that nanospecific regulation exists. The brochure fails to state that a 2007
review of Australian regulation of nanotechnology (the “Monash
Review”) identified 6 key gaps in Australian regulation that have
not been filled in most instances. It also fails to acknowledge
that some regulators (eg Safe Work Australia, Therapeutic
Goods Administration) have taken no regulatory (mandatory)
action to manage nanotechnology risks, despite the finding of
the Monash report, that the inadequacies in regulation of
nanotechnology in food, and the absence of standards, has
been criticised most recently by the Blewett Inquiry into food
labelling, and that no nano-specific regulation exists for the
overwhelming majority of industrial chemicals and cosmetics
regulated by NICNAS.
Brochure states that “To keep us safe, regulators adapt their
Material
Concerns re bias
Concerns re inaccuracy
methods of analysis or risk assessment to take account of the
specific challenges posed by the qualities of the material or
product being assessed”. This gives a false sense of action by
the regulators. Most regulators (including NICNAS, TGA, Safe
Work Australia) have no mechanisms for manufacturers of
nano-products to alert them when they use nano-forms of
existing substances. This is because there is no requirement
under our legislation for manufacturers or importers to do so.
This leaves regulators with no way to know whether or not
nanomaterials are in use, let alone whether any new risk
assessment is required. It also provides employers and workers
with no opportunity to take preventive action in workplaces to
eliminate or control potential exposures.
Further, NGOs are concerned that the mechanisms adopted by
some regulators (eg FSANZ, APVMA) to trigger notification
when nano-forms of existing substances are used are
inadequate and poorly enforced, again leaving regulators with
inadequate information to trigger new risk assessment of risk
management. No recognition that hundreds of products on the
market are effectively unregulated, having triggered no nanospecific notification, assessment or labelling requirements
The synthetic
biology “genome
jenga” post card
(2011)
“Nanotechnology
and foods” fact
sheet (2009)
Trivialises seriousness of synthetic biology
concerns. Cartoon treats creation of artificial life
as a game, while no mention is made in the text
inside the postcard of any concerns about
synthetic biology
Language is consistently uneven and
aggressively promotional of nanotechnology.
There is no balanced language around certainty:
benefits and applications are explained in some
detail and with implied certainty. Conversely, the
uncertainty of risks is emphasised, with no clear
answer given to the sub-heading question “are
there any risks’?. The dot points under the subheading don’t describe what the early research in
these areas is suggesting or what the implication
of nanomaterial bioaccumulation could be (eg
increased risk of cancer, interference with
absorption of some nutrients, exacerbation of
Material
“Nanotechnologies
in the workplace”
fact sheet (2009)
Concerns re bias
irritable bowel syndrome or other). There is no
recognition that food is a very sensitive area and
that people repeatedly say that they want choice
about whether to eat foods produced used new
technologies; there is no clear recognition that
nano-foods do not trigger new labelling. There is
also no recognition of societal concerns around
using nanotechnology in food, agriculture and
food packaging eg ethics, equity, corporate
control, privacy issues around the use of track
and trace technologies etc
More unqualified touting of benefits with no
acknowledgement of social and economic costs
or disruptive potential, only very narrow
recognition of potential ‘implications for human
health and safety’.
Concerns re inaccuracy
Descriptions of the duties under Australia’s OHS legislation
state, correctly, that manufacturers, suppliers, employers and
workers have duties which apply to everything. However,
without the specific knowledge that nanomaterials may be
present, then nothing can be done.
Statement that “Additionally, there are specific OHS regulations
for workplace chemicals, which include engineered
nanomaterials” is poorly phrased and misleading. The casual
reader would assume that this meant that there are specific
OHS regulations for engineered nanomaterials, which is not
true, there are none. The regulations referred to apply only to
chemicals and products that have been classified as
‘hazardous’, and nanomaterials would only fall into this category
if the bulk form of the existing chemical is already classified as
hazardous.
Although the guidance and measures suggested in this fact
sheet to minimize exposure are reasonable (and reasonably
practicable), there is no recognition that without mandatory
labelling of products and provision of information in safety data
sheets, there is no way for employers or workers to know if they
are handling nanomaterials in their work place, and thus no
trigger to adopt any of these measures.
Workers are in the dark about occupational exposure to
nanomaterials and there is no nano-specific regulation at all.
The failure of this was underscored in a subsequent review
commissioned by Safe Work Australia which found that of the 50
MSDS they surveyed that actually mentioned nanomaterials,
84% gave risk management advice that related to the bulk
Material
Concerns re bias
“Does size really
matter” brochure
(2009). Produced
by DIISR and
CSIRO
Language is consistently uneven and
aggressively promotional of nanotechnology.
There is no balanced language around certainty:
benefits are stated at great length and with
implied certainty; risks are always described as
‘potential’, are mentioned very rarely and with no
detailed information (someone reading the
brochure would have no idea if there are credible
concerns around risks and what these risks may
entail). Social, economic and sustainability costs
or disruption are not mentioned at all.
Eg p2 “ This is your guide to the emerging
science of nanotechnology, a field with the
potential to bring big social, economic, and
environmental benefits to you and the world.” This
is continued on following pages. Many claims
about benefits are based on speculative future
gains but are not qualified at all. Eg you would
think that from reading claims on page 4-5 that
there are portable nano solar applications
commercially available in Australia. This is simply
not true. There is no recognition on this page that
using nanomaterials in these products could
increase the life cycle energy and climate
impacts. Similarly the health sections on page 6-7
describe laboratory based work rather than actual
products or treatments (ie future products and
benefits remain hypothetical). While cancer
therapeutics are touted, there is no
acknowledgement that exposure to some
nanomaterials could increase the risk of cancer in
the community.
Page 9 has a whole paragraph touting the
‘benefits’ of nano-sunscreen. This includes a
claim that nano-zinc is a more effective sun
Concerns re inaccuracy
product, rather than the nanomaterial. That is, workers have no
reliable information about whether nanomaterials are in their
work places or what to do about it. Surely this should be
recognised explicitly in a fact sheet about OHS
The statement on page 8 “ As of March 2009, there are no
known food products that specifically make use of manufactured
nanoparticles to enhance the product” is inaccurate. It is true
that there have been no uses of nanoparticles in Australian food
products notified to FSANZ, but nano-foods are available in the
US, Europe, Latin America and Asia – so there may well be
unidentified use here too. The statement tha: “All manufactured
food sold in Australia must be approved by Food Standards
Australia and New Zealand before it is allowed to go to market”
is misleading; FSANZ does not assess all food where there is no
identified “new” ingredient. NGOs are concerned that without a
clear definition of a nano-ingredient by FSANZ (that includes
characteristics such as size) that there will be no effective
regulatory trigger to require assessment of any nano-food that
uses nano-forms of existing food ingredients.
P9 We query the statement that “It is estimated that
approximately five per cent of currently manufactured
nanoparticles may be of concern for safety reasons” and believe
this to be inaccurate. We also note that there is no reference
given for this claim.
Material
“New technologies
for a changing
climate” brochure
(2010)
Concerns re bias
protective agent than bulk zinc. This could well be
inaccurate; scientists concerned about the
production of free radicals by nanoparticles have
cautioned that they could actually accelerate sun
damage to skin (Barnard 2010). Yet rather than
spend comparable space explaining the new
health risks posed by nano-sunscreens, or even
listing what these are, the brochure marginalizes
these by stating only that “CSIRO is currently
researching potential health-related issues with
regard to nano-based sunscreens”.
Page 14 finally mentions safety concerns,
although risk to safety is the only potential
downside to nanotechnology development that is
acknowledged (again no mention of broader
societal or economic concerns or sustainability
costs). Description of regulatory response is
misleading; it gives the false impression that
nanomaterials and nano-products are regulated,
whereas in reality there is highly patchy and often
no Australian regulation of nanomaterials.
In effect this is a nanotechnology promotional
brochure that is guilty of serious greenwash. The
majority of this brochure is dedicated to promoting
nanotechnology’s potential use in renewable
energy applications as a solution to climate
change. While there is a short section at the very
back on potential safety issues, there is no
acknowledgement that nanotechnology could
have serious negative climate consequences.
There is a growing body of literature
demonstrating that using nanomaterials is very
energy intensive and could increase both the
climate and environmental footprint of products
and processes. The brochure does not
acknowledge that the world’s biggest
petrochemical companies, and publicly funded
researchers including at CSIRO, are also
researching nanotechnology to find and extract
Concerns re inaccuracy
Material
“Nanotechnologies
Teacher
Information”
CSIRO/ DIISR
(2010)
Concerns re bias
more oil and gas, which could double the oil and
gas extracted, having a huge potential climate
cost. For references see FoE’s climate report
available at http://nano.foe.org.au
There is inadequate attention to potential risks
and costs; these are too often given minimal
description and attributed to concerns held by
“environment groups” or “consumer rights groups”
rather than the authors (or scientists). Excepting
the very brief introductory remarks on pages 4
and 5, there is no addressing any broader
societal, ethical or public choice or sustainability
issues.
P5 paragraph 2, the statement that “the concerns
are that nanoparticles may be able to penetrate
the body... their possible bio-accumulation or
physiological impacts” is incomplete and
inadequate. There are a growing number of
studies that point to more specific concerns: the
induction of protein misfolding; the aggressive
production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that
can damage DNA; the potential of some forms of
carbon nanotubes to cause asbestos like
pathogenicity etc.
The Biotechnology
Australia “The
tools of
biotechnology” A2
P 5, para 2, instead of stating with the same
levels of authorial authority that labelling should
be required, this is stated as the lack of labelling
end of p26 in the ‘answers to questions’ sections
are not an adequate addressing of these risks
end of p26 in the ‘answers to questions’ sections
are not an adequate addressing of these risks
P27-28 no statement regarding health risks of
quantum dots, including those with cadmium
cores
Information presented again takes the form of labbased research being touted as capable of
delivering future benefits, which are promoted
aggressively. Potential drawbacks are
Concerns re inaccuracy
P 5, paragraph 2, the sentence “That said, there is also no direct
evidence of negative effects from any nano products” is
inappropriate (very few, if any nano-products have been the
subject of research, therefore the absence of evidence of direct
negative effects is no evidence of safety). It is also inaccurate –
negative impacts related to specific products have been
described in the literature. For example in 2008 researchers at
BlueScope Steel published research showing that several
brands of nano-sunscreen caused an acceleration by up to 100
times of sun damage to pre-painted steel roofs with which they
came into contact.
P 11 – the list of activities that CSIRO’s research program will
involve is impressive. However without stating that this is
happening for only a very small set of the nanomaterials in
commercial use, and for a very small sub set of the workplaces
in which nanomaterials are used, it gives an inaccurately
optimistic representation of the state of the safety science in
relation to commercial use.
P 24 states that “the optimal particle size for a sunscreen is
therefore approximately 70-100nm as this effectively scatters
UV light while appearing transparent in the visible region”. Yet
CSIRO’s own research (Barnard 2010) shows that this is
incorrect. Barnard’s modelling showed that for most TiO2
Material
poster (undated)
Concerns re bias
acknowledged only in a separate box at the end
and are lumped together rather than being placed
with the relevant sections (it would be very easy
to read various sections without seeing a word of
caution or question). Potential drawbacks are
inadequately explained and are expressed as
questions, rather than as the ‘statements of fact’
elsewhere in the document, implying a degree of
uncertainty.
Examples of problematic statements include:
GM Food: statement that “some GM crops are
fortified to provide extra nutrients, and are usually
produced to help people in less developed
countries”. This section promotes a minority of
research to greenwash GM crops. It fails to
acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of
commercial GM crops are designed to be
herbicide tolerant or Bt producing rather than offer
any nutritional benefit for poor people. The
statement that GM crops with nutritional additives
“are usually produced to help people in less
developed countries” is also an entirely value
based statement. Many farmers’ groups from poor
countries have criticised golden rice as an
expensive public relations tool and a distraction
from the support they need to support
sustainable, diverse farming to address nutritional
deficiencies. There are over 70 patents on golden
rice alone; the producers of this crop have taken
great pains to protect their intellectual property.
Further, this whole paragraph is based on an
under-acknowledged hypothetical: no nutritionally
fortified GM crops have been approved for human
consumption.
Biotechnology cleans up the environment: The
heading stating “Future GM bacteria could mop
up greenhouse gases, clean up oil spills or break
down toxic waste” is based on hopeful
speculation rather than fact. It fails to
Concerns re inaccuracy
Material
The “space
elevator” and
Concerns re bias
acknowledge that GM bacteria could equally be a
major cause of environmental pollution or release
of greenhouse gases, for example should GM
bacteria used in biofuel production escape. The
promotion of Bt producing cotton as
environmentally sound and requiring less
pesticide applications is cynical: this cotton
produces its own insecticide throughout its life
cycle which introduces its own problems. The
statements about research into drought tolerant
wheat fail to cite problems should commercial
scale production of drought tolerant GM crops
ever prove viable (eg further stress on marginal
agricultural land, potential for horizontal gene
transfer to weed species with subsequent
ecological disruption). Most problematically, there
is no acknowledgement at all in this section that
while these potential benefits for the environment
are entirely hypothetical, there are meaningful
grounds for concern that existing GM crops are
already having negative impacts on the
environment, eg effects on non-target organisms
(UK 2003 trial), potential for horizontal gene
transfer, increase in herbicide applications
associated with Roundup Ready crops etc.
Space elevator: The lesson is built on the idea of
building a space elevator to rescue astronauts at
a hypothetically malfunctioning International
Space Station. It uses animations and an action
adventure story to cast nanotechnology as a
futuristic, morally important thing to do (to save
astronauts). Carbon nanotubes are then
presented as the material that will make this
possible. Properties of strength, lightness,
flexibility and heat resistance are listed with big
red ticks – implying that this material has the ‘tick
of approval’. There is no mention of some of the
negative attributes of carbon nanotubes eg having
been shown to cause mesothelioma in mice
(Poland et al 2008), insurance sector warnings
Concerns re inaccuracy
Material
“personal care
products” modules
for high school
teaching from the
Access Nano
program (2008)
Concerns re bias
that they could present ‘the next asbestos’ (eg
Swiss Re 2004) extremely energy intensive to
manufacture, can increase the uptake of
pollutants in wheat, can negatively affect
productivity and reproduction in rice. No mention
is made of the fact that carbon nanotubes are
now used widely in plastics, electronics, fuel filters
and other products. No acknowledgment of lack
of regulation or labelling of carbon nanotubes in
workplaces or consumer products, despite this
being one of the principal nanomaterials of health
concern. The students are then invited to write
and perform a 5-10 minute drama to “teach other
students and adults about space elevators and
carbon nanotubes”. This is really problematic – a
speculative highly unlikely application of carbon
nanotubes is used to shamelessly appeal to
adolescents to promote carbon nanotubes as a
‘wonder material’ with no acknowledgment of their
huge potential to cause health harm. This is then
made even worse by the promotion of “The
Spaceward Foundation” running two competitions
to design a space elevator, with the promise that
“A total of US$4 million is up for grabs”. The
students, with this additional promise of money,
are then invited to design a part of the space
elevator. The lesson then ends.
Personal care products: The lesson is ostensibly
about building the familiarity of students with
labels, the use of nanoparticles in personal care
products and in promoting the idea of an
‘informed consumer’. Yet in the section “How do
we make informed decisions?” there is no
information about potential health issues around
the use of nanoparticles in these products,
undermining students’ ability to then answer or
discuss the question “would you buy this
shampoo/ cream/ sunscreen”? There is no
information about efficacy or undermining of
efficacy, of hazard and exposure, or on the
Concerns re inaccuracy
Material
TechNyou blog
“Nanotech:
Overheated
promises and hot
air” (2010)
The National
Science Week
“GM Food: A
Concerns re bias
reasons for and against the principle of informed
choice, or in relation to the effectiveness or
otherwise of regulation. Instead, towards the end
of the lesson, questions are raised on the “Issues”
slide: Are there safety issues with nanoparticles in
products? Should products that use nano include
this on the label?” This puts the onus on students
to come up with all this information and analysis
themselves. It is an inadequate way of probing
the novel risks and challenges associated with the
use of nanotechnology in a sector of high
potential exposure to the public. It gives the false
illusion that students can make informed choices
in this sector, despite the absence of mandatory
labelling of nano-ingredients. It also gives the
impression that it should be up to the public
(consumers) to make a risk-benefit analysis at the
point of sale, rather than it being a new challenge
for regulators to ensure nano-product safety.
We suggest the authorial voice is inappropriate
for a supposedly neutral government
commentator. The author denigrates FoE’s report
on the climate and energy applications and
implications of nanotechnology for having cited so
much published literature on the climate and
energy demands of nanomaterials on the basis
that “its content has already been reported on or
acknowledged elsewhere”. The author seeks to
paint the report as wilfully misleading, stating that
“they seem to leave out science’s attempts to
address the issues they raise”. This is a personal
opinion of the author’s (who acknowledges having
not read much of the report) rather than a
reflection of a lack of rigour in the report which
does canvas applications of nanotechnology,
efforts at recycling etc
Both the event and the brochure unevenly
promote GM champions, over critics. In addition
to the host, the event featured 3 GM advocates
Concerns re inaccuracy
Material
dinner discussion”
poster and event
(2011)
Fold out model of
a buckyball,
undated, produced
by DIISR,
TechNyou, ARC
Centre of
Excellence for
Functional
Nanomaterials and
the Australian
Nanotechnology
Alliance (ANA)
The “Journey into
the nano-world”
fold out brochure
(undated)
“New technologies
for your changing
future”, 2011,
Australian
Government
Concerns re bias
(from both the private and research sectors), but
only one ethicist as the token critic. There was no
speaker representative of a community group
critical of GM, there was no representation of
farmers’ groups critical of GM, there was no
researcher into organic or agro-ecological farming
to provide an alternative perspective.
The playful “Fold to make a model of a buckyball!”
is a vehicle for advertising, with prominent logos
and websites of the government, nanomaterials
researchers and the major nanotechnology
industry alliance ANA. There is no prominent
promotion of unions, community groups or social
scientists who have concerns about
nanotechnology. Alongside are value laden
assertions: “Nanotechnology enables other
technologies to be improved”; “Nanotechnology
improves other technologies”; “Nature has always
used nanotechnology”. There is no
acknowledgement of concerns or drawbacks.
Although there is a statement that “More than
1000 consumer products contain some form of
nanotechnology” there is no acknowledgement of
inadequacies in regulation or a complete lack of
labelling to enable the person reading this to
know where nanotechnology is being used.
The examples of nanotechnology applications
state only benefits, with no acknowledgement of
costs or risks
The whole big glossy A3 publication is a
promotional tool for biotechnology and
nanotechnology. Apart from the centre page,
where there are a large number of ‘vox pops’ to
which two nano/biotechnology critics have been
invited to contribute their 150 words, there is no
critical perspective in any of the feature articles.
Many research and development projects are
spruiked as the solution to global climate, energy,
Concerns re inaccuracy
Material
“Nanotechnology –
working with the
smallest things”
July 2008
Australian
Government
Concerns re bias
pollution, agriculture, medical and other problems,
along with weblinks to the various featured
institutions. There are no featured articles that
describe how these technologies could make
existing problems worse, or to alternative nonhigh
tech solutions to these challenges.
Heath, safety and environment aspects of
nanotechnology
“The physical and chemical properties of some
nanomaterials may differ from those of the parent
material. These properties may have potential
impacts on health, safety, and the environment.”
!! may differ??
Concerns re inaccuracy