71

DOWN ON THE FARMThe Impact of Nano-Scale Technologies

on Food and Agriculture

ETC Group gratefully acknowledges financial support of the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, Canada for our research on nano-scale

technologies. We are grateful for additional support from SwedBio (Sweden),the CS Fund (USA), the Educational Foundation of America (USA), the JMGFoundation (UK) and the Lillian Goldman Charitable Trust (USA). The views

expressed in this document, however, are those of the ETC Group.

Original artwork by Reymond Pagé

November 2004

72

ETC Group publications, including Down on the Farm,can be downloaded free of charge from our website:

www.etcgroup.org

To order hard copies of the report, please contact:etc@etcgroup.org

ETC Group1 Nicholas Street, Suite 200 BOttawa, ON, Canada K1N 7B7

tel: 613-241-2267fax: 613-241-2506

73

CONTENTSSummary .............................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction – The Lay of the Land ............................................................................................................ 3

I. Nano-Agriculture: Down on the Farm .................................................................................................... 8

Downsized Seeds ................................................................................................................................... 8

Nanocides: Pesticides via Encapsulation .................................................................................... 11

Precision Agriculture: from Smart Dust to Smart Fields ........................................................ 16

Trading Down: Nano-Commodities .............................................................................................. 22

Nanomal Pharm .................................................................................................................................. 29

The Future of Farming: Nanobiotech and Synthetic Biology .............................................. 36

II. Nano Food and Nutrition or “Nanotech for Tummies” ................................................................. 38

Molecular Food Manufacturing ..................................................................................................... 40

Packaging .............................................................................................................................................. 41

Tagging and Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 44

Nano-Food: What’s Cooking at the Bottom? ........................................................................... 45

Special Delivery ................................................................................................................................... 49

III. Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 53

Notes ................................................................................................................................................................. 57

Annex 1: Nanotech R&D at Major Food and Beverage Corporations .......................................... 63

Annex 2: Nano Patents for Food and Food Packaging ..................................................................... 64

DOWN ON THE FARMThe Impact of Nano-Scale Technologies on Food and Agriculture

1

Issue: Nanotechnology, themanipulation of matter at thescale of atoms and molecules (ananometer [nm] is one-billionth ofa meter), is rapidly convergingwith biotech and informationtechnology to radically changefood and agricultural systems.Over the next two decades, theimpacts of nano-scale conver-gence on farmers and food willexceed that of farm mechanisationor of the Green Revolution. Con-verging technologies couldreinvigorate the battered agro-chemical and agbiotech industries,igniting a still more intense debate– this time over “atomically-modified” foods. No governmenthas developed a regulatoryregime that addresses the nano-scale or the societal impacts of theinvisibly small. A handful of foodand nutrition products containinginvisible, unlabeled and unregu-lated nano-scale additives arealready commercially available.Likewise, a number of pesticidesformulated at the nano-scale areon the market and have beenreleased in the environment.

Impact: From soil to supper,nanotechnology will not onlychange how every step of the foodchain operates but it will alsochange who is involved. At stake isthe world’s $3 trillion food retailmarket, agricultural export mar-kets valued at $544 billion, thelivelihoods of some 2.6 billionfarming people and the well-beingof the rest of us who depend uponfarmers for our daily bread.1

Nanotech has profound implica-

No government has

developed a regulatory

regime that addresses the

nano-scale or the societal

impacts of the invisibly

small.

A handful of food and

nutrition products

containing invisible and

unregulated nano-scale

additives are already

commercially available.

Likewise, a number of

pesticides formulated at

the nano-scale are on the

market and have been

released in the environ-

ment.

tions for farmers (and fisherpeople and pastoralists) and forfood sovereignty worldwide.Agriculture may also be theproving ground for technologiesthat can be adapted for surveil-lance, social control andbiowarfare.

Policies: The GM (geneticallymodified) food debate not onlyfailed to address environmentaland health concerns, it disas-trously overlooked the ownershipand control issues. How societywill be affected and who willbenefit are critical concerns.Because nanotech involves allmatter, nano patents can haveprofound impacts on the entirefood system and all sectors of theeconomy. Synthetic biology andnano-materials will dramaticallytransform the demand for agricul-tural raw materials required byprocessors. Nano-products cameto market – and more are coming– in the absence of regulation andsocietal debate. The merger ofnanotech and biotech has un-known consequences for health,biodiversity and the environment.Governments and opinion-makersare running 8-10 years behindsociety’s need for information,public debate and policies.

Recommendations: By allowingnanotech products to come tomarket in the absence of publicdebate and regulatory oversight,governments, agribusiness andscientific institutions have alreadyjeopardised the potential benefitsof nano-scale technologies. First

SUMMARY

2

and foremost, society – includingfarmers, civil society organisationsand social movements – mustengage in a wide debate aboutnanotechnology and its multipleeconomic, health and environ-mental implications. In keepingwith the Precautionary Principle,all food, feed and beverageproducts (including nutritionalsupplements) that incorporatemanufactured nanoparticlesshould be removed from theshelves and new ones prohibitedfrom commercialisation until suchtime as laboratory protocols andregulatory regimes are in placethat take into account the specialcharacteristics of these materials,and until they are shown to besafe. Similarly, nano-scale formula-tions of agricultural input prod-ucts such as pesticides, fertilisersand soil treatments should beprohibited from environmentalrelease until a new regulatoryregime specifically designed toexamine these products findsthem safe. Governments must alsomove immediately to establish amoratorium on lab experimenta-tion with – and the release of –“synthetic biology” materials untilsociety can engage in a thoroughanalysis of the health, environ-mental and socio-economicimplications. Any efforts bygovernments or industry toconfine discussions to meetings ofexperts or to focus debate solelyon the health and safety aspectsof nano-scale technologies will bea mistake. The broader social and

ethical issues must also beaddressed.

At the intergovernmental level,the Food and AgricultureOrganization’s (FAO) standingcommittees and commissions onagriculture, fisheries, forestry andgenetic resources should bemonitoring and debating the newtechnologies – with active inputand feedback from peasant andsmall farmers’ organisations. FAO’sCommittee on CommodityProblems should immediatelybegin to examine the socio-economic implications for farmers,food safety and national govern-ments. The UN/FAO Committee onWorld Food Security should bediscussing the implications foragro-terrorism as well as foodsovereignty. Additionally, the UNConvention on Biological Diversityshould review nanobiotech’spotential impact, especially onbiosafety. Other UN agencies suchas the United Nations Conferenceon Trade and Development(UNCTAD) and InternationalLabour Organization (ILO) shouldjoin with FAO to examine theimpact of nanotech on the owner-ship and control of the world’sfood supply, commodities andlabour. The international commu-nity should establish a bodydedicated to tracking, evaluatingand monitoring new technologiesand their products through anInternational Convention for theEvaluation of New Technologies(ICENT).

Any efforts by governments

or industry to confine

discussions to meetings of

experts or to focus debate

solely on the health and

safety aspects of nano-

scale technologies will be

a mistake. The broader

social and ethical issues

must also be addressed.

3

In an interview last year, Nobellaureate and nanotech entrepre-neur Richard Smalley expressedhis frustration with what heviewed as exaggerated concernsover the safety of nanotechno-logy: “After all, we’re not advisingthat you eat nanotech stuff,”Smalley told The New Statesman.2

Oops! About the time Dr. Smalleywas telling consumers not toworry, the nanotech market forfood and food processing wasestimated to be in excess of $2billion and projected to surge tomore than $20 billion by 2010.3

Like Dr. Smalley, most of us don’thave a clue that food productscontaining nano-scale additivesare already on the grocery storeshelf. But don’t blame Dr. Smalleyfor failing to notice nano-scaleingredients in his fruit juice – afterall, they’re invisible, productsaren’t labelled and require nospecial regulatory oversight.

In January 2003, ETC Grouppublished The Big Down, civilsociety’s first effort to describeand analyse technological conver-gence at the nano-scale. Ourreport had a remarkable impact –catalysing public debate andmedia attention around the worldand prompting many govern-ments and scientific institutions toundertake their own studies andto critique their own researchinitiatives. Down on the Farm is afirst look at applications ofnanotech to food and agriculture– technologies with the potentialto revolutionise and further

“After all, we’re not

advising that you eat

nanotech stuff.”

–Nobel laureate andnanotech entrepreneurRichard Smalley

consolidate power over the globalfood supply. This report is the firstin a series that ETC will issue overthe next two years on the poten-tial impacts of nanotechnologieson different economic and socialsectors.

Down on the Farm is not aninvective against technologicalchange or a call to preserve thestatus quo. Rather, it is an attemptto confront the reality that signifi-cant technological changes arealready underway and that theywill affect the whole of society.Some of the reverberations areeasily predicted; others are not. Atthe same time, this report doesnot accept that nanotech’s “ex-treme makeover” of food andagriculture is a foregone conclu-sion. Our report looks at the stateof the art and the potentialimplications for the future. Downon the Farm is offered as a startingplace for a much wider societaldebate that must include farmers’organisations, social movements,civil society and South govern-ments. Until now, participants inthe discussion have been largelylimited to scientists, investors andindustry executives, primarily inOECD nations.

ETC Group acknowledges that in ajust and judicious context,nanotech could bring usefuladvances that might benefit thepoor (the fields of sustainableenergy, clean water and cleanproduction appear promising;applications to food and agricul-ture appear less so). History shows

Based on current trends,

atom-scale technologies

will further concentrate

economic power in the

hands of giant multina-

tional corporations. How

likely is it that the poor

will benefit from a

technology that is outside

their control?

INTRODUCTION – THE LAY OF THE LAND

4

that the introduction of majornew technologies results insudden economic upheavals. Thepoor and marginalised are seldomin a position to foresee or adjustquickly to abrupt economicchanges. Among the most vulner-able will be small-scale farmersand agricultural workers whoproduce raw commodity exportsin the developing world. Based oncurrent trends, atom-scale tech-nologies will further concentrateeconomic power in the hands ofgiant multinational corporations.How likely is it that the poor willbenefit from a technology that isoutside their control?

Global demand for nano-scalematerials, tools and devices wasan estimated $7.6 billion in 2003,4

with $1 trillion pretensions by2011.5 Nanotechnology haselbowed itself into pole positionin the research budgets of theworld’s largest economies andcompanies. Nanotech applicationsin the high-tech industries –computers, medicine and defense– are the poster children for tinytech’s awesome potential. By

contrast, the applications ofnanotech to food and agriculturalindustries are just beginning toattract attention and are oftenoverlooked, even by nanotechinsiders. (The 2004 NanotechReport, a 650-page, two-volumemarket research report producedby Lux Research barely mentionsapplications related to food andagriculture.) Though the fullimplications of nanotech in foodand agriculture can’t be known inlate 2004, they are sure to beprofound.

Converging Technologies,aka BANG

In Down on the Farm, we attemptto identify the key nano-scaletechnologies that are enablingindustry to reshape our agricul-tural and food systems. Our focusis on those technologies migrat-ing to the nano-scale and con-verging with biotech, informationtechnologies and cognitivesciences. (See Converging Tech-nologies box on facing page.) Inboth Europe and the USA, re-searchers and policy makers haverecognised the transformative

potential of convergingtechnologies. More thanthe individual technolo-gies described in thisreport, it is their synergeticnature that will funda-mentally change food andfarming as we know it.

Size Matters: The nano-scale moves matter out ofthe realm of conventionalchemistry and physicsinto “quantum mechan-ics” – imparting unique

The nano-scale moves

matter out of the realm of

conventional chemistry

and physics into “quantum

mechanics” – imparting

unique characteristics to

traditional materials –

and unique health and

safety risks.

5

Converging Technologies: NBIC, CTEKS or BANG

In both Europe and the USA, researchers and policy makers haverecognised the potential of converging technologies to transformevery sector of the economy as well as our own understandings ofwhat it means to be human.

The US government refers to convergence as NBIC (the integrationof Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology andCognitive Science) and envisions that the mastery of the nano-scaledomain will ultimately amount to the mastery of all of nature.6 Atthe molecular level, in the NBIC worldview, there exists a “materialunity” so that all matter – life and non-life – is indistinguishable andcan be seamlessly integrated. The goal of NBIC is to “improve humanperformance,” both physically and cognitively (e.g., on the battle-field, on the wheat field, on the job).

The European Commission recently released a report on ConvergingTechnologies prepared by the High Level Expert Group “Foresightingthe New Technology Wave.”7 Distancing itself from the US agenda of“improving human performance,” the Group emphasised a “specifi-cally European approach to CTs.”8 The Group proposed ConvergingTechnologies for the European Knowledge Society (CTEKS), envisioningdifferent research programs that address specific problems such as“CTs for natural language processing” or “CTs for the treatment ofobesity.”9 The Group notes that while CT applications offer “anopportunity to solve societal problems, to benefit individuals, and togenerate wealth,” they also pose “threats to culture and tradition, tohuman integrity and autonomy, perhaps to political and economicstability.”10

ETC Group refers to converging technologies as BANG, an acronymderived from bits, atoms, neurons and genes, the basic units oftransformative technologies. The operative unit in informationscience is the Bit; nanotechnology manipulates Atoms; cognitivescience deals with Neurons and biotech exploits the Gene. Togetherthey make B.A.N.G. In early 2003, ETC Group warned that BANG willprofoundly affect national economies, trade and livelihoods –including food and agricultural production – in countries of both theSouth and North.11 BANG will allow human security and health –even cultural and genetic diversity – to be firmly in the hands of aconvergent technocracy.

In 2003, ETC Group

warned that BANG will

profoundly affect national

economies, trade and

livelihoods – including

food and agricultural

production – in countries

of both the South and

North.11

BANG will allow human

security and health –

even cultural and genetic

diversity – to be firmly in

the hands of a convergent

technocracy.

6

characteristics to traditionalmaterials – and unique health andsafety risks. With only a reductionin size (to under 100 nm) and nochange in substance, a material’sproperties can change dramati-cally. Characteristics – such aselectrical conductivity, reactivity,strength, colour and, especiallyimportantly, toxicity – can allchange in ways that are not easilypredicted. For example, a sub-stance that is red when it is ameter wide may be green when itswidth is only a few nanometers;carbon in the form of graphite issoft and malleable; at the nano-scale, carbon can be stronger thansteel. A single gram of catalystmaterial that is made of 10-

nanometer particles is about 100times more reactive than the sameamount of the same materialmade of one-micrometer sizedparticles (a micron is 1,000 timesbigger than a nanometer).

Aside from the serious toxicityimplications of quantum propertychanges, it is not always necessaryor useful to draw a distinct linebetween nano-scale and micro-scale applications: “nano-scale” isnot necessarily the goal in everycase; “micro-scale” may be ad-equate for some purposes and forothers, both nano-scale andmicro-scale devices, materials orparticles may serve equally well.Both may prove disruptive.

With only a reduction in

size (to under 100 nm)

and no change in sub-

stance, a material’s

properties can change

dramatically.

7

Keeping Nanoparticles Out of the Environment

In 2002, ETC Group called for a moratorium on the release of manu-factured nanoparticles until lab protocols are established to protectworkers and until regulations are in place to protect consumers. (Thelife expectancy of Ph.D. chemists working in US labs is already aboutten years less than their non-lab counterparts.12 Given that history,why delay in taking precautionary steps?) The body of evidencesupporting the call for a moratorium is steadily growing.13

Applying nanoparticles in agriculture raises environmental andhealth concerns since nanoparticles appear to demonstrate a differ-ent toxicity than larger versions of the same compound. In 2003, Dr.Vyvyan Howard, founding editor of the Journal of Nanotoxicology,undertook a review of scientific literature on nanoparticle toxicity forETC Group. Dr. Howard concluded that nanoparticles as a classappear to be more toxic as a result of their smaller size, also notingthat nanoparticles could move more easily into the body, acrossprotective membranes such as skin, the blood brain barrier orperhaps the placenta.

A study published by Dr. Eva Oberdörster in July 2004 found that largemouth bass (fish) exposed to small amounts of buckyballs (manufac-tured nanoparticles of 60 carbon atoms) resulted in rapid onset ofdamage in the brain and the death of half the water fleas living inthe water in which the fish lived.14 Other studies show that nanopar-ticles can move in unexpected ways through soil, and potentiallycarry other substances with them. Given the knowledge gaps, manyexpert commentators are recommending that release of engineerednanoparticles be minimized or prohibited in the environment:

“Release of nano-particles should be restricted due to the potentialeffects on environment and human health.” – Haum, Petschow,Steinfeldt, “Nanotechnology and Regulation within the framework ofthe Precautionary Principle. Final Report for ITRE Committee of theEuropean Parliament,” February 2004.15

“There is virtually no information available about the effect of nano-particles on species other than humans or about how they behave inthe air, water or soil, or about their ability to accumulate in food chains.Until more is known about their environmental impact we are keenthat the release of nanoparticles and nanotubes to the environmentis avoided as far as possible. Specifically we recommend as a precau-tionary measure that factories and research laboratories treat manu-factured nanoparticles and nanotubes as if they were hazardouswaste streams and that the use of free nanoparticles in environmen-tal applications such as remediation of groundwater be prohibited.”– Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, “Nanoscienceand Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties,” July 2004

“Release of nano-particles

should be restricted due

to the potential effects on

environment and human

health.”

– “Nanotechnology andRegulation within theframework of the Precau-tionary Principle. FinalReport for ITRE Committeeof the European Parliament,”February 2004

8

I. NANO-AGRICULTURE: DOWN ON THE FARM

which the properties of industrialnanoparticles can be adjusted tocreate cheaper, “smarter” replace-ments.

Just as GM agriculture led to newlevels of corporate concentrationall along the food chain, so propri-etary nanotechnology, deployedfrom seed to stomach, genome togullet, will strengthen the grasp ofagribusiness over global food andfarming at every stage – all,ostensibly, to feed the hungry,safeguard the environment andprovide consumers with morechoice.

For two generations, scientistshave manipulated food andagriculture at the molecular level.Agro-Nano connects the dots inthe industrial food chain and goesone step further down. With newnano-scale techniques of mixingand harnessing genes, geneticallymodified plants become atomi-cally modified plants. Pesticidescan be more precisely packagedto knock-out unwanted pests, andartificial flavourings and naturalnutrients engineered to please thepalate. Visions of an automated,centrally-controlled industrialagriculture can now be imple-mented using molecular sensors,molecular delivery systems andlow-cost labour.

Downsized Seeds

Re-organising natural processes ishardly a new idea. To increaseyields during the Green Revolu-tion, Northern scientists bredsemi-dwarf plants that were better

In December 2002, the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture(USDA) drafted the world’s first“roadmap” for applyingnanotechnology to agricultureand food.16 A wide collection ofpolicy makers, land grant univer-sity representatives and corporatescientists met at Cornell University(New York, USA) to share theirvision of how to remake agricul-ture using nano-scale technolo-gies. The USDA’s nanotech re-search has been supported by theUS government’s NationalNanotechnology Initiative (NNI)since 2003. But USDA receives arelatively tiny sliver of the fundingpie – the agency is expected toreceive $5 million in nanotechfunds in FY2005 – a mere 0.5% ofthe total NNI funds.

Agriculture, according to the newnano-vision, needs to be moreuniform, further automated,industrialized and reduced tosimple functions. In our molecularfuture, the farm will be a wide areabiofactory that can be monitoredand managed from a laptop andfood will be crafted from designersubstances delivering nutrientsefficiently to the body.Nanobiotechnology will increaseagriculture’s potential to harvestfeedstocks for industrial processes.Meanwhile tropical agriculturalcommodities such as rubber,cocoa, coffee and cotton – and thesmall-scale farmers who growthem – will find themselves quaintand irrelevant in a new nano-economy of “flexible matter” in

“Crop genetic resources

exist in two complemen-

tary and intertwined

forms – crop genes and

human knowledge about

the species, including the

knowledge that has been

transmitted over genera-

tions of farmers. Indig-

enous knowledge, as

much as crop genes, is

part of the evolutionary

system of a crop species,

determining traits that

will or will not be passed

on.”

– Stephen B. Brush, Farmers’Bounty, 2004

9

If farmers have neither

control over new tech-

nologies affecting them,

nor the opportunity to

participate in setting

research priorities, trends

in nano-scale science are

likely to consolidate

corporate power and

marginalize Farmers’

Rights.

able to absorb synthetic fertilisersand, by doing so, increased theplants’ need for pesticides. Tofurther the dependency, theagricultural biotechnology indus-try designed plants that couldtolerate toxic chemicals.Agbiotech companies had achoice: they could have structurednew chemicals to meet the needsof the plants or they could havemanipulated plants to meet theneeds of company herbicides.They opted to preserve theirherbicides. Now nanotech compa-nies are going down the samepath – looking for new ways thatlife and matter can serve theneeds of industry.

Farmers conduct most of theworld’s plant breeding throughselecting, saving and breedingseeds and, in addition, are the firstconservers of the plant geneticdiversity essential to the world’sfood supply, both present andfuture. This process – thousands ofyears old – requires neither anatomic force microscope nor aPh.D. in biochemistry. If farmershave neither control over newtechnologies affecting them, northe opportunity to participate insetting research priorities, trendsin nano-scale science like thoseidentified below are likely toconsolidate corporate power andmarginalize Farmers’ Rights.

Gene therapy for plants:Researchers are developing newtechniques that use nanoparticlesfor smuggling foreign DNA intocells. For example, at Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, the USDepartment of Energy lab thatplayed a major role in the produc-

tion of enriched uranium for theManhattan Project, researchershave hit upon a nano-techniquefor injecting DNA into millions ofcells at once. Millions of carbonnanofibres are grown sticking outof a silicon chip with strands ofsynthetic DNA attached to thenanofibres.17 Living cells are thenthrown against and pierced by thefibres, injecting the DNA into thecells in the process:

“It’s like throwing a bunch ofbaseballs against a bed ofnails...We literally throw the cellsonto the fibers, and then smushthe cells into the chip to furtherpoke the fibers into the cell.” –Timothy McKnight, engineer, OakRidge Laboratory18

Once injected, the synthetic DNAexpresses new proteins and newtraits. Oak Ridge has entered intocollaboration with the Institute ofPaper Science and Technology in aproject aimed to use this tech-nique for genetic manipulation ofloblolly pine, the primary sourceof pulpwood for the paper indus-try in the USA.

Unlike existing genetic engineer-ing methods, the techniquedeveloped by Oak Ridge scientistsdoes not pass modified traits onto further generations because, intheory, the DNA remains attachedto the carbon nanofibre, unable tointegrate into the plants’ owngenome. The implication is that itwould be possible to reprogramcells for one time only. Accordingto Oak Ridge scientists, thisrelieves concerns about gene flowassociated with geneticallymodified plants, where genes are

10

transferred between unrelatedorganisms or are removed orrearranged within a species. If thenew technique enables research-ers to selectively switch on or off akey trait such as fertility, will seedcorporations use the tiny termina-tors to prevent farmers fromsaving and re-using harvestedseed – compelling them to returnto the commercial seed marketevery year to obtain the activatedgenetic trait they need?

This approach also raises a num-ber of safety questions: what if thenanofibres were ingested bywildlife or humans as food? Whatare the ecological impacts if thenanofibres enter the cells of otherorganisms and cause them toexpress new proteins? Where willthe nanofibres go when the plantdecomposes in the soil? Carbonnanofibres have been comparedto asbestos fibres because theyhave similar shapes. Initial toxicitystudies on some carbonnanofibres have demonstrated

inflammation of cells. A study byNASA found inflammation in thelungs to be more severe than incases of silicosis,19 though Nobellaureate Richard Smalley, Chair-man of Carbon NanotechnologiesInc. gives little weight to theseconcerns: “We are confident therewill prove out to be no healthhazards but this [toxicology] workcontinues.”20

Atomically Modified Seeds: InMarch 2004, ETC Group reportedon a nanotech research initiativein Thailand that aims to atomicallymodify the characteristics of localrice varieties.21 In a three-yearproject at Chiang Mai University’snuclear physics laboratory,researchers “drilled” a holethrough the membrane of a ricecell in order to insert a nitrogenatom that would stimulate therearrangement of the rice’s DNA.22

So far, researchers have been ableto alter the colour of a local ricevariety from purple to green. In atelephone interview, Dr. ThirapatVilaithong, director of ChiangMai’s Fast Neutron ResearchFacility, told Biodiversity ActionThailand (BIOTHAI) that their nexttarget is Thailand’s famous Jas-mine rice.23 The goal of theirresearch is to develop Jasminevarieties that can be grown allyear long, with shorter stems andimproved grain colour.24

One of the attractions of thisnano-scale technique, accordingto Dr. Vilaithong, is that, like theOak Ridge project, it does notrequire the controversial tech-nique of genetic modification. “Atleast we can avoid it,” Dr.Vilaithong, said.25 Civil society

“We don’t consider atomi-

cally modified rice any

safer or more socially

acceptable than geneti-

cally modified rice. It

sounds like the same

high-tech approach that

does not address our

needs and could cause

severe hardships for Thai

rice farmers.”26

– Witoon Lianchamroon,Biodiversity Action Thailand(BIOTHAI)

11

organisations in Thailand aresceptical of the benefits.

Nanocides: Pesticides viaEncapsulation

Pesticides containing nano-scaleactive ingredients are already onthe market, and many of theworld’s leading agrochemicalfirms are conducting R&D on thedevelopment of new nano-scaleformulations of pesticides (seebelow, Gene Giants: EncapsulationR&D). For example:

BASF of Germany, the world’sfourth ranking agrochemicalcorporation (and the world’slargest chemical company),recognizes nanotech’s potentialusefulness in the formulation ofpesticides.27 BASF is conductingbasic research and has applied fora patent on a pesticide formula-tion, “Nanoparticles Comprising aCrop Protection Agent,” thatinvolves an active ingredientwhose ideal particle size is be-tween 10 and 150 nm.28 Theadvantage of the nano-formula-tion is that the pesticide dissolvesmore easily in water (to simplifyapplication to crops); it is morestable and the killing-capacity ofthe chemical (herbicide, insecti-cide or fungicide) is optimized.

Bayer Crop Science of Germany,the world’s second largest pesti-cide firm, has applied for a patenton agrochemicals in the form ofan emulsion in which the activeingredient is made up of nano-scale droplets in the range of 10-400 nm.29 (An emulsion is amaterial in which one liquid isdispersed in another liquid – bothmayonnaise and milk are emul-

sions.) The company refers to theinvention as a “microemulsionconcentrate” with advantagessuch as reduced application rate,“a more rapid and reliable activity”and “extended long-term activity.”

Syngenta, headquartered inSwitzerland, is the world’s largestagrochemical corporation andthird largest seed company.Syngenta already sells pesticideproducts formulated as emulsionscontaining nano-scale droplets.Like Bayer Crop Science, Syngentarefers to these products asmicroemulsion concentrates. Forexample, Syngenta’s Primo MAXXPlant Growth Regulator (designedto keep golf course turf grass fromgrowing too fast) and its BannerMAXX fungicide (for treating golfcourse turf grass) are oil-basedpesticides mixed with water andthen heated to create an emulsion.Syngenta claims that both prod-ucts’ extremely small particle sizeof about 100 nm (or 0.1 micron)prevents spray tank filters fromclogging, and the chemicals mixso completely in water that theywon’t settle out in the spraytank.30 Banner MAXX fungicidewill not separate from water for upto one year, whereas fungicidesthat contain larger particle sizeingredients typically requireagitation every two hours toprevent misapplications andclogging in the tank.31 Syngentaclaims that the particle size of thisformulation is about 250 timessmaller than typical pesticideparticles. According to Syngenta, itis absorbed into the plant’s systemand cannot be washed off by rainor irrigation.32

Many of the world’s

leading agrochemical

firms are conducting

R&D on the development

of new nano-scale formu-

lations of pesticides.

12

ETC Group is not questioning theGene Giants’ compliance withcurrent pesticide regulations.Pesticides that contain nano-scaleactive ingredients do not requirespecial regulatory review accord-ing to the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA): a pesti-cide newly formulated as a nano-emulsion would not requireregulatory re-examination since itwould not be “a new chemical,new chemical form, nor a ‘signifi-cant’ new use.”33 Dr. Barbara Karnat the Office of Research & Devel-opment at EPA states that “thepesticide will not behave anydifferently chemically when in anemulsion.”34 She explains furtherthat “there are no differences inproperties of the bulk pesticidesolution due to the incorporationof these droplets, and the pesti-cide chemicals themselves do notexhibit different properties.”35

Surprisingly, EPA does not con-sider Syngenta’s nano-emulsionsas nano-material based ornanotechnology. EPA’s responsehighlights the lack of clarityregarding what is considerednanotechnology. While the agro-chemical industry is exploitingsize to change the characteristicsand behaviour of its pesticides, theEPA concludes that, in the case ofnano-emulsions, size does notmatter.

Gene Giants – EncapsulationR&D: A more sophisticatedapproach to formulating nano-scale pesticides involves encapsu-lation – packaging the nano-scaleactive ingredient within a kind oftiny “envelope” or “shell.” Both foodingredients and agrochemicals in

microencapsulated form havebeen on the market for severaldecades. According to industry,the reformulation of pesticides inmicrocapsules has triggered“revolutionary changes,” includingthe ability to control under whatconditions the active ingredient isreleased (see box below). Accord-ing to the agrochemical industry,re-formulating pesticides inmicrocapsules can also extendpatent protection, increase solu-bility, reduce the contact of activeingredients with agriculturalworkers36 and may have environ-mental advantages such asreducing run-off rates.

US-based Monsanto, the world’slargest purveyor of GM seedtechnology and the manufacturerof blockbuster herbicideRoundUp, already sells a numberof microencapsulated pesticides.In 1998 Monsanto entered anagreement with FlamelNanotechnologies to develop“Agsome” nanocapsules ofRoundup, which might be morechemically efficient than theconventional formula. However,according to a spokesman forFlamel, the real driver for the dealwas Monsanto’s desire to secure apatent on Roundup for another17-20 years.37 Monsanto’s agree-ment with Flamel broke down twoyears later for unspecified reasons.

Syngenta is a self-described“world leader” in microcapsuletechnology and claims to havepioneered their use in pesti-cides.38 Each liter of Syngenta’strademarked Zeon microencapsu-lated formulation contains about50 trillion capsules that are

According to the US

Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), a pesticide

newly formulated as a

nano-emulsion would not

require regulatory

re-examination since it

would not be “a new

chemical, new chemical

form, nor a ‘significant’

new use.”33

13

designed to be ‘quick release,’breaking open on contact withthe leaf of the plant.39 Becausethe capsules strongly adhere toleaves they resist being washedaway by rainfall. A similar microen-capsulated product fromSyngenta is being applied to seedsas a treatment to control soil pestsof germinating seedlings.

Syngenta has developed anotherencapsulated insecticide forhousehold pests like cockroaches,ants and beetles as well as onedesigned as a long-lasting treat-ment for mosquito-netting.Syngenta scientists are research-ing triggered-release capsuleswhose outer shell can be openedonly in special conditions. For

Encapsulating Control

Nanotechnology enables companies to manipulate the properties ofthe outer shell of a capsule in order to control the release of thesubstance to be delivered. ‘ Controlled release’ strategies are highlyprized in medicine since they can allow drugs to be absorbed moreslowly, at a specific location in the body or at the say-so of an externaltrigger. With potential applications across the food chain (in pesti-cides, vaccines, veterinary medicine and nutritionally-enhancedfood), these nano- and micro-formulations are being developed andpatented by agribusiness and food corporations such as Monsanto,Syngenta and Kraft.

Examples of nano and microcapsule designs:

• Slow release – the capsule releases its payload slowly over a longerperiod of time (e.g., for slow delivery of a substance in the body)45

• Quick-release – the capsule shell breaks upon contact with asurface (e.g. when pesticide hits a leaf )46

• Specific release – the shell is designed to break open when amolecular receptor binds to a specific chemical (e.g., uponencountering a tumour or protein in the body)47

• Moisture release – the shell breaks down and releases contents inthe presence of water (e.g., in soil)48

• Heat-release – the shell releases ingredients only when theenvironment warms above a certain temperature49

• pH release – nanocapsule breaks up only in specific acid or alkalineenvironment (e.g., in the stomach or inside a cell)50

• Ultrasound release – the capsule is ruptured by an externalultrasound frequency51

• Magnetic release – a magnetic particle in the capsule ruptures theshell when exposed to a magnetic field52

• DNA nanocapsule – the capsule smuggles a short strand of foreignDNA into a living cell which, once released, hijacks cell machinery toexpress a specific protein (used for DNA vaccines)53

Nanotechnology enables

companies to manipulate

the properties of the

outer shell of a capsule in

order to control the

release of the substance

to be delivered.

14

example, Syngenta holds a patenton a “gutbuster” microcapsule thatbreaks open in an alkaline envi-ronment such as the stomachs ofcertain insects.40

Syngenta boasts that “microen-capsulation stands out as atechnique capable of producingsuch new and surprising effectsfrom known ingredients that salesgrow as rapidly as if a brand newactive ingredient had beeninvented!”41 In other words,formulating encapsulated pesti-cides offers more bang for thepesticide buck because the smallsize optimizes the effectiveness ofthe pesticide and the capsule canbe designed to release its activeingredient under a variety ofconditions. Syngenta is alsoresearching nano-encapsulatedpesticides.42

ETC Group is not in a position toevaluate whether or not pesticidesformulated as nano-sized droplets– either encapsulated or in theform of nano-emulsions – exhibitproperty changes akin to the“quantum effects” exhibited byengineered nanoparticles. How-ever, it is clear that the impetus forformulating pesticides on thenano-scale is the changed behav-ior of the reformulated product:the strength of the active ingredi-ent can be maximized and bio-logical activity is longer-lasting(and, in the case of encapsulatedpesticides, the release of the activechemical can be controlled).

In other areas of use such ascosmetics, nano-emulsions areregarded as a very effectivemechanism for delivering oils

across the skin.43 They can alsoexhibit antibacterial properties asa mechanical result of the smalldroplets fusing with and rupturingbacterial cell walls. Nano-emul-sions can be used to damageblood cells and sperm cells (e.g., ascontraceptives).44 In the case ofnano-emulsion pesticides, it is notclear whether the anti-bacterialproperties are relevant and/orhave been assessed for theirimpacts on soil and other mi-crobes.

Sizing Up Nanocaps andMicrocaps: According to industry,encapsulation offers the followingadvantages:41

• Longer-lasting biological activity

• Less soil binding for bettercontrol of pests in soil

• Reduces worker exposure

• Improves safety by removingflammable solvents

• Reduces damage to crops

• Less pesticide lost byevaporation

• Less effect on other species

• Reduced environmental impact

• Prevents degradation of activeingredients by sunlight

• Makes concentrated pesticidesafe and easy to handle by growers

Concerns raised byencapsulation:

• Both biological activity andenvironmental/worker exposurecan be longer-lasting; Beneficialinsects and soil life may beaffected.

• Could nano-scale pesticides betaken up by plants and smuggledinto the food chain?

It is clear that the impetus

for formulating pesticides

on the nano-scale is the

changed behavior of the

reformulated product: the

strength of the active

ingredient can be maxi-

mized and biological

activity is longer-lasting.

15

• Pesticides can be more easilyaerosolized as a powder ordroplets – therefore inhale-able,and perhaps a greater threat tohuman health and safety.

• Could pesticides formulated asnanocapsules or nano-scaledroplets exhibit different toxicityand enter the body and affectwildlife through new exposureroutes, for example, across skin(see box on page 7, KeepingNanoparticles Out of theEnvironment).

• Potential for use as abioweapons delivery vehicle.

• What other external triggersmight affect the release of theactive ingredient (e.g., chemicalbinding, heat or break down of thecapsule)?

• Microcapsules are similar in sizeto pollen and may poison beesand/or be taken back to the hivesand incorporated in honey.Because of their size, “micro-encapsulated insecticides areconsidered more toxic to honeybees than any formulation so fardeveloped.”55 Will nanocapsulesbe more lethal?

• It is not known how‘unexploded’ nanocapsules willbehave in the human gut ifingested with food.

Implications of Encapsulationfor Nanobioweaponry:Nanocapsules and microcapsulesmake an ideal vehicle for deliver-ing chemical and biologicalweapons because they can carrysubstances intended to harmhumans as easily as they can carrysubstances intended to kill weedsand pests. By virtue of their small

size, DNA nanocapsules may beable to enter the body undetectedby the immune system and thenbecome activated by the cells’own mechanisms to produce toxiccompounds. The increasedbioavailability and stability ofnano-encapsulated substances inthe environment may offeradvantages to the Gene Giants,but the same features could makethem extremely potent vehiclesfor biological warfare. In addition,because of their increasedbioavailability only a small quan-tity of the chemical is needed.

When programmed for externaltriggers such as ultrasound ormagnetic frequencies, activationcan be controlled remotely,suggesting a number of grimscenarios. Could agrochemical/seed corporations remotelyactivate triggers to cause cropfailure if the farmer infringes thecompany’s patent or fails to followprescribed production practices?What if nanocapsules containing apotent compound are added to aregional water supply by a foreignaggressor or terrorist group?

According to The Sunshine Project,the “Australia Group” (a group of24 industrialized nations) recentlyproposed that microencapsulationtechnologies be added to acommon list of technologiesbanned from export to ‘untrust-worthy’ governments for fear ofuse as bioweapons.57 Documentsobtained by Sunshine Project alsoshow that the US military fundedthe University of New Hampshirein 1999-2000 to developmicrocapsules containing corro-sive and anaesthetic (that is, to

“The ultimate expression

of this technology would

be development of a

vector that encapsulates,

protects, penetrates, and

releases DNA-based BW

[biological warfare]

agents into target cells

but is not recognised by

the immune system. Such

a ‘stealth’ agent would

significantly challenge

current medical counter-

measure strategies.”

– Defense Intelligence Agencyanalysts, US government,Washington, DC.56

16

produce unconsciousness) chemi-cals. The documents describe howthe microcapsules could be firedat a crowd, corrode protectivegear and then break open incontact with the moisture onhuman skin.58

Precision Agriculture: fromSmart Dust to Smart Fields

Robo-farming with Nano-sensors: “Precision farming,” alsoknown as site-specific manage-ment, describes a bundle of newinformation technologies appliedto the management of large-scale,commercial agriculture. Precisionfarming technologies include, forexample: personal computers,satellite-positioning systems,geographic information systems,automated machine guidance,remote sensing devices andtelecommunications.

“It is 5 a.m. A Midwest farmer sipscoffee in front of a computer. Up-to-the-minute satellite imagesshow a weed problem in a field onthe northwest corner of the farm.At 6:30 a.m., the farmer drives tothe exact location to apply aprecise amount of herbicide.” –Illinois Laboratory for AgriculturalRemote Sensing press release59

Precision farming relies uponintensive sensing of environmen-tal conditions and computerprocessing of the resulting data toinform decision-making andcontrol farm machinery. Precisionfarming technologies typicallyconnect global positioningsystems (GPS) with satellite-imaging of fields to remotelysense crop pests or evidence ofdrought and then automatically

adjust levels of irrigation orpesticide applications as thetractor moves around the field.Yield monitors fitted to combineharvesters measure the amountand moisture levels of grains asthey are harvested on differentparts of a field, generating com-puter models that will guidedecisions about application ortiming of inputs. Precision agricul-ture promises higher yields andlower input costs by streamliningagricultural management andthereby reducing waste andlabour costs. It also offers thepotential to employ less skilled,and therefore cheaper, farmmachinery operators since, theo-retically, such systems can simplifyand centralize decision-making. Inthe future, precision farming willresemble robotic farming as farmmachinery is designed to operateautonomously, continuouslyadapting to incoming data.

If they function as designed,ubiquitous wireless sensors (seebelow) will become an essentialtool for bringing this vision ofprecision farming to maturity.When scattered on fields, net-worked sensors are expected toprovide detailed data on crop andsoil conditions and relay thatinformation in real time to aremote location so that cropscouting will no longer require thefarmer (or agribusiness executive)to get their boots dirty. Sincemany of the conditions that afarmer may want to monitor (e.g.,the presence of plant viruses orthe level of soil nutrients) operateat the nano-scale, and becausesurfaces can be altered at the

Could agrochemical/seed

corporations remotely

activate triggers to cause

crop failure if the farmer

infringes the company’s

patent or fails to follow

prescribed production

practices?

17

nano-scale to bind selectively withparticular biological proteins,sensors with nano-scale sensitivitywill be particularly important inrealizing this vision.

Leading the choir of enthusiasmfor “smart fields” laced withwireless nanosensors is the USDepartment of Agriculture (USDA).In what they originally dubbed“Little Brother Technology,”61 theagency identifies agriculturalsensor development as one oftheir most important researchpriorities.62 The USDA is workingto promote and develop a total“Smart Field System” that auto-matically detects, locates, reportsand applies water, fertilisers andpesticides – going beyond sensingto automatic application.

Industry is already experimentingwith wireless sensor networks foragriculture. Computer chip makerIntel, whose chips have nano-scalefeatures,63 has installed largerwireless sensor nodes (called‘motes’) throughout a vineyard inOregon, USA.64 The sensorsmeasure temperature onceevery minute and are the firststep towards fully automatingthe vineyard. Intel also employsethnographers and socialscientists who study behaviourof vineyard workers to helpdesign the system. Intel’s visionfor wireless networks is ‘proac-tive computing’ – ubiquitoussystems that anticipate theneeds of the farmer and actbefore they are asked to do so.In a similar venture, multina-tional consulting firmAccenture has partnered withmote-maker Millennial Net to

run a network of sensors across avineyard in California.65

According to Crossbow Technolo-gies, their motes can be used onthe farm for irrigation manage-ment, frost detection and warning,pesticide application, harvesttiming, bio-remediation andcontainment and water qualitymeasurement and control.

“ Smart Dust” and “ AmbientIntelligence:” The idea thatthousands of tiny sensors could bescattered like invisible eyes, earsand noses across farm fields andbattlefields sounds like sciencefiction. But ten years ago, KrisPister, a professor of Robotics atUniversity of California Berkeleysecured funding from the USDefense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency (DARPA) todevelop autonomous sensors thatwould each be the size of a matchhead. Using silicon-etchingtechnology, these motes (“smartdust” sensors) would feature anonboard power supply, computa-

The USDA is working to

promote and develop a

total “Smart Field System”

that automatically detects,

locates, reports and

applies water, fertilisers

and pesticides – going

beyond sensing to auto-

matic application.

18

tion abilities and the ability todetect and then communicatewith other motes in the vicinity. Inthis way the individual moteswould self-organize into ad hoccomputer networks capable ofrelaying data using wireless (i.e.,radio) technology. DARPA’s imme-diate interest in the project was todeploy smart dust networks overenemy terrain to feed back realtime news about troop move-ments, chemical weapons andother battlefield conditionswithout having to risk soldiers’lives. However, like that othergroundbreaking DARPA project,the Internet, it swiftly becameclear that tiny surveillance systemswould have endless civilian uses,from monitoring energy-use inoffice buildings to tracking goodsthrough a supply chain to environ-mental data monitoring.

Today, wireless micro and nano-sensors like the ones pioneered byKris Pister are an area of intenseresearch for large corporationsfrom Intel to Hitachi, a focus ofdevelopment at all US nationaldefence laboratories and in fieldsas wide apart as medicine, energyand communications. Touted byThe Economist, Red Herring andTechnology Review as the ‘next bigthing,’ ubiquitous wireless sensorsembedded in everything from theclothes we wear to the landscapeswe move through could funda-mentally alter the way we relate toeveryday goods, services, theenvironment and the State. Theaim is to develop what researchescall ‘ambient intelligence’ – smartenvironments that use sensorsand artificial intelligence to

predict the needs of individualsand respond accordingly: officesthat adjust light and heating levelsthroughout the day or clothes thatalter their colours or warmthdepending on the external envi-ronment. A simple example ofambient intelligence already inuse is an airbag system in newercars, which “senses” an imminentcrash and deploys a pillow tosoften the blow to the driver.

Kris Pister’s dust motes are cur-rently far from nano (they areroughly coin-sized), but they havealready been licensed to commer-cial companies. In 2003 Pisterestablished a “smart dust” spin-offcompany, Dust, Inc. For a lighttaster of a society steeped inambient intelligence, Kris Pistermakes the following speculations:67

• “In 2010 a speck of dust on eachof your fingernails will continuouslytransmit fingertip motion to yourcomputer. Your computer willunderstand when you type, point,click, gesture, sculpt, or play airguitar.

• In 2010 infants will not die ofSIDs [Sudden Infant DeathSyndrome], or suffocate, or drown,without an alert being sent to theparents. How will society changewhen your neighbors [sic] poolcalls your cell phone to tell youthat Johnny is drowning andyou’re the closest adult that couldbe located?

• In 2020 there will be nounanticipated illness. Chronicsensor implants will monitor all ofthe major circulator systems in thehuman body, and provide youwith early warning of an

“Improvements in sensor

technology will take us to

a completely new level of

measuring the growth

process, the surrounding

environment, the opera-

tion of machinery and

much more. It will auto-

mate the processes that

used to require human

intervention. So rather

than adjust the power

levers on our tractor, the

environment is sensed

and implements adjust

automatically. In some

cases, reduced skills will

be needed to accomplish

certain tasks.”

– Mike Boehlje, PurdueUniversity’s Center for Foodand Agricultural Business60

19

impending flu, or save your life bycatching cancer early enough thatit can be completely removedsurgically.”

Nanosensors: With ongoingtechnical advances, microsensorsare shrinking in size and theirsensor capabilities are expanding.

Market analysts predict that thewireless sensor market will beworth $7 billion by 2010.68

Nanosensors made out of carbonnanotubes or nano-cantilevers(balanced weighing devices) aresmall enough to trap and measureindividual proteins or even

“…[I]magine smart farm-

lands where literally

every...vine plant will

have its own sensor...

making sure that it gets

exactly the right nutri-

ents, exactly the right

watering. Imagine the

impact it could have on

difficult areas of the

world for agricultural

purposes.”

– Pat Gelsinger, Intel ChiefTechnology Officer66

Current state of the (sm)ART (dust):

Currently available from: Crossbow Technologies, Dust, Inc., Ember,Millennial Net

Coming soon: Motorola, Intel, Philips

Current Size: Crossbow’s motes are currently the size of a bottletop.According to the CEO of Crossbow, Mike Horton, the size is expectedto shrink to the size of an aspirin tablet – even a grain of rice – overthe next few years.70

Current Price: Crossbow Motes (the entire smart dust sensor –processor, radio, battery, and sensor) range from $40 to $150 de-pending on quantity ordered. Crossbow expects prices to fall below$10 in near future.71

Current Uses: Smart dust has so far been sprinkled on:

• Oil tankers: The 885-foot oil tanker, Loch Rannoch, operated by BPin the North Atlantic, has been outfitted with 160 wireless sensormotes that measure vibrations in the ship’s engine to predictequipment failures. The company is also considering using smartdust networks in over 40 other projects in the next three years.

• Wildlife Habitats: At Great Duck Island off the coast of Maine (USA)a network of 150 wireless sensor motes have been monitoring themicroclimates in and around nesting burrows used by seabirds. Theaim is to develop a habitat monitoring kit that allows researchers tomonitor sensitive wildlife and habitats in non-intrusive and non-disruptive ways.72

• Bridges: In San Francisco (USA) a network of sensor motes hasbeen installed to measure the vibration and structural stresses onthe Golden Gate Bridge as a form of proactive maintenance.73

• Redwood trees: In Sonoma County, California (USA), researchershave strapped 120 motes to redwood trees in order to wirelessly andremotely monitor the microclimate around the trees from Berkeley,over 70 km away.74

• Supermarkets: Honeywell is testing the use of motes to monitorgrocery stores in Minnesota (USA)75

• Ports: The US Department of Homeland Security plans to test theuse of motes in Florida ports and in shipping containers.76

20

molecules. Nanoparticles or nano-surfaces can be engineered totrigger an electrical or chemicalsignal in the presence of a con-taminant such as bacteria. Othernanosensors work by triggeringan enzyme reaction or by usingnano-engineered branchingmolecules called dendrimers asprobes to bind to target chemicalsand proteins.

Not surprisingly, a great deal ofgovernment funded research innanosensors aims to detectminute quantities of biowarfareagents such as anthrax or chemi-cal toxins to counter terroristattacks on US soil as well to warnsoldiers on a battlefield of pos-sible risks. For example, the USgovernment’s “SensorNet” projectattempts to cast a net of sensorsacross the entire United Statesthat will act as an early warningsystem for chemical, biological,radiological, nuclear and explosivethreats.69 The SensorNet willintegrate nano, micro and conven-tional sensors into a single nation-wide network that will feed backto an existing US network of30,000 mobile phone masts,forming the skeleton of an unpar-alleled national surveillancenetwork. Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory is now field-testingSensorNet. US governmentdefense laboratories such as LosAlamos and Sandia are develop-ing the nano-sensors themselves.

Sizing up Sensors: Sensor tech-nology could benefit large-scale,highly industrialized farms thatare already adopting GPS tractorsand other precision farmingtechniques. Ultimately, sensors are

likely to increase productivity,drive down farm prices, reducelabour and win a small advantagein the global marketplace for thelargest industrial farm operators.

It is not small-scale farmers whowill benefit from ubiquitoussensor networks, but the giantgrain traders such as Cargill andADM, who are positioned toaggregate data from severalthousand farms in order to deter-mine which crops are grown, bywhom and what price will be paid,depending on market demandand global prices. Sensors willmarginalize farmers’ most uniqueassets – their intimate localknowledge of place, climate, soils,seeds, crops and culture. In awirelessly monitored world all ofthis is reduced to real-time rawdata, interpreted and leveragedremotely. Why employ smartfarmers when sensors and com-puters can make ‘smart farms’operate without them?

High-tech production by large-scale producers usually meansdepressed prices and hardship forthose outside the industrialagribusiness loop, including small-scale, indigenous and peasantfarmers. As sensors shrink to a sizesmaller than seeds, legal, securityand environmental safeguards willbe needed to prevent abuses ofsmart dust, including surveillanceof foreign crops. Will smart dustbe packaged along with patentedseeds to police farmers’ growingpractices and patent compliance?Will corporate seeds or otherinputs be laced with inexpensivesensors for companies to collectinformation in much the same

Will smart dust be pack-

aged along with patented

seeds to police farmers’

growing practices and

patent compliance?

Ultimately, sensors are

likely to increase produc-

tivity, drive down farm

prices, reduce labour and

win a small advantage in

the global marketplace

for the largest industrial

farm operators.

21

way Internet companies collectconfidential data by infectingpersonal computers with invisiblemonitoring programs and tags(known as ‘spyware’ and ‘cookies’)?

Agricultural sensor networks mayalso be pressed into use as civilsurveillance systems in the inter-est of ‘homeland security.’ Wirelesssensor networks – whether inagriculture or any other applica-tion – threaten to stifle dissentand invade privacy. MichaelMehta, a sociologist at the Univer-sity of Saskatchewan (Canada),believes that the environmentequipped with multiple sensorscould destroy the notion ofprivacy altogether – creating a

phenomenon that he calls “nano-panopticism” (i.e., all seeing) inwhich citizens feel constantlyunder surveillance.77 In a recentreport, the UK Royal Society alsohighlighted privacy concernsraised by nanosensors:

“…[Sensor] devices might be used inways that limit individual or groupprivacy by covert surveillance, bycollecting and distributing personalinformation (such as health or geneticprofiles) without adequate consent,and by concentrating information inthe hands of those with the resourcesto develop and control such net-works.” – Royal Society, “Nanoscienceand nanotechnologies: opportunitiesand uncertainties” 78

Swing low... Down with farmers

In the early 19th century the notion of farming without farm labourwas an unthinkable proposition. As English rural labourers returnedfrom the Napoleonic wars, however, they discovered that a new era inindustrial agriculture had begun without them. In their absence,labour had been replaced by mechanised threshing machines,pushing down agricultural wages and rendering workers redundantover the winter months. In the resulting “Swing riots” of 1830-32(named after the mythical leader Captain Swing – referring to theswinging motion of the hand scythe), hundreds of threshing ma-chines were smashed and burned across Southern England in thefirst popular, if short lived, act of resistance against industrial agricul-ture. Since then successive waves of technology, from tractors andcombine harvesters to herbicides and GM crops, have moved agricul-ture ever closer towards an industrial ideal in which agriculturalproduction more closely mirrors the factory system and agriculturallabourers are left under-paid, under-employed and unemployed.

Two decades before the Swing Riots, skilled British textile workersstruggled against their increasingly desperate conditions in much thesame way – by smashing newly-introduced machinery. Steam-powered looms and large knitting frames allowed less skilled work-ers to produce inferior products, depressing wages and prices. Thetechnoclast cotton-weavers, spinners, croppers and knitters – betterknown as Luddites – were protesting low wages, the high cost offood and threats to their reputations as skilled artisans.79

“…[Sensor] devices might

be used in ways that limit

individual or group

privacy by covert surveil-

lance, by collecting and

distributing personal

information (such as

health or genetic profiles)

without adequate con-

sent, and by concentrat-

ing information in the

hands of those with the

resources to develop and

control such networks.”

– Royal Society, “Nanoscienceand nanotechnologies:opportunities and uncertain-ties” 78

22

Trading Down: Nano-Commodities

Commodity Roulette: In its 2004report on nanotechnology, LuxResearch, Inc. highlights thepotential of nanotech to cause“dramatic shifts in supply andvalue chains.”80 In the agriculturalsector, farm commodities and thelivelihoods of over 1.3 billionpeople engaged in agriculture –half of the world’s working popu-lation – are at stake. The South’sprimary raw commodities areparticularly vulnerable: naturalfibres such as cotton and jute;tropical beverages (cocoa, coffee,tea); tropical oils (coconut, palm,etc.); and farm products rangingfrom exotic spices to cashew nutsand vanilla. According to UNCTAD,the value of agricultural rawmaterial exports in the developingworld is $26.7 billion.81 Commodi-ties and markets in the North willalso be affected as nanotech’sdesigner materials displaceconventional materials. However, itis generally the poorest nationsand those most dependent onagricultural exports that will facethe greatest disruption from theadoption of new, nano-structuredmaterials.

It is not the first time that newtechnologies have threatened toeliminate the production ofprimary export commodities inthe South. In the 1980s, biotechpromised to transfer productionof many tropical commodities tobio-fermentation facilities in theNorth. Why source vanilla (orrubber or cocoa or coffee) fromtropical countries when cellcultures can be coaxed to produce

“Just as the British Indus-

trial Revolution knocked

handspinners and

handweavers out of

business, nanotechnology

will disrupt a slew of

multibillion-dollar com-

panies and industries.”

– Lux Research, Inc., TheNanotech Report 2004

the same product in the labora-tory? But fermentation producedmaterials of inconsistent quality,and the cost of productioncouldn’t compete with the peren-nially rock-bottom prices paid toproducers of tropical commodi-ties. Will nanotech succeed wherebiotech fell short?

The following section takes acloser look at the potential im-pacts on cotton and rubbermarkets from nanoproductsalready on the market, or currentlyin development:

Nanofibres vs. Cotton – Perfect-ing the Perfect Pants: In the1952 comedy film “The Man in theWhite Suit,” a maverick textilescientist played by Alec Guinnessinvents a fabric that never getsdirty and never wears out. Farfrom welcoming this shiny innova-tion, his co-workers and bossesrecognise this new wonder fabricas a threat to their own jobs andbusiness and form mobs to hunthim down. Today, as invisiblenanofibres and nanoparticles areincorporated into “miracle” prod-ucts (including clothes), thesymbolic White Suit shines with anew relevance.

If there is a poster child for com-mercial nanotech, it’s the pants.Reminiscent of the doorstop tricksof travelling salesmen, it seemsthat every nano-proselytizer has atsome point whipped out theirmagical nano pants and spiltcoffee on them to a bemusedaudience (if all goes well thecoffee beads up like mercury androlls off without staining). Leadingthe way in nano-fashion is US-

23

“The implications of

reverse-engineering

Mother Nature’s designs

for our own technological

devices will be most

profound on the econo-

mies of manufacturing.

When companies can

cheaply and chemically

assemble materials and

devices in the same

manner that beer, cheese,

and wine are manufac-

tured today, it spells

disruption and dramatic

shifts in supply and value

chains.”

– Lux Research, Inc., TheNanotech Report 2004

based Nano-Tex, which is 51%-owned by Burlington Industries(BI). In its glory days, BI was thelargest textile company in theworld, but by 2001 it had filed forbankruptcy. When Wilbur Rossbought BI for $620 million in 2003– outbidding market mogulWarren Buffet – his plan forreviving BI was to use Nano-Textechnology on BI’s fabrics andlicense the technology to otherproducers.82 So far, Nano-Tex haslicensed its technology to 40textile mills and its nano-fabricshave been successfully incorpo-rated into clothing from some ofthe world’s best-known brands –including Eddie Bauer, Lee, Gap,Old Navy and Kathmandu.

Nano-Tex engineered a way toattach “nanowhiskers” to textilefibres using “nanohooks.” The“whiskers” prevent liquids frompenetrating the surface of thefabric making it stain-resistant. Asecond technology from Nano-Tex– “Coolest Comfort” – attempts tore-produce the qualities of naturalcotton (e.g., fast drying andmoisture-wicking) in syntheticfabrics. A third technology – Nano-Touch – is a synthetic fibre ma-nipulated at the nano-scale that

has the texture of cotton but ismuch stronger. According to thefounder of Nano-Tex, “This will beour blockbuster.”83

Blockbusters for Nano-Tex, per-haps, but not necessarily goodnews for the world’s 100,000,000families engaged in cotton pro-duction – the majority of whomfarm in the South.84 As a commod-ity, cotton has been in a bad wayfor some time. A century of pricedeclines was in part the result ofcheaper synthetic fibres takingaway market share. These manu-factured fibres ranged fromcellulose-based rayon(commercialised in 1891) toDupont’s petroleum-based fibressuch as nylon. Today, despiterecord harvests, cotton accountsfor only 40% of the world’s totalfibre consumption of around 52million tonnes. Other naturalfibres have fared no better: woolaccounts for a mere 2.5% and silkfor a tiny 0.2%. Total fibre use isexpected to reach almost sixtymillion tonnes per year by 2010but demand for artificial fibres isgrowing twice as fast as thedemand for cotton – even settingaside the potential impacts of newnano-fabrics.

Cotton: What’s at Stake?85

• Cotton is grown in more than 100 countries

• 35 of the 53 African countries produce cotton; 22 are exporters

• The value of world cotton production is estimated at $24 billion in2002/03

• Over 100 million families are engaged directly in cotton production

• Over one billion people are involved in the cotton sector worldwide– including family and hired labour to produce, transport, gin, baleand store cotton

24

Besides Nano-Tex’s nano-fabrics,there are others under develop-ment. A group led by chemist RayBaughman at the University ofTexas-Dallas has developedcarbon nanotube-based fabricswhich are 17 times tougher thanKevlar and that also carry anelectrical charge so that they canrun equipment such as cellphones.86 A team at ClemsonUniversity in South Carolina (USA)led by Professor Nader Jalili isdeveloping carbon nanofibrefabrics that would generateelectricity as the wearer moves.87

In another application beingdeveloped at MIT in conjunctionwith the Institute for SoldierNanotechnologies, materialscience professor Yoel Fink hasdeveloped glass nanofibres thatexhibit different colours depend-ing on the thickness of thethreads, potentially affecting themarket for clothing dyes. Fink andhis colleagues envision that theirglass nanothreads woven intoclothing will enable wearers tochange the colour of their cloth-ing on a whim – a sober grey for abusiness meeting and then abright fuschia for an evening date.First (perhaps within two years),the US Army will weave the nano-

thread into military uniforms tohelp soldiers distinguish between‘us’ and ‘them.’88

Nanoparticles vs. Rubber:Rubber, like cotton, is an agricul-tural commodity sourced prima-rily in its natural form from south-ern producers such as India,Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.Unlike cotton, natural rubber hasproven more resilient to thechallenge of synthetic counter-parts developed during World WarII. Although 75% of world rubberwas synthetic in 1964, the intro-duction of radial car tyres helpedrevive the market for naturalrubber. In 2004, total global rubberproduction is expected to be19.61 million tonnes of which 8.26million will be natural rubber(42%).89

Currently around 50% of a car tyreis made from natural rubber.92

Small particles of carbon black(including nanoparticles) havelong been mixed with the rubberto improve the wear and strengthof tyres. Many leading tyre manu-facturers are now developingengineered nanoparticles tofurther extend tyre life. Cabot, oneof the world’s leading tyre-rubberproducers, successfully tested“PureNano” silica carbide nanopar-

Rubber – What’s at Stake?

• The South’s natural rubber exports were valued at $3.6 billion in2000. The world’s top five producers are Thailand, Indonesia, India,Malaysia and China.

• Thailand accounts for more than one-third of the world’s naturalrubber.90

• 90% of Thailand’s rubber is produced on holdings of less than 4hectares. An estimated six million farmers produce natural rubber inThailand.91

It is generally the poorest

nations and those most

dependent on agricultural

exports that will face the

greatest disruption from

the adoption of new, nano-

structured materials.

25

ticles designed by NanoproductsCorporation of Colorado. Added totyres, the “PureNano” particlesreduced abrasion by almost fiftypercent – a simple improvementthat if widely adopted should helptyres last up to twice as long andthereby significantly reduce theneed for new tyre-rubber. Atpresent, 16.5 million tyres areretread every year in the USalone.93 Presumably that numberwould shrink by almost half. Othercompanies are looking to incorpo-rate carbon nanotubes, boastingof tyres that would outlive the carentirely. According to rumours inSilicon Valley, a contraceptivemanufacturer is also looking atthe possibility of adding carbonnanotubes to similarly strengthencondoms.94

Nano changes are scheduledinside tyres as well. Companiessuch as Inmat and Nanocorproduce nanoparticles of clay thatcan be mixed with plastics andsynthetic rubber to create an air-tight surface. Inmat’s nanoclay hasalready been used as a sealant for“double core” tennis ballsproduced by sports manu-facturer Wilson. The DoubleCore balls are said to havetwice the bounce becausethe nano-particles lock inair more effectively. Inmat,which was originally set upin co-operation withMichelin, the world’sleading tyre manufacturer,believes the same technol-ogy could be used to sealthe inside of tyres, reducingthe amount of butyl rubberrequired and making tyres

lighter, cheaper and cooler run-ning.95

The real prize is to replace rubberaltogether. One option is a superlightweight nanomaterial knownas an aerogel, which was pro-posed as a solid tyre material forthe Mars lander (in the end theywent with normal tyres). As thename suggests, aerogels arelargely composed of air (98%) –billions of nano-air bubbles in asilica matrix.96 Besides being light,aerogels are extremely heatresistant and make exceptionalinsulators. University of Missouri-Rolla (USA) chemists claim to havedeveloped a new waterproofaerogel that could be used inplace of tyre-rubber.97 At least onetyre company, Goodyear, holds apatent on a tyre that incorporatessilica aerogels for its tread.98 Theglobal tyre market is dominatedby five multinational firms:Michelin, Bridgestone, Goodyear,Continental and Sumitomo. In2001, the top 5 tyre manufacturersaccounted for over two-thirds ofglobal tyre sales.99

The real prize is to

replace rubber altogether.

26

Growing new nano-commodi-ties: As mass production ofnanomaterials steps up into multi-tonne quantities, new productionmethods are emerging that mayopen new markets for someagricultural feedstocks – albeit inrather small quantities:

Spinning a nano-yarn: Scientistsat Cambridge University in En-gland are exploring methods ofmaking carbon nanotubes out ofmaize-derived ethanol.102 Whilemost fabrication processes fornanotubes use petroleum orgraphite as a raw material, Dr. AlanWindle and his team inject etha-nol into a fast-flowing stream ofhydrogen gas that is carried into a1000ºC furnace. The high tempera-ture breaks down the ethanol andthe carbon atoms reassemble intonanotubes, each about a micron inlength, which float in the streamof hydrogen, loosely linked toeach other as an “elastic smoke.”Nanotubes are then drawn out ofthis amorphous cloud, much as aspinning wheel pulls thread fromwool. This method is able to make

continuous threads of carbonnanotubes up to 100 metres long,although currently only at a verylow quality.

It’s not just maize ethanol that canbe converted into useful nano-fibres. At Cornell University,another team is refining an olderprocess called “electrospinning.” 103

In this method, plant cellulose isdissolved in a solvent and thensqueezed through a pinhole withan electrical current producing afibre of less than 100 nm indiameter. The scientists are nowexperimenting with altering theproperties of those nanofibres forimproved strength.

According to Margaret Frey,assistant professor of textiles atCornell University, “Cellulose is themost abundant renewable re-source polymer on earth. It formsthe structure of all plants. Al-though researchers have pre-dicted that fibres with strengthapproaching Kevlar could bemade from this fibre, no one hasyet achieved it.” 104

“Cellulose is the most

abundant renewable

resource polymer on earth.

It forms the structure of

all plants. Although

researchers have

predicted that fibres with

strength approaching

Kevlar could be made

from this fibre, no one

has yet achieved it.”

– Margaret Frey, assistantprofessor of textiles atCornell University.104

Food = Nature’s Nanomaterials

In a recent article in the journal Nature Materials, a researcher at theCavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University urged her materialscientist colleagues to consider agriculture not as a “feedstock withan essentially uncontrollable composition,” but as “a rich and diversecategory of materials,” many of them “nanostructure composites, inwhich self-assembly may play a key role.”100 Athene Donald pointsout that the variability of feedstocks, an unavoidable characteristic ofall natural products due to regional differences of soil, climate andcultivar, produce “unreliable” ingredients that nanotechnologists willbe able to make more uniform, stable and even more nutritious.Recognizing that, at least in Europe, “science has lost out to emotion”in the GM debate, she has greater hopes for nanotechnology to“improve raw products” in a way that will be acceptable to the public.101

27

In the future, industrial

nanoparticles may not be

produced in a laboratory,

but grown in fields of

genetically engineered

crops – what might be

called “particle farming.”

The Cornell researchers arefocusing on recovering cellulosefrom the waste discarded incotton production, but, theoreti-cally, they could harvest cellulosefrom any plant waste.105 That maybe good news for textile compa-nies who could shop around forcheap plant material waste, but isunlikely to be an economic boonto farmers because cellulose is soabundant.

Particle Farming: In the future,industrial nanoparticles may notbe produced in a laboratory, butgrown in fields of geneticallyengineered crops – what might becalled “particle farming.” It’s beenknown for some time that plantscan use their roots to extractnutrients and minerals from thesoil but research from the Univer-sity of Texas-El Paso confirms thatplants can also soak up nano-particles that could be industriallyharvested. In one particle farmingexperiment, alfalfa plants weregrown on an artificially gold-richsoil on university grounds. Whenresearchers examined the plants,they found gold nanoparticles inthe roots and along the entireshoot of the plants that hadphysical properties like thoseproduced using conventionalchemistry techniques, which areexpensive and harmful to theenvironment.106 The metals areextracted simply by dissolving theorganic material.

Initial experiments showed thatthe gold particles formed inrandom shapes, but changing theacidity of the growing mediumappears to result in more uniformshapes.107 The researchers are now

working with other metals andwith wheat and oats in addition toalfalfa to produce nanoparticles ofsilver, Europium, palladium,platinum and iron.108 For indus-trial-scale production, the re-searchers speculate that theparticle plants can be grownindoors in gold-enriched soils, orthey can be farmed nearbyabandoned gold mines.109

Meanwhile nanobiotech research-ers at the National ChemistryLaboratory in Pune, India havebeen carrying out similar workwith geranium leaves immersed ina gold-rich solution.110 After 3-4hours, the leaves produce 10 nm-sized particles shaped as rods,spheres and pyramids which,according to researcher MuraliSastry, appear to be shapedaccording to the aromatic com-pounds in the leaves. By alteringthose aromatic compounds Sastrybelieves it will be possible to alterthe shape of the nanoparticles(and their properties).

Sizing Up the Impacts of Com-modity Roulette: It’s too early tomap with confidence how a newnano-economy of designerparticles will alter production oftraditional agricultural commodi-ties – but it’s clear that it will. Withnanotech patents and innovationdriven from the North (especiallythe US), there will be a push toreplace tropical commodities suchas rubber and high quality cottonwith cheaper raw materials thatcan be sourced and manipulatedcloser to home (maize, oats, cottonleftovers). We are not arguing thatthe status quo should be pre-served, or that peasant farmers

With nanotech patents

and innovation driven

from the North (espe-

cially the US), there will

be a push to replace

tropical commodities such

as rubber and high qual-

ity cotton with cheaper

raw materials that can be

sourced and manipulated

closer to home (maize,

oats, cotton leftovers).

28

and agricultural workers shouldbe forever dependent on notori-ously fickle export crops. The pointis that tiny tech will bring titanicsocio-economic disruptions forwhich society is ill-prepared. Asalways, it is the poor who are mostvulnerable.

New nanomaterials could bringenvironmental benefits. Forexample, a reduction in thenumber of used tyres couldalleviate the burden of discardedtyres in dumps and landfills. Nano-sceptics will note, however, thatnanomaterials designed to replacenatural rubber could introducenew disposal problems and newcontaminants in the environment.

In the short term, well-positionedindustrial farmers who are able toprovide large amounts of cellulosemay find themselves with a nichemarket and extra income fromwhat was previously consideredtrash. And perhaps at some pointethanol markets might see a blip,but even North American farmerswould be misled to think they aregoing to be at the heart of thenew nano-economy. If spinningnanofibres from cellulose orethanol really takes off, the realwinners will be the large grainprocessors who could offer thesecommodities cheaply.

Extracting nanoparticles frommineral-rich land by growingspecially bred or engineeredplants could become significantfor poorer regions, especiallythose that have mining econo-mies. If it becomes feasible toextract minerals using particle-processing plants, it could provide

an alternative to a hazardousoccupation, and provide newincome opportunities for develop-ing nations. But particle farming isnot an approach that is likely to besuitable for small-scale andpeasant farmers. Recapturing andcharacterising nanoparticlesrequires high-tech processingfacilities of a sort not available tosmall-scale producers. It is also anapproach that could significantlyaffect land use patterns withpreviously marginal lands becom-ing sought after for particle-farming of rare minerals – aprocess that could displacetraditional cultures and sensitiveecologies. The release of plantsgenetically engineered to improvenanoparticle production wouldraise significant biosafety con-cerns, as could the prospect ofcrops containing bioactivenanoparticles mixing with thefood supply.

Other Nanomaterial uses downon the farm: A number ofprojects around the world areexploring the use of nanoparticleson the farm for purposes otherthan pesticides – from enhancedphotosynthesis to better germina-tion and soil management.

• Buckyball fertiliser? Researchersat Kyoto university (Japan) havediscovered a method of pro-ducing ammonia using buckyballs.Ammonia is a key component offertiliser but it is not clear if theresulting product for use in thefields would contain buckyballs.111

• TiO2 nano mixture: Scientists at

the University of Korea haveapplied for a patent on a liquid

New nanomaterials could

bring environmental

benefits; however, nano-

materials designed to

replace natural rubber

could introduce new

disposal problems and

new contaminants in the

environment.

29

The Russian Academy of

Sciences reports that they

have been able to improve

the germination of tomato

seeds by spraying a

solution of iron nano-

particles on to fields.113

after which time it dissolves in thegroundwater and becomesindistinguishable from naturally-occurring iron.

Nanomal Pharm

Livestock and fish will also beaffected by the nanotechnologyrevolution. While the great hopesof nanomedicine are diseasedetection and new pharmaceuti-cals for humans, veterinary appli-cations of nanotechnology maybecome the proving ground foruntried and more controversialtechniques – from nanocapsulevaccines to sex selection inbreeding.

Biochips: Using biochips, biologi-cal samples such as blood, tissueand semen can be instantaneouslyanalysed and manipulated. Infewer than five years, biochipshave become a standard technol-ogy for genomics and drugdiscovery and they are nowmoving into commercial health-care and food safety applications.

A biochip (or microarray) is adevice typically made of hundredsor thousands of short strands ofartificial DNA deposited preciselyon a silicon circuit. In DNA arrays,each DNA strand acts as a selec-tive probe and when it binds tomaterial in a sample (e.g., blood)an electrical signal is recorded.Rather like conducting a wordsearch across a piece of text, thebiochip is able to report back onfound genetic sequences basedon the DNA probes built into it.The best-known biochips arethose produced by Affymetrix, thecompany that pioneered thetechnology and was first to

mixture composed of titaniumdioxide nanoparticles which theyclaim will destroy harmful pests,enhance photosynthesis andstimulate growth when applied torice plants.112

• Seeding Iron: The RussianAcademy of Sciences reports thatthey have been able to improvethe germination of tomato seedsby spraying a solution of ironnanoparticles on to fields.113

• Soil Binder: In 2003, ETC Groupreported on a nanotech-based soilbinder called SoilSet developedby Sequoia Pacific Research ofUtah (USA).114 SoilSet is a quick-setting mulch which relies onchemical reactions on the nano-scale to bind the soil together. Itwas sprayed over 1,400 acres ofEncebado mountain in NewMexico to prevent erosionfollowing forest fires as well as onsmaller areas of forest burns inMendecino County, California.

• Soil cleanup: A number ofapproaches are being developedto apply nanotechnology andparticularly nanoparticles tocleaning up soils contaminatedwith heavy metals and PCBs. Dr.Wei-xang Zhang has pioneered anano clean-up method ofinjecting nano-scale iron into acontaminated site.115 The particlesflow along with the groundwaterand decontaminate en route,which is much less expensive thandigging out the soil to treat it. Dr.Zhang’s tests with nano-scale ironshow significantly lowercontaminant levels within a day ortwo. The tests also show that thenano-scale iron will remain activein the soil for six to eight weeks,

30

produce a DNA chip that analysesan entire human genome on asingle chip the size of a dime.116

In addition to DNA biochips thereare other variations that detectminute quantities of proteins andchemicals in a sample, makingthem useful for detectingbiowarfare agents or disease.Biochip analysis machines the sizeof an inkjet printer are commer-cially available from companiessuch as Agilent (Hewlett-Packard)and Motorola – each able toprocess up to 50 samples inaround half an hour.

Chips can be used for early diseasedetection in animals. Researchersat the University of Pretoria, forexample, are developing biochipsthat will detect common diseasesborne by ticks.117 Biochips can alsobe used to trace the source offood and feeds. For example,bioMérieux’s “FoodExpert-ID” chiprapidly tests feed to detect thepresence of animal products fromforty different species as a meansto locate the source of pathogens– a response to public healththreats such as avian flu and madcow disease.118

One goal is to functionalisebiochips for breeding purposes.With the mapping of the humangenome behind them, geneticistsare now rapidly sequencing thegenomes of cattle, sheep, poultry,pig and other livestock hoping toidentify gene sequences thatrelate to commercially valuabletraits such as disease resistanceand leanness of meat. By includingprobes for these traits on biochips,breeders will be able to speedily

identify champion breeders andscreen out genetic diseases.

Micro / Nanofluidics:Microfluidics is a newer technol-ogy platform on the same scale asbiochips. Microfluidic andnanofluidic systems analyse bycontrolling the flow of liquids orgases through a series of tinychannels and valves, therebysorting them, much as a computercircuit sorts data through wiresand logic gates. Microfluidicchannels, often etched into silicon,can be less than 100 nm wide. Thisallows them to handle biologicalmaterials such as DNA, proteins orcells in minute quantities – usuallynano-liters or pico-liters (1000times smaller than a nanoliter).Microfluidics not only enable veryprecise analysis, they also open upthe potential for manipulation ofliving matter by mixing, separatingand handling different compo-nents at the nano-scale.

Microfluidics is being used inlivestock breeding to physicallysort sperm and eggs. Leader in thisfield is XY, Inc. of Colorado (USA),which is using a microfluidictechnique called flow cytometryto segregate male and femalesperm for sex selection. XY hassuccessfully bred sex-selectedhorses, cattle, sheep and pigs andnow provides its technology tocommercial breeders. Nanotechstartup Arryx, which has devel-oped a new microfluidic systemcalled MatRyx, uses a nano-technique in which tiny lasertractor beams trap individualsperm and then sort them byweight. MatRyx can sort around

“Enthusiastic researchers

say that the miniaturiza-

tion and integration of

chemistry and biology will

fuel a revolution. What

electronics did for compu-

tation, microfluidics can do

for biology.”

– Kyle James, Small Times121

31

3,000 sperm per second, and aimsfor commercialisation in cattlebreeding. “This way dairy farmerscan have cows and beef farmerscan have bulls that have moremeat,” explains Arryx’s CEO LewisGruber.119 His goal is to produce asimple one-button sex sorter.

Matthew Wheeler, University ofIllinois professor of animal science,has gone one further in develop-ing a microfluidic device that notonly sorts sperm and eggs butalso brings them together in a waythat mimics the movement ofnatural reproduction and thenhandles the resulting embryo.According to Dr. Wheeler, such atechnique would make massproduction of embryos cheap,quick and reliable.120 He and hiscolleagues have started a spin-offcompany, Vitaelle, tocommercialise this technology.

Nano-Veterinary Medicine: Thefield of nanomedicine offers evermore breathless promises of newdiagnoses and cures as well asways of improving human perfor-mance. The US National ScienceFoundation expectsnanotechnology to account foraround half of all pharmaceuticalindustry sales by 2010. What is lesshyped is that the same impact islikely to hit the animal healthmarket – either as nanotech-nologies show their worth inhuman medicine or as a provingground for more controversialapproaches to nanomedicine,such as using DNA nanocapsules.Companies such as SkyePharma,IDEXX and Probiomed are cur-rently developing nanoparticleveterinary applications. A full

“In the era of new health

related technologies,

Veterinary Medicine will

enter a phase of new and

incredible transformations.

The major contributor to

those changes is our

recent ability to measure,

manipulate and organize

matter at the nano-scale

level...”

– Dr. Jose Feneque, Miami,Florida

assessment of how pharmaceuti-cal companies are usingnanotechnology in drug develop-ment and delivery is beyond thescope of this report. Brieflysummarised below are some ofthe key technologies that arealso relevant to animal pharma-ceuticals:

Drug Discovery: The ability toimage and isolate biologicalmolecules on the nano-scaleopens the door for more precisedrug design as well as much fastergenomic screening and screeningof compounds to assess theirsuitability as drugs. Pharmacompanies are particularly inter-ested in using biochips andmicrofluidic devices (see above) toscreen tissues for genetic differ-ences so that they can designgenetically targeted drugs(pharmacogenomics).122

Disease Detection: Nanoparticles,which are able to move easilyaround the body, can be used fordiagnosis. Of particular interest arequantum dots – cadmium se-lenide nanocrystals which fluo-resce in different colours depend-ing on their size. Quantum dotscan be functionalised to tagdifferent biological components,like proteins or DNA strands, withspecific colours. In this way ablood sample can be quicklyscreened for certain proteins thatmay indicate a higher propensityfor disease. A similar effect can beachieved with gold nanoshells,tiny beads of glass covered with alayer of gold that change coloursdepending on the thickness of thegold. Both nanoshells and quan-tum dots can be designed to bind

32

to tumours and malignant cellswhen introduced into the body,allowing them to be more pre-cisely identified. Scientists at RiceUniversity who have pioneeredthis technique have also shown, inanimals, that the nanoshells canbe heated up by lasers so thatthey selectively destroy thediseased tissue they lock onto,without harming skin or nearbyhealthy tissue. This technology hasbeen commercially licensed to astartup called Nanospectra.123

New Delivery Mechanisms:Drugs themselves are set to shrink.Nano-sized structures have theadvantage of being able to sneakpast the immune system andacross barriers (e.g., the blood-brain barrier or the stomach wall)the body uses to keep out un-wanted substances.

Pharmaceutical compoundsreformulated as nanoparticles notonly reach parts of the body thattoday’s formulations cannot, theirlarge surface area can also makethem more biologically active.Increased bioavailability meansthat lower concentrations ofexpensive drug compoundswould be required, with poten-tially fewer side effects.124

Nanoparticles can also be used ascarriers to smuggle attachedcompounds through the body.Leading nanopharma companiessuch as SkyePharma andPowderject (now a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Chiron) have devel-oped methods of deliveringnanoparticle pharmaceuticalsacross skin or via inhalation.Researchers in Florida are workingon nano delivery systems that

diffuse drugs across the eye fromspecially impregnated contactlenses. As with pesticide delivery,the big interest is in ‘controlledrelease.’ Many of the big pharmaand animal pharma companiesworking on nano-drugs are usingencapsulation technologies suchas nanocapsules to smuggleactive compounds into andaround the body. The capsules canbe functionalised to bind atspecific places in the body, or beactivated by an external trigger,such as a magnetic pulse orultrasound. The USDA comparesthese functionalised drugnanocapsules, called “SmartDelivery Systems,” to the postalsystem, where molecular-coded“address labels” ensure that thepackaged pharmaceutical reachesits intended destination.125

Besides capsules, other nano-materials being used to deliverdrugs include:

• BioSilicon is a highly poroussilicon-based nanomaterialproduct, which can release amedicine slowly over a period oftime. Developed by Australiancompany pSivida, the companyuses its BioSilicon technology tofashion tiny capsules (to beswallowed) and also tiny needlesthat can be built into a patch toinvisibly pierce the skin anddeliver drugs.126

• Fullerenes, the so called “miraclemolecules” of nanotechnology(buckyballs and carbon nanotubesare included in this class of carbonmolecules), are hollow cages ofsixty carbon atoms less than acouple of nanometers wide.

Pharmaceutical compounds

reformulated as nano-

particles not only reach

parts of the body that

today’s formulations

cannot, their large sur-

face area can also make

them more biologically

active. Increased

bioavailability means that

lower concentrations of

expensive drug com-

pounds would be re-

quired, with potentially

fewer side effects.124

33

Because they are hollow, pharmacompanies are exploring fillingthe fullerenes with drugcompounds and thenfunctionalising them to bind indifferent parts of the body.

• Dendrimers are branchingmolecules that have a tree-likestructure and are becoming oneof the most popular tools innanotechnology. Because of theirshape and nano-size, dendrimershave three advantages in drugdelivery: first, they can hold adrug’s molecules in their structureand serve as a delivery vehicle;second, they can enter cells easilyand release drugs on target; third,and most importantly, dendrimersdon’t trigger immune systemresponses. Dendrimers can also beused for chemical analysis anddiagnosis – raising the futurepossibility of synthetic moleculesthat can locate, diagnose and thentreat tumours or other sick cells.

• DNA nanocapsules smugglestrands of viral DNA into cells.Once the capsule breaks down,the DNA hijacks the cells’machinery to producecompounds that would beexpected in a virus attack, thusalerting and training the immunesystem to recognise them. DNAnanocapsule technology couldalso be used to hijack living cellsto produce other compoundssuch as new proteins or toxins. Asa result, they must be carefullymonitored as a potentialbiowarfare technology.

Sizing Up Nano-Pharmaceuti-cals: Nanotechnology could offerthe pharmaceutical industry thekey to unleashing a torrent of new

and old drug compounds. Notonly are profits and patents to begained by shrinking existing drugsto the nano-scale, but there is alsothe opportunity to resurrect drugsthat previously failed clinical trialsin a larger form. By encapsulatingpharmacologically active com-pounds and claiming that theywill be targeted to a very specificsite in the body, companies couldargue that general side-effects areno longer a concern, and that oldsafety assessments are no longerrelevant.

Nano-scale pharmaceuticalsapproved for animal use must alsobe carefully tested and monitoredto prevent them from entering thefood chain. It is not understoodhow nanoparticles persist in andmove around the body, nor whetherthey can migrate to milk, eggs andmeat. Existing animal pharmadrugs will need to be reevaluatedby regulatory authorities if theyare re-formulated in a nano-scaleform since the properties ofmaterials can change at this size.

Chicken Little Particles:Campylobacter jejeuni is a group ofspiral-shaped bacteria that causeabdominal cramps and bloodydiarrhoea in humans, and areusually contracted from contami-nated poultry products. Withpathogens gaining alarming levelsof resistance to traditional antibi-otics, the poultry industry isturning to nanotech for newmeans of fighting bacterialpathogens such as Campylobacter.At Clemson University (SouthCarolina, USA), researchers fundedby USDA have been experiment-ing with specially designed

Not only are profits and

patents to be gained by

shrinking existing drugs

to the nano-scale, but

there is also the opportu-

nity to resurrect drugs

that previously failed

clinical trials in a larger

form.

34

polystyrene nanoparticles to fightcontamination on the farm. Thenanoparticles are ingested bychickens and are designed to bindto Campylobacter in the gut of thechicken. Researchers hope that theparticles will dislodge bacteriafrom the intestine and then beexcreted along with feces, reduc-ing the rate of contamination inthe birds sent for processing.127

According to Clemson researcherDr. Robert Latour, the method’ssafety and efficacy is being testedon small numbers of animals.128

Smart Herds: Livestock trackinghas been a problem for farmerssince before Little Bo Peep lost hersheep. Nano-Bo-Peep, however,would have no such problems.Just as converging technologies incrop production will usenanosensor networks to continu-ously monitor the health of plants,so, too, will sensors monitor live-stock. The USDA envisions the rise of‘smart herds’ – cows, sheep and pigsfitted with sensors and locatorsrelaying data about their health andgeographical location to a centralcomputer.

This is a vision of precision agricul-ture on the hoof. The long-termaim is not merely to monitor, butalso to automatically and autono-mously intervene with pharma-ceuticals using small drug deliverydevices that can be implanted intothe animal in advance of illness.The notion of linking in-builtsensors to in-built smart deliverysystems has been called “the fuelinjection principle” since it mimicsthe way modern cars use sensorsto time fuel-delivery to the engine.The closest applications to market

are implantable insulin-deliverydevices or “drug chips” that will belinked with glucose sensors for(human) diabetics to automati-cally regulate blood sugar levels.Over time, this could become themodel for all drug delivery, in bothhumans and animals.

One of the current barriers toimplantable medical devices isthat their composite materials(e.g., metal or plastics) are oftenincompatible with living tissue.New materials, engineered at thenano-scale to be biocompatible,seek to address this problem.

Sizing Up the “ Nanomal” Farm:Implanting tracking devices inanimals is nothing new – either inpets, valuable farm animals or forwildlife conservation. Injectablemicrochips are already used in avariety of ways with the aim ofimproving animal welfare andsafety – to study animal behaviourin the wild, to track meat productsback to their source or to reunitestrays with their human guardians.In the nanotech era, however,retrofitting farm animals withsensors, drug chips and nano-capsules will further extend thevision of animals as industrialproduction units. Animals also arelikely to be used as the testingground for less savoury or morerisky applications that could laterbe extended to human beings.Using microfluidics for breeding islikely to accelerate genetic unifor-mity within livestock species andalso opens the possibility ofapplying new nano-eugenic tech-nologies to humans in the future.The ability to remotely regulateanimals may have adverse affects

The USDA envisions the

rise of ‘smart herds’ –

cows, sheep and pigs

fitted with sensors and

locators relaying data

about their health and

geographical location to a

central computer.

35

as livestock go longer periodswithout direct human care.

The same technologies transferredto humans raises profoundconcerns about quality of life andcivil liberties. In October 2004 theUS Food and Drug Administrationapproved the use of implantablemicrochips in humans to provideeasy access to an individual’smedical records – the first ap-proval of microchips for medicaluses in the United States.129

As healthcare is driven more andmore by the bottom line, thefuture use of implantable chips forautomated drug delivery maybecome economically preferableto nursing. When dealing with theelderly or those with differentcognitive abilities or with anycondition requiring regulartreatment, ethical questions mayarise about who decides to makean individual ‘fuel injected.’Automated drug delivery couldallow some people to live inde-pendently who would otherwisebe institutionalised. However, theabsence of human caretakers isalso a factor.

Nano-Aquaculture: The world’sfastest growing area of animalproduction is the farming of fish,crustaceans and molluscs, particu-larly in Asia. According to the FAOthere were 45.7 million tonnes ofaquaculture production in 2000and it is growing at a rate of morethan 9% per year.130 With a stronghistory of adopting new technolo-gies, the highly integrated fish-farming industry may be amongthe first to incorporate andcommercialise nanotech products.

Emerging applications include:

• Cleaning fishponds: Nevada-based Altair Nanotechnologiesmakes a water cleaning productfor swimming pools andfishponds called ‘NanoCheck.’ Ituses 40 nm particles of alanthanum-based compoundwhich absorbs phosphates fromthe water and prevents algaegrowth. NanoCheck is currentlyundergoing large-scale testing inswimming pools and Altair isexpected to launch a swimmingpool cleaner in early 2005.131 Altairhas its eye on a potentially largedemand for NanoCheck for use inthousands of commercial fishfarms worldwide where algaeremoval and prevention is costlyat present. According to Altair, thecompany plans to expand its teststo confirm that its nanoparticleswill not harm fish, but no mentionis made of the tests that will beundertaken to examine theimpacts of nanoparticle-ladenrun-off on human health or on theenvironment.132

• DNA Nano-vaccines: The USDA iscompleting trials on a system formass vaccination of fish usingultrasound.133 Nanocapsulescontaining short strands of DNAare added to a fishpond wherethey are absorbed into the cells ofthe fish. Ultrasound is then used torupture the capsules, releasing theDNA and eliciting an immuneresponse from the fish. Thistechnology has so far been testedon rainbow trout by Clear SpringsFoods (Idaho, US) – a major aqua-culture company that producesabout one third of all US farmedtrout.

Nanocapsules containing

short strands of DNA are

added to a fishpond

where they are absorbed

into the cells of the fish.

Ultrasound is then used

to rupture the capsules,

releasing the DNA and

eliciting an immune

response from the fish.

36

• Fast growing fish: Scientists fromthe Russian Academy of Scienceshave reported that young carpand sturgeon exhibited a fasterrate of growth (30% and 24%respectively) when they were fednanoparticles of iron.134

The Future of Farming:Nanobiotech and SyntheticBiology

At the dawn of the 21st century,genetic engineering is suddenlyold hat. The world’s first syntheticbiology conference convened inJune 2004. Two months later, theUniversity of California at Berkeleyannounced the establishment ofthe first synthetic biology depart-ment in the United States.136

According to science reporter W.Wayt Gibbs, synthetic biologyinvolves “designing and buildingliving systems that behave inpredictable ways, that use inter-changeable parts, and in somecases that operate with an ex-panded genetic code, whichallows them to do things that nonatural organism can.”137 One ofthe goals, writes Gibbs, is to“stretch the boundaries of life andof machines until the two overlapto yield truly programmableorganisms.”138

Although synthetic biology is notalways synonymous withnanobiotechnology (i.e., themerging of the living and non-living realms at the nano-scale tomake hybrid materials and organ-isms), the programming andfunctioning of “living machines” inthe future will frequently involvethe integration of biological andnon-biological parts at the nano-scale. Scientists at Berkeley’s new

“Whereas now we grow a

tree, cut it down, and

build a table, in fifty

years we might simply

grow a table. As more

engineers work on bio-

logical systems, our

industrial infrastructure

will be transformed. Fifty

years ago it was based on

coal and steel. Now it is

based on silicon and

information. Fifty years

from now it will be based

on living systems. Sort of

like a new agricultural

age, only of a radically

different kind.”

– Rodney Brooks, MIT’sComputer Science andArtificial Intelligence Labora-tory135

synthetic biology department, forexample, are particularly inter-ested in the design and construc-tion of “biobots” – autonomousrobots designed for a specialpurpose that are the size of a virusor cell, and composed of bothbiological and artificial parts.139

Scientists have been taking stepsto build life from the nano-scalefor some time. In 1968, Indian-American chemist Har GobindKhorana received a Nobel Prize forsynthesising nucleotides (thechemical subunits – A, T, C, G – thatmake up the DNA molecule),stringing them together intosynthetic DNA. By February 1976, aCalifornia research team (that laterfounded Genentech) developedan automated process for synthe-sising DNA and constructed a fullyfunctioning synthetic gene. Syn-thetic genes and synthetic DNA arenow a staple of genetic engineeringin medicine and agriculture.

In 2002 researchers at Stony Brook(the State University of New York)synthesised the 7,440 letters in thepoliovirus’s genome using mail-order segments of DNA. It took theStony Brook researchers threeyears to build a live polio virusfrom scratch. Less than two yearslater, a team led by Craig Venter(formerly of the Human GenomeProject) was able to synthesise aslightly smaller virus in just threeweeks, raising the prospect ofrapid assembly of artificial micro-organisms – and the possibility ofdesigning dangerous biowarfareagents from scratch.

Venter, who heads the Institute ofBiological Energy Alternatives

37

(IBEA), is now building a new typeof bacterium using DNA manufac-tured in the laboratory. His team ismodifying DNA from Mycoplasmagenitalium, a bacterium that hasthe smallest number of genes ofany living cell, with the goal ofreducing it to only those genesnecessary for life. The researcherswill insert the minimal life formback into a normal bacterial cellthat has been stripped of its DNA.According to Professor ClydeHutchison, a biochemist whohelped sequence the Mycoplasmagenome, “The advantage of asynthetic organism over manipu-lating natural organisms ... is thenyou would have a lot more controlover the properties of the cell thanif you rely on natural mechanisms.For either good purposes or badpurposes ... you’d be in a betterposition to design exactly whatyou want.”140

With funding from the US Depart-ment of Energy (DOE), Venter’seventual goal is to build syntheticorganisms that could produceenergy and mitigate climatechange. Both Venter and the DOEpoint to the wider applications ofsynthetic life, noting that benefitscould include “the development ofbetter vaccines and safer strate-gies for gene therapy; improvingagricultural crop yields that arebetter disease resistance [sic] andimproving strategies for combat-ing agricultural diseases and evenenhancing our ability to detectand defeat potential biothreatagents which is important tohomeland security.”141 Venter hashinted that he will unveil a novel,artificial genome in late 2004 that

is larger than a virus but smallerthan a bacterium.142

In the summer of 2003, ETC Groupreported on research at theUniversity of Florida to create anartificial nucleotide, a human-made counterpart to one of thefour chemical components thatmake up DNA (A, G, C and T).143

Since then, other researchers atthe University of Florida havebeen able to add a second artifi-cial letter – so that there are six inall – and, more remarkably, to coaxthe newly-expanded DNA mol-ecule to make copies of itself.144

The research team was able to“evolve” its artificial DNA throughfive generations. According to thelead scientist on the project, theadvance “will enhance our abilityto detect unwanted geneticmaterial from viruses, bacteria andeven biological warfare agents. Itwill also streamline our ability todetect defects in natural DNA,such as those responsible forcancers and genetic diseases.”145

As ETC Group pointed out lastyear, these advances are either thegreatest thing since spliced DNAor they could create end productsthat contribute as much to bio-logical weaponry as to diseasedetection and new medicines.

Green Goo: “Green Goo” is theterm ETC Group uses to describepotential dangers associated withsynthetic biology or nanobiotech-nology. Researchers are coaxingliving organisms to performmechanical functions preciselybecause living organisms arecapable of self-assembly and self-replication. They envision harness-ing living cells and custom-made

“I suspect that, in five

years or so, the artificial

genetic systems that we

have developed will be

supporting an artificial

life form that can repro-

duce, evolve, learn and

respond to environmental

change.”

– Professor Steven Benner,Chemist, University ofFlorida146

38

living organisms to performspecific biochemical tasks, such asproducing hydrogen or sequester-ing carbon dioxide. But what ifnew life forms, especially thosethat are designed to functionautonomously in the environment,prove difficult to control or contain?What if something goes wrong?That’s the specter of Green Goo.

Asilomar+30? Some researchersin the field of synthetic biologyhave begun to acknowledgepotential risks and ethical implica-tions of their work. A recenteditorial in Nature suggests that itmay be time for an Asilomar-typesummit to demonstrate publiclythat members of the syntheticbiology community “are willing toconsult and reflect carefully aboutrisk – both perceived and genuine– and to moderate their actionsaccordingly.”148

What is Asilomar? In 1974 acommittee of molecular biologistsand biochemists was establishedby the US National Academy ofSciences to address mountingconcerns over potential hazardsassociated with genetic engineer-ing in the laboratory. The commit-tee released an open letter in July1974 calling for a voluntary andpartial moratorium on geneticengineering lab experiments, andfor an international meeting ofscientists to address potentialbiohazards. Asilomar refers to theCalifornia conference centerwhere prominent molecularbiologists gathered in February1975. The scientists draftedguidelines for genetic engineeringresearch and recommended thatthe partial moratorium be lifted.

Though calls are being made tohold a new Asilomar-type gather-ing, ETC Group believes thatAsilomar is an unacceptablemodel for today’s world. Thirtyyears ago, participation atAsilomar was limited to a hand-picked group of elite scientistswho promoted an agenda of self-regulation for genetic engineeringas a means of preempting thespecter of government action; thescope of discussion was limited toquestions of hazards and safety –explicitly excluding broader socialand ethical issues.149 According toUniversity of Michigan historian,Susan Wright, several reporterswho covered the Asilomar meet-ing concluded the conference“was intended to avoid publicinvolvement rather than toencourage it.”150

While there is an urgent need toaddress the social and ethicalimplications and potential risksassociated with synthetic biologyand nanobiotechnology – anyefforts to confine discussions tomeetings of experts or to focusdebate solely on the environmen-tal, health and safety aspects ofnano-scale technologies will be amistake. Similarly, efforts to“educate” or “consult” with citizensfor the sake of improving publicrelations or of pre-emptingregulatory scrutiny are likely tobackfire. In its recent report, See-Through Science, UK-based Demosasserts that public engagement inscience and technology issuesmust not simply inform decisionsmade by governments – it mustactively shape them.151

“If biologists are indeed

on the threshold of syn-

thesizing new life forms,

the scope for abuse or

inadvertent disaster could

be huge.”

Philip Ball, Nature, October 7,2004.147

Though calls are being

made to hold a new

Asilomar-type gathering,

ETC Group believes that

Asilomar is an unaccept-

able model for today’s

world.

39

II. NANO FOOD AND NUTRITIONOR “NANOTECH FOR TUMMIES”

Introduction: A handful of foodand nutrition products containinginvisible nano-scale additives arealready commercially available.Hundreds of companies areconducting research and develop-ment (R&D) on the use ofnanotech to engineer, process,package and deliver food andnutrients to our shopping basketsand our plates. Among them aregiant food and beverage corpora-tions, as well as tiny nanotechstart-ups.

According to Jozef Kokini, theDirector of the Center for Ad-vanced Food Technology atRutgers University (New Jersey,USA), “every major food corpora-tion has a program in nanotech oris looking to develop one.”153 A2004 report produced by HelmutKaiser Consultancy, “Nanotech-nology in Food and Food Process-ing Industry Worldwide,” predictsthat the nanofood market willsurge from $2.6 billion today to $7billion in 2006 and to $20.4 billionin 2010.154 In addition to a handfulof nano food products that arealready on the market, over 135applications of nanotechnology infood industries (primarily nutritionand cosmetics) are in variousstages of development.155 Accord-ing to Helmut Kaiser, more than200 companies worldwide areengaged in nanotech researchand development related to food.Among the 20 most active compa-nies are five that rank among theworld’s 10 largest food and

beverage corporations, Australia’sleading food corporation, andJapan’s largest seafood producerand processed food manufacturer.(See Annex 1).

Despite the obvious enthusiasmfor nano-scale science and itsapplications to food engineeringand processing, the food & bever-age industry is generally conserva-tive and cautious when talkingabout the future of nanotech andfood. Most industry representa-tives interviewed by ETC Groupdeclined to provide specificdetails about the level of fundingand industry partners. We spoke toscientists at giant food andbeverage corporations (Kraft andNestlé), as well as universityresearchers and representativesfrom small nanotech start-ups(often one and the same). Afterwitnessing widespread rejectionof genetically modified foods, thefood industry may be especiallyskittish about owning up to R&Don “atomically modified” foodproducts. “The food industry ismore traditional than othersectors like IBM” [wherenanotechnology can be applied],explains Gustavo Larsen, a profes-sor of chemical engineering and aformer consultant to Kraft.156 “Mytake is that there are good oppor-tunities and it’s often morefeasible to realise these opportu-nities [in the food sector]. You canmake nanoparticles and use themin foods – you don’t have toassemble them first.”157 When

“It is possible that it is

only a matter of time

until we see the products

of nanotechnology on our

plate.”

–Food Technology, December2003152

“Every major food corpo-

ration has a program in

nanotech or is looking to

develop one.”153

– Jozef Kokini, Director of theCenter for Advanced FoodTechnology , Rutgers Univer-sity

40

asked what he believes will be thefirst products of nanotech R&Drelated to food, Larsen said thatconsumers are likely to see pack-aging composed of nano-scalematerials before novel foodproducts. “I think the packaging isa safer bet,” said Larsen.

Molecular FoodManufacturing

Some people claim that in thefuture, molecular engineering willenable us to “grow” unlimitedquantities of food without soil,seed, farms or farmers – and that itwill wipe-out global hunger in theprocess. Consider the followingviews:

• “Nanomachines could createunlimited amounts of food bysynthesis at the atomic level,which would eradicate hunger.” –Carmen I. Moraru et al., professorof food science, Cornell University(USA), on nanotech’s potentialimpact on food science158

• “Molecular biosynthesis androbotic replenishment may allowquick replacement of production,so we wouldn’t have to depend oncentralized systems to grow anddeliver our food. In the first,primitive stages of molecularassembly, we’d build packagedgreenhouses, radically differentfrom those today, that wouldallow local or individualizedproduction by millions who knownothing about farming…At thenext stage of molecularmanufacturing, food synthesiscould occur directly, withoutgrowing crops or livestock.” –Douglas Mulhall, Our MolecularFuture

• “Why can’t human beingsimitate nature’s methodology?Instead of harvesting grain andcattle for carbohydrates andprotein, nanomachines (nanobots)could assemble the desired steakor flour from carbon, hydrogen,and oxygen atoms present in theair as water and carbon dioxide.Nanobots present in foods couldcirculate through the bloodsystem, cleaning out fat depositsand killing pathogens.” – Dr.Marvin J. Rudolph, Director,DuPont Food Industry Solutions,in Food Technology, January 2004.

Producing food by molecularmanufacturing159 is the mostambitious goal of nanotech – andthe least likely to materializeanytime soon. To those who havefollowed the biotech debate overthe past two decades, enthusiasticclaims that a new technology willfeed hungry people is a tired andempty refrain. Nano-optimists seethe future through the biotechindustry’s rose- (and green-)coloured glasses: now it’s nano-tech, they claim, that will eradicatehunger by increasing agriculturalyields, enhancing the nutritionalcontent of food and eliminatingthe risk of food allergens.160

ETC Group concludes thatpresent-day “nanotech for tum-mies” is following the sametrajectory as other nano-scaleR&D, with the earliest applicationsin the area of “smart” materials andsensors. More revolutionaryapplications, such as the atomicmodification of food, are perhapsmore distant. But it’s worth notingthat a few ambitious scientists aretrying to create food in the lab.

Producing food by

molecular manufacturing

is the most ambitious

goal of nanotech – and

the least likely to materi-

alize anytime soon.

41

“Tomorrow we will design

food by shaping molecules

and atoms. Nano-scale

biotech and nano-bio-info

will have big impacts on

the food and food pro-

cessing industries.”

– Helmut Kaiser, nanotechconsultant and marketanalyst

Tissue engineers at Touro College(New York City) and at the MedicalUniversity of South Carolina (USA)are experimenting with growingmeat by “marinating” fish myoblast(muscle) cells in liquid nutrients toencourage the cells to divide andmultiply on their own. The firstgoal is to keep astronauts in spacefrom going hungry.161

Packaging

Today, food-packaging and -monitoring are a major focus offood industry-related nanotechR&D. Packaging that incorporatesnanomaterials can be “smart,”which means that it can respondto environmental conditions orrepair itself or alert a consumer tocontamination and/or the pres-ence of pathogens. According toindustry analysts, the current USmarket for “active, controlled andsmart” packaging for foods andbeverages is an estimated $38billion – and will surpass $54billion by 2008.167 The followingexamples illustrate nano-scaleapplications for food & beveragepackaging:

• Chemical giant Bayer produces atransparent plastic film(called Durethan)containing nanoparticlesof clay. The nanoparticlesare dispersed throughoutthe plastic and are able toblock oxygen, carbondioxide and moisturefrom reaching freshmeats or other foods. 168

The nanoclay also makesthe plastic lighter,stronger and more heat-resistant.

• Until recently, industry’s quest topackage beer in plastic bottles (forcheaper transport) wasunsuccessful because of spoilageand flavour problems. Today,Nanocor, a subsidiary of AmcolInternational Corp., is producingnanocomposites for use in plasticbeer bottles that give the brew asix-month shelf-life.169 Byembedding nanocrystals in plastic,researchers have created amolecular barrier that helpsprevent the escape of oxygen.Nanocor and Southern ClayProducts are now working on aplastic beer bottle that mayincrease shelf-life to 18 months.170

• Kodak, best known for producingcamera film, is using nanotech todevelop antimicrobial packagingfor food products that will becommercially available in 2005.Kodak is also developing other‘active packaging,’ which absorbsoxygen, thereby keeping foodfresh.171

• Scientists at Kraft, as well as atRutgers University and theUniversity of Connecticut, areworking on nano-particle films

42

and other packaging withembedded sensors that will detectfood pathogens. Called “electronictongue” technology, the sensorscan detect substances in parts pertrillion and would trigger a colour-change in the packaging to alertthe consumer if a food hasbecome contaminated or if it hasbegun to spoil.172

• Researchers in the Netherlandsare going one further to developintelligent packaging that willrelease a preservative if the foodwithin begins to spoil. This “release

on command” preservativepackaging is operated by meansof a bioswitch developed throughnanotechnology.173

• Developing small sensors todetect food-borne pathogens willnot just extend the reach ofindustrial agriculture and large-scale food processing. In the viewof the US military, it’s a nationalsecurity priority.174 With presenttechnologies, testing for microbialfood-contamination takes two toseven days and the sensors thathave been developed to-date are

Historical Cue: On the Eve of an Anniversary

Regulations for food safety date back to Babylonian days but themodern era of governmental regulation is, more or less, a centuryold. In 1906 the US government established the Pure Food and DrugAct.162 Confronted by corporate chicanery on all sides, the US Con-gress attempted to lay down some basic ground rules for food andagricultural quality. History shows that food safety regulations andrelated technologies have a chequered past:

Late 1940s: The post-World War II chemical boom saw the wide useof DDT and other pesticides on crops around the world. Originallybilled as a health and production “miracle,” regulators eventuallyrealised that chemicals that kill weeds and insects might also killpeople. DDT was taken off the market in the 1970s as were many ofits chemical cousins.

1960s-1970s: Some chemical colorants, preservatives, additives andartificial sweeteners were taken off grocery shelves almost as fast asthey were put on as regulators discovered their carcinogenic qualities.

Late 1970s: In 1978, the US government discovered that the majorprivate sector laboratory evaluating new pesticides and otherchemicals, Industrial Bio-Test Ltd., systematically falsified animal testdata over a 10-year period, compromising the safety of severalhundred crop chemicals.163 Three of the company’s top officials werelater convicted of fraud. Rather than take all pesticides off the shelfthat were based on invalid safety data, US regulators allowed manyto remain unless there was convincing evidence that the productswere dangerous.164

1980s-1990s: Health research on endocrine disrupters indicates thata large number of crop chemicals and food additives as well as

To those who have fol-

lowed the biotech debate

over the past two decades,

enthusiastic claims that a

new technology will feed

hungry people is a tired

and empty refrain.

43

pharmaceuticals – but especially growth hormones – could damagehuman health.165 Many researchers associate the growing cancerepidemic, asthma, attention deficit problems and other neurologicaldisorders with chemicals introduced into the food chain and/or theenvironment since World War II.166

1996: When genetically-modified (GM) crops were approved forcommercial sale in the US, a fast-spreading consumer backlash inEurope and many parts of the South prompted the UN Conventionon Biological Diversity to begin deliberations on a Biosafety Protocol.A weak Biosafety Protocol came into force seven years later – in 2003.

1996: The UK government concedes that a variant of bovine spongi-form encephalopathy (popularly known as Mad Cow Disease) hasspread to humans, resulting in mass culling of British cattle herds.Regulators and scientists wrongly believed that feeding cow parts tocows did not pose a health hazard.

Late 1990s: Multinational tobacco enterprises – facing multi-billiondollar lawsuits – finally concede that tobacco is dangerous to health– but only after these companies spread their risk by diversifying intofood and beverage processing.

2000: Confounded by a consumer revolt against GM foods, manyfood retailers and processors refuse GM products vowing that they“won’t take a bullet” for Monsanto.

2002: World Health Organization warns of “Globesity.” Fast foodlifestyle is leading to a pandemic of overweight and obese middle-class in the North and South.

2004: Farmers and consumers learn that nanoparticles are beingdeveloped or marketed for crop and livestock production and for usein processed foods in the absence of size-specific regulation.

too big to be transported easily.175

Several groups of researchers inthe US are developing biosensorsthat can detect pathogens quicklyand easily, reasoning that “supersensors” would play a crucial rolein the event of a terrorist attack onthe food supply. With USDA andNational Science Foundationfunding, researchers at PurdueUniversity are working to producea hand-held sensor capable ofdetecting a specific bacteriainstantaneously from any sample.They’ve created a start-up

company called BioVitesse.176

While devices capable of detect-ing food-borne pathogens couldbe useful in monitoring the foodsupply, sensors and smart packag-ing will not address the rootproblems inherent in industrialfood production that result incontaminated foods: faster meat(dis)assembly lines, increasedmechanisation, a shrinking labourforce of low-wage workers, fewerinspectors, the lack of corporateand government accountability

While devices capable of

detecting food-borne

pathogens could be useful

in monitoring the food

supply, sensors and smart

packaging will not ad-

dress the root problems

inherent in industrial

food production that

result in contaminated

foods.

44

and the great distances betweenfood producers, processors andconsumers. Just as it has becomethe consumer’s responsibility tomake sure meat has been cookedlong enough to ensure thatpathogens have been killed,consumers will soon be expectedto act as their own meat inspec-tors so that industry can continueto trim safety overhead costs andincrease profits.

Tagging and Monitoring

Radio Frequency ID tags (RFid):An RFid tag is a small, wirelessintegrated-circuit (IC) chip with aradio circuit and an identificationcode embedded in it. The advan-tages of the RFid tag over otherscan-able tags – such as the UPCbarcodes pasted on most con-sumer products today – are thatthe RFid tag is small enough to beembedded in the product itself –not just on its package; it can holdmuch more information, can bescanned at a distance (andthrough materials, such as boxesor other packaging) and manytags can be scanned at the sametime. RFid tags are already beingused for livestock tracking, at-tached to the ear or injected intothe animal. The entire chip can beabout the size of a dust mote –closer to micro-scale than nano-scale, though incorporating nano-scale components. Developers ofthe technology envision a worldwhere they can “identify anyobject anywhere automatically.”177

RFid tags could be used on foodpackaging to perform relativelystraightforward tasks, such asallowing cashiers in supermarkets

Are better sensors the

best answer? “If 19

million pounds of meat

distributed to half of [the

US] had been contami-

nated with a deadly

strain of E. coli bacteria

by terrorists, we’d go

nuts. But when it’s done

by a Fortune 100 corpo-

ration, we continue to

buy it and feed it to our

kids.”

– Diane Carmen, comment-ing in The Denver Post (July26, 2002) on ConAgra’stainted beef recall

to tally all of a customer’s pur-chases at once or alerting con-sumers if products have reachedtheir expiration dates. RFid tagsare controversial because they cantransmit information even after aproduct leaves the supermarket.Privacy advocates are concernedthat marketers will have evengreater access to data on con-sumer-behavior. They want thetags to be disabled at the cashregister (what is known as “tagkilling”) to insure that personaldata won’t be obtained andstored. Wal-Mart in the US andTESCO in the UK have alreadytested RFid tagging on someproducts in some stores.178

A “nanobarcode” is an alternativetagging or monitoring device thatworks more like the UPC code, buton the nano-scale. One type ofnanobarcode – developed byNanoplex Technologies – is ananoparticle consisting of metallicstripes, where variations in thestriping provide the method ofencoding information.179

Nanoplex changes the length andwidth of the particles and thenumber, width and composition ofeach stripe to make billions andbillions of variations. So far they’veput barcodes into ink, fabric,clothing, paper, explosives and onjewellery. The codes can be readusing a handheld optical reader ora microscope that measures thedifference in reflectivity of themetallic stripes. Silver and goldreflect light in different ways, forexample, and it is the patterns ofreflection that give each particleits unique code. In addition togold and silver, Nanoplex makes

45

codes out of platinum, palladium,nickel and cobalt.

Nanoplex also produces “Senser”tags (Silicon EnhancedNanoparticles for Surface En-hanced Raman Scattering) – 50nm metal nanoparticles thatexhibit unique codes similar tonanobarcodes. Senser tags canalso be incorporated into packag-ing and read by an automatedreader up to a metre away, allow-ing items to be read at a checkoutlike RFID tags or to be read co-vertly at ports.180

The tagging of food packages willmean that food can be monitoredfrom farm to fork – during pro-cessing, while in transit, in restau-rants or on supermarket shelvesand eventually, even after theconsumer buys it. Coupled withnanosensors, those same pack-ages can be monitored for patho-gens, temperature changes,leakages, etc.

Nano-Food: What’s Cookingat the Bottom?181

In 1999, Kraft Foods, the $34billion Altria (formerly known asPhillip-Morris) subsidiary, estab-lished the industry’s firstnanotechnology food laboratory.The next year, Kraft launched theNanoteK consortium, envelopingfifteen universities and publicresearch labs from around theglobe.182 None of the scientistsinvolved in the consortium arefood scientists by training; rather,they’re a mix of molecular chem-ists, material scientists, engineersand physicists.183

Looking at food from an engineer-ing perspective is nothing new.

For the last three decades, scien-tists have introduced genes fromone species of plant or animal intoanother using genetic modifica-tion (GM) technologies, but atleast for a thousand years beforethat, people have introducedspecially formulated additives tofood to impart new flavours,textures, colours or other qualities.Nano-scale technologies will takefood engineering “down” to a newlevel, with the potential to changedramatically the way food isproduced, grown, processed,packaged, transported and eveneaten.

Nano-scale food additives: Infact, the products of nanotech-nology have already begun to“appear” in food (though they aretoo small to see – and consumerswould have no way of knowingsince there is no requirement forlabeling and no size-specificregulation). BASF, for example,produces a nano-scale version ofcarotenoids, a class of food addi-tives that imparts an orangecolour and that occurs naturally incarrots and tomatoes. Some typesof carotenoids are antioxidantsand can be converted to Vitamin Ain the body. BASF sells its nano-scale synthetic carotenoids tomajor food & beverage companiesworldwide for use in lemonades,fruit juices and margarines.184

Nano-scale formulation makesthem more easily absorbed by thebody but also increases shelf-life.34 (BASF’s carotenoid sales areUS$210 million annually. Thisfigure includes both nano-scaleand other carotenoids.)185

In 2002, BASF submitted a GRAS

The tagging of food

packages will mean that

food can be monitored

from farm to fork. Coupled

with nanosensors, those

same packages can be

monitored for pathogens,

temperature changes,

leakages, etc.

46

(Generally Recognized as Safe)Notice to inform the FDA of itssale of a synthetic carotenoidcalled lycopene (which occursnaturally in tomatoes) as a foodadditive. BASF’s synthetic lyco-pene is formulated at the nano-scale. According to BASF, thequestion of specialized testing fornano-particulated lycopene wasnot raised and was not requiredbecause “BASF demonstratedsafety in a variety of...toxicologicalevaluations.”187 The FDA acceptedBASF’s notice without question.188

In a telephone interview, RobertMartin of the FDA confirmed thatsize was not taken into account inthe review of BASF’s syntheticlycopene and he explained further

that “size per se” is “not a majorconsideration” in regulatoryreview, but would be addressed“on a case-by-case basis” if thereappeared to be implications forhealth and safety.189

Is it safe to add nanoparticles tofoods? The short answer to thequestion is “No one knows forsure.” The issue has yet to beconfronted head on by eitherregulators or the scientific com-munity. ETC Group has identifiedonly a handful of nano-scale foodadditives on the market today, butwe can’t be certain how wide-spread their use is since there areno requirements that they belabeled as such. Just as in otherregulatory arenas such as cosmet-ics and chemicals, the question ofsafety has not been approachedfrom the perspective of size. So far,manufacturers have been the onlyones to consider size – primarily interms of the market advantagesthat extremely small size offers(e.g., a decrease in size increasesbioavailability in foods; a decreasein size increases transparency incosmetics).

In the case of additives that alsooccur naturally in foods, it is notclear what the nano-specific safetyissues are. Discussing nano-scalelycopene, for example, Dr. GerhardGans of BASF explained that oncethe synthetic, nano-scale lycopenereaches the gut, it behaves inexactly the same way the lyco-pene in a tomato behaves: it isbroken down by digestive en-zymes and taken into the blood-stream and further to the liver andother organs as individual mol-ecules.190 In other words, by the

ETC Group has identified

only a handful of nano-

scale food additives on

the market today, but we

can’t be certain how

widespread their use is

since there are no

requirements that they

be labeled as such.

47

time it enters the blood stream, allfood is nano-scale – whether itstarted out as a slice of tomato ora glass of lemonade containingBASF’s synthetic lycopene. (Per-haps because of health concernsrelated to nanoparticles, Dr. Gansemphasised that the syntheticlycopene handled by BASF em-ployees and supplied to theircustomers was not in the form ofnanoparticles; at that stage, hesaid, the particles have clumpedtogether in aggregates of micron-level size, which will partiallydissolve in the final product.Ultimately, the consumer’s diges-tive enzymes bring the particlesback down to nano-scale.)

While the explanation that all foodis nano-scale by the time itreaches the bloodstream makessense a priori, it is important tonote that BASF conducted toxico-logical testing of its lycopene notbecause it was a nano-scaleformulation, but because it wasproduced through chemicalsynthesis (rather than derivedfrom lycopene-containing fruitsand vegetables). Had syntheticlycopene already been vetted as afood ingredient, BASF would nothave been compelled by regula-tors to test the safety of a nano-scale version. This is what makesthe prospect of adding nano-particles to foods – in the absenceof specific regulatory attentionpaid to size – alarming: whatnano-scale substances are in thepipeline that have already beenapproved as food additives atlarger scales but may now beformulated at the nano-scale withaltered properties and unknown

consequences? Of particularconcern would be nano-scaleformulations of substances thatdo not already occur naturally infood.

Take titanium dioxide (TiO2) as an

example: TiO2

was approved as afood colour additive by the USFDA in 1966 with the only stipula-tion being “not to exceed 1% byweight.”191 (Micron-sized TiO

2

imparts a bright white colour andis added to icings on cookies andcakes). The FDA has also approvedTiO

2 as a “food contact substance”

as well, meaning that if it comesinto contact with food when it isincorporated into packaging, itwon’t cause harm. TiO

2 has been

used as a colorant (white) in paperused for food packaging.192

With advances in nanotechtechniques, TiO

2 can now be

formulated at the nano-scale. Thequantum property changes thattake place with the reduction insize offer advantages for certainapplications. But some of nano-scale TiO

2’s

property changes –

such as increased chemicalreactivity – have caused concernin applications where the nano-scale substance comes in intimatecontact with the human body,(e.g., as an ingredient in cosmet-ics).193 Nano-scale TiO

2 particles

are no longer white (they aretransparent), but they still blockultraviolet (UV) light in the waytheir larger siblings do. Transpar-ent, nano-scale TiO

2 is now being

used in clear plastic food wraps forUV protection. Because TiO

2 has

already been approved as a foodcolour additive and as a food

What nano-scale sub-

stances are in the pipeline

that have already been

approved as food addi-

tives at larger scales but

may now be formulated

at the nano-scale with

altered properties and

unknown consequences?

Of particular concern

would be nano-scale

formulations of substances

that do not already occur

naturally in food.

48

contact substance, its nano-scaleuse in foods does not requireadditional toxicity testing. And thepercent-by-weight limits set backin the 1960s aren’t necessarilyrelevant to today’s nano-scaleformulations since tiny amountscan produce large effects.

Silicon dioxide (SiO2), also known

as silica, is another example of anFDA-approved food additive thatdoesn’t occur naturally in foods.Silica is a common substance innature – beach sand and quartzare almost-pure forms of crystal-line silica.194 In addition to acrystalline form, silica occursnaturally in an amorphous form(e.g., diatomaceous earth) and it isthis form of silica that is producedsynthetically and is an FDA-approved food ingredient as ananti-caking agent.195 (Amorphoussilica is also known as “fumed”silica.) The regulation states thatthe silica content must be lessthan 2% of the weight of the food.Food-grade fumed silica withparticles sizes in the nanometerrange are commercially avail-able.196 Again, it is not clear whatfood products contain syntheticnano-scale silica as there are nolabelling requirements.

Mars, Inc., one of the world’slargest private food corporations,was issued US patent 5,741,505 in1998 on “edible products havinginorganic coatings.” The coatingscreate a barrier to prevent oxygenor moisture from reaching theproduct under the coating,

thereby increasing shelf life. Thepatent claims the invention willkeep hard candy from gettingsticky, cookies from getting stale,cereals from becoming soggy inmilk, etc. The coatings can bemade from various chemicalcompounds of which SiO

2 and

TiO2 are specifically mentioned.

According to the inventors, thecoating should be extremely thinbecause of regulatory require-ments and because of texture and“mouthfeel” considerations. Thepatent states that the ideal coat-ing would be somewhere be-tween .5 nm and 20 nm thick.While the coating could be madeof any inorganic material, theinventors state that it is preferableto use a substance that hasalready been GRAS-certified bythe FDA, such as SiO

2 and TiO

2. The

patent application describes anexample of their invention, inwhich they coated M&Ms, Twixand Skittles brand candies with aninorganic nano-film.

ETC Group is not in the position toassess the safety of nano-scalefood additives. We want to high-light the regulatory vacuum,where size does not matter andnano-scale formulations do nottrigger any special regulatoryscrutiny. It’s a kind of “particlenepotism” that could have danger-ous consequences: if Big Brotherpasses the safety test, LittleBrother doesn’t even have to takethe exam.

There is kind of a

“particle nepotism” that

could have dangerous

consequences: if Big

Brother passes the safety

test, Little Brother

doesn’t even have to take

the exam.

49

Special Delivery

The food industry aims to engi-neer food so it is more “functional”– meaning more nutritious (orperceived to be) or serving someother purpose beyond its biologi-cal purpose of providing energythrough calorie consumption.Many companies believe thatnano-scale technologies will helpin this quest and they are focusingon “delivery.”

Most of us don’t think very muchabout delivery when it comes tofood (unless we’re waiting for apizza to arrive from across town):we bite, chew, swallow and ourdigestive tracts take care of therest. But in order to benefit fromdelivery – whether it’s the VitaminC from an apple we’ve just bitteninto or the synthetic lycopene inour lemonade – the nutrient mustgo to the right place in the bodyand it must be active when it getsthere.197 Controlling and engineer-ing nutrient delivery is a challengeand its mastery will be enor-mously profitable. According toindustry analysts, in the US alone,the market for functional foodscontaining medically-beneficialnutrients – worth $23 billion in2003 – will exceed $40 billion in2008.198

In December 2000, ETC Groupreported on the biotech’s industryquest to develop a new genera-tion of biotech products, geneti-cally-modified “nutraceuticals” andfunctional foods, that seek todeliver clear (or at least perceived)consumer benefits.199 Tainted bythe wider controversy over GMcrops, however, the GM

nutraceutical products have beenlargely stuck in the pipeline. Willnanotech deliver where biotechfailed?

Like the pharmaceutical, agro-chemical and cosmetics giants,food and beverage companies arealso experimenting with the useof nanocapsules to deliver activeingredients. One way to preservean active component is by puttingit in a protective ‘envelope.’ Theenvelope can be engineered todissolve or the active ingredientcan be made to diffuse throughthe envelope triggered by theright stimulus. There are alreadyseveral hundred types of‘microcapsules’ being used as foodadditives in the US alone,200 someto achieve the controlled releaseof active ingredients. GeorgeWeston Foods of Australia, forexample, sells a version of itspopular Tip Top bread, known as

ETC Group is not in the

position to assess the

safety of nano-scale food

additives. We want to

highlight the regulatory

vacuum, where size does

not matter and nano-

scale formulations do not

trigger any special regu-

latory scrutiny.

50

‘Tip Top-up,’ which containsmicrocapsules of tuna fish oil highin Omega-3 fatty acids. Becausethe tuna oil is contained in amicrocapsule, the consumerdoesn’t taste the fish oil, which isreleased in digestion once it hasreached the stomach. The sametechnology is also being em-ployed in yogurts and baby foods.

Companies large (Unilever, Kraft)and small (see below) are nowdeveloping “nano-capsules:”

• Researchers at Hebrew Universityin Jerusalem created a start-upcompany called Nutralease.They’ve applied for a patent201 ona nano-scale self-assembledstructure that can carry activecomponents into and through thehuman body. According to thecompany’s patent application,their “nanovehicle” can be dilutedin either oil or water withoutaffecting its active ingredient. Thecompany’s nanovehicles arealready on the market in acholesterol-reducing canola oil.202

Nutralease has just signed a dealwith an Israeli meat company thatwants to inject a little health in itshot dogs and another deal with anice cream manufacturer is in theworks.203

• Royal BodyCare, a companybased in Texas (USA), has createdwhat it calls “nanoceuticals” (andhas applied for a trademark on thename) – using a different kind ofenvelope to deliver “powerful, tinymineral clusters that are believedto increase the absorption ofnutrients into our cells.”204

Royal BodyCare puts thesenanoceutical particles into its line

of “SuperFoods” nutritionalsupplements.

• BioDelivery SciencesInternational (BDSI) has developedand patented “nanocochleates” –coiled nano-scale particles (assmall as 50 nm in diameter)derived from soy (not geneticallymodified, they emphasise!) andcalcium that can carry and deliverpharmaceutical compounds aswell as nutrients such as vitamins,lycopenes and omega fatty acidsdirectly to cells. The companyclaims that its nanocochleates candeliver Omega-3 fatty acids tocakes, muffins, pasta, soups andcookies without altering theproduct’s taste or odour.205 Noproducts containing the nano-cochleate delivery system arecurrently on the market, but thecompany actively seeks to licenseits technology. “We have some[food] companies that are clearlyenthusiastic,” said RaphaelMannino, chief scientific officer ofBDSI. 206 Mannino told ETC Groupthat it is not yet clear whatregulatory hurdles his company’snano-scale nutrient deliverysystem would need to clear beforecommercialisation. “Nobody isreally sure yet,” said Mannino.207

Before it becomes a commercialreality, BDSI must achieve large-scale manufacture of thenanoencochleation technology.Under the most optimisticscenario, Mannino said that “wecould be in food in one year.”

• With funding from the USDA,LNKChemsolutions is developingnano-scale capsules of ediblepolymers to prevent the flavourand aroma of food molecules

Like the pharmaceutical,

agrochemical and cosmet-

ics giants, food and

beverage companies are

also experimenting with

the use of nanocapsules to

deliver active ingredients.

51

from degrading. The goal is toincrease the shelf life of sensitivefood products, but the companydeclines to reveal which ones.208

LNK Chemsolutions was foundedby Dr. Gustavo Larsen, a professorof chemical engineering of theUniversity of Nebraska.

• Other companies are working onusing nano-scale technologies tocreate “interactive foods” thatoperate using “on-demand”delivery. The idea is that theconsumer will be able to choose –based on her individual aesthetics,nutritional needs or flavorpreferences of the moment –which components will beactivated and then delivered andwhich won’t be. Kraft’s NanoteKconsortium scientists aredeveloping nanocapsules whosewalls burst at different microwavefrequencies so the consumer can‘switch on’ new tastes or colours.Countless nanocapsules wouldremain dormant and only thedesired ones would becalled into action. Kraft isalso working on sensorsthat will be able todetect an individual’snutritional deficienciesand then respond withsmart foods that releasemolecules of the needednutrients.209

Early next year, foodscientists will meet todiscuss nano and micro-scale approaches forcontrolled release andnutrient absorption infoods – at the firstInternational Sympo-sium on the “Delivery of

Functionality in Complex FoodSystems: Physically-InspiredApproaches from Nano-scale toMicroscale,” at the Nestlé ResearchCenter in Lausanne, Switzerland.210

In addition to aiding nutrientdelivery, nanoparticles may beused in foods to alter otherproperties. For example, marga-rine, ice cream, butter and mayon-naise all belong to a class of foodsknown as colloids, where smallparticles are dispersed in someother medium – liquid, gas orsolid. Unilever, Nestlé and othersare conducting research andalready hold patents on new waysto make colloids using nano-particles that will extend shelf-life,prolong flavour sensation in themouth, alter texture and improvestability (see Annex 2).

Nutricosmetics: Eating is just oneway to deliver active ingredients.Paris-based L’Oréal, the world’sleading cosmetics firm, alreadymarkets skin care products

Kraft’s NanoteK consor-

tium scientists are devel-

oping nanocapsules whose

walls burst at different

microwave frequencies so

the consumer can ‘switch

on’ new tastes or colours.

52

containing nano-scale particles.211

(Nestlé holds a 49% stake inL’Oréal.212 ) The company’s“nanosomes” are tiny intercellulardelivery systems that penetratethe skin and then release VitaminE. According to L’Oréal, “Given thatthe interstices of the outer layer ofskin measure about 100 nanom-eters, nanovectors offer the bestsolution to the problem of trans-porting and concentrating activeingredients in the skin.”213 Cos-metics containing invisiblenanoparticles have not escapednotice in recent European reportson potential risks associated withmanufactured nanoparticles. ARoyal Society (UK) report releasedin July 2004 notes the dearth oftoxicological data on manufac-tured nanoparticles.214 Becausethey are used in some cosmeticsand sunscreens, the report recom-mends further studies of skinpenetration by manufactured

nanoparticles andthat toxicologicalstudies conductedby industry beplaced in the public

domain – no doubt causing somewrinkles for L’Oréal.

Food and cosmetic companies arenow collaborating to develop“cosmetic nutritional supple-ments.” L’Oréal and Nestlé recentlyformed Laboratoires Innéov, a 50/50 joint venture. Innéov’s firstproduct, called “Innéov Firmness,”contains lycopene. The supple-ment is taken orally and is mar-keted to women over 40 who areconcerned about lost skin elastic-ity.64 Shortly after Nestlé cementedits collaboration with L’Oréal,Procter & Gamble and Olayannounced they would be creat-ing two lines of nutritional supple-ments together – one for “Beauty”and one for “Wellness.”216 Whilethese particular supplements arenot advertised as using nano-scaletechnologies, it is difficult to besure since there are no labellingrequirements. In any case, the foodand cosmetic alliances illustratethe tendency to blur boundariesbetween food, medicine andcosmetics, a trend that nanotechwill likely accelerate.

Food and cosmetic alli-

ances illustrate the ten-

dency to blur boundaries

between food, medicine

and cosmetics, a trend

that nanotech will likely

accelerate.

53

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

“What kind of industrial

strategist – and we must

assume there was strat-

egy at some point – would

try to stealthily bring to

market products that no

one needs but everyone

has to consume, that the

most industry-friendly

politician would have

difficulty justifying and

whose only apparent

redeeming feature is to

improve the market

positioning of the compa-

nies that make them?”

– Reflections on the intro-duction of agriculturalbiotechnology, Editorial,Nature Biotechnology, Sep-tember 2004

Genetically modified crops cameto market less than one decadeago with virtually no publicdiscussion of their risks andbenefits, and within regulatoryframeworks that civil societyorganisations have described asinadequate, non-transparent ornon-existent. As a result, questionsand controversies surroundingsocio-economic, health andenvironmental impacts of GMfoods are unresolved, and millionsof people have spurned GMproducts. The parallels betweenthe introduction of biotech andnanotech are undeniable. Despitethe nanotech community’s persis-tent vows not to repeat the sameclumsy mistakes, it has beenfollowing in biotech’s footsteps.

By allowing nanotech products tocome to market in the absence ofpublic debate and regulatoryoversight, governments,agribusiness and scientific institu-tions have already jeopardised thepotential for nano-scale technolo-gies to be used beneficially. Thatthere are no regulations in placeanywhere in the world today toevaluate new nano-scale productsin the food chain representsunacceptable and culpablenegligence. Given widespreadsocietal concerns over GM foods,pesticide residues, growth hor-mones and “mad cow” disease,farmers and consumers will bedismayed to learn that novelnano-scale materials are eitheralready on the sideboard or on thedrawing board. Steps must be

taken to restore confidence infood systems and to make surethat nano-scale technologies, ifintroduced, are done so underrigorous health and safetystandards.

The most important singlerecommendation we make isthat society become fullyengaged in a wide discussion ofthe role of converging (nano-scale) technologies in food andagriculture. Any effort to sidelinethis discussion into a meeting ofexperts or to focus solely on thehealth or environmental aspectsof the new technologies will be amistake, both for society andindustry proponents. Unlike theearly GM debate, discussion mustnot be confined to technical issuesalone. Intellectual property andother forms of technologicalmonopolies must also be on thetable. Who will control the tech-nologies? Who will benefit fromthem? Who will play a role indeciding how nanotechnologiesaffect our future?

Recognising that governments arealready compromised by theirconvoluted relationships withagribusiness and the nanotechindustry, ETC Group addresses itsfirst and most important recom-mendations to our partners in civilsociety. Beyond this, we offerrecommendations for govern-ments and for intergovernmentalorganisations.

54

To Civil Society: NGOs and socialmovements are now beginning torecognise the potential impacts ofconverging technologies at thenano-scale. Particularly in theareas of food and agriculture, it isurgent that civil society worktogether to encourage the widestpossible public discussion of thenew nano-scale technologies andto ensure that policy-makers takeappropriate steps to safeguard thehealth, well-being and livelihoodsof farmers and consumers – andthe well-being of the environ-ment. Specifically:

• Organisations of small farmersmust begin to monitor nano-scaletechnologies affecting theirregions and livelihoods. Inaddition to internal discussionsand debate, these organisationsshould participate in discussionswith the rest of civil society andwith governments.

• Consumers’ organisations shouldnot only be tracking nano-scaletechnologies but also acquaintingtheir membership with the foodand agricultural products andprocesses that involvenanotechnology. Together withenvironmental organisations,consumers’ organisations shouldbe applying political pressure ongovernments to createappropriate regulatory regimes forthese technologies and toencourage public debate.

• Environmental organisationsshould work closely with farmers’organisations and IndigenousPeoples to assess the impact ofnano-scale technologies on thefarm and for biological diversity. In

the absence of appropriateregulation, the products of nano-scale technologies should not bereleased into the environment.

To Governments: In the near andmedium-term, action will have tobe taken at the national level:

• National governments mustestablish a sui generis regulatoryregime specifically designed toaddress the unique health andenvironmental issues associatedwith nano-scale materials used infood and agriculture.

• In keeping with thePrecautionary Principle, all food,feed and beverage products(including nutritionalsupplements) incorporatingmanufactured nanoparticlesshould be removed from theshelves until such time asregulatory regimes are in placethat take into account the specialcharacteristics of these materials,and until the products have beenshown to be safe.

• Nanoscale formulations ofagricultural input products suchas pesticides, fertilisers and soiltreatments should be prohibitedfrom environmental release untilsuch time as a new regulatoryregime specifically designed toexamine these products findsthem safe.

• There must be an immediatemoratorium on laboratoryexperimentation and theenvironmental release of syntheticbiology materials until society canengage in a thorough analysis ofthe health, environmental andsocio-economic implications.

It is urgent that civil

society work together to

encourage the widest

possible public discussion

of the new nano-scale

technologies and to

ensure that policy-makers

take appropriate steps to

safeguard the health,

well-being and livelihoods

of farmers and consumers

– and the well-being of

the environment.

55

To Intergovernmental Bodies:In order to prevent internationalregulatory gaps or distortions,governments must work togetherthrough the Specialised Agenciesof the United Nations to ensureworker and consumer health andsafety; to safeguard the environ-ment and biological diversity; andto ensure the socio-economicwell-being of people in everycountry. In particular:

• The World Health Organization(WHO) and the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) ofthe United Nations must ensurethat the Codex Alimentarius isupdated to take into account theuse of nanoparticles and othernano-scale technologies in foodand agriculture;

• The United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) and theConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD) should examine the possibleimpact of nanotechnology onbiological diversity and theenvironment;

• WHO should undertake short-and long-term studies on thepotential health effects of nano-particles and nanotechnology onresearchers, production workersand consumers;

• The International LabourOrganization (ILO) and UNESCO(the UN Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization) shouldstudy the possible impact of nano-particles and nanotechnology onagricultural labour, education andthe economic well-being ofcountries heavily dependent uponagricultural production or exports;

• FAO and the UN Conference onTrade and Development(UNCTAD) should study thepotential impacts of nanoparticlesand nanotechnology onproduction and trade includingpotential changes in productionsources and prices;

• FAO’s Commission on GeneticResources for Food andAgriculture should undertake animmediate study of the potentialimpact of nano-scale technologieson plant and animal geneticdiversity and enhancement;

• UNESCO and FAO shouldundertake studies to determinethe implications of nano-scaletechnologies in food andagricultural research for the Southwith a view to recommendationson priorities for national andinternational agricultural research;

• The World Intellectual PropertyOrganization (WIPO) shouldexplore implications of intellectualproperty with respect to productsand processes resulting frommanipulation of elements in theperiodic table, which could lead tomonopolisation and distortions infood and agriculture markets;

• The United Nations should beginnegotiations to establish anInternational Convention for theEvaluation of New Technologies(ICENT) to give governments andsociety, for the first time, an earlywarning/early listening systemthat allows society and science tobreak free from the cycle of crisesthat accompany each newtechnology introduction.

The fate of converging technolo-gies at the nanoscale will be

In keeping with the

Precautionary Principle,

all food, feed and beverage

products (including

nutritional supplements)

incorporating manufac-

tured nanoparticles

should be removed from

the shelves until such

time as regulatory regimes

are in place that take into

account the special charac-

teristics of these materials,

and until the products

have been shown to be

safe.

56

determined within the next twoyears. Currently, industry andgovernments are scrambling torecover from serious blunders thatjeopardise nanotech’s future. Atthe end of 2004, there are at leastthree global initiatives underwayto create “multi-stakeholderdialogues” involving civil society,industry and governments.However, these attempts will failunless there is a clear commit-ment to reach beyond environ-

mental organisations to involvesocial movements, both South andNorth – especially IndigenousPeoples, farmers’ organisations,unions, the disability rightsmovement, women and consumerorganisations. For its part, ETCGroup will not participate in anydialogue process that does notinclude the full range of civilsociety actors and does notencourage the fullest possiblesocietal debate.

The fate of converging

technologies at the

nanoscale will be deter-

mined within the next

two years.

57

1 IGD estimates that the global food retail market is $2.8trillion. Statistics on total agricultural population andagricultural exports are from Jerry Buckland, Ploughing Up theFarm, Zed Books, 2004, p. 18 and p. 100.

2 As quoted in Philip Ball, “Nanotechnology science’s nextfrontier or just a load of bull?” New Statesman, June 23, 2003;available on the Internet (as of August 10, 2004) at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4643_132/ai_104520140

3 Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, “Nanotechnology in Food andFood Processing Industry Worldwide,” unpublished study,Tübingen, March 2004, p. 35.

4 Anonymous, “Global Nanotechnology Market to Reach $29billion by 2008,” Business Communications Company, Inc.,News Release, February 3, 2004. Available on the Internet:http://www.bccresearch.com/editors/RGB-290.html

5 Pat Phibbs, “Nanotechnology Could Require Changes ToControls on Toxics, White House Says,” Chemical RegulationReporter, volume 28, number 14, April 05, 2004, available onthe Internet (as of September 24, 2004) at: http://ehscenter.bna.com/pic2/ehs.nsf/id/BNAP-5XRG6K?OpenDocument

6 A joint National Science Foundation / Department ofCommerce report is available on the Internet at http://wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf

7 Alfred Nordmann, Rapporteur, “Converging Technologies –Shaping the Future of European Societies,” August 2004.Available on the Internet (as of September 28, 2004): http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/conferences/2004/ntw/pdf/final_report_en.pdf

8 Ibid., p. 2.

9 Ibid., p. 4.

10 Ibid., p. 3.

11 See ETC Group Communiqué, “The Strategy for ConvergingTechnologies: The Little BANG Theory,” March/April 2003, Issue# 78. Available on the Internet at http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=378

12 Vicki L. Colvin, Director of the Center for Biological andEnvironmental Nanotechnology, Rice University. Commentmade during “Nano-Vision 2014” a seminar held on Septem-ber 15, 2004, in St. Gallen, Switzerland.

13 See, for example, “Ten Toxic Warnings,” in ETC Group,“Nano’s Troubled Waters,” Genotypes, 1 April 2004, pp. 3-4.Available on the Internet: http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=445

14 Eva Oberdörster, “Manufactured Nanomaterials (Fullerenes,C60) Induce Oxidative Stress in the Brain of Juvenile Large-mouth Bass,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 112,Number 10, July 2004.

15 Haum, Petschow, Steinfeldt, “Nanotechnology andRegulation within the framework of the PrecautionaryPrinciple. Final Report for ITRE Committee of the EuropeanParliament,” Institut für ökologische Wirstschaftforschung(IÖW) gGmbH, Berlin, 11 February 2004, p. 38.

16 Nano-Scale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food

Systems: A Report Submitted to Cooperative State Research,Research, Education and Extension Service, based on a NationalPlanning Workshop, November 18-19, 2002, Washington, DC,September 2003. Available on the Internet:www.nseafs.cornell.edu

17 McKnight, T.E. et al. “Intracellular integration of syntheticnanostructures with viable cells for controlled biochemicalmanipulation,” Nanotechnology 14, pp. 531-556 (April 9, 2003).See also “Nanofibres deliver DNA to Cells,” Genome NewsNetwork, http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/06_03/nano.shtml

18 Kate Dalke, “Inside Information: Nanofibers Deliver DNA toCells,” June 13, 2003, Genome News Network, http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/06_03/nano.shtml

19 For more details on carbon nanofibre/nanotube toxicitysee, ETC Group, “Size Matters – the Case for a Global Morato-rium,” ETC Group Occasional Paper, April 2003. Available on theInternet: www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=392

20 Lux Research, Nanotech Report 2004, Vol. 1, p. 96.

21 ETC Group News Release, “Atomically Modified Rice inAsia?” 25 March 2004. Available on the Internet:www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=444

22 Ranjana Wangvipula, “Thailand embarks on the nano pathto better rice and silk,” Bangkok Post, Jan. 21, 2004. Availableon the Internet: http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=7266

23 Personal communication from Witoon Lianchamroon ofBIOTHAI, 25 March 2004. Witoon spoke to Dr. ThirapatVilaithong and other scientists at the Fast Neutron ResearchFacility in Chaing Mai by telephone.

24 Ibid.

25 Ranjana Wangvipula, “Thailand embarks on the nano pathto better rice and silk,” Bangkok Post, Jan. 21, 2004. Availableon the Internet: http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=7266

26 ETC Group News Release, “Atomically Modified Rice inAsia?” 25 March 2004. Available on the Internet:www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=444

27 Email correspondence with Carolin Kranz, BASF, October27. 2004.

28 WO03039249A3: “Nanoparticles Comprising a CropProtection Agent.”

29 See Bayer Crop Science’s US Patent Application no.20040132621, “Microemulsion Concentrates.”

30 See for example: http://www.engageagro.com/media/pdf/brochure/primomaxx_10pgbrochure_english.pdf

31 See Syngenta’s Banner MAXX brochure on the Internet:http://www.engageagro.com/media/pdf/brochure/bannermaxx_brochure_english.pdf

32 Ibid.

33 Email correspondence with Barbara Karn, EPA, November 1,2004.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

NOTES

58

36 Syngenta, “A microscopic formula for success,” on theSyngenta web site:

http://www.syngenta.com/en/day_in_life/microcaps.aspx

37 Janet Morrissey, “Flamel Tech Shares Up 46% on Pact withMonsanto,” Dow Jones, January 6, 1998. Available on theInternet as of September 22, 2004, at: http://www.pmac.net/patent.htm

38 Syngenta, “A microscopic formula for success,” on theSyngenta web site:

http://www.syngenta.com/en/day_in_life/microcaps.aspx

39 Ibid.

40 Syngenta’s US Patent No. 6,544,540, “Base-TriggeredRelease Microcapsules.”

41 Syngenta, “A microscopic formula for success,” on theSyngenta web site:

http://www.syngenta.com/en/day_in_life/microcaps.aspx

42 Syngenta’s patent, WO0194001A2, relates to nano andmicron size capsules for agrochemicals.

43 Rolf Daniels, “Galenic principles of modern skin careproducts”, Skin Care Forum 25. Available on the Internet:: http://www.scf-online.com/english/25_e/galenic_25_e.htm#Nanoemulsions

44 Eric J. Lerner, “’Nano’ is now at Michigan and James Baker isLeading the Way,” Medicine at Michigan Vol.2, No.2, Summer2000. Available on the Internet:: http://www.medicineatmichigan.org/magazine/2000/summer/nanonman/default.asp

45 See for example Patent EP1037527B1: Microcapsules withreadily adjustable release rates.

46 See for example Syngenta’s Zeon Microcapsules, details onthe Internet: http://www.syngenta.com/en/products_services/karate_page.aspx

47 See for example University of Missouri press release,“Designing Smarter ‘Smart’ Drugs: MU Chemist’s ‘Nanocapsule’Could Revolutionize Drug Delivery,” July 1, 2002.

48 See for example US Patent application, no. 20040105877,“Controlled release pesticidal composition and method ofmaking,” Hargrove, Garrard L. et al., June 3, 2004.

49 For example, see US Patent 6,200,598, “Temperature-sensitive liposomal formulation,” Duke University, 2001.

50 For example, see Syngenta’s US Patent applicationUS20020037306A1: Base-triggered release microcapsules,2002.

51 USDA Grant, 2002-00349, “Development of an Ultrasound-mediated Delivery System for the Mass Immunization of Fish.”

52 For example, see patent application numberWO9959556A1, “Externally Triggered Microcapsules,” held byNASA/Johnson Space Center.

53 See USDA Grant, 2002-00349, “Development of an Ultra-sound-mediated Delivery System for the Mass Immunizationof Fish.”

54 Syngenta, “A microscopice formula for success,” on theSyngenta web site:

http://www.syngenta.com/en/day_in_life/microcaps.aspx

55 Malcolm T. Sanford, “Protecting Honey Bees From Pesti-cides,” Circular 534, Entomology and Nematology Depart-

ment, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Foodand Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Originalpublication date, April 25, 1993, reviewed May 1, 2003. On theInternet: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_AA145#FOOTNOTE_1

56 James B. Petro, Theodore R. Plasse and Jack A. McNulty,“Biotechnology: Impact on Biological Warfare andBiodefense,” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy,Practice, and Science, volume 1, Number 3, 2003, p. 164.Available on the Internet (as of September 20, 2004): http://www.biosecurityjournal.com/PDFs/v1n303/p161_s.pdf

57 The Sunshine Project, Backgrounder #13, January 2004,“Export Controls: Impediments to Technology Transfer Underthe Convention on Biological Diversity.” Available on theInternet: http://www.sunshine-project.org

58 Dr. Yvon G. Durant of University of New HampshireAdvanced Polymer laboratory, “White Paper: Delivery ofChemicals by Microcapsules,” prepared for US Marine Corps,available from The Sunshine Project website: http://www.sunshine-project.org/incapacitants/jnlwdpdf/

59 Jim Barlow, Remote-Sensing Lab Aims to Foster Growth ofPrecision Farming,” University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignPress Release, May 2, 2001. Available on the Internet: http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/05farmlab.html

60 Kurt Lawton, “In the year 2013,” Farm Industry News, 1March 2003.

61 Draft version of Nano-Scale Science and Engineering forAgriculture and Food Systems: A Report Submitted to Coopera-tive State Research, Research, Education and Extension Service,based on a National Planning Workshop, November 18-19,2002, Washington, DC, September 2003; the draft is revision B,14 February 2003. In the final version, “Little Brother” technol-ogy is referred to simply as “identity preservation system.”

62 http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/05farmlab.html

63 Michael Kanellos, “Intel produces chips for next genera-tion,” November 24, 2003, available on the Internet at http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5111327.html

64 Intel document, “The Promise of Wireless Sensors,”available on the Internet: ftp://download.intel.com/research/exploratory/Promise_of_Wireless_Sensor_Networks.pdf

65 Gerry Blackwell, “The Wireless Winery,” September 23, 2004,available on the Internet: www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3412061

66 Anonymous, Intel document, “New Computing Frontiers –The Wireless Vineyard,” available on the Internet: http://www.intel.com/labs/features/rs01031.htm

67 See Chris Pister’s web page on smart dust: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~pister/SmartDust/in2010

68 ONWorld Press Release, “Wireless Sensor Networks: A MassMarket Opportunity,” March 4, 2004, on the Internet:www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/3/emw108651.htm

69 Frank Munger, “ORNL tests early-warning system forhazardous-substance attacks,” April 12, 2004,www.sensornet.gov

70 Stephen J. Bigelow, “Microscopic Monitors: A New Breed OfWireless Sensors Can Bring Senses To Networks,” Processor,July 16, 2004, Vol.26, Issue 29. Available on the Internet: http://www.processor.com

71 Ibid.

59

72 Karen F. Schmidt, “Smart dust is way cool,” US News& WorldReport, 16 February 2004. Available on the Internet:www.usnews.com

73 Brendan I. Koerner, “Intel’s Tiny hope for the Future,” Wired,Issue 11.12, Dec. 2003.

74 David E. Culler and Hans Mulder, “Smart Sensors to Networkthe World,” Scientific American, June 2004. Available on theInternet: www.scientificamerican.com

75 Quentin Hardy, “Sensing opportunity,” Forbes Magazine,September 2003.

76 Chris Taylor, “What Dust can tell you,” Time, January 12,2004. See also, Barbara G. Goode, “A sure thing for HomelandSecurity,” Sensormag.com, June 2004.

77 Michael D. Mehta, “Privacy vs. Surveillance – How to avoid anano-panoptic future,” Canadian Chemical News, Nov.-Dec.2002, pp. 31-33.

78 Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering,Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: opportunities anduncertainties,” July 2004, p. 53. Available on the Internet: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm

79 Based on Kevin Binfield’s historical overview in Writings ofthe Luddites, Baltimore and London: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 2004; excerpt available on the Internet (as ofSeptember 29, 2004): http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/kevin.binfield/luddites/LudditeHistory.htm

80 Lux Research, Inc., Nanotech Report 2004.

81 UNCTAD, Commodity Yearbook 2003. Available on theInternet: http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/indexen.htm

82 Steve Waite, “Ross’ Nano Gambit,” August 14, 2003, Forbes/Wolfe blog, available on the Internet: http://www.forbeswolfe.com/archives/000063.html

83 Candace Stuart, “Nano-Tex Markets Brand To Become ‘IntelInside’ of Nanomaterials”, Small Times, 2002. On the Internet:http://www.smalltimes.com

84 International Cotton Advisory Committee, Washington, DC.,http://www.icac.org

85 Gérald Estur, “Cotton: Commodity Profile,” InternationalCotton Advisory Committee, Washington, DC, June 2004, pp. 1-2. Available on the Internet (as of September 20, 2004): http://www.icac.org/icac/cotton_info/speeches/english.html

86 Jessica Gorman, “Super Fibres: nanotubes make toughthreads” Science News, June 14, 2003: Vol. 163, no. 24, p.372.

87 US Department of Commerce, National Textile Center,Project M03-CL07s, “Functional Fabric with EmbeddedNanotube Actuators/Sensors,” on the Internet: http://mse.clemson.edu/htm/research/ntc/M03-CL07s-A3.pdf

88 Rossari Biotech, “Nanotechnology: the new Buzzword II,” 26August 2004, Available on the Internet: http://www.expresstextile.com/20040826/performancefabrics02.shtml

89 International Rubber Study Group, “Rubber IndustryReport,” Vol. 3, No. 12, June 2004 on the Internet: http://www.rubberstudy.com/report.aspx

90 Wayne Arnold, “In Thailand, High Hopes for its RubberIndustry,” New York Times, 26 February 2004.

91 Ibid.

92 Mongabay.com, “A brief History of rubber,” On the Internet:http://www.mongabay.com/10rubber.htm

93 Rubber Manufacturers Association (US) press release:“Predicted Growth of Tread Rubber Shipments to Continue,”Washington, D.C., March 19, 2004

94 Jim Hurd, Silicon Valley Nano Report 1, June 2004, On theInternet: http://www.nanosig.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=12

95 Jack Mason, “Nanocomposites in Tennis Balls Lock in Air,Build Better Bounce,” Small Times, online, January 29, 2002. Onthe Internet: www.smalltimes.com

96 Anonymous, “Aerogels: ‘Solid Smoke’ May Have Many Uses,”SpaceDaily, April 5, 2004. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-04q.html

97, Press Release, “New lightweight materials may yield saferbuildings, longer-lasting tires: aerogels,” American ChemicalSociety, Sept. 12, 2002.

98 US patent no. 6,527,022, “Pneumatic tire having a treadcontaining a metal oxide aerogel,” March 4, 2003.

99 Tire Business, Global Tire Report, September 2002.

100 Athene Donald, “Food for thought,” Nature Materials, vol. 3,September 2004, pp. 579-581.

101 Ibid., p. 580.

102 Jenny Hogan, “100-metre nanotube thread pulled fromfurnace,” New Scientist, 11 March 2004. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994769

103 Anonymous, “Waste fiber can be recycled into valuableproducts using new technique of electrospinning, Cornellresearchers report,” Cornell News, September 10, 2003.www.news.cornell.edu

104 Ibid.

105 Anonymous, Inteletex News, “Solvent solutions,” FutureMaterials, December 2003, on the Internet: http://www.inteletex.com/FeatureDetail.asp?PubId=&NewsId=2469

106 Liz Kalaugher, “Alfalfa plants harvest gold nanoparticles,”Nanotechweb, 16 August 2002, on the Internet: http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/1/8/14/1

107 Peter N. Spotts, “No fairy tale: Researchers spin straw intogold,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 29, 2002. On theInternet: www.csmonitor.com/2002/0829/p02s02-usgn.htm

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid.

110 Danny Penman, “Geraniums the key to cheapnanoparticles,” New Scientist, June 16, 2003.

111 Greg Lavine, “Buckyballs boost fertilizer,” Salt Lake Tribune,March 23, 2004, p. D1.

112 WIPO Patent, WO03059070A1, “The liquid composition forpromoting plant growth, which includes nano-particletitanium dioxide,” assigned to Choi, Kwang-Soo.

113 A.M. Prochorov et al., “The influence of very minute dosesof nano-disperse iron on seed germination,” presentationgiven at the Ninth Foresight Conference on MolecularNanotechnology, 2001.

114 ETC Group, “Mulch ado about nothing? …Or the ‘SandWitch?’” ETC Communique, September/October, 2003.Available on the Internet: http://www.etcgroup.org

60

115 Press Release, “Nanoscale Iron Could Help Cleanse TheEnvironment; Ultrafine Particles Flow Underground AndDestroy Toxic Compounds In Place,” National ScienceFoundation, 4 September 2003.

116 Andrew Scott, “The human genome on a chip,” TheScientist, October 3, 2003. On the Internet: http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20031003/07

117 International Consortium on Ticks and Tick-borneDiseases (ICTTD)/EMBO, “Integrated molecular diagnostics fortick-borne pathogens using RLB hybridization and micro-array based biochips,” 27 Oct. 2003, University of Pretoria,Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, Onderstepoort,South Africa.

118 Affymetrics, Inc., United States Security and ExchangeCommission Form 10-K, December 31, 2003, available on theInternet: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/nsd/affx/presentations/affx_10k1.pdf

119 Charles Choi, “Holograms to sort, steer nanotubes, cells,”United Press International, March 3, 2004. See also, Bill Snow,“Commercializing Killer Technology - Arryx,” July 29, 2003, onthe Internet: www.billsnow.com/Articles_Snow_VC101_2003_07_29_Commercializing_Killer_Technology-Arryx.htm

120 Anonymous, “Advanced Reproduction: Microfluidicengineering mimics nature to streamline assisted reproduc-tion,” University of Illinois Emerging Technologies, Office of theVice President for Economic Development, undated; on theInternet: http://www.vpted.uillinois.edu/~pdf_files/i-emerging%20past%20pdfs/Advanced%20Reproduction.pdf

121 Kyle James, “Increasing Demand for Microfluidics Leads toMarket Optimism,” April 28, 2004. On the Internet: http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=7777

122 Summary of K. Jane, Biochips and Microarrays, November,2000, on the Internet: www.urchpublishing.com

123 Anonymous, “Nanoshells Cancer Treatment ProvesEffective in First Animal Test: Laser Treatments Eradicate AllTumors from Mice in Trial,” Rice University Press Release, 21June 2004; available on the Internet (as of October 8, 2004):http://media.rice.edu/media/Newsbot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=4469&SnID+698963046

124 Lux Research, Nanotech Report 2004, Vol. 1, p. 200.

125 Nano-Scale Science and Engineering for Agriculture andFood Systems: A Report Submitted to Cooperative State Research,Research, Education and Extension Service, based on a NationalPlanning Workshop, November 18-19, 2002, Washington, DC,September 2003, p. 9. Available on the Internet:www.nseafs.cornell.edu

126 Anonymous, “pSivida Granted US Patent for Biosilicon,”August 4, 2004, http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=258

127 See “Adhesin-Specific Nanoparticles,” on the Internet:http://www.clemson.edu/research/ottSite/techs/nopatent/00237.htm

128 Telephone interview with Dr. Robert Latour, ClemsonUniversity, 13 Sept 2004.

129 Barnaby J. Feder and Tom Zeller, Jr., “Identity Badge WornUnder Skin Approved for Use in Health Care,” New York Times,October 14, 2004.

130 FAO, “State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002,”Part 1, Overview, 2002.

131 Anonymous, “Altair Nanotechnologies’ Algae PreventionTreatment Confirmed Effective in Testing,” Altair Press Release,March 11, 2004.

132 Anonymous, “Altair Nanotechnologies Files Patent onNanoCheck Algae Preventer for Prevention of Algae inSwimming Pools,” Altair Press Release, Dec 16, 2002.

133 USDA Grant 2002-00349, “Development of an Ultrasound-mediated Delivery System for the Mass Immunization of Fish.”

134 Prochorov A.M., Pavlov G.V., Okpattah G.A.C., KaetanovichA.V., “The effect of nano-disperse form of iron on the biologi-cal parameters of fish,” presented at Tenth Foresight Confer-ence on Molecular Nanotechnology, Bethesda, USA, October2002.

135 Rodney Brooks, “The Cell Hijackers,” Technology Review,June 2004, p.31. On the Internet: http://www.technologyreview.com

136 Anonymous, “Building Blocks for Biobots,” Berkeley Lab,Science Beat Magazine, August 27, 2004. Available on theInternet: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/Aug-2004/2_biobots.html

137 W. Wayt Gibbs, “Synthetic Life,” Scientific American, April 26,2004. On the Internet:

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009FCA4-1A8F-1085-94F4834

14B7F0000

138 Ibid.

139 Anonymous, “Building Blocks for Biobots,” Berkeley Lab,Science Beat Magazine, August 27, 2004. Available on theInternet: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/Aug-2004/2_biobots.html

140 Hutchison is quoted in article by Steve Mitchell, “Scien-tists to Synthesize New Life Form,” United Press International,November 21, 2002. Available on the Internet: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021121-044419-1997r

141 DOE Press Release, “Researchers Funded by DOE ‘Ge-nomes to Life’ Program Achieve Important Advance…,”November 13, 2003. On the Internet: http://energy.gov

142 James Shreeve, “Craig Venter’s Epic Voyage of Discovery,”Wired, August, 2004, p. 151.

143 See ETC Group Communiqué, “Nanotech Un-gooed!” July/August 2003, available on the Internet: http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=399.

144 Steven Benner, quoted in Anonymous, “Evolving ArtificialDNA?” Astrobiology Magazine, February 27, 2004. Available onthe Internet: http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=845(as of September 20, 2004).

145 Ibid.

146 Benner is quoted in Philip Ball, “Synthetic Biology: Startingfrom Scratch,” Nature 431, pp. 624-626, 7 October 2004, on theInternet: http://www.nature.com/

147 Philip Ball, “Synthetic Biology: Starting from Scratch,”Nature 431, pp. 624-626, 7 October 2004, on the Internet: http://www.nature.com/

61

148 Anonymous, “Futures of artificial life,” Nature, Vol. 431, 7October 2004, p. 613.

149 Susan Wright, Molecular Politics: Developing American andBritish Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-1982,Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

150 Ibid, p. 151.

151 James Wilsdon and Rebecca Willis, “See-Through Science:Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, Demos,2004.

152 Moraru et al., “Nanotechnology: A New Frontier in FoodScience,” Food Technology, December 2003, vol. 57, no. 12, p. 25.

153 Telephone interview with Jozef Kokini, Chair of theDepartment of Food Science and Director of the Center forAdvanced Food Technology, Rutgers University, September 14,2004.

154 Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, “Nanotechnology in Food andFood Processing Industry Worldwide,” unpublished study,Tübingen, March, 2004, p. 35.

155 Ibid., p. 35.

156 Telephone interview with Raphael Mannino, 8 September2004.

157 Ibid.

158 Carmen I. Moraru et al., “Nanotechnology: A New Frontierin Food Science,” Food Technology, December 2003, vol. 57, no.12, p. 25.

159 The terms “molecular manufacturing” and “molecularnanotechnology” refer to a method of creating products bymeans of molecular machinery, allowing molecule-by-molecule control of products and by-products throughpositional chemical synthesis, a vision of nanotechnology firstelaborated by K. Eric Drexler in his Engines of Creation: TheComing Era of Nanotechnology (1990).

160 See, for example, C. S. Prakash, Gregory Conko, “Technol-ogy That Will Save Billions From Starvation,” The AmericanEnterprise Online (published in Biotech Bounty March 2004);available on the Internet at http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17897/article_detail.asp (as of August 19, 2004).

161 Wendy Wolfson, “Lab-Grown Steaks Nearing the Menu,”New Scientist, 30 December 2002. On the Internet:www.newscientist.com

162 Kevin P. Phillips, Wealth and Democracy, (New York:Broadway Books) 2002, p. 52

163 Lublin, J.S., “A Lab’s Troubles Raise Doubts about Quality ofDrug Tests in US,” The Wall St. Journal, February 21, 1978, p. 1.

164 Cass Peterson, “Panel Told Many Pesticides Tested byDiscredited Lab Are in Use,” Washington Post, July 28, 1983, p.A3.

165 Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John PetersonMyers, Our Stolen Future, Plume Book (1997)

166 Ibid.

167 Anonymous, “U.S. market for smart packaging to surpass$54 billion by 2008,” Packaging Digest, May, 2004. On theInternet: http://www.packagingdigest.com/newsite/Online/online_exclusive8.php

168 Carmen I. Moraru et al., “Nanotechnology: A New Frontierin Food Science,” Food Technology, December 2003, vol. 57, no.12, p. 26.

169 Jack Uldrich, “Now you see it...,” Advantage, February 2004,pp. 22-27. Available on the Internet: http://www.fmi.org/advantage/issues/022004/pdfs/pub/nowyouseeit.pdf

170 Ibid.

171 Presentation by Del Stark of the Institute ofNanotechnology, “Nanotechnology today: real life examples ofnano applications” at Future of Nanomaterials Conference, 29June 2004.

172 Elizabeth Gardner, “Brainy food: Academia, industry sinktheir teeth into edible nano,” Small Times, June 21, 2002.

173 Presentation by Graham Moore, Pira International, “WhatDoes Nanotechnology Mean For You?” at Future ofNanomaterials Conference, 29 June 2004

174 Bruce Goldfarb, “Food-borne pathogens stimulatingmicroarray-based biosensor development,” Nanobiotech News,vol. 1 no. 19, December 10, 2003.

175 Ibid.

176 Ibid.

177 The motto of Auto-ID labs, a federation of six researchuniversities in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia which wasfounded in 1999 to develop an open standard architecture forcreating a seamless global network of physical objects. On theInternet: http://www.autoidlabs.org/aboutthelabs.html

178 See http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2003/Wal-Mart-RFID4jun03.htm

179 Interview with Michael Natan, CEO of Nanoplex Technolo-gies, by Pamela Bailey, available on the Internet (August 11,2004): http://news.nanoapex.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=14

180 Presentation by Michael Natan, CEO of Nanoplex,“Nanotechnology to Track and Protect Packs,” at “Future ofNanomaterials” Conference, 29 June 2004.

181 Dr. Heribert Watzke, Head of Food Science at Nestlé, firstused the title “something is cooking at the bottom” todescribe self-assembly in foods.

182 Elizabeth Gardner, “Brainy Food: academia, industry sinktheir teeth into edible nano,” Small Times, June 21, 2002.

183 Jack Uldrich, “Now you see it...,” Advantage, February 2004,pp. 22-27. Available on the Internet: http://www.fmi.org/advantage/issues/022004/pdfs/pub/nowyouseeit.pdf

184 Alex Scott, “BASF takes big steps in small tech, focusing onnanomaterials,” Small Times online, Dec. 16, 2002. Available onthe Internet: www.smalltimes.com (as of July 16, 2004).

185 Ibid.

186 Ibid.

187 Email correspondence with Dr. Herbert Woolf, BASF USA,September 27, 2004.

188 See FDA’s response to GRAS notice: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/opa-g119.html. The FDA noted thatthere may be questions if the lycopene were used as a colouradditive.

189 Telephone conversation with Robert Martin, 24 Septem-ber 2004.

190 Telephone interview with Dr. Gerhard Gans, 4 October2004.

191 See http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-col2.html

62

192 See http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-fcn.html

193 See ETC Group Occasional Paper, “Size Matters!” April 14,2002, available on the Internet: http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=392

194 Institute of Medicine, Safety of Silicone Breast Implants, TheNational Academy Press, 1999, pp. 39-40, available on theInternet: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309065321/html/

195 See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi

196 Both Cabot Corporation and Degussa sell fumed silica(i.e., Cab-o-sil and Aerosil, respectively). with particle sizes inthe nanometer range. According to http://www.radtech-europe.com/basf222003.html, Aerosil 200 has a mean particlesize of 12 nm and Cab-o-sil M5 has a mean particle size of 14nm. See also, the description of US patent US6521261,“pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility,”assigned to Edward Mendell Co., USA. The patent states thatparticle sizes range from a nominal particle diameter of 7 nm(e.g., Cab-O-Sil S-17 or Cab-O-Sil EH-5) to an average primaryparticle size of 40 nm (Aerosil OX50).

197 Carmen Moraru et al., “Nanotechnology: A New Frontier inFood Science,” Food Technology, December 2003, vol. 57, no. 12,p. 27.

198 Bill Martineau of the Freedonia Group, cited in WendyWolfson, “Fish-Oil Cookies,” Technology Review, September2004.

199 ETC Group, “Biotech’s ‘Generation 3,’” ETC Communique,December 2000. Available on the Internet: http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=158

200 Ronald J. Versic, “Flavor Encapsulation: An Overview,”available on the Internet: http://www.rtdodge.com/fl-ovrvw.html (as of July 16, 2004).

201 Nutralease patent application number, WO03105607A1,“Nano-sized self-assembled structured liquids,” publishedDecember 24, 2003.

202 Email correspondence with Dr. Nissim Garti of Nutralease,Sept. 14, 2004.

203 Anonymous, “Israeli Innovation Turns Junk Food intoHealth Food,” Israel21c online, July 5, 2004; available on the

Internet (as of July 16, 2004): http://www.israel21c.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPag e&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles%5El722&enZone=Articles&enVersion=0&

204 http://www.rbcinfo.com

205 http://www.biodeliverysciences.com/bioralnutrients.html

206 Telephone interview with Dr. Raphael Mannino, 9September 2004.

207 Ibid.

208 Telephone interview with Dr. Gustavo Larsen, 7 Septem-ber 2004. Dr. Larsen would not provide information about thespecific molecules he is working with. For more information,see USDA’s Current Research Information System, “Nano-andMicro-Encapsulation of Food Additives and Agrochemicals.”Available on the Internet: http://crisops.csrees.usda.gov

209 John Dunn, “A Mini Revolution,” Food Manufacture,September 1, 2004. www.foodmanufacture.com

210 http://www.pgs.ch/delivery2005.htm

211 Information about L’Oréal’s nanosomes appears on thecompany’s website: http://www.lorealusa.com/research/nanosomes.aspx

212 L’Oréal is controlled by the French holding companyGesparal, of which 51% is held by the Bettencourt family and49% by Nestlé.

213 Ibid.

214 Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering,Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: opportunities anduncertainties,” July 2004, p. 80. Available on the Internet: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm

215 Anon., L’Oréal press release, “Laboratoires INNEOV andL’Oréal: Bringing Cosmetic Nutritional Supplements toMarket,” October 24, 2002. Available on the Internet (as of July26, 2004): http://www.lorealusa.com/press-room/full_article.aspx?idART=81&idHEADING=11

216 Anon., “Enhancing beauty from within,” April 18, 2003;available on the Internet: http://www.cosmeticdesign.comThe Olay brand is owned by Procter & Gamble.

63

ANNEX 1: Nanotech R&D at Major Food and Beverage Corporations

The companies listed above (with the exception of Dupont and Cargill) are identified by Helmut Kaiser Consultancy as being active infood-related nanotech research.* Source: “The World’s Top 100 Food and Beverage Companies,” Food Engineering Magazine, November 1, 2003.† Source: Helmut Kaiser Consultancy.

Company

World Food & Beverage Sales 2003 (US million)*

Nanotech-Related Activity (if known)

Nestlé (Switzerland) $54,200 Supports nanotech food research group; few details publicly available. Altria (Kraft Foods) USA

$29,700 Established the industry’s first nanotechnology food laboratory in 1999. Funds and sponsors the Nanotek Consortium – R&D on “smart drinks” and nanocapsules.

Unilever (UK & Netherlands)

$25,700 R&D on nanocapsules. In 1997, Unilever entered a joint venture with Cambridge University to form the Unilever Cambridge Center for Molecular Informatics. In 2002, Unilever announced that it would invest €30 million over three years in Unilever Technology Ventures, based in Santa Barbara, California, to identify and invest in technology-based funds and start-up companies. Its aim will be to enhance Unilever’s own R&D activities by exploiting new technologies, including genomics and nanotechnology.

PepsiCo (USA) $25,100 Ranks # 4 on the list of top 10 food & beverage companies. Cargill (USA) $20,500 Ranks #7 on the list of top 10 food & beverage companies. Partnering

with EcoSynthetix to develop nanoscale cornstarch for cardboard packaging.

ConAgra (USA) $19,800 Ranks # 8 on the list of top 10 food & beverage companies. General Mills $10,500 Devotes $6-9,000 million to nanotech-related R&D.† Sara Lee $9,800 Ranks #19 on list of top 100 food & beverage companies. H. J. Heinz $8,200 Flavour and colour enhancement. Foodservice sector is incorporating

nanotech into smart dispensers and smart meals, and the use of nanomaterials in packaging.†

Campbell Soup (USA)

$6,700 One goal is flavour enhancement.†

Maruha (Japan) $6,300 Japan’s top seafood producer. Associated British Foods (UK)

$6,000 International food, ingredients and retail group with annual sales of £4.9 billion.

Ajinomoto (Japan) $5,800 Nanotech R&D includes better nutrition absorption and delivery system – for both food and pharma.†

DuPont Food Industry Solutions (USA)

$5,500 (Dupont’s ag. & nutrition sales, 2003, source: DuPont)

Strategic partner for food, beverage & food ingredients, established May, 2003. Dupont conducts food engineering research based on particle size at its Particle Size and Technology Research Group in Wilmington, Delaware (USA). Company declined to discuss details.

McCain Foods (Canada) $4,600 Privately-owned Canadian food corporation. Ranked seventh in frozen food worldwide in 2002.

Nippon Suisan Kaisha (Japan)

$4,000 Second-largest marine products firm in Japan; fishing operations account for more than 45% of its sales.

Nichirei (Japan) $2,800 Japan's #1 producer of frozen foods. BASF (Germany) €5,021 million

(agricultural products and

nutrition division)

BASF’s annual sales of nanotechnology based products currently amount to around €2,000 million The majority of these sales do not involve food, although BASF sells nano-scale carotenoid food additives.

Goodman Fielder N/A Australia’s largest food manufacturer. John Lusty Group, PLC N/A UK-based food importer and distributor. La Doria N/A A leading Italian processor of tomato-based products. Northern Foods N/A One of UK’s largest food manufacturers. United Foods N/A US-based, privately-held producer and processor of vegetables

64

ANNEX 2: Nano Patents for Food and Food Packaging

Patent Assignee

Area of Application,

Patent/ Application #, Date Issued or

Published

Patent Excerpt

Atofina, France Packaging WO04012998A3 2004-02-12

“Composition for food packaging based on vinyl aromatic resin containing a mineral platy filler in the form of nanoparticles.”

Nutralease, Ltd. (Israel)

Bio-Delivery US20030232095A1 2003-12-18

“The nano-sized concentrates of the present invention enable in an efficient manner the solubilization, transport and dilution of oil-soluble, oil non-soluble or water-soluble nutraceuticals, food supplements, food additives, plant extracts, medicaments, peptides, proteins or carbohydrates. Thus they may be used as efficient vehicles for transport of active materials into the human body.”

NONE Bio-Delivery US20030152629A1 2003-08-14

“Controlled release system that can encapsulate different flavors, sensory markers, and active ingredients, or combinations of flavors, sensory markers and various active ingredients and release multiple active ingredients in a consecutive manner, one after the other. The controlled delivery system is substantially free-flowing powder formed of solid hydrophobic nanospheres that are encapsulated in a moisture sensitive microspheres.”

Qingtian New Material Research & Development Co. (China)

Food Additive CN1409966A 2003-04-16

“An antibacterial nanometre powder without decolouring for food contains nanometre zirconium phosphate particles as carrier and active antibacterial component. Its advantages are small granularity, broad spectrum, high compatibility, stability and antibacterial efficiency, and no poison.”

Pengcheng Vocational Univ. (China)

Food Packaging CN1408746A 2003-04-09

“Antibiotic fresh preserving plastic film and its producing method”

Henkel KommandiGesell-schaft Auf Aktien, Düsseldorf, Germany

Food Processing, Bio-Delivery US6204231 2001-03-20

“Aqueous caustic alkali for cleaning food industry facilities, giving regenerated concentrate useful directly in animal feed, contains aqueous potassium hydroxide and optionally other alkali, especially sodium hydroxide.”

NONE Bio-delivery US6197757 2001-03-06

“Particles, especially microparticles or nanoparticles, of crosslinked monosaccharides and oligosaccharides, processes for their preparation and cosmetic, pharmaceutical or food compositions in which they are present”

Kraft Foods Bio-delivery EP1355537A1 2003-10-29

“Production of capsules and particles for improvement of food products”

65

Patent Assignee

Area of Application,

Patent/ Application #, Date Issued or

Published

Patent Excerpt

BASF Bio-delivery, Food Additive US5891907 1999-04-06

“Stable aqueous solubilizates are disclosed suitable for parenteral administration, of carotenoids and vitamins or vitamin derivatives, in which the carotenoid and the water-insoluble vitamins are, with the aid of a nonionic emulsifier, in the form of a micellar solution, the micelles being smaller than 100 nm”

BASF Food Additive US5968251 1999-10-19-

“Carotenoid preparations in the form of coldwater-dispersible powders are produced by...preparing a molecular-disperse solution of a carotenoid, with or without an emulsifier and/or an edible oil, in a volatile, water-miscible, organic solvent at elevated temperature and adding therein an aqueous solution of a protective colloid, whereupon the hydrophilic solvent component is transferred into the aqueous phase, and the hydrophobic phase of the carotenoid results as nanodisperse phase...”

Rohm and Haas Bio-delivery EP1447074A2 2004-08-18

“Polymeric nanoparticles in consumer products. Crosslinked polymeric nanoparticles having a diameter of 1-10 nm comprising skin care ingredients and food ingredients.”

Borealis Technology (Finland)

Packaging WO04063267A1 2004-07-29

“Article comprising stretched polymer composition with nanofillers: Polymer article (e.g. film for food packaging), comprises polymer composition containing polyolefin matrix and nanofiller dispersed in the matrix.”

Cap-Sulution Nanoscience Ag, (Germany)

Bio-delivery WO04030649A2 2004-04-15

“Microcapsules or nanocapsules containing sparingly water-soluble active agent, useful e.g. for rapid drug release on oral administration, having permeable shell containing polyelectrolyte and counter-ion.”

University College Dublin, National University of Ireland, Dublin

Food Additive WO04016696A1 2004-02-26

“A method for the manufacture of patterned microparticles comprises immobilising microparticles, including nanoparticles, to be patterned on a surface of a porous membrane, causing an inorganic or organic coating material which can bind to exposed surfaces of said microparticles…The patterned microparticles produced can be used in wide range of applications in health, information and communication, and sustainable environment such as shelter, clothing, energy, food, transport and security.”

Rhodia Chimie, Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex, France

Bio-delivery WO03095085A1 2003-11-20

“Colloidal dispersions of calcium phosphate nanoparticles and at least one protein, the size of said nanoparticles ranging between 50 and 300 nm, and the morphology of said nanoparticles being spherical…The invention can be used in the food, cosmetic, pharmacological industries.”

66

Patent Assignee

Area of Application,

Patent/ Application #, Date Issued or

Published

Patent Excerpt

Shanxi Coal Chemistry Inst., Chinese Academy Of Sciences, China

Packaging CN1454939A 2003-11-12

“The preparation method of nano titanium dioxide granule whose surface is coated with aluminium oxide. The grain diameter of the prepared nano titanium dioxide is 10-100 nm, its surface is coated with aluminium oxide membrane. Nano titanium dioxide coated with aluminium dioxide has good dispersion property, can implement single granule dispersion, can be used as excellent UV-ray screening agent, and can be used in the fields of paint, rubber, fibre, coating material, sun protection products, printing ink and food package, etc.”

Gerold, Lukowski, Jülich, Wolf-Dieter, Ulrike Lindequist, Sabine Mundt

Food Additive DE10310021A1 2003-10-23

“Micro- or nanoparticles of biomass of lipid-containing marine organisms, useful as pharmaceutical or cosmetic active agents or food additives, e.g. for preventing binding of bacteria to skin or tissue.”

Guan-Gzhou Institute Of Chemistry, Chinese Academy Of Sciences

Food Additive CN1448427A 2003-10-15

“Water dispersible nanometer avicel, its prep. and colloid therefrom: The nanometer microcrystal cellulose powder is surface modified nanometer microcrystal cellulose with added hydrophilic colloid in the amount of 5-150 wt% of nanometer microcrystal cellulose and has grain size of 6.3-100 nanometers. During its preparation, hydrophilic colloid is dispersed homogeneously into water dispersed medium of surface modified nanometer microcrystal cellulose and the mixture is then dried and crushed. The nanometer microcrystal cellulose is easy to be water dispersed to form colloid, which is homogeneous and high in gluing strength and has the small size of microcrystal cellulose maintained, so that it has wide and unique application foreground in food production, medicine, papermaking, textile, new material preparation and other fields.”

Zhang Liwen China

Food Additive, Bio-delivery CN1439768A 2003-09-03

“Nano feather powder and its processing method and use: A nano-class feather down powder used as the functional and health-care additive of food, feed cosmetics, medicine, or chemical fibres is prepared from the feather down of duck, goose, birds, etc through water washing, screening, shearing pulverizing, immersing in alcohol, centrifugal drying, microwave oscillating, quick cooling, low-temp pulverizing and sieving. Its advantages are no loss of active components, high specific surface area, molecular activity and affinity to human body and higher health-care effect.”

Nano-Materials Technology Pte Ltd., Singapore Beijing University Of Chemical Technology

? WO03055804A1 2003-07-10

“Calcium carbonate of different shapes including spindle, petal, whisker, needle, flake, ball and fiber. The calcium carbonate has an average particle size in the range of 10 nm - 2.5 µm and can be utilized in various fields such as rubber, plastics, papermaking, coatings, building materials, inks, paintings, food, medicine, domestic chemical industry, textile and feed.”

Cellresin Technologies, Llc

Packaging US20030129403A1 2003-07-10

“Barrier material with nanosize metal particles as coating of plastic diaper or for food-contact packaging materials, comprises particles of zinc or similar reacting metal or metal alloy, dispersed in matrix material”

67

Patent Assignee

Area of Application,

Patent/ Application #, Date Issued or

Published

Patent Excerpt

Bridgestone Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

Food Additive US6579929 2003-06-17

“Stabilized silica and method of making and using the same: A surface stabilized, non-agglomerated silica is provided…[it] has a size in the nanometer range. The surface stabilized, non-agglomerated silica can be used as an additive in any application that uses silica, such as reinforcing fillers for elastomeric compositions, foods, drugs, dentifrices, inks, toners, coatings and abrasives.”

Solubest Ltd., Rehorot, Israel

Bio-delivery, Food Additive WO03028700A3 2003-04-10

“Water soluble nanoparticles of hydrophilic and hydrophobic active materials: This invention provides a soluble nano-sized particles formed of a core (Water-insoluble lipophilic )compound or hydrophilic compound and an amphiphilic polymer and which demonstrated improved solubility and/or stability. The lipophilic compound within the soluble nano-sized soluble (“Solu-nanoparticles") may consist of pharmaceutical compounds, food additives, cosmetics, agricultural products and veterinary products.”

Central P BV, Naarden, Netherlands

Bio-delivery WO03024583A1 2003-03-27

“Novel Calixarene Based Dispersible Colloidal Systems in the Form Of Nanoparticles for medical, biological, veterinary, cosmetic and alimentary use, includes nanoparticles comprising amphiphilically modified calixarene.”

Wageningen Centre For Food Sciences, Wageningen, Netherlands

Food WO03011040A1 2003-02-13

“A novel process for preparing a gelled aqueous composition, which process employs a gel-forming globular protein such as whey protein, ovalbumin or soy protein…The invention also relates to products obtainable by the above process.”

University of Seville, University of Málaga, Spain

Bio-delivery, Food Additive WO02060591A1 2002-08-08

“Device and method for producing stationary multi-component liquid capillary streams and micrometric and nanometric sized capsules, the diameter of which may range from tens of nanometers to hundreds of microns and to a relatively monodispersed aerosol of electrically charged multi-component droplets generated by rupture of the streams due to capillary instabilities. The device and method can be used in fields such as materials science and food technology, wherever generation and controlled handling of structured micrometric and nanometric sized streams is an essential part of the process.”

Mars, Inc. Food Additive US5741505 1998-04-21

“...A coated edible product comprising... edible material...and a substantially continuous inorganic coating on a surface of the edible material, wherein said coating covers at least a portion of the edible material and said coating has a thickness ranging from 0.0001 to 0.5 microns.”

Globoasia, L.L.C., Hanover, Md.

Food Additive (preservative) US6379712 2002-04-30

“The invention relates to nanosilver-containing antibacterial and antifungal granules (“NAGs”). The NAGs have longlasting inhibitory effect on a broad-spectrum of bacteria and fungi. The NAGs can be used in a variety of healthcare and industrial products…Examples of industrial products include, but are not limited to, food preservatives, water disinfectants, paper disinfectants, construction filling materials (to prevent mold formation).”

68

Patent Assignee

Area of Application,

Patent/ Application #, Date Issued or

Published

Patent Excerpt

Cognis Deutschland Gmbh, Düsseldorf, Germany

Food Additive US6352737 2002-03-05

“The use of nanoscale sterols and/or sterol esters with particle diameters of 10 to 300 nm as food additives and as active substances for the production of hypocholesterolemic agents. The particular fineness of the particles promotes more rapid absorption by the blood serum after oral ingestion by comparison with conventional sterols and sterol esters.”

Henkel Kgaa, Düsseldorf, Germany

Food Additive DE10027948A1 2001-12-20

“Production of suspension of undecomposed meltable material used in e.g. the pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food industries comprises preparing emulsion from material, liquid phase and surface modifying agent, and cooling”

Coletica, Lyons, France

Bio-Delivery US6303150 2001-10-16

“Method for producing nanocapsules with crosslinked protein-based walls nanocapsules thereby obtained and cosmetic, pharmaceutical and food compositions using same”

Lu Bingkun China Packaging CN1298902A 2001-06-13

“Process for preparing antibacterial plastics for food or beverage containers using nanoscale antibacterial powder”

Wolff Walsrode Ag, (Germany)

Packaging DE19937117A1 2001-02-08

“Film, useful for the packaging of food stuffs, contains at least one copolyamide layer comprising 10-2000 ppm dispersed nanoscale nucleating particles”

Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A.

Packaging US6117541 2000-09-12

“Polyolefin material integrated with nanophase particles: Packaging laminate, used in a container for fluid foods e.g. milk or juice – comprising a layer of polyolefin interspersed with nanometer size clay particles for gas barrier properties”

NONE Packaging US5946930 2001-02-08

“Self-cooling beverage and food container using fullerene nanotubes”

The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, ETC Group

(formerly known as RAFI), is dedicated to the conservation and sustain-

able advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.

To this end, ETC Group supports socially responsible developments in

technologies useful to the poor and marginalized, and it addresses

governance issues affecting the international community. We also moni-

tor the ownership and control of technologies and the consolidation of

corporate power.

Down on the Farm: The Impact of Nano-scale Technologies on Food and

Agriculture is the first in a series of reports that ETC Group will produce

over the next two years on the social and economic impacts of technolo-

gies converging at the nano-scale.

www.etcgroup.org