Nanotechnology is a powerful new platform technology for taking apart
and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level. The
nano-scale is exceedingly tiny; it is the world of atoms and molecules,
involving the manipulation of matter at the nanometer scale (nm), one
billionth of a meter. “Nano” means more than just tiny manufacturing: it
is well-known that materials engineered or manufactured to the
nano-scale exhibit radically different fundamental physical, biological,
and chemical properties from bulk materials–properties that also create
unique human health and environmental risks.
While the first wave of nanomaterial products has been consumer
products, food and food packaging products appear to be next in line.
Many of the world's leading food companies - including H.J. Heinz,
Nestle, Hershey, Campbell, General Mills, PepsiCo, Sara Lee, Unilever,
and Kraft - are investing heavily in nanotechnology applications.
Hundreds of new food and agriculture products are under development and
many could be on the market soon. By 2010 the nano-food market could be
worth $6 billion. Examples of current products include a nutritional
supplement drink for children that contains iron nanoparticles,
McDonald's hamburger containers, Cadbury chocolate bar wrappers, and
Miller Lite beer bottles.
USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is voting on whether
nanotechnology should be banned from use in Organic products. Thanks to
your overwhelming outcry in May 2009, the Board’s initial recommendation
is to keep nanotech out of organic entirely. Now, we need your help
again to make sure USDA holds the line! The critical vote on the Board’s
final recommendation will be held in Washington D.C. on Nov 3.
Nanotechnology is contrary to Organic Principles and could further
entrench industrial/chemical agriculture and industrial food as our
dominant paradigm, to the detriment of public health and the
environment. Tell NOSB to ensure the integrity of Organic on this issue
by voting that USDA ban nanotechnology as an excluded method.
Talking Points
Please edit the letter below to personalize your comments. We will
collect your comments and deliver them at the close of the comment
period at Midnight on Monday, October 19th.
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
Valerie Frances, Executive Director, NOSB, USDA-AMS-TMD-NOP, 1400
Independence Ave. S.W., Room 4004-S, Ag Stop 0268, Washington,
D.C.20250-0268
RE: Docket No. AMS-TM-09-0060
I am concerned about the potential use of nanotechnology in organic
products (Docket No. AMS-TM-09-0060). It is up to NOSB to ensure the
integrity of Organic on this issue by voting that USDA ban
nanotechnology as an excluded method. I support the Materials Committee
Recommendation that nanotechnology be prohibited for the following
reasons:
Nanotechnology is contrary to Organic Principles. Nanotechnology will
further entrench industrial/chemical agriculture and industrial food as
our dominant paradigm, to the detriment of public health and the
environment. As such, nanotechnology is antithetical to organic
principles and should be banned from the USDA Organic standard.
Size matters. "Nano" is best understood to mean more than merely
tiny manufacturing and materials; rather it means substances that have
the capacity to be fundamentally different, with new chemical, physical
and biological properties. These same new properties that excite
industry create new and novel risks to human health and the environment.
Not all nanomaterials will be hazardous, but the materials' safety
cannot be assumed from testing or approval of larger cousins and should
be assumed to have added risk.
Labeling Nanotech Materials as Synthetic Is a Dangerous Idea. A Ban on
the Technology, Like Genetic Engineering, Is Required To Protect Organic
Integrity. Labeling nanotech materials as "synthetic" without
recommending a prohibition on the technology is a very dangerous idea
that would create a future system where proponents of each specific
nanomaterial would be able to petition for inclusion on the National
List. It would be as if biotechnology crops could petition one by one to
be organic! The only way to protect Organic is by prohibiting
nanotechnology as a class because it is antithetical to the principles
and purpose of the Organic Standard.
(Edit Letter Below)
Human and Animal Health: Due to their size, nanoparticles can cross
biological membranes, cells, tissues, and organs more readily than
larger particles. When inhaled, they can go from the lungs into the
blood system. There is growing evidence that some nanomaterials may
penetrate intact skin and gain access to systemic circulation. When
ingested, nanomaterials may pass through the gut wall and into the
blood. Once in the blood stream, nanomaterials can circulate throughout
the body and can lodge in organs and tissues including the brain, liver,
heart, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow, and nervous system. Once inside
cells, they may interfere with normal cellular function, cause oxidative
damage and even cell death.
Environmental Impacts: There are serious concerns about environmental
impacts that conflict with Organic's land stewardship ethos. Once loose
in nature, manufactured nanomaterials represent a new class of
pollutants. Potentially damaging environmental impacts stem from the
novel nature of manufactured nanomaterials, including mobility and
persistence in soil, water and air, bioaccumulation, and unanticipated
interactions with chemical and biological materials. Existing studies
have raised red flags, such as damage to beneficial microorganisms from
nano-silver. The U.K. Royal Society has recommended that, "the release
of nanoparticles and nanotubes in the environment be avoided as far as
possible" and that, "factories and research laboratories treat
manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as hazardous, and seek to
reduce or remove them from waste streams."
Broader Impacts: In addition to health and environmental impacts,
nanotechnology is a platform, converging technology which will continue
to industrialize food and agricultural. Some of these issues include:
the use of nanotechnology in conjunction with biotechnology and
synthetic biology; the use of nanomaterials in food packaging in order
to ship further distances and increase shelf life, exacerbating climate
change impacts and contrary to organic principles of small-scale and
local farming; and the intellectual property privatization of
nanotechnology's basic building blocks.
The Time to Act is Now. Nanotechnology commercialization is currently
exploding without any oversight or labeling and little emphasis on risk
research. Food and agriculture is a growing sector of nanomaterial
research and development and commercialization. NOSB and NOP must act to
protect organic. NOSB must ensure the integrity of Organic on this
issue by voting that USDA ban nanotechnology as an excluded method and
bar nanotechnology and nanomaterials, as a class, from eligibility in
the National List entirely.
http://truefoodnow.org/
and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular level. The
nano-scale is exceedingly tiny; it is the world of atoms and molecules,
involving the manipulation of matter at the nanometer scale (nm), one
billionth of a meter. “Nano” means more than just tiny manufacturing: it
is well-known that materials engineered or manufactured to the
nano-scale exhibit radically different fundamental physical, biological,
and chemical properties from bulk materials–properties that also create
unique human health and environmental risks.
While the first wave of nanomaterial products has been consumer
products, food and food packaging products appear to be next in line.
Many of the world's leading food companies - including H.J. Heinz,
Nestle, Hershey, Campbell, General Mills, PepsiCo, Sara Lee, Unilever,
and Kraft - are investing heavily in nanotechnology applications.
Hundreds of new food and agriculture products are under development and
many could be on the market soon. By 2010 the nano-food market could be
worth $6 billion. Examples of current products include a nutritional
supplement drink for children that contains iron nanoparticles,
McDonald's hamburger containers, Cadbury chocolate bar wrappers, and
Miller Lite beer bottles.
USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is voting on whether
nanotechnology should be banned from use in Organic products. Thanks to
your overwhelming outcry in May 2009, the Board’s initial recommendation
is to keep nanotech out of organic entirely. Now, we need your help
again to make sure USDA holds the line! The critical vote on the Board’s
final recommendation will be held in Washington D.C. on Nov 3.
Nanotechnology is contrary to Organic Principles and could further
entrench industrial/chemical agriculture and industrial food as our
dominant paradigm, to the detriment of public health and the
environment. Tell NOSB to ensure the integrity of Organic on this issue
by voting that USDA ban nanotechnology as an excluded method.
Talking Points
Please edit the letter below to personalize your comments. We will
collect your comments and deliver them at the close of the comment
period at Midnight on Monday, October 19th.
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
Valerie Frances, Executive Director, NOSB, USDA-AMS-TMD-NOP, 1400
Independence Ave. S.W., Room 4004-S, Ag Stop 0268, Washington,
D.C.20250-0268
RE: Docket No. AMS-TM-09-0060
I am concerned about the potential use of nanotechnology in organic
products (Docket No. AMS-TM-09-0060). It is up to NOSB to ensure the
integrity of Organic on this issue by voting that USDA ban
nanotechnology as an excluded method. I support the Materials Committee
Recommendation that nanotechnology be prohibited for the following
reasons:
Nanotechnology is contrary to Organic Principles. Nanotechnology will
further entrench industrial/chemical agriculture and industrial food as
our dominant paradigm, to the detriment of public health and the
environment. As such, nanotechnology is antithetical to organic
principles and should be banned from the USDA Organic standard.
Size matters. "Nano" is best understood to mean more than merely
tiny manufacturing and materials; rather it means substances that have
the capacity to be fundamentally different, with new chemical, physical
and biological properties. These same new properties that excite
industry create new and novel risks to human health and the environment.
Not all nanomaterials will be hazardous, but the materials' safety
cannot be assumed from testing or approval of larger cousins and should
be assumed to have added risk.
Labeling Nanotech Materials as Synthetic Is a Dangerous Idea. A Ban on
the Technology, Like Genetic Engineering, Is Required To Protect Organic
Integrity. Labeling nanotech materials as "synthetic" without
recommending a prohibition on the technology is a very dangerous idea
that would create a future system where proponents of each specific
nanomaterial would be able to petition for inclusion on the National
List. It would be as if biotechnology crops could petition one by one to
be organic! The only way to protect Organic is by prohibiting
nanotechnology as a class because it is antithetical to the principles
and purpose of the Organic Standard.
(Edit Letter Below)
Human and Animal Health: Due to their size, nanoparticles can cross
biological membranes, cells, tissues, and organs more readily than
larger particles. When inhaled, they can go from the lungs into the
blood system. There is growing evidence that some nanomaterials may
penetrate intact skin and gain access to systemic circulation. When
ingested, nanomaterials may pass through the gut wall and into the
blood. Once in the blood stream, nanomaterials can circulate throughout
the body and can lodge in organs and tissues including the brain, liver,
heart, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow, and nervous system. Once inside
cells, they may interfere with normal cellular function, cause oxidative
damage and even cell death.
Environmental Impacts: There are serious concerns about environmental
impacts that conflict with Organic's land stewardship ethos. Once loose
in nature, manufactured nanomaterials represent a new class of
pollutants. Potentially damaging environmental impacts stem from the
novel nature of manufactured nanomaterials, including mobility and
persistence in soil, water and air, bioaccumulation, and unanticipated
interactions with chemical and biological materials. Existing studies
have raised red flags, such as damage to beneficial microorganisms from
nano-silver. The U.K. Royal Society has recommended that, "the release
of nanoparticles and nanotubes in the environment be avoided as far as
possible" and that, "factories and research laboratories treat
manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as hazardous, and seek to
reduce or remove them from waste streams."
Broader Impacts: In addition to health and environmental impacts,
nanotechnology is a platform, converging technology which will continue
to industrialize food and agricultural. Some of these issues include:
the use of nanotechnology in conjunction with biotechnology and
synthetic biology; the use of nanomaterials in food packaging in order
to ship further distances and increase shelf life, exacerbating climate
change impacts and contrary to organic principles of small-scale and
local farming; and the intellectual property privatization of
nanotechnology's basic building blocks.
The Time to Act is Now. Nanotechnology commercialization is currently
exploding without any oversight or labeling and little emphasis on risk
research. Food and agriculture is a growing sector of nanomaterial
research and development and commercialization. NOSB and NOP must act to
protect organic. NOSB must ensure the integrity of Organic on this
issue by voting that USDA ban nanotechnology as an excluded method and
bar nanotechnology and nanomaterials, as a class, from eligibility in
the National List entirely.
http://truefoodnow.org/
