Search results: nanotechnology

Food Navigator reports that UK experts are demanding public debate and regulation of nanomaterials in foods.  Without that, they warn, nanotechnology risks “facing the same fate as genetically modified (GM) foods in consumer perceptions.”

Nanotechnology is about manipulating materials on the scale of atoms or molecules, measured in nanometers (nm), one billionth, or 10⁻⁹, of a meter.

Many companies are already using nanomaterials in agriculture, food processing, food packaging, and supplements.  This is not something the public has heard much about.  Food companies often don’t know whether or not they are using these materials.

Nanotechnology science is new, and the industry is unregulated.

The FDA’s nanotechnology web page links to a quite thorough 2007 report from a task force,  but the agency’s only guidance to date tells companies how they can find out whether they are using nanomaterials.

Jumping into that gap, As You Sow has issued a Sourcing Framework for Food and Food Packaging Products Containing Nanomaterials.

As You Sow says:

Not only is this technology unregulated and untested for its implications on public health but companies may not even be aware if they are using products made with nanomaterials….In consultation with food companies such as: Kraft, McDonald’s (which has adopted a “no nano” policy), Whole Foods, Yum! Brands, and Pepsi, the nonprofit organization As You Sow developed this practical tool which clearly outlines what companies should ask their suppliers regarding the safety of products containing nanomaterials.

The report fills an important gap.  Companies using this technology should be telling the public more about it.  Nanotechnology is technical, difficult to grasp intuitively, “foreign,” and not under personal control.  This places it high on the scale of “dread-and-outrage.”

Does it belong there?  Who knows?  But the sooner its risks and benefits are assessed, the better.   Otherwise it risks becoming the next GMO in public perception.

FoodNavigator.com periodically collects its posts about specific topics.  This one is called Nanotechnology – Challenges and Opportunities. Nanotechnology, this European industry site says, “offers the food processing and packaging industries significant gains in terms of performance, safety and functionality. But uncertainties remain over the long-term effects of exposure to nanomaterials.”

Indeed, they do.  As I have discussed previously, nanotechnology is the use of extremely small particles to do any number of things to food, food processing, and food packaging.   I’m still having a hard time knowing what to think about it.  So are others, apparently.

EFSA publishes draft guidance on nano risk assessment: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published draft guidance giving more specific risk assessment information regarding the use of nanotechnology in food…

Scientists developing ‘rechargeable’ antimicrobial layer for food processing surfaces: The germ-killing properties of a prototype nano-scale antimicrobial layer for food handling surfaces can be chemically ‘recharged’ every time it is rinsed with household bleach, said US scientists…

Assess risk from nano-pollution and antimicrobials in packaging – IFST: The Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST) has called for greater appraisal of the potential risks from the release into the environment of nanomaterials used in food packaging…

Nano-coated ‘killer paper’ developed to extend food shelf life: Israeli scientists have said their new nano-coated “killer paper” could be used in food packaging to combat bacteria such as E.coli to extend product shelf life…

New ISO standard gauges nano-toxicity risks: New guidelines from the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) have been published in a bid to help key industry players assess the possible risks presented by the burgeoning growth of nano-based products…

UK mulls confidentiality pact with industry over nano research: The Food Standard Agency (FSA) said it is considering signing confidentiality agreements with food and packaging companies in a bid to persuade them to share information on nanotechnology research…

I’m hoping for for more research, and soon.

Nanotechnology involves the ability to control matter at the scale of a nanometer—one billionth of a meter. The world market for products that contain nanomaterials is expected to reach $2.6 trillion by 2015.

So says a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO): Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk. GAO-10-549, May 25, 2010.

GAO identified a variety of products that currently incorporate nanomaterials already available in commerce…[in] food and agriculture….The extent to which nanomaterials present a risk to human health and the environment depends on a combination of the toxicity of specific nanomaterials and the route and level of exposure to these materials. Although the body of research related to nanomaterials is growing, the current understanding of the risks posed by these materials is limited.

The effects of nanotechnology on the environment are regulated by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), which is why this report targets recommendations to EPA.

Shouldn’t some of those recommendations be directed toward FDA, the agency that regulates food safety?  Maybe GAO needs to do another report?

In the meantime, the European Food Safety Authority is preoccupied with issues related to the safety of food nanotechnology.

The risk assessment framework for nanotechnology in Europe – like so much else connected to the technology – appears to be in its infancy but developing at a rapid pace…. Nano knowledge gaps have led some to call for a ban on the use of nanomaterials in food products until their safety has been fully established. One area of concern is whether nanoparticles can migrate from packaging materials into foods.

In seeking to assess nanomaterials, the food safety body repeatedly used phrases such as “specific uncertainties”, “limited knowledge” and…“difficult to characterise, detect and measure” in relation to toxicokinetics and toxicology in food. Likely usage and exposure levels are also largely a mystery.

The European Food Safety Authority says that lack of knowledge means that risk assessment of risk assessments must be done on a “cautious case-by-case approach.”

Last April, the European Parliament’s environment committee said nanotech products should be withdrawn from the market until more is known about their safety.  In June, that committee added that nanotech foods should be assessed for safety before they are approved for use and labeled.

Doesn’t that sound reasonable?  Let’s hope it’s not too late to put such constraints in place, and in the U.S. too.

I am trying to understand what to think about food nanotechnology and whether it is good, bad, or indifferent.  Nanotechnology refers to the use of very small particles for doing any number of things to food.  I’ve been collecting items about it:

• A recent review of the use of nanotechnology concluded that it has many possible benefits in improving the nutritional quality of foods.
• Nanotech particles from corn act as antioxidant emulsifiers.
• Nanotech particles enhance the bioavailability of beneficial plant chemicals.

But what about their safety?  Could nanoparticles cross cell-membranes and end up being harmful?  The technology to produce the particles does not cost much.  This means anyone can make and use them, including food manufacturers who don’t want to bother with safety testing.  So: is nanotechnology the new asbestos?

If you know something about this, please weigh in.  Thanks and happy new year!

Update, January 8: A the U.K. House of Lords Science and Technology committee warns that the lack of transparency in research on nanotechnology is likely to induce a consumer backlash similar to that on genetically modified foods.  Indeed.

A recent meeting of the Institute for Food Technologists included presentations on applications of nanotechnology to food. These, say food technologists, have the potential to improve the safety, quality, and shelf life of foods.  They cite as examples anti-microbial coatings on food packaging materials and improved delivery systems for vitamin and flavor ingredients.

Nanotechnology deals with substances at the atomic and molecular levels, which means really, really small.  One nanometer is 0.000,000,001 meters (10 to the minus 9, or one millionth of a millimeter).

Until now, I haven’t said anything about food nanotechnology because I really don’t know what to say about it.  Is it safe?  How would we know?  Friends of the Earth says nanotechnology is the antithesis of organic agriculture and  represents a new threat to our food supply.  Even Food Technology thinks it should be disclosed on package labels.

The FDA says it already has the authority to regulate food nanotechnology.  The industry says that overly strict regulations are impeding progress in this industry (sounds like the GMO arguments, no?).

What’s going on here?  I’m having trouble getting a handle on this one.

If you know something about this, comments are most welcome.

It’s not easy to track the food politics of Cannabis.  New edible and drinkable products are entering the market all the time, and the FDA still hasn’t gotten around to issueing regulations that anyone can understand.

I’ve been getting email PR for drinkables, for example:

• All-natural Wavze CBD Water Enhancers; CBD water is the new wave of consuming cannabinoids, made by infusing water with CBD particles. The water-soluble CBD plays into bioavailability, allowing the product to be absorbed more efficiently and adding versatility…Nanotechnology found in Wavze with particles as small as .01-100 nanometers, on the other hand, has proven to improve nutrient delivery…Available in three flavors – lemonade, coconut and lime, dragonfruit [in shot-size bottles]…Price: $25.00 (10mg squeeze bottle).
• CBD sauces:  These include things like Loud Grandma CBD Chili Crisp Oil, advertised as “a little fruity and funky…not crazy hot, but it packs a flavorful punch when used on leftover rice or spooned over scrambled eggs. Each teaspoon is a 10-milligram dose of CBD;” Potli’s CBD Feel Good Honey, “crafted with raw, wildflower honey harvested in California and infused with 10 milligrams of CBD per teaspoon…Maybe try it in a Gold Rush?; and Hot Sloth CBD Hot Sauce made with white miso paste, fermented plum, dragonfruit, habanero and 15 milligrams of CBD per teaspoon.
• CBD from orange peels: A different CBD story:  A new CBD made from orange peel could signal a breakthrough for the industry and offer access that was once unimaginable…. Read more

But the market may not be doing all that great.  Theft and fraud are major concerns:

• Does a drop in CBD sales signal dwindling consumer interest, or is it a classic ‘crossing the chasm’ moment?  With US retail sales of cannabidiol-infused foods, beverages and supplements declining sharply in the past year and some early-adopters souring on the ingredient after experiencing lackluster ‘results,’ some players in the space are discontinuing their CBD products or formulating new ones without it. 
  
•  Thieves are stealing California’s scarce water. Where’s it going? Illegal marijuana farms:  As drought grips most of California, water thefts have increased to record levels. Thieves tap into hydrants, pump water from rivers, and break into remote water stations and tanks.

So is lack of regulation

• The passage of the 2018 farm bill has created an unregulated THC market, and Congress is not rushing to fix it. FiveThirtyEight has more.

Mitch McConnell didn’t know what he was doing when he passed the 2018 Farm Bill. The bill included his provision that legalized industrial hemp, a form of cannabis that can be made into a wide variety of products including cannabidiol, a non-intoxicating cannabis compound commonly called CBD. That part was intentional — the law quickly launched a multi-billion dollar industry that put the once-obscure CBD compound into lattes, seltzers and hundreds of CVS stores across the country.  But after three years it appears one of the law’s biggest impacts was entirely unintentional: It accidentally created a booming market for synthetic THC, marijuana’s primary intoxicant.

The FDA is AWOL according to Politico.

The FDA’s original mission, in the words of acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, centered on “frustrating the sale of products peddled by frauds, charlatans, and careless companies.” But it isn’t doing that, and it hasn’t for a while now…when it comes to the non-prescription products that tens of millions of Americans buy every day — and which underlie a vast and growing industry — the agency is far less focused and effective, and in some cases, totally absent…the FDA’s failure to act is not only dangerous for consumers; it’s deeply damaging to the legitimate companies that are forced to compete with those that are reckless or worse.

Health Affairs, with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, takes a serious look at CBD policies and the lack thereof.

• Cannabis Liberalization In The US: The Policy Landscape: State cannabis policies are inconsistent across jurisdictions and often conflict with federal policy. Policy makers should adopt an approach to cannabis liberalization that addresses these inconsistencies, improves the safety of cannabis supply, and combats health disparities and other inequities.
• Cannabis legalization In The US: Population Health Impacts:  Evidence regarding the effects of recreational cannabis legalization on public health is inconsistent. Future research should assess heterogeneous policy design, differential effects on population subgroups, and effects related to characteristics of legal cannabis supply.

I’m watching what’s happening with Cannabis edibles with much interest.  Sales are booming.  Regulators are stymied.  Regulation is virtually absent—nobody seems to know how—and science, alas, hardly exists.

BakeryandSnacks.com fills the information gap with an Editor’s Spotlight on CBD [cannabidiol]-Infused Snacks, from the business perspective, as always.

•  LISTEN: Nanotechnology opens avenues for high-potency CBD-infused bakery and snacks: Infused By Epic has debuted a novel bioavailable CBD delivery system that can be incorporated into snacks and baked goods. Read more
• Marijuana ‘munchies’ tick up US snack sales: Nielsen has reported there has been a notable pick-up in the consumption of the so-called ‘munchies’ in US states where marijuana is legal, which has boosted the sales of snacks. Read more
•  LISTEN – Snacks with attitude: Should producers jump onto the CBD craze?  The rush to the so-called ‘shining new kid on the block’ – as Marcia Mogelonsky, director of Insight at Mintel Food and Drink terms it – has ignited like a wildfire and everyone is talking about it. But will it make vogue status? Read more
• NatureBox sells out CBD Wellness snack line in first week: According to the online snack brand, thousands of Americans signed up for early access to a limited release pre-sale of its CBD-infused fruit snacks. Read more
• Will CBD-infused snacks help Mondelēz regain traction in its developed markets?  The multinational snack maker is in the early stages of assessing how CBD could fit into its future product portfolio, according to CEO Dirk Van Put. Read more
• SNAAK Bar launches first-ever hemp CBD sports bar on US market:  California-based SNAAK Bar has partnered with CV Sciences Inc. to create two new hemp-enriched nutrition bars designed to optimize sports performance. Read more
• NightFood explores CBD-infused snacks for better sleep:  NightFood Holdings is currently researching cannabidiol’s (CBD) medicinal benefits for sleep, hoping to develop or acquire a line of infused snacks in 2018. Read more
• Growing against regulations: Cannabis edibles industry’s significant profit margins are yet to be seen, Colorado marijuana bakers said:  Experts from the cannabis edibles industry have shattered the popular belief that manufacturers of cannabis-infused bakers are able to make large profit margins due to the growing cannabis market.  Read more
•  It’s all about understanding the consumer and offering the right snack at the right time for the right occasion:  This year, Barcelona in Spain played host to Snackex 2019, the 18th edition of Europe’s only international business event dedicated to the savory snacks sector. Read more

And I’ve collected a few more from other sources.

• ‘The prevalence of questionable products may inspire a tsunami of class action litigation…’ The regulatory path forward for CBD: While not everyone was on the same page about the legal path forward for hemp-derived CBD during Friday’s marathon FDA hearing, multiple speakers made clear that the current situation is untenable, with one predicting a wave of lawsuits, and others demanding that the agency either crack down on companies marketing such products, or explicitly spell out that existing regulatory frameworks can accommodate them… Read
• Insufficient scientific research & labeling constraints could limit use of CBD in food, supplements: When it comes to legally marketing conventional food and dietary supplements with CBD and other cannabis-derived compounds, FDA and industry appear stuck in a catch-22… Watch now
• ‘Virtual knockoff’: Mondeléz Canada warns of growing trend towards marketing edibles by ripping off popular snacks and candies: While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, ripping off a beloved children’s candy brand (SOUR PATCH Kids) in order to sell THC-infused gummies is no laughing matter, says Mondeléz Canada in a trademark infringement lawsuit against edibles brand STONEY PATCH..
• Cannabis sales could hit $41B by 2025, Nielsen predicts:  The research firm found the variety of products has grown significantly in four years — jumping from 166 brands in 2014 to 2,600 last year.And if you are really interested in this topic, and have a spare $1995 lying around, you can buy the Nutrition Business Journal’s Hemp and CBD Guide.

And here’s a free White Paper on Cannabis edibles—a cross-industry analysis.

Every now and then something reminds me about food nanotechnology, the use of molecular size nanoparticles to whiten or improve the safety or shelf life of processed foods (see previous posts on the topic).

What brought this on is a recent report from Australia that sounds all too familiar.  Friends of the Earth commissioned tests and found “nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and silica in 14 popular products, including Mars’ M&Ms, Woolworths white sauce and Praise salad dressing.”  Australian regulators, however, have denied that nanoparticles are in use “because no company had applied for approval.”

Last year, Friends of the Earth did the same in America.  Its report, “Tiny Ingredients Big Risks,” documents nanomaterials in more than 90 food products, among them Jet Puffed Marshmallows, Trix Cereal and Nestle Original Coffee Creamer.

Nanoparticles are really small (10^-9 meters, or one millionth of a millimeter).  How they work and what they might do to the human body is greatly in need of research.

The FDA’s guidance to industry—nonbinding and, in my opinion, not particularly helpful—says nanoparticles are safe in foods but that companies using them should let the FDA know about it.

It is prudent practice for you to do so, particularly when the manufacturing process change involves emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology…The consequences (to consumers and to the food industry) of broadly distributing a food substance that is later recognized to present a safety concern have the potential to be significant…FDA does not categorically judge all products containing nanomaterials or otherwise involving application of nanotechnology as intrinsically benign or harmful. Rather, for nanotechnology-derived and conventionally-manufactured food products alike, FDA considers the characteristics of the finished product and the safety of its intended use.

Are they really safe?  Nobody knows, leaving much room for unease, as Twilight Greenaway pointed out in Grist in 2012.  Her Grist colleague Tom Philpott wrote about this question even earlier—in 2010: “The strategy seems to be: release into the food supply en masse first; assess risks later (if ever).”

This is not reassuring

Web MD suggests that “while researchers are still sorting it out, avoid heavily processed foods, and read labels if you’re concerned.”

Good advice, and another reason to avoid heavily processed foods.