Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
products, patented or still in development, and some potential impacts of
these products. A few attempts have been made for drafting a range of models
aimed at the evaluation and framing of nanotechnologies (FAO/WHO 2009;
CEST 2011; Scott and Chen 2003; EFSA 2009, 2011; Robinson and Morrison
2009; AFSSA 2009; House of Lords 2010a, 2010b; FSA 2008; FSAI 2008; FASFC
et al. 2010; FOE 2008; ETC Group 2004; Kuzma and VerHage 2006).
It is the case notably in the United States (FDA 2012), in Europe (EFSA 2011),
and in the United Kingdom (United Kingdom Government 2010), where this
work has begun, not in anticipation of potential impacts but in response to
alerts, petitions, appeals for moratoriums, and even a lawsuit by organiza-
tions of civil society and other agencies (ETC Group 2004; VivAgora; FOE
2008; CTA et al. 2006, 2008, 2011; Foladori and Invernizzi 2007; House of Lords
2010a, 2010b). Some regulatory frameworks have also been suggested for the
framing of biocide products containing, among other components, nanosil-
ver particles intended to eliminate pathogens (EPA 2011; FDA 2011; European
Parliament 2012). It appears, however, that no new legislation specifically
designed for nanotechnologies or nanofoods has seen the light of day. One
of the major obstacles to creating this legislation could lie in our inability to
accurately measure the breadth of the suspected risks. Nonetheless, because
the food and beverage sector has seen its fair share of massive scandals in
the last 20 years, public sensibility concerning food has been sharpened and
quickened by growing suspicion. This, coupled to the absence of any frame-
work permitting sound scientific evaluation, compromises advances in the
fields of nanofoods and nanotechnologies in general.
6.4 Nanofood Scientific and Social Assessment
Some argue that current risk analysis studies, almost all based on the risk
evaluation paradigm initially proposed in 1983 by the National Research
Council (NRC) to evaluate traditional chemicals, would be applicable to
nanotechnologies as a whole (OECD 2012; Oberdörster et al. 2005), including
nanofoods (AFSSA 2009; EFSA 2009, 2011; EFSA 2011; FSAI 2008). However,
“it has also been pointed out that the current testing methodologies would
need certain adaptations in view of the special features of ENMs [engineered
nanomaterials]” (Chaudhry et al. 2011).
To palliate for the inadequacies of this risk assessment model, based on tests
developed to estimate risks for macrometer-sized substances, many suggest
allowing for alternative dosimetric parameters as opposed to keeping with
the traditional weight or concentration parameters used for conventional
substances [agglomeration/aggregation, water solubility, crystalline phase,
dustiness, crystallite size, representative transmission electron microscopy
picture(s), particle size distribution, specific surface area, zeta potential (surface
