Chicago — Food companies are working on ways to concoct a fluid that acts like oil but is made of water, and a food coating that changes color in the presence of E. Coli bacteria. But without a definition of “nanotechnology” from the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we may not be frying potatoes in water anytime soon.
That state of affairs came to light at the fifth International Food Nanoscience Conference at the Institute of Food Technologists’ annual meeting and food expo in Chicago.
Some 60 nanoscientists, food researchers, and regulators gathered in a conference room at the downtown Chicago Hilton hotel Saturday to discuss the current state of nanotechnology in food.
The upshot: The industry has all sorts of plans to invent newfangled foods. Scientists are working on them. But corporations are reluctant to throw the money into developing them until they know what the government considers safe, offering guidance on navigating the line between making food safer and risking people’s health with unintended side effects.
The emerging field of nanotechnology deals with the science of particles on a scale of billionths of a meter, particles that range from the size of viruses to molecules. At the nanoscale, substances develop unique properties that they don’t possess at larger scales. Partly, this is because the ratio of surface area to mass is so much greater at that level.
Scientists and industry researchers in many fields are working to understand and exploit the special properties of nanoparticles. As the emerging field of nanotechnology emerges from infancy, regulators struggle to understand and control its many uses, from cosmetics to renewable energy.
With regard to food and food production, scientists see the potential for improved taste, preservation, nutrition, and security of foods. For instance, as conference facilitator John Floros (pictured) explained, scientists are investigating the use of nanotechnology to create “bionanosensors” that would change colors in the presence of pathogens or pesticides. This technology could be used as part of food packaging or as a coating for food, said Floros, who is the head of the Department of Food Sciences at Pennsylvania State University. Nanotechnology could also be used to enhance flavors, or extend the flavor of chewing gum.
In the area of food packaging, nanoparticles could be used to coat bottles made out of biodegradable material, to make them sturdier while retaining their eco-friendly aspects. Nanoscientists have also developed “bendable glass,” said one conference participant. A plastic bottle coated on the inside with nanoparticles of glass retains the flexibility of plastic and the freshness- and flavor-preservation abilities of glass.
None of these products are currently on the market. Some food companies, like Kraft, have published statements stating that they do not yet employ nanotechnology in their food products, in order to allay any consumer concerns about the relatively unknown new science.
Is Mayo Already Nano?
That doesn’t mean nano-foods don’t already exist. It just depends how you define the term.
Many babies eat nano-food as their first nourishment out of the womb, said Andrew Bartholomaeus, while showing a PowerPoint slide of human breastmilk enlarged under a microscope. Breast milk contains particles on the nanoscale, explained Bartholomaeus, a manager who works on risk assessment at Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the FDA down-under.
Thomas MacMillan Photo
In fact, any emulsion is likely to have a range of particles that includes some on the nanoscale, said Bernadene Magnuson (pictured), a regulatory consultant with Cantox Health Science International.
This makes it very difficult for regulators interested in labeling or inspecting nano-foods to pinpoint exactly what they are regulating.
“Are you going to label mayonnaise?” Magnuson asked during a small group discussion. As an emulsion, mayonnaise contains nanoparticles. “It becomes a very difficult question.”
Floros said he does not know of any foods currently on the market with nanoparticles specifically added to them. He said he’s not sure whole new FDA regulations would be needed for nano-food, since the FDA already has a regulatory framework for determining the safety of foods.
“Does that framework need to be different? That’s what we’re struggling with,” Floros said. “For many uses, probably not.”
Ann Grimaldi (pictured), a corporate lawyer specializing in chemical regulation with international law firm McKenna Long and Aldridge, was asked to speak on the legal implications of current nanotechnology regulations on food in the U.S. There being none, she joked that she could sum up her lecture in two slides aimed at the food industry. The first would say, “Watch out.” The second, “Good luck with that.”
“We are in a regulatory vacuum,” Grimaldi said. In some ways, this can be a good thing, she said. It can mean that regulators can proceed on a “well-informed, deliberate basis,” by taking the time to understand nanotechnology more fully.
But it also can mean companies may invest money in nanotech product development and then find their new product has been ruled unsafe by the FDA, she said.
The FDA currently has no explicit definition of nanotechnology or nanoparticles, Grimaldi said. This leads to a number of gray areas in the regulations. For instance, if a company wants take a product that the FDA has qualified as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) and rework it on the nanoscale, it’s unclear if the nano version would also be GRAS.
“Is a nanoscale version of a GRAS additive still GRAS?” Grimaldi said. “That’s a definite maybe.”
Part of the difficulty of defining “nanoparticle” is that it’s unclear where to draw the line on the scale of miniscule particles. Many scientists define it as anything less than 100 nanometers (nm), or 100 billionths of a meter. But nearly all the conference’s speakers said this cut-off was so arbitrary as to be nearly useless. Some particles can display special nano-properties at 110 nm, some at 90 nm.
Poisoning Customers Would Hurt Business
Annette McCarthy (at right in photo), who works on food safety in the FDA’s Center for Food and Applied Nutrition gave an idea of where the FDA may be headed with the regulation of nanotechnology in food. She prefaced her presentation with a disclaimer that her comments reflect only her opinion and not official FDA policy.
While the FDA does not have a definition of nanotechnology or guidelines that mention the word, the FDA is working on developing them, McCarthy said.
In the meantime, McCarthy expressed the opinion that the safety of new nanoscale products “can’t be extrapolated from the safety of the conventional type of this food.”
“We do believe that a change in size to the nanoscale is a big change,” she said. In short, since it is up the manufacturer to make sure a product is safe, “You need to redo your assessments.”
With nanotechnology still in its infancy, it may not yet be a problem that the FDA doesn’t have regulations. But with other industries — like cosmetics and pharmaceuticals — working on regulations, the FDA needs to coordinate to ensure regulations line up across the board, Grimaldi argued.
“It only becomes an issue if someone gets hurt or if someone loses money,” she said. That’s when people will look to the regulations in other industries for evidence that the FDA has been lax.
“Business hates uncertainty,” Grimaldi said, as the conference dispersed at day’s end. But uncertainty also presents opportunity for business, she added.
While some companies explore the opportunities associates with nanotechnology and food, other companies are surely waiting to see what happens with regulations, Grimaldi said. “I’m certain there are businesses that are holding back.”
In the meantime, consumers likely don’t need to worry about unsafe products coming out, Grimaldi said. The “threat of product liability” tends to “trim the sails,” she said. No food company wants to make headlines by being the first to harm a consumer with nanotechnology gone awry.
“They’re not going to poison their customers,” said Jochen Weiss, a professor of Food Science at University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany. “The food industry has no interest in scaring its customers,” he said. “They would go out of business.”
They're not going to poison their customers," said Jochen Weiss, a professor of Food Science at University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany. "The food industry has no interest in scaring its customers," he said. "They would go out of business."
For real.If this is true,Then why are they injecting beef with ammonia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html