Details re concerns regarding NETS-PACE or DIISR sponsored materialsMaterial Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracyNanotechnologyand you: Safetyand regulations,Commonwealth ofAustralia 2011

‘Nanomaterials have always existed in nature.’While the statement is true, it and the rest of thispara appears to be intended to reassure thereader of its benevolence.

Many mentions of potential social and economicbenefits, but no mention of social and economiccosts or negative consequences; the onlypotential ‘downside’ acknowledged is risk tosafety. This excludes any consideration of ethical,human rights, equity, sustainability, privacy,security/ military or other dimensions raised bycommunity groups and social scientists

The term used for benefits is ‘predicted’, whereasthe term used for the opposite is ‘possibleunintended consequences’. Bias in languageused.

The brochure states ‘In Australia, products and chemicals aredealt with according to the hazards and risks associated withthem. Regulatory agencies continually assess chemicals andproducts to ensure their safety. One factor in their assessment iswhether a product or chemical contains any nanomaterials thatare considered hazardous.’

This implies that nanomaterials are also ‘dealt’ with in this wayand that regulatory agencies are or have assessed nano andnanoproducts and ‘ensured their safety’. This is incorrect. Todate, only very few ‘existing’ chemicals have been assessedwith regard to the presence or otherwise, much less the hazardof nanoparticles.

Brochure states that regulators are “proposing amendments tolegislation and regulations and to associated documents, wherenecessary, to ensure the health and safety risks posed bynanotechnology are effectively managed” also that regulatorsare ”amending regulations or guidelines to require relevantinformation on the presence or impact of nanomaterials in areasof concern”. The brochure also provides a risk management flowchart that “may” be used by regulators, stakeholders andcommunity members. This gives a false impression that nano-specific regulation exists. The brochure fails to state that a 2007review of Australian regulation of nanotechnology (the “MonashReview”) identified 6 key gaps in Australian regulation that havenot been filled in most instances. It also fails to acknowledgethat some regulators (eg Safe Work Australia, TherapeuticGoods Administration) have taken no regulatory (mandatory)action to manage nanotechnology risks, despite the finding ofthe Monash report, that the inadequacies in regulation ofnanotechnology in food, and the absence of standards, hasbeen criticised most recently by the Blewett Inquiry into foodlabelling, and that no nano-specific regulation exists for theoverwhelming majority of industrial chemicals and cosmeticsregulated by NICNAS.Brochure states that “To keep us safe, regulators adapt their

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracymethods of analysis or risk assessment to take account of thespecific challenges posed by the qualities of the material orproduct being assessed”. This gives a false sense of action bythe regulators. Most regulators (including NICNAS, TGA, SafeWork Australia) have no mechanisms for manufacturers ofnano-products to alert them when they use nano-forms ofexisting substances. This is because there is no requirementunder our legislation for manufacturers or importers to do so.This leaves regulators with no way to know whether or notnanomaterials are in use, let alone whether any new riskassessment is required. It also provides employers and workerswith no opportunity to take preventive action in workplaces toeliminate or control potential exposures.

Further, NGOs are concerned that the mechanisms adopted bysome regulators (eg FSANZ, APVMA) to trigger notificationwhen nano-forms of existing substances are used areinadequate and poorly enforced, again leaving regulators withinadequate information to trigger new risk assessment of riskmanagement. No recognition that hundreds of products on themarket are effectively unregulated, having triggered no nano-specific notification, assessment or labelling requirements

The syntheticbiology “genomejenga” post card(2011)

Trivialises seriousness of synthetic biologyconcerns. Cartoon treats creation of artificial lifeas a game, while no mention is made in the textinside the postcard of any concerns aboutsynthetic biology

“Nanotechnologyand foods” factsheet (2009)

Language is consistently uneven andaggressively promotional of nanotechnology.There is no balanced language around certainty:benefits and applications are explained in somedetail and with implied certainty. Conversely, theuncertainty of risks is emphasised, with no clearanswer given to the sub-heading question “arethere any risks’?. The dot points under the sub-heading don’t describe what the early research inthese areas is suggesting or what the implicationof nanomaterial bioaccumulation could be (egincreased risk of cancer, interference withabsorption of some nutrients, exacerbation of

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracyirritable bowel syndrome or other). There is norecognition that food is a very sensitive area andthat people repeatedly say that they want choiceabout whether to eat foods produced used newtechnologies; there is no clear recognition thatnano-foods do not trigger new labelling. There isalso no recognition of societal concerns aroundusing nanotechnology in food, agriculture andfood packaging eg ethics, equity, corporatecontrol, privacy issues around the use of trackand trace technologies etc

“Nanotechnologiesin the workplace”fact sheet (2009)

More unqualified touting of benefits with noacknowledgement of social and economic costsor disruptive potential, only very narrowrecognition of potential ‘implications for humanhealth and safety’.

Descriptions of the duties under Australia’s OHS legislationstate, correctly, that manufacturers, suppliers, employers andworkers have duties which apply to everything. However,without the specific knowledge that nanomaterials may bepresent, then nothing can be done.Statement that “Additionally, there are specific OHS regulationsfor workplace chemicals, which include engineerednanomaterials” is poorly phrased and misleading. The casualreader would assume that this meant that there are specificOHS regulations for engineered nanomaterials, which is nottrue, there are none. The regulations referred to apply only tochemicals and products that have been classified as‘hazardous’, and nanomaterials would only fall into this categoryif the bulk form of the existing chemical is already classified ashazardous.

Although the guidance and measures suggested in this factsheet to minimize exposure are reasonable (and reasonablypracticable), there is no recognition that without mandatorylabelling of products and provision of information in safety datasheets, there is no way for employers or workers to know if theyare handling nanomaterials in their work place, and thus notrigger to adopt any of these measures.Workers are in the dark about occupational exposure tonanomaterials and there is no nano-specific regulation at all.The failure of this was underscored in a subsequent reviewcommissioned by Safe Work Australia which found that of the 50MSDS they surveyed that actually mentioned nanomaterials,84% gave risk management advice that related to the bulk

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracyproduct, rather than the nanomaterial. That is, workers have noreliable information about whether nanomaterials are in theirwork places or what to do about it. Surely this should berecognised explicitly in a fact sheet about OHS

“Does size reallymatter” brochure(2009). Producedby DIISR andCSIRO

Language is consistently uneven andaggressively promotional of nanotechnology.There is no balanced language around certainty:benefits are stated at great length and withimplied certainty; risks are always described as‘potential’, are mentioned very rarely and with nodetailed information (someone reading thebrochure would have no idea if there are credibleconcerns around risks and what these risks mayentail). Social, economic and sustainability costsor disruption are not mentioned at all.

Eg p2 “ This is your guide to the emergingscience of nanotechnology, a field with thepotential to bring big social, economic, andenvironmental benefits to you and the world.” Thisis continued on following pages. Many claimsabout benefits are based on speculative futuregains but are not qualified at all. Eg you wouldthink that from reading claims on page 4-5 thatthere are portable nano solar applicationscommercially available in Australia. This is simplynot true. There is no recognition on this page thatusing nanomaterials in these products couldincrease the life cycle energy and climateimpacts. Similarly the health sections on page 6-7describe laboratory based work rather than actualproducts or treatments (ie future products and

The statement on page 8 “ As of March 2009, there are noknown food products that specifically make use of manufacturednanoparticles to enhance the product” is inaccurate. It is truethat there have been no uses of nanoparticles in Australian foodproducts notified to FSANZ, but nano-foods are available in theUS, Europe, Latin America and Asia – so there may well beunidentified use here too. The statement tha: “All manufacturedfood sold in Australia must be approved by Food StandardsAustralia and New Zealand before it is allowed to go to market”is misleading; FSANZ does not assess all food where there is noidentified “new” ingredient. NGOs are concerned that without aclear definition of a nano-ingredient by FSANZ (that includescharacteristics such as size) that there will be no effectiveregulatory trigger to require assessment of any nano-food thatuses nano-forms of existing food ingredients.

P9 We query the statement that “It is estimated thatapproximately five per cent of currently manufacturednanoparticles may be of concern for safety reasons” and believethis to be inaccurate. We also note that there is no referencegiven for this claim.

benefits remain hypothetical). While cancertherapeutics are touted, there is noacknowledgement that exposure to somenanomaterials could increase the risk of cancer inthe community.

Page 9 has a whole paragraph touting the‘benefits’ of nano-sunscreen. This includes aclaim that nano-zinc is a more effective sun

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracyprotective agent than bulk zinc. This could well beinaccurate; scientists concerned about theproduction of free radicals by nanoparticles havecautioned that they could actually accelerate sundamage to skin (Barnard 2010). Yet rather thanspend comparable space explaining the newhealth risks posed by nano-sunscreens, or evenlisting what these are, the brochure marginalizesthese by stating only that “CSIRO is currentlyresearching potential health-related issues withregard to nano-based sunscreens”.

Page 14 finally mentions safety concerns,although risk to safety is the only potentialdownside to nanotechnology development that isacknowledged (again no mention of broadersocietal or economic concerns or sustainabilitycosts). Description of regulatory response ismisleading; it gives the false impression thatnanomaterials and nano-products are regulated,whereas in reality there is highly patchy and oftenno Australian regulation of nanomaterials.

“New technologiesfor a changingclimate” brochure(2010)

In effect this is a nanotechnology promotionalbrochure that is guilty of serious greenwash. Themajority of this brochure is dedicated to promotingnanotechnology’s potential use in renewableenergy applications as a solution to climatechange. While there is a short section at the veryback on potential safety issues, there is noacknowledgement that nanotechnology couldhave serious negative climate consequences.There is a growing body of literaturedemonstrating that using nanomaterials is veryenergy intensive and could increase both theclimate and environmental footprint of productsand processes. The brochure does notacknowledge that the world’s biggestpetrochemical companies, and publicly fundedresearchers including at CSIRO, are alsoresearching nanotechnology to find and extract

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracymore oil and gas, which could double the oil andgas extracted, having a huge potential climatecost. For references see FoE’s climate reportavailable at http://nano.foe.org.au

“NanotechnologiesTeacherInformation”CSIRO/ DIISR(2010)

There is inadequate attention to potential risksand costs; these are too often given minimaldescription and attributed to concerns held by“environment groups” or “consumer rights groups”rather than the authors (or scientists). Exceptingthe very brief introductory remarks on pages 4and 5, there is no addressing any broadersocietal, ethical or public choice or sustainabilityissues.

P5 paragraph 2, the statement that “the concernsare that nanoparticles may be able to penetratethe body... their possible bio-accumulation orphysiological impacts” is incomplete andinadequate. There are a growing number ofstudies that point to more specific concerns: theinduction of protein misfolding; the aggressiveproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) thatcan damage DNA; the potential of some forms ofcarbon nanotubes to cause asbestos likepathogenicity etc.

P 5, para 2, instead of stating with the samelevels of authorial authority that labelling shouldbe required, this is stated as the lack of labelling

P 5, paragraph 2, the sentence “That said, there is also no directevidence of negative effects from any nano products” isinappropriate (very few, if any nano-products have been thesubject of research, therefore the absence of evidence of directnegative effects is no evidence of safety). It is also inaccurate –negative impacts related to specific products have beendescribed in the literature. For example in 2008 researchers atBlueScope Steel published research showing that severalbrands of nano-sunscreen caused an acceleration by up to 100times of sun damage to pre-painted steel roofs with which theycame into contact.

P 11 – the list of activities that CSIRO’s research program willinvolve is impressive. However without stating that this ishappening for only a very small set of the nanomaterials incommercial use, and for a very small sub set of the workplacesin which nanomaterials are used, it gives an inaccuratelyoptimistic representation of the state of the safety science inrelation to commercial use.

P 24 states that “the optimal particle size for a sunscreen istherefore approximately 70-100nm as this effectively scattersUV light while appearing transparent in the visible region”. YetCSIRO’s own research (Barnard 2010) shows that this isincorrect. Barnard’s modelling showed that for most TiO2

end of p26 in the ‘answers to questions’ sectionsare not an adequate addressing of these risksend of p26 in the ‘answers to questions’ sectionsare not an adequate addressing of these risksP27-28 no statement regarding health risks ofquantum dots, including those with cadmiumcores

The BiotechnologyAustralia “Thetools ofbiotechnology” A2

Information presented again takes the form of lab-based research being touted as capable ofdelivering future benefits, which are promotedaggressively. Potential drawbacks are

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracyposter (undated) acknowledged only in a separate box at the end

and are lumped together rather than being placedwith the relevant sections (it would be very easyto read various sections without seeing a word ofcaution or question). Potential drawbacks areinadequately explained and are expressed asquestions, rather than as the ‘statements of fact’elsewhere in the document, implying a degree ofuncertainty.

Examples of problematic statements include:GM Food: statement that “some GM crops arefortified to provide extra nutrients, and are usuallyproduced to help people in less developedcountries”. This section promotes a minority ofresearch to greenwash GM crops. It fails toacknowledge that the overwhelming majority ofcommercial GM crops are designed to beherbicide tolerant or Bt producing rather than offerany nutritional benefit for poor people. Thestatement that GM crops with nutritional additives“are usually produced to help people in lessdeveloped countries” is also an entirely valuebased statement. Many farmers’ groups from poorcountries have criticised golden rice as anexpensive public relations tool and a distractionfrom the support they need to supportsustainable, diverse farming to address nutritionaldeficiencies. There are over 70 patents on goldenrice alone; the producers of this crop have takengreat pains to protect their intellectual property.Further, this whole paragraph is based on anunder-acknowledged hypothetical: no nutritionallyfortified GM crops have been approved for humanconsumption.

Biotechnology cleans up the environment: Theheading stating “Future GM bacteria could mopup greenhouse gases, clean up oil spills or breakdown toxic waste” is based on hopeful

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracyspeculation rather than fact. It fails toacknowledge that GM bacteria could equally be amajor cause of environmental pollution or releaseof greenhouse gases, for example should GMbacteria used in biofuel production escape. Thepromotion of Bt producing cotton asenvironmentally sound and requiring lesspesticide applications is cynical: this cottonproduces its own insecticide throughout its lifecycle which introduces its own problems. Thestatements about research into drought tolerantwheat fail to cite problems should commercialscale production of drought tolerant GM cropsever prove viable (eg further stress on marginalagricultural land, potential for horizontal genetransfer to weed species with subsequentecological disruption). Most problematically, thereis no acknowledgement at all in this section thatwhile these potential benefits for the environmentare entirely hypothetical, there are meaningfulgrounds for concern that existing GM crops arealready having negative impacts on theenvironment, eg effects on non-target organisms(UK 2003 trial), potential for horizontal genetransfer, increase in herbicide applicationsassociated with Roundup Ready crops etc.

The “spaceelevator” and

Space elevator: The lesson is built on the idea ofbuilding a space elevator to rescue astronauts ata hypothetically malfunctioning InternationalSpace Station. It uses animations and an actionadventure story to cast nanotechnology as afuturistic, morally important thing to do (to saveastronauts). Carbon nanotubes are thenpresented as the material that will make thispossible. Properties of strength, lightness,flexibility and heat resistance are listed with bigred ticks – implying that this material has the ‘tickof approval’. There is no mention of some of thenegative attributes of carbon nanotubes eg havingbeen shown to cause mesothelioma in mice

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracy(Poland et al 2008), insurance sector warningsthat they could present ‘the next asbestos’ (egSwiss Re 2004) extremely energy intensive tomanufacture, can increase the uptake ofpollutants in wheat, can negatively affectproductivity and reproduction in rice. No mentionis made of the fact that carbon nanotubes arenow used widely in plastics, electronics, fuel filtersand other products. No acknowledgment of lackof regulation or labelling of carbon nanotubes inworkplaces or consumer products, despite thisbeing one of the principal nanomaterials of healthconcern. The students are then invited to writeand perform a 5-10 minute drama to “teach otherstudents and adults about space elevators andcarbon nanotubes”. This is really problematic – aspeculative highly unlikely application of carbonnanotubes is used to shamelessly appeal toadolescents to promote carbon nanotubes as a‘wonder material’ with no acknowledgment of theirhuge potential to cause health harm. This is thenmade even worse by the promotion of “TheSpaceward Foundation” running two competitionsto design a space elevator, with the promise that“A total of US$4 million is up for grabs”. Thestudents, with this additional promise of money,are then invited to design a part of the spaceelevator. The lesson then ends.

“personal careproducts” modulesfor high schoolteaching from theAccess Nanoprogram (2008)

Personal care products: The lesson is ostensiblyabout building the familiarity of students withlabels, the use of nanoparticles in personal careproducts and in promoting the idea of an‘informed consumer’. Yet in the section “How dowe make informed decisions?” there is noinformation about potential health issues aroundthe use of nanoparticles in these products,undermining students’ ability to then answer ordiscuss the question “would you buy thisshampoo/ cream/ sunscreen”? There is noinformation about efficacy or undermining of

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracyefficacy, of hazard and exposure, or on thereasons for and against the principle of informedchoice, or in relation to the effectiveness orotherwise of regulation. Instead, towards the endof the lesson, questions are raised on the “Issues”slide: Are there safety issues with nanoparticles inproducts? Should products that use nano includethis on the label?” This puts the onus on studentsto come up with all this information and analysisthemselves. It is an inadequate way of probingthe novel risks and challenges associated with theuse of nanotechnology in a sector of highpotential exposure to the public. It gives the falseillusion that students can make informed choicesin this sector, despite the absence of mandatorylabelling of nano-ingredients. It also gives theimpression that it should be up to the public(consumers) to make a risk-benefit analysis at thepoint of sale, rather than it being a new challengefor regulators to ensure nano-product safety.

TechNyou blog“Nanotech:Overheated

We suggest the authorial voice is inappropriatefor a supposedly neutral governmentcommentator. The author denigrates FoE’s report

promises and hotair” (2010)

on the climate and energy applications andimplications of nanotechnology for having cited somuch published literature on the climate andenergy demands of nanomaterials on the basisthat “its content has already been reported on oracknowledged elsewhere”. The author seeks topaint the report as wilfully misleading, stating that“they seem to leave out science’s attempts toaddress the issues they raise”. This is a personalopinion of the author’s (who acknowledges havingnot read much of the report) rather than areflection of a lack of rigour in the report whichdoes canvas applications of nanotechnology,efforts at recycling etc

The NationalScience Week

Both the event and the brochure unevenlypromote GM champions, over critics. In addition

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracy“GM Food: Adinner discussion”poster and event(2011)

to the host, the event featured 3 GM advocates(from both the private and research sectors), butonly one ethicist as the token critic. There was nospeaker representative of a community groupcritical of GM, there was no representation offarmers’ groups critical of GM, there was noresearcher into organic or agro-ecological farmingto provide an alternative perspective.

Fold out model ofa buckyball,undated, producedby DIISR,TechNyou, ARCCentre ofExcellence forFunctionalNanomaterials andthe AustralianNanotechnologyAlliance (ANA)

The playful “Fold to make a model of a buckyball!”is a vehicle for advertising, with prominent logosand websites of the government, nanomaterialsresearchers and the major nanotechnologyindustry alliance ANA. There is no prominentpromotion of unions, community groups or socialscientists who have concerns aboutnanotechnology. Alongside are value ladenassertions: “Nanotechnology enables othertechnologies to be improved”; “Nanotechnologyimproves other technologies”; “Nature has alwaysused nanotechnology”. There is noacknowledgement of concerns or drawbacks.Although there is a statement that “More than1000 consumer products contain some form ofnanotechnology” there is no acknowledgement ofinadequacies in regulation or a complete lack oflabelling to enable the person reading this toknow where nanotechnology is being used.

The “Journey intothe nano-world”fold out brochure(undated)

The examples of nanotechnology applicationsstate only benefits, with no acknowledgement ofcosts or risks

“New technologiesfor your changingfuture”, 2011,AustralianGovernment

The whole big glossy A3 publication is apromotional tool for biotechnology andnanotechnology. Apart from the centre page,where there are a large number of ‘vox pops’ towhich two nano/biotechnology critics have beeninvited to contribute their 150 words, there is nocritical perspective in any of the feature articles.Many research and development projects are

Material Concerns re bias Concerns re inaccuracyspruiked as the solution to global climate, energy,pollution, agriculture, medical and other problems,along with weblinks to the various featuredinstitutions. There are no featured articles thatdescribe how these technologies could makeexisting problems worse, or to alternative nonhightech solutions to these challenges.

“Nanotechnology –working with thesmallest things”July 2008AustralianGovernment

Heath, safety and environment aspects ofnanotechnology“The physical and chemical properties of somenanomaterials may differ from those of the parentmaterial. These properties may have potentialimpacts on health, safety, and the environment.”!! may differ??