18-03-2011, 10:05 AM
[attachment=10457]
Abstract:
The current global population is nearly 6 billion with 50% living in Asia. A large proportion of those living in developing countries face daily food shortages as a result of environmental impacts or political instability, while in the developed world there is a food surplus. For developing countries the drive is to develop drought and pest resistant crops, which also maximize yield. In developed countries, the food industry is driven by consumer demand which is currently for fresher and healthier foodstuffs. This is big business, for example the food industry in the UK is booming with an annual growth rate of 5.2%1 and the demand for fresh food has increased by 10% in the last few years.
The potential of nanotechnology to revolutionize the health care, textile, materials. information and communication technology, and energy sectors has been well-publicized. Infact several products enabled by nanotechnology are already in the market, such as antibacterial dressings, transparent sunscreen lotions, stain-resistant fabrics, scratch free paints for cars, and self cleaning windows. The application of nanotechnology to the agricultural and food industries was first addressed by a United States Department of Agriculture roadmap published in September 2003.2 The prediction is that nanotechnology will transform the entire food industry, changing the way food is produced, processed, packaged, transported, and consumed. This short report will review the key aspects of these transformations, highlighting current research in the agrifood industry and what future impacts these may have.
I.INTRODUCTION
For the first time in human history, we are close to being able to manipulate the basic forms of all things, living and inanimate, take them apart and put them together in almost any way the mind can imagine. The sophistication with which scientists are learning to
engineer matter at the nanometer scale is giving us unprecedented mastery of a large part of our environment. The world of the future will be defined by how we use this mastery. In contrast to the sweeping and dramatic possibilities of new technologies, the government agencies responsible for protecting the public from the adverse effects of these technologies seem worn and tattered. After almost
30 years of systematic neglect, the capability of federal health and safety regulatory agencies ranges from very weak to useless. The focus of regulatory reform in this period has mostly been on how to get around the existing regulatory structure rather than on how to improve it. The regulatory system was designed to deal with the technologies of the industrial age. A large gap exists between the capabilities of the regulatory system and the characteristics of what some are calling the next industrial revolution, and that gap is likely to widen as the new technologies advance. Nanotechnology involves working at the scale of single atoms and molecules. The U.S. government defines nanotechnology as “the way discoveries made at the nanoscale are put to work” (nano.gov; accessed 9/19/08). The nanoscale is roughly 1–100 nanometers. For comparison, the paper on which this is printed is more than 100,000 nanometers thick. There are 25.4 million nanometers in an inch and 10
Million nanometers in a centimeter. Nanoscale materials often behave differently than materials with a larger structure do, even when the basic material (e.g., silver or carbon) is the same. Nanomaterials can have different chemical, physical, electrical and biological characteristics. For example, an aluminum can is perfectly safe, but nano-sized aluminum is highly explosive and can be used to make bombs.
The novel characteristics of nanomaterials mean that risk assessments developed for ordinary materials may be of limited use in determining the health and Eironmental risks of the products of nanotechnology. While there are no documented cases of harm ttributable specifically to a nanomaterial, a growing body of evidence points to the potential for unusual
health and environmental risks (Oberdorster 2007; Maynard 2006). This is not surprising. Nanometer-scale particles can get to places in the environment and the human body that are inaccessible to larger particles, and as a consequence, unusual and unexpected exposures can occur. Nanomaterials have a much larger ratio of surface area to mass than ordinary materials do. It is at the surface of materials that biological and chemical reactions take place, and so we would expect nanomaterials to be more
reactive than bulk materials. Novel exposure
routes and greater reactivity can be useful attributes,
but they also mean greater potential for health and environmental risk. Oversight consists of obtaining risk information and acting on it to prevent health
and environmental damage. An underlying premise of this paper is that adequate oversight of anotechnology is necessary not only o prevent damage but also to promote the development of the technology. The United States and Europe have learned that oversight
and regulation are necessary for the proper functioning of markets and for public acceptance of new technologies.
II. DISCUSSION
1. THE FUTURE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
That starting only with individual molecules one could make computer chips, super-strong materials, biological tissue or almost anything else. Thebasic methods by which this could be done areself-assembly, molecular construction or a combinationof the two. Novel nanodevices such asthe nanocar could be used as a basis for molecularconstruction. Practical applications of bottom-upconstruction are open to anyone’s imagination,but could include repair of human tissue or thegeneration of energy using photosynthesis.M. C. Roco, one of the driving forces behindthe NNI, has developed a more detailedtypology of nanotechnologies (Roco 2004,Roco 2007). He identifies four generationsof nanotechnologies: passive nanostructures,active nanostructures, systems of nanosystemsand molecular nanosystems.Almost all the current applications and usesof nanotechnlogy belong to Roco’s first generation,a category that is basically the same asTour’s passive category.
B.Characteristics of Next -generation Nano
By extrapolating from the development of nanotechnology and drawing upon experience with other new technologies, one can identify
a number of characteristics of next-generation nano. They divide into characteristics that are generic to most new technologies and characteristics that are unique or particularly applicable to nano.The generic characteristics include: Rapid scientific advancement. It often has been noted that most of the scientists who have ever lived are alive today. The people, tools, resources and institutions that currently exist to further scientific knowledge dwarf those of any previous period in human history
(see Bowler and Morus 2005). The result is that more scientific knowledge is developed, and is being developed more rapidly, than at any other time in history. Because many of the tools and concepts have broad application, the pace of development is continually accelerating. This is illustrated by the dramatic rise in nanotechnology patents (see Fig. 1).
Rapid utilization of science. New science is put to practical application more rapidly today than at any time in the past. The line between science and technology has been completely blurred. Telecommunications, especially the computer and the Internet, allow new technologies to be rapidly disseminated throughout the world Technical complexity: Nanotechnology, like most new technologies, is complex. It draws on several disciplines, including physics, chemistry and biology, and on numerous sub-specialties within those disciplines. It uses highly technical vocabulary, sophisticated mathematics and concepts that have
few anchors in everyday experience. These characteristics make it difficult for even knowledgeable lay people to understand what the new technology can do. The complexity not only creates an impediment to communicating with the public but also places demands on oversight agencies to acquire new types of experts—experts who may be few in number and expensive to hire. Potential health and environmental problems. New technologies often have unanticipated or unwanted consequences. As our knowledge of both human and ecosystem functioning has increased, we have learned more about the ways in which technology can have an impact on health and the environment. The realization that most new technologies have the potential for such impacts is the major reason for applying oversight.
c.Lack of risk assessment methods:.
Even first-generation nanotechnologies challenge
traditional risk assessment methods. Multiple
characteristics contribute to the toxicity of many nanomaterials; they include not just mass or number of particles but also the shape of the particles, the electrical charge at the particle surface, the coating of the particle with another material and numerous other characteristics. Science has yet to determine which of
these characteristics are most important under what circumstances, and determining this will not be easy. There are thousands of potential variants of single-walled carbon nanotubes (Schmidt 2007, p. 18), and single-walled carbon nanotubes are only one of hundreds of types of nanomaterials. Next-generation
nanomaterials will pose even greater problems, depending on the materials, functions, and types of applications. Self-assembly. A number of next-generation nanotechnologies entail designing
D.Self-replication.
Self-replication can be seen as an extension of self-assembly. Self-assembly that leads to the growth of a nanomaterial with a repeating structure is the simplest form of self-replication. More complex systems are being studied, including nanoscale systems that utilize DNA or other “blueprints” to multiply and grow in a different pattern. These systems can be designed to construct duplicates of themselves or to construct other systems. These and other approaches overlap and can be combined. Rodemeyer (2009) notes that “scientists at Arizona State University have recently reported being able to use a cell’s DNA replication process to produce copies of a designed DNA nanostructure, illustrating the overlapping paths of
synthetic biology and nanotechnology. Indeed … the distinction between the two disciplines is likely to disappear.” Some researchers hope to break from biology completely and to create artificial (non-biological) nanoscale devices that are able to produce copies of themselves in much the same way that cells do. However, there is considerable skepticism over the likelihood of complex non-biological self-replicating systems becoming a reality in the foreseeable future. Society has had some experience overseeing self-replicating systems in the form of genetically modified plants and organisms. But that experience probably does not provide a good model for regulating nanotechnology- based advances that combine elements of biological and non-biological systems. Fears expressed over self-replication nanotechnologies, such as the “grey goo” scenario, are almost definitely unfounded.
III.Conclusion:
The organization depicted could provide a more adequate basis for oversight than the current system does. It would focus oversight on products, pollution and the workplace, and do so in a more integrated way. In addition to an oversight function, the organization would have major components devoted to monitoring and research. The research function would also deal with technology assessment and forecasting.
A new agency would make many synergisms possible among the different functions and programs shown in Figure 2 and would facilitate integration of closely related programs. Although this paper focuses on nanotechnology
Abstract:
The current global population is nearly 6 billion with 50% living in Asia. A large proportion of those living in developing countries face daily food shortages as a result of environmental impacts or political instability, while in the developed world there is a food surplus. For developing countries the drive is to develop drought and pest resistant crops, which also maximize yield. In developed countries, the food industry is driven by consumer demand which is currently for fresher and healthier foodstuffs. This is big business, for example the food industry in the UK is booming with an annual growth rate of 5.2%1 and the demand for fresh food has increased by 10% in the last few years.
The potential of nanotechnology to revolutionize the health care, textile, materials. information and communication technology, and energy sectors has been well-publicized. Infact several products enabled by nanotechnology are already in the market, such as antibacterial dressings, transparent sunscreen lotions, stain-resistant fabrics, scratch free paints for cars, and self cleaning windows. The application of nanotechnology to the agricultural and food industries was first addressed by a United States Department of Agriculture roadmap published in September 2003.2 The prediction is that nanotechnology will transform the entire food industry, changing the way food is produced, processed, packaged, transported, and consumed. This short report will review the key aspects of these transformations, highlighting current research in the agrifood industry and what future impacts these may have.
I.INTRODUCTION
For the first time in human history, we are close to being able to manipulate the basic forms of all things, living and inanimate, take them apart and put them together in almost any way the mind can imagine. The sophistication with which scientists are learning to
engineer matter at the nanometer scale is giving us unprecedented mastery of a large part of our environment. The world of the future will be defined by how we use this mastery. In contrast to the sweeping and dramatic possibilities of new technologies, the government agencies responsible for protecting the public from the adverse effects of these technologies seem worn and tattered. After almost
30 years of systematic neglect, the capability of federal health and safety regulatory agencies ranges from very weak to useless. The focus of regulatory reform in this period has mostly been on how to get around the existing regulatory structure rather than on how to improve it. The regulatory system was designed to deal with the technologies of the industrial age. A large gap exists between the capabilities of the regulatory system and the characteristics of what some are calling the next industrial revolution, and that gap is likely to widen as the new technologies advance. Nanotechnology involves working at the scale of single atoms and molecules. The U.S. government defines nanotechnology as “the way discoveries made at the nanoscale are put to work” (nano.gov; accessed 9/19/08). The nanoscale is roughly 1–100 nanometers. For comparison, the paper on which this is printed is more than 100,000 nanometers thick. There are 25.4 million nanometers in an inch and 10
Million nanometers in a centimeter. Nanoscale materials often behave differently than materials with a larger structure do, even when the basic material (e.g., silver or carbon) is the same. Nanomaterials can have different chemical, physical, electrical and biological characteristics. For example, an aluminum can is perfectly safe, but nano-sized aluminum is highly explosive and can be used to make bombs.
The novel characteristics of nanomaterials mean that risk assessments developed for ordinary materials may be of limited use in determining the health and Eironmental risks of the products of nanotechnology. While there are no documented cases of harm ttributable specifically to a nanomaterial, a growing body of evidence points to the potential for unusual
health and environmental risks (Oberdorster 2007; Maynard 2006). This is not surprising. Nanometer-scale particles can get to places in the environment and the human body that are inaccessible to larger particles, and as a consequence, unusual and unexpected exposures can occur. Nanomaterials have a much larger ratio of surface area to mass than ordinary materials do. It is at the surface of materials that biological and chemical reactions take place, and so we would expect nanomaterials to be more
reactive than bulk materials. Novel exposure
routes and greater reactivity can be useful attributes,
but they also mean greater potential for health and environmental risk. Oversight consists of obtaining risk information and acting on it to prevent health
and environmental damage. An underlying premise of this paper is that adequate oversight of anotechnology is necessary not only o prevent damage but also to promote the development of the technology. The United States and Europe have learned that oversight
and regulation are necessary for the proper functioning of markets and for public acceptance of new technologies.
II. DISCUSSION
1. THE FUTURE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
That starting only with individual molecules one could make computer chips, super-strong materials, biological tissue or almost anything else. Thebasic methods by which this could be done areself-assembly, molecular construction or a combinationof the two. Novel nanodevices such asthe nanocar could be used as a basis for molecularconstruction. Practical applications of bottom-upconstruction are open to anyone’s imagination,but could include repair of human tissue or thegeneration of energy using photosynthesis.M. C. Roco, one of the driving forces behindthe NNI, has developed a more detailedtypology of nanotechnologies (Roco 2004,Roco 2007). He identifies four generationsof nanotechnologies: passive nanostructures,active nanostructures, systems of nanosystemsand molecular nanosystems.Almost all the current applications and usesof nanotechnlogy belong to Roco’s first generation,a category that is basically the same asTour’s passive category.
B.Characteristics of Next -generation Nano
By extrapolating from the development of nanotechnology and drawing upon experience with other new technologies, one can identify
a number of characteristics of next-generation nano. They divide into characteristics that are generic to most new technologies and characteristics that are unique or particularly applicable to nano.The generic characteristics include: Rapid scientific advancement. It often has been noted that most of the scientists who have ever lived are alive today. The people, tools, resources and institutions that currently exist to further scientific knowledge dwarf those of any previous period in human history
(see Bowler and Morus 2005). The result is that more scientific knowledge is developed, and is being developed more rapidly, than at any other time in history. Because many of the tools and concepts have broad application, the pace of development is continually accelerating. This is illustrated by the dramatic rise in nanotechnology patents (see Fig. 1).
Rapid utilization of science. New science is put to practical application more rapidly today than at any time in the past. The line between science and technology has been completely blurred. Telecommunications, especially the computer and the Internet, allow new technologies to be rapidly disseminated throughout the world Technical complexity: Nanotechnology, like most new technologies, is complex. It draws on several disciplines, including physics, chemistry and biology, and on numerous sub-specialties within those disciplines. It uses highly technical vocabulary, sophisticated mathematics and concepts that have
few anchors in everyday experience. These characteristics make it difficult for even knowledgeable lay people to understand what the new technology can do. The complexity not only creates an impediment to communicating with the public but also places demands on oversight agencies to acquire new types of experts—experts who may be few in number and expensive to hire. Potential health and environmental problems. New technologies often have unanticipated or unwanted consequences. As our knowledge of both human and ecosystem functioning has increased, we have learned more about the ways in which technology can have an impact on health and the environment. The realization that most new technologies have the potential for such impacts is the major reason for applying oversight.
c.Lack of risk assessment methods:.
Even first-generation nanotechnologies challenge
traditional risk assessment methods. Multiple
characteristics contribute to the toxicity of many nanomaterials; they include not just mass or number of particles but also the shape of the particles, the electrical charge at the particle surface, the coating of the particle with another material and numerous other characteristics. Science has yet to determine which of
these characteristics are most important under what circumstances, and determining this will not be easy. There are thousands of potential variants of single-walled carbon nanotubes (Schmidt 2007, p. 18), and single-walled carbon nanotubes are only one of hundreds of types of nanomaterials. Next-generation
nanomaterials will pose even greater problems, depending on the materials, functions, and types of applications. Self-assembly. A number of next-generation nanotechnologies entail designing
D.Self-replication.
Self-replication can be seen as an extension of self-assembly. Self-assembly that leads to the growth of a nanomaterial with a repeating structure is the simplest form of self-replication. More complex systems are being studied, including nanoscale systems that utilize DNA or other “blueprints” to multiply and grow in a different pattern. These systems can be designed to construct duplicates of themselves or to construct other systems. These and other approaches overlap and can be combined. Rodemeyer (2009) notes that “scientists at Arizona State University have recently reported being able to use a cell’s DNA replication process to produce copies of a designed DNA nanostructure, illustrating the overlapping paths of
synthetic biology and nanotechnology. Indeed … the distinction between the two disciplines is likely to disappear.” Some researchers hope to break from biology completely and to create artificial (non-biological) nanoscale devices that are able to produce copies of themselves in much the same way that cells do. However, there is considerable skepticism over the likelihood of complex non-biological self-replicating systems becoming a reality in the foreseeable future. Society has had some experience overseeing self-replicating systems in the form of genetically modified plants and organisms. But that experience probably does not provide a good model for regulating nanotechnology- based advances that combine elements of biological and non-biological systems. Fears expressed over self-replication nanotechnologies, such as the “grey goo” scenario, are almost definitely unfounded.
III.Conclusion:
The organization depicted could provide a more adequate basis for oversight than the current system does. It would focus oversight on products, pollution and the workplace, and do so in a more integrated way. In addition to an oversight function, the organization would have major components devoted to monitoring and research. The research function would also deal with technology assessment and forecasting.
A new agency would make many synergisms possible among the different functions and programs shown in Figure 2 and would facilitate integration of closely related programs. Although this paper focuses on nanotechnology
