Nanotechnology — Part 2
Private profit vs public good

Nanotechnology refers to a spectrum of technologies involving 
the manipulation of matter at the scale of atoms and molecules — 
the nanoscale (one billionth of a metre). Already there are 
products on our shelves and under development using this 
technology. Governments are only just beginning to consider the 
possible dangers and other ramifications as private corporations 
take the running on it. Part 1 of this two-part series (Guardian 
21-07-04) looked at some of the uses of nanotechnology and 
potential dangers, including occupational health and safety 
issues. This week its potential impact on food, agriculture and 
the issues arising from corporate for-profit development and 
patenting of methods and products are discussed.

Though it has escaped public notice, the food and agriculture 
sector is among the most intensely researched areas of nano-scale 
science. These applications will extend the reach of industrial 
agriculture and alter the way our food is grown and produced, 
processed, packaged and even eaten.

According to Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, some 200 transnational 
food companies are currently investing in nanotech and are on 
their way to commercialising products. The list includes many of 
the world's largest companies, such as: Ajinomoto, Campbell Soup, 
ConAgra, General Mills, HJHeinz, Kraft Foods, McCain Foods, 
Nestli, PepsiCo, Sara Lee and Unilever.

The following examples offer a preview of the projects being 
carried out:

Nanoseeds: In Thailand, scientists at Chiang Mai University's 
nuclear physics laboratory have rearranged the DNA of rice by 
drilling a nano-sized hole through the rice cell's wall and 
membrane and inserting a nitrogen atom. So far, they have been 
able to change the colour of the grain from purple to green.

Nanoparticle pesticides: Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF are 
developing pesticides enclosed in nanocapsules or made up of 
nanoparticles. The pesticides can be more easily taken up by 
plants if they are in nanoparticle form; they can also be 
programmed to be "time-released".

Nano Chicken Feed: With funding from the US Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), Clemson University researchers are feeding 
bioactive polystyrene nanoparticles that bind with bacteria to 
chickens as an alternative to chemical antibiotics in industrial 
chicken production.

Nano Ponds: One of the USA's biggest farmed fish companies, Clear 
Spring Trout, is adding nanoparticle vaccines to trout ponds, 
where they are taken up by fish.

Little Brother: The US Department of Agriculture is pursuing a 
project to cover farmers' fields and herds with small wireless 
sensors to replace farm labour and expertise with a ubiquitous 
surveillance system.

Nano foods: Kraft, Nestli, Unilever and others are employing 
nanotech to change the structure of food — creating 
"interactive" drinks containing nanocapsules that can change 
colour and flavour (Kraft) and spreads and ice creams with 
nanoparticle emulsions (Unilever, Nestli) to improve texture. 
Others are inventing small nanocapsules that will smuggle 
nutrients and flavours into the body (what one company calls 
"nanoceuticals").

Nano packaging: BASF, Kraft and others are developing new 
nanomaterials that extend food shelf life and signal when a food 
spoils by changing colour.

Issues to be addressed

The first intergovernmental meeting on nanotechnology held in 
Washington (June 17-18) tackled issues associated with nanotech 
research and development (R&D). According to their program they 
met in four groups on: "the environment", "human health and 
safety", "socio-economic and ethical issues" and "nanotechnology 
in developing countries".

While the June meeting included discussion of broad societal 
issues, many critical areas urgently require more thorough 
examination and specific action. These include:

Privatisation and patenting of life

The world's largest companies across all industry sectors are 
investing in nanotech R&D — from military, mining and 
manufacturing to energy and electronics, to pharmaceuticals, food 
processing and chemicals.

Society and governments must be prepared to address the 
implications of corporate technology cartels that could gain 
unprecedented control over converging technologies and their 
products.

In the US and many OECD nations, intellectual property laws 
evolved rapidly over the past quarter century to allow for the 
patenting of all life forms — plants, animals, micro organisms 
and human DNA — to allow for the effective privatisation of the 
fundamental building blocks of matter.

With the rise of nano-scale technologies, will we see the same 
kinds of sweeping patent claims on products and processes related 
to molecular level manufacturing? Nanotechnology offers new 
opportunities for monopoly control, not just over life forms but 
also over the building blocks of the entire natural world.

A recent front-page article in the Wall St. Journal reports on 
the "intensifying race" to file nanotech patent applications, 
citing one patent attorney who is experiencing dij` vu: "It's 
like biotech on steroids", Charles Wieland told the Wall St. 
Journal.

In the US alone, nanotech patents awarded annually have tripled 
since 1996. Companies like California-based NanoSys have neither 
products nor profits, but with a portfolio of over 200 nanotech 
patents, the company expects its initial public offering to fetch 
over $500 million from the sale of shares.

The intergovernmental meeting in Washington focused primarily on 
the need to facilitate intellectual property as a means of 
promoting nanotech, rather than on preventing abuses of exclusive 
monopoly patents or protecting the interests of developing 
nations.

As things stand in the present unregulated and profiteering 
environment, the huge potential of nanotechnology will be locked 
up in privately owned patents and decisions based on profit-
making rather than for the benefit of humanity.

Impact immense

Consideration, if any, of the impact of this technology on the 
environment, health and welfare of people, on workers, or 
economic, social and other conditions will be pushed aside. The 
problems associated with genetically modified seeds are a small 
taste of what lies ahead without strict regulations and controls 
in place.

Nano-scale technologies could change the way we manufacture 
goods, produce food, energy and medicine and who knows what uses 
it could be put to by the military, police and intelligence 
agencies. Third World countries would be on the receiving end of 
untested products but denied the rights to the new technology.

As nanotechnology combines with other powerful technologies such 
as biotechnology and information technologies important ethical, 
social, legal and other questions arise.

Military uses

Experts predict that nanotechnology will change the way wars are 
fought more than the invention of gunpowder did. Precise and 
sophisticated molecular-level manipulations will produce 
stronger, lighter materials, more precise and pervasive sensors 
and faster, smaller and more energy-efficient computers.

DuPont, a founding partner of the Institute for Soldier 
Nanotechnologies in the US, predicts that some of the materials 
being developed for soldiers will be available on the commercial 
market first.

In addition to these dual-purpose products, nanotech, and its use 
with biotech, will lead to the development of chemical and 
biological weapons that are more invasive, harder to detect and 
virtually impossible to combat.

There is even talk of its use in the cognitive sciences to 
produce soldiers with "enhanced" bodies and brains.

Regardless of how much of this is pure speculation, there are 
serious issues to be addressed and little time to do it as the 
technology is already in use.

The new battleground

Those promoting nanotechnology pride themselves on having learned 
the lessons of biotechnology, insisting that they will not repeat 
the mistakes associated with the introduction of genetically 
modified crops. Based on current trends, it looks like they are 
en route to an even more disastrous launch.

Thanks to government myopia, for example, the UN biosafety 
protocol for GM crops came into force eight years after crops 
were in the field. Unless action is taken now, it looks as though 
we will be breathing, wearing and eating the products of 
nanotechnology, including nanobiotechnology, well before any 
safeguards are put in place.

The government representatives who met earlier this month are 
planning to convene again, possibly before the end of 2004. 
Before they do they must consider the political realities.

ETC* says that future intergovernmental discussions must be 
inclusive, transparent and take place under the auspices of the 
United Nations. A meeting of technical experts from 26 countries 
is not adequate to address the interests of all countries — 
whether engaged in or affected by nanotech activities.

Although governments in Washington did place the 
problem/potential for the third world or "global South" on their 
agenda, only the "Big South" — Argentina, Brazil, China, India, 
Mexico and South Africa — attended.

In addition to the pressing need to regulate nanoparticles, 
governments — separately and collectively — need to evaluate, 
monitor and regulate the impact of nanotech on the socio-economic 
conditions, human rights (especially marginalised people, 
including the disabled), and on defence and trade.

"By the time governments get around to recognising the need for a 
broad societal discussion, it means they're already in the 
position of playing catch-up, clean-up — or worse, cover-up", 
warned Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group's Mexico office.

This article is compiled from material from: *ETC — the Action 
Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (formerly RAFI) — 
which is an international non-government organisation 
headquartered in Canada. ETC is dedicated to the advancement of 
cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.

* * *

http://www.etcgroup.org