pen 4 nanotechnology...nanotechnology in agriculture and food production 7 nanotechnology: coming to...

Project on EmergingNanotechnologies

PEN 4 SEPTEMBER 2006

Jennifer Kuzma and Peter VerHage

IN AGRICULTURE

AN

DFOOD PRODUCTION

NANOTECHNOLOGY

ANTICIPATED APPLICATIONS

One Woodrow Wilson Plaza1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202.691.4000F 202.691.4001www.wilsoncenter.org/nanowww.nanotechproject.org

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

Project on EmergingNanotechnologies is suported by

THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS

Acknowledgements

About the Authors

Foreword

Overview and Context of Agrifood Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology: Coming to a Supermarket or Farm Near You

Big Things in Small Packages: What Is Nanotechnology?

A Tiny Revolution in Food and Agriculture

Examples Are Poor Substitute for Complete Picture

Should We Be Worried About Food and Agriculture Nanotechnology?

Agriculture Biotechnology: A Bountiful Harvest of Cautionary Tales

Back to the Future: Will Nanotechnology Repeat the Mistakes of Biotechnology?

Anticipating Rather than Reacting: Building a Database of Future Applications

What We Learned About Food and Agriculture Nanotechnology

Putting the Database to Work: Forecasting Food and Agriculture Innovations

The Beginning of a Conversation, Not a Last Word

Analysis of Early-Stage Agrifood Nanotechnology Research and Development

From Context to Content

Results and Conclusions

Current and Future Work

Methodology

Overview

Categories for Entry

Search Process

Principal Investigator Review and Validation of the Entries

How to Use the Agrifood Nanotechnology Database

1

3

5

7

9

9

10

11

13

15

17

18

19

20

23

23

24

32

33

33

33

37

40

40

40

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARSLee H. Hamilton, President and Director

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair David A. Metzner, Vice Chair

PUBLIC MEMBERS

James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress; Bruce Cole, Chairman, NationalEndowment for the Humanities; Michael O. Leavitt, The Secretary, U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services; Tami Longabergr, Designated Appointee within the FederalGovernment; Condoleezza Rice, The Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Lawrence M.Small, The Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Margaret Spellings, The Secretary, U.S.Department of Education; Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States

PRIVATE CITIZEN MEMBERS

Carol Cartwright, Robin Cook, Donald E. Garcia, Bruce S. Gelb, Sander R. Gerber, Charles L. Glazer, Ignacio E. Sanchez

The PROJECT ON EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES was launched in 2005 by the WilsonCenter and The Pew Charitable Trusts. It is dedicated to helping business, govern-ments, and the public anticipate and manage the possible human and environmentalimplications of nanotechnology.

THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS serves the public interest by providing information,advancing policy solutions and supporting civic life. Based in Philadelphia, with anoffice in Washington, D.C., the Trusts will invest $204 million in fiscal year 2006 toprovide organizations and citizens with fact-based research and practical solutions forchallenging issues.

The WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS is the living, nationalmemorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered inWashington, D.C. The Center establishes and maintains a neutral forum for free, openand informed dialogue. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and privatefunds and engaged in the study of national and international affairs.

CONTENTS

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect viewsof the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars or The Pew Charitable Trusts.

NANOTECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD PRODUCTION:ANTICIPATED APPLICATIONS

Jennifer Kuzma Ph.D.Associate Director and Assistant Professor

Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy (CSTPP)University of Minnesota

Peter VerHage Research Assistant, CSTPP

PEN 4 SEPTEMBER 2006,

1

The authors would like to thank Julia Moore, Andrew Maynard, David Rejeski, and EvanMichelson of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies for their input and support.

This work is supported by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and theConsortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment, and the Life Sciences at theUniversity of Minnesota.We would also like to thank Evan Michelson and Matthew Davisfor helping ensure that the report is accurate and informative.

Acknowledgements

3

Jennifer Kuzma, Ph.D., joined the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs andthe Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy (CSTPP) at the University ofMinnesota in 2003. Prior to this, she served for four years as Program Director and SeniorProgram Officer at the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC).At the NRC, she directed programs and studies related to biotechnology and bioterrorismpolicy, including Genetically Modified Pest Protected Plants: Science and Regulation (2000)and Countering Agricultural Bioterrorism (2002).

She earned her Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of Colorado at Boulderin 1995 and was subsequently a Research Fellow at the Rockefeller University in theLaboratory for Plant Molecular Biology. Her postdoctoral work in plant signal transductionled to a publication in the journal Science. She holds a patent on the production of isoprenefrom bacteria.

Her career in science and technology policy began when she was awarded an AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Fellowship sponsored by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA).At USDA, she worked on risk assessment and pol-icy issues associated with foodborne hazards. In addition to her NRC reports, she hasauthored several papers in basic research, risk assessment, and science policy.

Dr, Kuzma currently serves as Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota and asAssociate Director for the CSTPP. In 2003, she was nominated to serve on the Governor’sBiosciences Advisory Council and now serves on the board of the BioBusiness Alliance ofMinnesota. She teaches science and technology policy courses and advises M.S. and M.P.P.Science, Technology and Environment Policy (STEP) students at the Humphrey Institute.Her current research interests include agrifood nanotechnology risk analysis and regulatorypolicy and developing methods for integrated assessment of oversight models for bio andnanotechnology. She also participates on an interdisciplinary team studying full-cost account-ing for renewable energy systems.

Peter VerHage, M.S., graduated from North Park University with degrees in biology andin politics and government in 1999. In 2006, he completed an M.S. degree in science, tech-nology, and environmental policy at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute at the University ofMinnesota where he was a Research Assistant for the Center for Science,Technology, andPublic Policy at the Humphrey Institute. For five years before attending the University ofMinnesota, he worked as an information technology manager and consultant.

About the Authors

In early 2006, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (the Project) released the firstonline, searchable inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products (available atwww.nanotechproject.org/consumerproducts). The inventory contains information onnearly 300 products from 15 countries. It includes nanotechnology merchandise that can bepurchased in department stores, pharmacies, and sporting goods shops as well as over theInternet-everything from cosmetics to athletic equipment and from clothing to electronics.

While the Project’s nanotechnology consumer products inventory contains manufactur-er-identified foodstuffs such as a canola oil and a chocolate “slim” shake, the current num-ber of nanotechnology food products being sold appears to be relatively small. Nevertheless,millions of dollars are being spent globally by both governments and industry to apply nan-otechnologies in areas such as food processing, food safety and packaging, and agriculturalproduction.When will this research result in large numbers of nanotechnology food prod-ucts appearing on the market? Who will be affected? What are the potential benefits andrisks? How can consumers be engaged early on?

These are key questions that need to be addressed as soon as possible, not after productsappear on the shelves of the local grocery store and elsewhere.The stakes, in terms of con-sumer perceptions and oversight of nanotechnology in the food sector, are high. Given therecent history of public concerns and policy missteps involving genetically engineered food,the introduction of any new technology into food and agricultural products offers chal-lenges for both industry and governments.

At this point, before too many nanotechnology agrifood products have entered into com-merce, there is a unique opportunity to better understand what is coming, to think throughthe potential impacts, both positive and negative, and to begin to engage the public and otherstakeholders in a dialogue about the use of nanotechnology in food and agriculture.

Along these lines, one challenge we face as consumers and policymakers is how to get a“heads up” concerning future applications that are still in the development stage. A researcheffort initiated and conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Dr. Jennifer Kuzma and PeterVerHage has put together a method to anticipate what food-related applications and productsare likely to appear over the coming years.The method looks at what areas are likely to seeearly commercialization; it begins to explore potential benefits and risks; and it aims to helpfocus the attention of policymakers, educators, and others in the right places at the right times.

Their work,which has resulted in a database of nanotechnology food- and agriculture-relat-ed research, looks at the landscape of research investments being made primarily by the U.S.government. It uses that information to map the potential trajectories of products and applica-tions in both the food and agriculture sectors.The researchers and the Project are jointly mak-ing this database of nanotechnology food- and agriculture-related government research avail-able online so that it can be downloaded into Microsoft Access software for use and analysis byothers.The Project and the researchers welcome comments and collaborations with others inthis very important area.The database can be found online at www.nanotechproject.org.

Foreword

5

This is not an exact science, nor is it complete. Because the results of corporate researchare difficult to acquire, industry research and development in the food sector—which surelywill have large impacts—is not included in this database. But even with the data’s current lim-itations, it is better than flying blind into the future and suddenly seeing numbers of productsappearing on store shelves or in farmers’ fields.

In order to be of use to a wide audience, the following report is divided into three sec-tions and organized so that a reader can approach the material from a variety of perspectives.For readers who are new to the subject of agrifood nanotechnology, the first section providesan overview of ongoing research into the applications of agrifood nanotechnology and situ-ates these research endeavors within the historical context of agriculture biotechnology. Forthose readers with a greater familiarity with the subject, the second section provides an in-depth discussion of the main findings and conclusions that have emerged from the databaseresearch project.The third and final section provides a more technical, detailed description ofthe methodology used to populate the database, along with guidance on how to use the data-base most effectively.

This work is the first step in a larger effort to explore the governance challenges aroundnanotechnology-based food and agricultural applications. The Project on EmergingNanotechnologies hopes it will be useful to others who are working to understand and com-municate the impact of nanotechnologies on our economy and everyday lives.

—David Rejeski Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

6

7Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production

Nanotechnology: Coming to aSupermarket or Farm Near YouA new variety of canola oil contains tinymaterials that can block cholesterol fromentering the bloodstream.

A chocolate milkshake now on the mar-ket is supposedly tastier and more nutritiousthan conventional products—thanks to theunusual properties of a new ingredient that is100,000 times smaller than a grain of sand.

Minute droplets of a new substance havebeen added to pesticides so that formulationsthat once had to be shaken every two hoursto prevent ingredients from separating nowhold together for up to one year.

What do these three products have incommon? They are all examples of food andagricultural innovations made possible by therapidly growing field of nanotechnology.They all employ scientific breakthroughs inthe ability to manipulate matter at themolecular and atomic levels to teach oldproducts new tricks.

They are also just a preview of whatappears to be a flood of food and farm appli-cations of nanotechnology moving to market.

In the food industry alone, experts esti-mate that nanotechnology will be incorporat-ed into $20 billion worth of consumer prod-ucts by 2010.1 Five out of ten of the world’slargest food companies are aggressivelyexploring the potential of the really small tomake really big improvements in packaging,food safety, and nutrition. Similarly, in agri-culture, some of the world’s largest makers ofpesticides, fertilizers, and other farm inputs

and technologies are betting on nanotechnol-ogy to bring unprecedented precision to cropand livestock production.

These applications are commonly knownas “agrifood nanotechnology.” However,while it is clear that agrifood nanotechnolo-gy is expected to become a driving econom-ic force in the long-term, less certain is pre-cisely what to expect in the near-term. Someof the key questions include:

• What individual products are moving rapid-ly through the pipeline?

• What impact will these products have onthe farming and food production chain?

• When these products arrive in the grocerystore and on the farm, is there any reason tobe concerned—or excited—about puttingthem in our bodies or using them in ourenvironment?

Today, there are only vague and generalanswers to these questions. However, if weare to manage the potential health or envi-ronmental concerns these products raise and,ultimately, realize their promised benefits, it iscritical that we better understand and antici-pate food and agriculture applications ofnanotechnology.

If industry observers are right, there arehundreds of new food and agriculture prod-ucts under development, many of whichcould be on the market in as little as twoyears. But it does not appear that govern-


1.“Study: Nanotechnology in Food and Food Processing Worldwide 2003-2006-2010-2015.”Tübingen, Germany:Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, 2006.Available at http://www.hkc22.com/nanofood.html, accessed July 5, 2006.

ments, industry, producers, and trade groupsare ready for their arrival. A research strategyfor addressing possible human health or envi-ronmental risks is not in place.The public isat best vaguely aware of what the word nan-otechnology even means, much less how itmight be involved with growing and produc-ing food or other agricultural products. Andthere is no evidence that government over-sight bodies are ready to conduct the kind ofthorough reviews that these exciting butuntested innovations demand. Finally, the U.S.government is investing little in “green,” moreenvironmentally friendly uses of nanotech-nology in agriculture.

There are many reasons why we need tobe better prepared for the arrival of food andagriculture applications of nanotechnology:

• Experience has shown that any risks or ben-efits involved with integrating new tech-nologies into food and agriculture processesare greatly magnified given their potentiallyfar-reaching effects on humans, animals,rural communities, and the environment.

• Public perceptions and acceptance of agri-food nanotechnology will greatly influencehow widely these applications enter society.

• Food and agribusiness concerns are at thevanguard of commercializing nanotechnolo-gy innovations, and their successes or failurescould affect future commercialization of nan-otechnology products in all industries.

The Project on Emerging Nano-technologies, launched in 2005 by the WilsonCenter and the Pew Charitable Trusts, wascreated to help business, governments and thepublic anticipate and manage possible healthand environmental implications of nanotech-nology. The Project supported the authors’work in taking a first step toward addressingour insufficient knowledge of pending foodand agriculture applications of nanotechnol-ogy by developing a database of relevant gov-ernment-sponsored agrifood nanotechnolo-gy research.

The goal of this research is to lookupstream in order to develop sound predic-tions about what is on the horizon. In its cur-rent form, the database scratches the surfaceof potential applications. Nonetheless, it issufficiently informative to serve as a startingpoint for a more in-depth dialogue amongconsumers, business, and government aboutthe near- and long-term uses of nanotechnol-ogy in food and agriculture.

To understand why these issues shouldcommand more attention, it is helpful to stepback and explain just what nanotechnologyis and the benefits it could provide in foodand agriculture. It is also important to con-sider why nanotechnology might raise a newset of concerns, particularly when used infood and farm processes, and to examine thechallenges the technology may present togovernment agencies charged with safe-guarding the public and environment fromunnecessary risks.

With this knowledge in hand, one canthen explore in more depth this first databaseof food and agriculture projects and considerits strengths and weaknesses.What does it tellus about the field and about what is needed tocreate a more solid foundation for a safe andorderly rollout of nanotech innovations?

8

Food and agribusiness concerns are at the vanguard of commercial-izing nanotechnology innovations, and their successes or failurescould affect future commercialization of nanotechnology productsin all industries.

Big Things in Small Packages: What Is Nanotechnology?Though nanotechnology is a term used moreand more often today, many people—includ-ing veteran industry observers—struggle todefine what it really means. Consumers canbe particularly baffled by the term.The diffi-culty is that nanotechnologies involve struc-tures and substances so small that they chal-lenge our ability to conceptualize their size.

A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter.The typical nanotechnology utilizes struc-tures under 100 nanometers in size. By com-parison, a human hair is 100,000 nanometerswide. Most people have a hard time visualiz-ing something that is tens of thousands oftimes smaller than a hair. Suffice it to say thatthings at the nanoscale not only are too smallto be viewed by the human eye but alsorequire powerful, cutting- edge technology,such as transmission-electron or scanning-tunneling microscopes, to be seen at all.

Nanotechnologies exist today because sci-entists have developed sophisticated instru-ments and processes that allow them to takemicroscopically small structures—down toindividual atoms and molecules—and usethem as individual building blocks withwhich to construct a new generation of sub-stances and materials. While scientists werepreviously able to see, and even accomplishsome crude rearranging of, nanomaterials, itis only recently that they have developed theability to put or coax them into precise, pre-determined configurations.

Ralph Merkle, a professor at the GeorgiaInstitute of Technology, talks about pre-nan-

otechnology manufacturing as akin to “try-ing to make things out of LEGO blocks withboxing gloves on your hands. Yes, you canpush the LEGO blocks into great heaps andpile them up, but you can’t really snap themtogether.”2 Now that these first-generationapplications are beginning to enter the mar-ketplace, an incredible number of usefulthings—carbon nanotubes far lighter and farstronger than steel, nanomaterials that rendersurfaces and fabrics “self-cleaning,” foodpackages with nanomaterials that detectspoilage—offer the potential to transformeverything from health care and automobilemanufacturing to energy production andfood processing. Some enthusiasts speak ofnanotechnology as ushering in a new indus-trial age.

According to Lux Research, sales ofproducts incorporating nanotechnologygenerated over $30 billion in 2005.3 TheNational Science Foundation (NSF) esti-mates that in less than 10 years, productsmade from nanotechnology will have a $1trillion impact on the global economy andthat the nanotechnology industry willemploy two million workers.4

A Tiny Revolution in Food and AgricultureIn the food industry, nanotechnology isbeing used to create better packaging andhealthier foods. For example, researchers areworking on creating food packages embed-ded with tiny materials specifically designedto alert consumers that a product is nolonger safe to eat. Food scientists also are


2. Merkle, Ralph.“Nanotechnology.” Richardson,TX: Zyvex Corporation.Available at http://www.zyvex.com/nano/, accessed July 5, 2006.

3. The Nanotech ReportTM

4th Edition. New York, NY: LuxResearch, Inc., 2006.4. Roco, M.C., R.S.Williams, and P.Alivisatos. Nanotechnology Research Directions: IWGN Workshop Report. Berlin,

Germany: Springer, 2000, p. iii–iv.

10

creating nanomaterials whose small sizegives the ability to deliver powerful nutri-ents to human cells where they previouslycould not reach. In addition, scientistsbelieve nanomaterials can be designed toblock certain substances in food, such asharmful cholesterol or food allergens, fromreaching certain parts of the body.

Today, many of the world’s leading foodcompanies—including H.J. Heinz, Nestlé,Hershey, Unilever, and Kraft—are investingheavily in nanotechnology applications.5

Farm applications of nanotechnology arealso commanding attention. Nanomaterialsare being developed that offer the opportu-nity to more efficiently and safely adminis-ter pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers bycontrolling precisely when and where theyare released. For example, an environmen-tally friendly pesticide is in developmentthat uses nanomaterials to release its pest-killing properties only when it is inside thetargeted insect. For livestock, the ability ofcertain nanomaterials to control dosagecould reduce the amount of growth hor-mones needed to boost livestock produc-tion.There also are nanomaterials in the latestages of development that can detect andneutralize animal pathogens in livestockbefore they reach consumers.

Examples Are Poor Substitute for Complete PictureThese examples offer a glimpse into theworld of food and agriculture nanotechnolo-gy, but little more.Almost weekly there is anarticle in a business or scientific publicationrhapsodizing about a new food or an agricul-ture innovation made possible by nanotech-nology.Yet nowhere is there an independentand authoritative accounting of individualagriculture and food products that includes aprediction of their time to market andthoughts on potential risks and benefits.Therefore, no one really knows what toexpect in the next few years: 10 products?100? 1,000? And are these products risky,safe, or beneficial?

Why is it so hard to estimate how manyfood and agriculture innovations are driven bynanotechnology or what their effect will be?One reason is that there are reasons to bothexaggerate and minimize nanotech applica-tions. Analysts from the investment firm AGEdwards warn that “nanotechnology hasbecome so much of a buzzword that we fearits real meaning is: ‘We are doing somethingsmall, please pay more for our stock.’”6 Inother words, many people justifiably wonderwhether everything that a company labels“nanotechnology” is really nanotechnology.

Conversely, some food and agriculturecompanies, very much aware of the problemscaused by consumer fears of geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) in food crops,may be wary of attaching the nanotechnolo-gy label to new products. For example, fewwould have predicted 10 years ago that

“Clearly, there is a growing segment of the public that does not wantits food ‘engineered’-bio, nano or otherwise,” state Evan Michelsonand David Rejeski of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, andthese segments of the population are willing to pay premium pricesfor an organic approach.

5.Wolfe, Josh.“Safer and Guilt-Free Nano Foods.” Forbes.com, August 10, 2005.Available athttp://www.forbes.com/investmentnewsletters/2005/08/09/nanotechnology-kraft-hershey-cz_jw_0810soap-box_inl.html?partner=rss, accessed on July 5, 2006.

6. Hittle,Alexander A., Kevin J. McDevitt, and Paul D.Watson.“Nanotechnology.” St. Louis, MO:AG Edwards &Sons, Inc., December 14, 2005.

“GMO-free” would become a major mar-keting slogan in Europe.

“Clearly, there is a growing segment of thepublic that does not want its food ‘engi-neered’—bio, nano or otherwise,” state EvanMichelson and David Rejeski of the Projecton Emerging Nanotechnologies, and thesesegments of the population are willing to paypremium prices for an organic approach.7

However, the value of the organic food sec-tor—which most people associate with beingGMO-free—has increased around 15 percentper year since the mid-1990s, and it remainsone of the fastest-growing areas of the foodindustry.8 Organic food sales worldwide haveexceeded $15 billion annually, and Wal-Mart’sdecision to stock and sell increased amounts oforganic produce is expected to increase theworth of this sector in the future.9

Ten years from now, companies do notwant a situation in which consumers areattracted to products because they claim to be“nano-free.” Additionally, the growth of theorganic food sector indicates that firms maygain a real economic advantage with affirma-tive labeling (“no-nano”) that goes beyond justtaking a position against bioengineered foods.

Moreover, even if companies believe a foodor an agriculture product that utilizes nan-otechnology will be welcomed into the mar-ketplace, they are generally reluctant to beforthcoming about what is in their own prod-uct pipelines. This tendency to be secretiveabout new products is not confined to nan-

otechnology. Whatever the pending product,companies routinely classify any meaningfuldetails, including data submitted as part of apetition for regulatory approval, as confidentialbusiness information. Declaring productinformation as confidential prevents a com-petitor from stealing a company’s ideas or tak-ing unfair market advantage, but it also stopsanyone, including government officials, fromdiscussing it with the public.

So, we have a situation in food and agri-culture where industries seem to be movingas fast as, or possibly faster than, any otherindustrial sector to realize the benefits of nan-otechnology. Yet predicting precisely whatwill soon come to market is a speculativeexercise.And unless one knows what is com-ing, it is difficult to undertake a systematic,independent effort to understand whetherparticular products pose risks to humans, ani-mals or the environment.

Should We Be Worried About Foodand Agriculture Nanotechnology?It is fair to ask: why is this dearth of informa-tion and assessment of food and agriculturenanotechnology a problem?

First, it is a problem because consumersand anyone else—workers in the agricultureand food industries, for example—whomight come into contact with the minutematerials and substances created with nan-otechnology have a right to know what theyare being exposed to and whether there are


7. Michelson, Evan, and David Rejeski.“Falling Through the Cracks? Public Perception, Risk and the Oversightof Emerging Nanotechnologies,” IEEE ISTAS Conference Proceedings, June 2006.

8. Greene, Catherine, and Carolyn Dimitri.“Organic Agriculture: Gaining Ground,” Amber Waves. Washington,DC: United States Department of Agriculture, February 2003.Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/feb03/findings/ organicagriculture.htm, accessed July 5, 2006. Hansen, Nanette.“Organic Food Sales SeeHealthy Growth,” MSNBC.com, December 3, 2004.Available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6638417, accessedJuly 5, 2006.

9.“Wal-Mart Goes Organic.” MSNBC.com, March 26, 2006.Available at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11977666/, accessed July 20, 2006.

any risks when they inhale or ingest thesematerials.The risks could be practically zeroor they could be significant, depending onthe properties of a particular product andexposure levels. For the most part, no oneknows. Few risk assessments have been donethat allow one to predict what happens whenthese very small materials, some designed tobe biologically active, enter the human bodyor are dispersed in the environment.A recentanalysis of nanotechnology-related environ-mental, health, and safety research, done bythe Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies,could find no research on the impact ofnanomaterials on the gastrointestinal tract,though this will be of primary concern forfood applications.10

One issue that has come under considera-tion is whether there is something abouthuman-made creations at the nanoscale ingeneral that raises new safety issues. In otherwords,when it comes to risk, does size matter?

On one hand, there are scientists whoobserve that humans, animals and the envi-ronment are constantly encountering natu-rally occurring nanomaterials. In the envi-ronment, nanomaterials have been with usfor millions of years; for example, every dayhumans inhale nanosize salt particles carriedon the ocean breeze with no ill effects.Biologically active proteins and molecules atthe nanoscale in our bodies keep us healthy

and functioning. In that sense, one could saythere is no reason to be wary of eating ordispersing something just because its size canbe measured only in terms of atoms.

On the other hand, there are concernsthat nanomaterials now in development aredifferent from anything that exists in nature.As many observers point out, the reasonnanotechnology is causing so much excite-ment is precisely because it allows people tocreate products that do things that naturalparticles cannot.

For example, consider the use of nano-materials to improve the body’s ability toabsorb nutrients by making them so smallthat they can slip through cell walls thatordinarily would prohibit their passage.While there can be benefits to breakingdown that barrier, such as quicker and moreefficient uptake of nutrients into the blood-stream, could there also be unintended con-sequences? We need to understand thepotential side effects before these productscome into mass use. Achieving this under-standing will require research that focusesspecifically on the nanotechnology aspect ofthe product. Current information—if iteven exists—can be of limited value inunderstanding potential risks.

One method of developing nanomaterialsis by creating smaller versions of known sub-stances. For this type of nanotechnology, riskmanagement might seem to be a relativelysimple exercise, as anyone concerned aboutthe safety of the nanosize version could sim-ply consult the safety profile of the original.However, this risk management approachmay not be sufficient, for some researchersbelieve that when materials are shrunk to

12

10. Nanotechnology Health and Environmental Implications:An Inventory of Current Research.Washington, DC: Projecton Emerging Nanotechnologies,Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, November 2005.Availableat http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories, accessed July 5, 2006.

A recent analysis of nanotechnology-related environmental, health,and safety research, done by the Project on Emerging Nanotech-nologies, could find no research on the impact of nanomaterials onthe gastrointestinal tract, though this will be of primary concern forfood applications.

the nanoscale, they change properties andare no longer simply miniature versions ofthe original material. For instance, in itsoriginal size, a substance might be consid-ered toxic to human beings only when con-sumed in a certain quantity, say above 100milligrams. But when that same substance ismanufactured at the nanoscale, its propertiesmight change, and it might require a differ-ent point of reference to determine toxicity.For example, it may no longer be just theweight of the substance that determines thematerial’s risk. In its new configuration, thematerial might have a new molecular struc-ture or be capable of affecting the humanbody or the environment in a manner thatits precursor never could.11,12

Overall, the point is that new research isneeded to fully understand the individualrisks posed by products that use nanotech-nology. If this research is not done, consumerand environmental health could suffer in twoways: by being exposed to potentially harm-ful products or, if unfounded fears slow theapproval process or lead to over-regulation,by being deprived of what could be verybeneficial innovations. In that sense, the needto thoroughly identify any risks related tofood and agriculture nanotechnology is notabout feeding irrational or alarmist fears.Rather, its purpose is to anticipate the pres-sure points that, if ignored, will prevent theindustry from reaching its potential—whether that involves something vital tohumanity, such as safer and more nutritiousfood, or something merely convenient andcommercially lucrative, such as a plastic bot-tle that uses nanomaterials to keep beveragesfresher tasting.

Agriculture Biotechnology: A Bountiful Harvest of Cautionary TalesIf supporters of food and agriculture nan-otechnology need to be convinced about theimportance of moving aggressively to identi-fy and address health and environmentalconcerns of nanotechnology before productsreach the market, they should consider themany lessons to be learned from the historyof genetically modified foods.The tendencyto commercialize first and respond to con-sumer questions later has proven a majorproblem for an industry that was supposed totransform food and agriculture by offeringsafer production methods, more nutritiousfoods, and new opportunities for farmers—the same benefits that we are now hearingwill come from nanotechnology.

This dynamic is nothing new for anyonewho has witnessed the controversy that hassurrounded the use of genetic engineering infood and agriculture. But the tensions thatsurround the presence of GMOs in food andon the farm go beyond the fact that theseapplications present so many avenues forencounters with humans and the environ-ment.The clashes over GMOs also teach usthat there are strong cultural and personalrelationships to food and agriculture that onedoes not find in other industries and sectors.


The tendency to commercialize first and respond to consumer ques-tions later has proven a major problem for an industry that wassupposed to transform food and agriculture by offering safer pro-duction methods, more nutritious foods, and new opportunities forfarmers-the same benefits that we are now hearing will come fromnanotechnology.

11. Oberdörster, Günter, Eva Oberdörster, and Jan Oberdörster.“Nanotoxicology:An Emerging DisciplineEvolving for Studies of Ultrafine Particles,” Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2005, 113(7): 823-839.

12. Maynard,Andrew, and Eileen Kuempel.“Airborne Nanostructured Particles and Occupational Health,” Journalof Nanoparticle Research, 2005, 7: 587-614.

Those relationships can heighten public con-cern about potential negative effects of newtechnologies.

In addition, as has been the case withGMOs, there is the possibility that consumerscould perceive that they will bear the poten-tial risks posed by nanotechnology applica-tions, while the benefits will accrue mainly toothers, such as food processors or farmers.Andeven where there are benefits for consumers,the risk/benefit trade-off in nanotechnologywill not be as clear for food and agriculture asit is for other sectors, such as pharmaceuticals.Consumers may have a high tolerance for riskswhen it comes to drugs and life-saving med-ical treatments but a much lower tolerance forrisk when it comes to food, particularly whenthey see no direct benefits.

Another lesson from the experience withGMOs is that given the complexity of thetechnology, a failure to thoroughly explorepotential risks and to openly and candidly dis-cuss them with the public can do great harm,even if the actual problems involved end upposing little, if any, real threat. For example, in1999, there was a spate of news stories in thescientific press that moved into the main-stream media about a study that suggestedpollen from crops genetically modified toproduce a naturally occurring pesticide(Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt) might be harmfulto Monarch butterfly larvae. Numerous fol-low-up studies questioned whether genetical-ly modified crops posed a serious threat to theMonarch.13 But the public perception wasthat industry and government scientists had

failed to thoroughly explore and disclose thepotential risks to the butterfly, however mini-mal, before putting the crop on the market.The Monarch itself may not have become acasualty of GMO crops, but there is littledoubt that the incident had an impact onpublic trust and that it raised questions amongsome consumer and environmental organiza-tions about the capability of the oversight sys-tem and of the agricultural biotechnologyindustry that is supposed to consider the safe-ty of its products.

A second example worth studying is theso-called Starlink controversy.14 The foodindustry is still feeling the effects of an inci-dent in 2000 in which a brand of geneticallymodified corn known as Starlink, which hadbeen approved only for animal consumption,was found in food meant for human con-sumption. While there was concern that theStarlink variety might provoke allergic reac-tions in some humans, there were no verifiablereports of health problems linked to the expo-sure. Nonetheless, the damage to industry wasconsiderable. The unintended co-minglingshowed that government regulators, alongwith food and agriculture companies, werenot able to keep GMO animal feed isolatedfrom human foods. This opened the door tothe possibility of other, as yet unfound, co-mingling of approved and non-approvedGMO foods. In fact, the food that containedStarlink corn was often described as “contam-inated with GMOs,” a phrase that clearly hin-dered industry efforts to convince the publicthat GMOs pose no health threats.

14

13. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Three Years Later: Genetically Engineered Corn and the Monarch ButterflyControversy. Washington, DC: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, May 30, 2002.Available athttp://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/monarch.pdf, accessed August 3, 2006.

14.Taylor, Michael R., and Jody S.Tick. The StarLink Case: Issues for the Future. Washington, DC: Pew Initiative onFood and Biotechnology, October 2001.Available at http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/starlink/starlink.pdf, accessed July 5, 2006.


The effects of the Starlink case have rip-pled throughout the industry. The incidenthas been a particularly potent weapon forthose opposed to using genetically modifiedplants to produce pharmaceutical proteinsand antibodies in plants because of fears thatthey could get mixed with food crops.Therehad been high hopes that “pharma plants”would help drug companies speed produc-tion of breakthrough biotech drugs, whichare routinely in short supply because con-ventional manufacturing methods can’t stayabreast of demand.The Starlink case has alsomade it more difficult for U.S. farmers toexport their crops, since certain foreign buy-ers will purchase U.S. grains and food prod-ucts only if they receive assurances that theycontain no, or only certain, genetically mod-ified ingredients.

Meanwhile, in the area of animalbiotechnology, the failure to anticipate andmanage the consumer issues raised by genet-ic engineering has left efforts to improvelivestock production through genetic engi-neering essentially dead in the water.Companies have been waiting for years toget guidance from the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) on what will berequired to obtain regulatory approval forgenetically modified farm animals and tomove products to market. Although FDA isaware of the need for such guidelines, it hasbeen reluctant to move forward in a proac-tive manner. Similarly, many small firmscomplain that this regulatory indecision isdriving away investors, which, in turn, affectsthe pace of research and development.

In an article on the agricultural biotech-nology sector, researchers Joyce Tait and LesLevidow argue that “the industry concerned,and its products, are controlled by a system setup in response to scientifically proven adverseimpacts that have arisen in earlier generationsof products.”15 As noted earlier, this reactiveapproach to governance also has the effect oflowering public trust in government andindustry’s ability to manage the risks posed bybiotechnology in particular and by new tech-nologies in general.

This low level of trust in the regulatory sys-tem is arising once again with respect to nan-otechnology. For instance, in her studyInformed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology andTrust in Government, Jane Macoubrie foundthat both FDA and USDA fared particularlypoorly, with citizens lowering their level oftrust after learning more about the functionsof these particular agencies. Her examinationof these issues indicated that “evidence pointsto FDA, and to a lesser extent, USDA, as sig-nificant nanotechnology regulatory concernsfor citizens.”16 The actions of these agencieswill be critical to the introduction of nan-otechnology in food and agriculture products,and Macoubrie’s findings demonstrate thatgovernment is going to have to take steps inthe future to win back the trust of consumers.

Back to the Future: WillNanotechnology Repeat the Mistakes of Biotechnology?Unfortunately, it appears there is a dangerthat the nanotechnology sector could repeatmany of the mistakes that caused problems

15.Tait, Joyce, and Les Levidow.“Proactive and Reactive Approaches to Risk Regulation:The Case of Biotechnology”Futures,April 1992: 219–231.

16. Macoubrie, Jane. Informed Public Perception of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government.Washington, DC: Project onEmerging Nanotechnologies,Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September 2006.Available athttp://www.nanotechproject.org/reports, accessed July 5, 2006.

for food and agricultural biotechnology. Inparticular, one hears government officialsand many in industry voicing the sameopinions about nanotechnology as they didwith the debut of genetic engineering;namely, that adequate regulatory authorityand capacity to manage any risks posed bynanotechnology already exists. Given thepaucity of nanotechnology risk research, it isdifficult to see how adopting a positionaffirming adequate authority at such anearly stage is helpful. Additionally, it isimportant to note that even if the currentreview system is adequate, there are stillquestions about whether government agen-cies have sufficient resources—money,expertise, and strategic plans—to enforce,test, and otherwise deal with the expectedflood of new nanotechnology products intothe marketplace.

There is also the issue of how one canmake such a categorical statement about theoversight system’s ability to manage risksposed by food and agriculture nanotechnol-ogy when there is not a clear view of theparticular products now under develop-ment. On the basis of analyses conducted byJ. Clarence Davies, there is little evidencethat federal agencies know enough aboutproducts under development to assure thepublic and industry that they have the prop-er legal authorities and technical expertiseto conduct thorough and timely reviews ofsafety concerns, even if they thought suchsteps were necessary.17

Foresight is also needed to determinehow the main agencies involved—the FDA,the USDA, and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA)—will coordinatewhat can be conflicting and overlappingauthorities. In the 1980s, it took a consider-able amount of work to create a frameworkfor coordinating reviews of new biotech-nology products such as genetically modi-fied plants, and problems still persist. A sim-ilar federal undertaking is not yet under wayfor nanotechnology applications or specifi-cally for food and agriculture applications ofnanotechnology, even though new nan-otechnology applications and products arebeginning to reach the market.

However, there are signs that a moreproactive approach from the government isemerging. In June 2005, EPA held its firstpublic meeting on a pilot program forindustry to voluntarily provide the agencywith information on nanoscale materials.18

Additionally, in the fall of 2006, FDA willhold a public meeting to “gather informa-tion about current developments in uses ofnanotechnology materials in FDA-regulatedproducts.”19 The FDA meeting is expectedto focus on, among other things, nanotech-nology that would be used in foods, includ-ing dietary supplements and in animal feeds.

Clearly there is still time, before nanotech-nology is incorporated into hundreds of foodand agriculture products, to focus on what iscoming and to lay the groundwork for itsorderly entry into the market. But to put it

16

17. Davies, J. Clarence. Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology. Washington, DC: Project on EmergingNanotechnologies,Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January 2006.Available athttp://www.nanotechproject.org/reports, accessed July 5, 2006.

18.“June 23, 2005–Meeting On Possible Voluntary Pilot Program for Nanoscale Materials.”Washington, DC:Environmental Protection Agency, July 27, 2006.Available at http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/ relevant_meetings/archive/2005/ index.html, accessed July 28, 2006.

19.“FDA Announces Plans for Nanotechnology Public Meeting.” Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration,April 13, 2006.Available at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/ 2006/NEW01356.html, accessed July 5, 2006.


simply, neither industry nor governmentappears to be doing its homework.Therefore,products could end up in the market withouta proper assessment of their risks or end upindefinitely halted at the threshold of com-mercialization.

Anticipating Rather than Reacting:Building a Database of FutureApplicationsIn an effort to help fill a knowledge gap andstart building a framework for a more thor-ough consideration of how nanotechnologywill be used in food and agriculture, wedeveloped a database to identify technologiesthat may soon be on the market, explorepotential risks and benefits associated withthese technologies, and help focus the atten-tion of the nanotechnology policy commu-nity on this emerging area of nanotechnolo-gy’s application.

The entries catalogued in the database arelargely United States government–funded,application-oriented, research and develop-ment projects culled from information pro-vided by USDA, EPA, NSF and websites of avariety of agencies that have funded work inthis area: the National Institutes of Health(NIH), Department of Defense (DOD),Department of Energy (DOE), Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS), and FDA.Total spending from all agencies between2000 and fall 2005 was $15.2 million. Of thatamount, a majority of the research projects inthe database (about $11 million from 2000 to2005) are funded by USDA. During thatsame period, NSF-funded projects amountedto $3.5 million and EPA projects totaledabout $780,000.

The $15.2 million total likely underesti-mates the government’s investment in foodand agriculture nanotechnology applicationsresearch, since some projects may have been

missed. Nevertheless, it is clear that govern-ment expenditures on food and agriculturalapplications of nanotechnology are only asmall percentage of the more than $1 billionthat the federal government spends annuallyon nanotechnology, the bulk of which hashistorically focused on basic research and onindustrial and medical applications.

One obvious limitation of the database inits current form is that it does not captureindustry-funded research and developmentprojects, although it does include a small num-ber of projects gleaned from searching patentapplications registered at the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office (USPTO),which may include industry-related work.Overall, the USPTO database offers littleinsight into industry agrifood nanotechnologyresearch and development applications,which,particularly among major food companies, arebelieved to be significant.

Industry projects are largely absentbecause, unlike government-funded work,there is no requirement or regular effort todisclose information on private sector foodand agriculture nanotechnology research.Companies working in this area should con-sider how they can offer a better preview oftechnologies under development in a waythat informs the public while protectingcommercial interests. But as noted above, thetendency in the commercial sector is to keepproduct development under wraps.

In an effort to help fill a knowledge gap and start building a frame-work for a more thorough consideration of how nanotechnology will beused in food and agriculture, we developed a database to identify tech-nologies that may soon be on the market, explore potential risks andbenefits associated with these technologies, and help focus the atten-tion of the nanotechnology policy community on this emerging area ofnanotechnology’s application.

Even with its current limitations, thisassemblage of food- and agriculture-relatednanotechnology research projects is the onlydatabase of its kind currently available. It is farbetter than flying blind and waiting for prod-ucts to appear in our supermarkets and on ourfarms before considering their risks and bene-fits.This database, which can be searched andmanipulated with Microsoft Access software, isbeing made publicly available online by theProject on Emerging Nanotechnologies in adownloadable form to encourage additionsand collaborations. It should be consideredone important component of a broader effortto explore the challenges—to government,industry and society—posed by the growingnumber of efforts to develop practical andprofitable uses of nanotechnology.

What We Learned About Food andAgriculture NanotechnologyAs of April 2006, the database contained 160projects, 146 of which were clearly connect-ed to food and agriculture applications ofnanotechnology and 14 that had enoughconnections to warrant their inclusion. In anindication of how rapidly the field is moving,it is estimated that more than 30 of theseprojects could produce a commercially viableapplication in five years or less, and most ofthe others have the potential to generate acommercial product in the next 15 years.

The majority of projects are focused on thefood industry. For example, much of theresearch looks at using nanomaterials toimprove food packaging or to detect and, insome cases, neutralize substances that are thefrequent cause of potentially fatal bouts of foodpoisoning.There is also research that seeks to

use nanomaterials to enhance the biologicalactivity of dietary supplements or “nutraceuti-cals.” In fact, a recent inventory of nanotech-nology-based products already on the marketcontains a dozen dietary supplements.20

For agriculture applications, the databaseindicates that using nanotechnology todevelop more-efficient and environmentallyfriendly farming techniques is now a popu-lar area of research. For example, one projectseeks to use nanotechnology to developextremely sensitive devices that can monitorhow water flows through farmlands.Potential longer- term applications of thisresearch could help indicate how to stoprunoff from crops or how to prevent live-stock from polluting nearby streams, riversand lakes. Other projects explore how toharvest nanomaterials from agriculturalwaste—or how to use nanomaterials to neu-tralize farm pollutants—and whether nano-materials can be made that will help convertleftover crop materials, such as leaves, corn-stalks and corncobs, into ethanol, which canbe used for fuel.

For each project, the database provides:

• a summary of the project;

• a prediction about when the researchmight lead to a commercial product;

• types of methods and topic areas for each project.

• the names and institutions of the principalinvestigators; and

• the funding source and the grant amount.

18

20. Maynard,Andrew, and Evan Michelson. The Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory.Washington, DC: Projecton Emerging Nanotechnologies,Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, March 2006.Available athttp://www.nanotechproject.org/reports, accessed July 5, 2006.


We have also made an attempt to offer aglimpse of each project’s potential environ-mental and health risks and benefits. Thisaspect of the database, which ranks any risks orbenefits that can be identified as “high,”“medi-um,” or “low,” is considered to be a work inprogress. It is an initial effort to move beyondbroad generalizations about the promises andpitfalls of food and agricultural nanotechnolo-gy and to focus on risks and benefits that mayemerge from specific applications.While theserisk/benefit rankings may be imperfect, theyare nonetheless informative, in part becausethey highlight the need for a more compre-hensive approach to defining risks and benefitsof nanotechnology in food and agriculture.

One reason the rankings should be usedwith caution is that not all potential risks wereidentified. For example, in examining projectsrelated to food packaging, the analysis did notfully consider whether the food might absorbany nanomaterials from the package. Also,because there was no evidence that any proj-ects would release potentially toxic materialson a wide scale, nothing in the database israted “high risk.” It is conceivable that thereare projects in the database where laboratoryor farm workers would be exposed to poten-tially harmful nanomaterials, which mightwarrant reconsidering the risk ranking.

Overall, the information should be viewedas a first pass in developing risk/benefit rank-ings.A rigorous analysis is under way to devel-op an approach to more accurately evaluateindividual projects. With a solid set of riskrankings, the database can eventually be minedto identify priorities for safety evaluations.

Putting the Database to Work:Forecasting Food and AgricultureInnovationsTo understand how the database can be usedto identify and explore applications of food

and agricultural nanotechnology that maysoon be on the market, consider the follow-ing examples it contains.

Intelligent Chicken Feed If one were to enter the search term“pathogen detection,” the database wouldshow, among other projects, an effort to usenanotechnology to improve food safety inthe poultry industry.

Under a grant from USDA,bioengineeringresearchers at Clemson University are workingto develop a nanomaterial they hope can begiven to chickens and turkeys to remove acommon poultry bacterium called campy-lobacter (pronounced kamp-e-lo-back-ter).The bacteria do not harm the birds, but wheningested by humans, they can cause crampsand bloody diarrhea.The Clemson investiga-tors are trying to create a nanoparticle specifi-cally designed to latch on to molecules thatexist on the surface of the campylobacter andthen remove the bacteria from chicken orpoultry before they reach humans. Accordingto the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC), campylobacter affectsabout 1 million Americans each year, with themajority of cases stemming from contact withraw or undercooked poultry.

The database offers insight into theClemson project by providing a summary thatdescribes the technical details of the researchas well as its objective.The database also ratesthe risks and benefits of the proposed nano-material. Among the potential risks thatdeserve attention is whether the nanomateri-al, if it entered the environment, might affectbacteria that are beneficial to an ecosystem.There is also a question of whether there arerisks to humans who may ingest the nanoma-terial when they eat the treated poultry.

The database rates the potential humanand environmental risks as “medium.” (The

summary of the project notes that it includesa “safety evaluation” of human exposures.)The benefits are rated as “high,” given thatthe technology targets a “serious food-bornepathogen.” According to our estimates, thebacteria-fighting nanomaterials could beready for commercial use in 5 to 10 years.

Nanotechnology as Rumpelstiltskin:Spinning Gold—Ethanol Actually—From CornstalksU.S. dependence on foreign oil can poten-tially be decreased through nanoscience. Aresearch program at Purdue Universityfocuses on applying nanotechnology andprinciples of polymer science to improveprocessing of cornstalks to ethanol, animportant biofuel. The researchers are usingnanoscience to break apart cornstalks intonanomaterials for easier and cheaper trans-port of biomass for ethanol production.Transportation of biomass to fuel productionplants is currently costly and inefficient.This“nano-processing” step may ultimately makeit possible to reduce ethanol productioncosts significantly as well as to decrease fossilfuel use during transport.

In the database, this project was catego-rized as “medium” benefit to the environ-ment, given its ability to replace fossil fuel.However, the life cycle issues (that is, energy,carbon dioxide emissions, and chemical use)associated with these processing steps need tobe considered in full, considering any poten-

tial benefits or harms to the environment. Inlight of this, the project was also categorizedas “medium” risk to the environment.

The Beginning of a Conversation, Not a Last WordAs noted above, assembling this kind of data-base is a first step of a critically needed sys-tematic preview of coming attractions andapplications in food and agricultural nan-otechnology. Offering this preliminary data-base for public consumption could have sev-eral benefits that will advance the effort toproperly consider what happens when vari-ous types of nanotechnology are used eitherin, or in close proximity to, the things thathumans grow and eat. Since anyone can viewthe information, anyone can offer suggestionsfor additional projects to include or a way toimprove the overall structure and approach ofthe database. The database also serves as anopen invitation to companies working in thisarea to add their projects to the mix, whichcould help provide early publicity about aproduct that could have considerable con-sumer appeal. In addition, by allowing com-panies to get feedback from other scientistsworking in the field, industrial developers offood and agriculture innovations could, byadding their projects to the database, enjoythe benefits that accrue to software develop-ers who follow an open-source approach toproduct development.

Meanwhile, the authors will seek to offera deeper understanding of issues raised by theresearch covered in this database by conduct-ing a series of cases studies that will focus

20

Assembling this kind of database is a first step of a critically neededsystematic preview of coming attractions and applications in food andagricultural nanotechnology. Offering this preliminary database forpublic consumption could have several benefits that will advance theeffort to properly consider what happens when various types of nan-otechnology are used either in, or in close proximity to, the things thathumans grow and eat.

The goal of this database is to take a long-term lookat food and agricultural applications for nanotech-nology and assure that any risks will be proactivelyanalyzed so that benefits can be realized.

Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production 21

more closely on risks and benefits.The orig-inal purpose of developing this database wasto identify the subjects of these case studies.More detail about the case study selectionmethod can be found at the end of the sec-ond section of this report.

In conclusion, the goal of this database isto take a long-term look at food and agricul-tural applications for nanotechnology andassure that any risks will be proactively ana-lyzed so that benefits can be realized. While

there is a tremendous opportunity with nan-otechnology to “get it right,” societies havemissed this chance with other new technolo-gies and, in so doing, forfeited significantsocial, economic, and environmental benefits.

While there is a tremendous opportunity with nanotechnology to “getit right,” societies have missed this chance with other new technolo-gies and, in so doing, forfeited significant social, economic, and envi-ronmental benefits.

From Context to ContentAs noted earlier, nanotechnology has thepotential to revolutionize agricultural andfood (agrifood) production. Potential applica-tions of the technology include controllednutraceutical delivery systems for food; on-farm applications to deliver drugs or pesticidesto livestock or crops; and smart-sensingdevices for agriculture-environment interac-tions. The most prominent agrifoodnanoproducts currently on the U.S.market arenanocomposites for food packaging. Thesenanomaterials provide barriers to oxygen andcarbon dioxide, thus protecting food quality.21

A recent report by Helmut KaiserConsultancy indicates that worldwide sales ofnanotechnology products in the food andbeverage packaging sector were U.S. $860million in 2004, up significantly from U.S.$150 million in 2002.22 Products for nutraceu-tical delivery in foods are on the market inother countries.23 Five out of ten of theworld’s largest food and beverage companiesinvest in some form of nanotechnologyresearch. For example, Kraft Foods funds

research at several universities and national labsthrough its NanoteK consortium.24 Despitethe attention to agrifood nanotechnology inindustry, there have been few, if any, systemat-ic, publicly available evaluations of researchand development (R&D) in this area, and thefield of agrifood nanotechnology remainslargely unexplored in the public domain.

Nevertheless, the public is becomingincreasingly aware of the potential forimproving food via nanotechnology. Onestudy designed to investigate the public per-ceptions of nanotechnology found that 6percent of respondents listed “safer and betterfood” as one of the main expected benefitsfrom the technology. This benefit was thefifth most cited. At the same time, 7 percentof respondents cited worries associated with“nanotechnology’s use in food products,packaging, and agriculture.”25 This concernwas the sixth most cited.

Projects in the database largely representgovernment-funded research, with the addi-tional category of projects for which patentshave been obtained.The database categorizes


Analysis of Early-Stage AgrifoodNanotechnology Research and Development

21. For example, nanoclays dispersed in polymer matricies, such as Nanomer® nanoclays produced by Nanocor®.22.“Study: Nanotechnology in Food and Food Processing Worldwide 2003-2006-2010-2015.”Tübingen,

Germany: Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, 2006.Available at http://www.hkc22.com/nanofood.html, accessedJuly 5, 2006.

23. For example, Canola Active, a cooking oil that contains nano-size, self-assembled structured liquids (NSSL) ofapproximately 30 nanometers to disperse phytosterols is on the market in Israel. Seehttp://www.shemen.co.il/english/nutrition-health.html.

24. Gardener, Elizabeth.“Brainy Food:Academe, Industry Sink Their Teeth into Edible Nano.” Small Times, June 21,2002.Available at http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=3989&keyword=brainy%20and%20food&summary=1&startsum=1, accessed July 5, 2006.

25. Macoubrie, Jane. Informed Public Perceptions and Trust in Government.Washington, DC: Project on EmergingNanotechnologies,Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September 2005, p. 9 and 11.Availableat http://www.nanotechproject.org/reports, accessed July 5, 2006.

projects with respect to type of research(basic, applied, or development); projectedtime to commercialization; techniques, top-ics, and research areas, as specified in a USDAreport on agrifood nanotechnology26; sectorsin the food supply chain; and their fit to well-accepted definitions of nanotechnology. Fourdatabases27 and five government websites28

were searched for projects active during theyears 2000 through 2005.

We do not view this version of the data-base as complete or the end of this project.Rather, it is a start to evaluating activities inagrifood nanotechnology in the publicdomain, and it will continue to benefit fromoutside input and contributions.We welcomefeedback on the database. Please send us yourcomments, changes, or suggestions for addi-tional entries.29

Results and ConclusionsAs mentioned earlier, as of April 2006, 160projects are included in the database.Fourteen of these projects have questionableconnections to agriculture, food, and/or nan-

otechnology (as noted in the databaseentries).We erred on the side of inclusivenessand decided to keep them in this first versionof the inventory.

Figures 1–3 display the number of projectsthat fall into each technique, topic, or USDAresearch category. Bioselective surfaces andnano-bio processing contain the most projectsfor techniques; biosensors and food biopro-cessing contain the most projects for topics;and pathogen and contaminant detection andnanoscale materials science and engineeringcontain the most projects for USDA researchcategories. These results are consistent withthe high number of nanotechnology projectsfocused on food packaging and sensing forfoodborne pathogens during processing. Wefound very few projects that addressed USDAresearch categories of identity pre-servation/tracking and of education/work-force. By contrast, the USDA research catego-ry of environmental issues/agriculture waste iswell-represented given the number of prod-ucts that focus on harvesting industrial nano-materials from biomass.

24

26. Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems. Washington, DC: United States Department ofAgriculture, July 2003.

27. Searched databases include: USDA-Current Research Information System (CRIS), the United States Patentand Trademark Office (USPTO), EPA-Science Inventory, and NSF Awards.

28. Searched websites include NIH, DOD, DOE, DHS, and FDA.29. Please send edits, suggestions, or additional information to Jennifer Kuzma at [email protected].


Figure 1. Techniques Used in Agrifood Nanotechnology Projects100

80

60

40

20

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

transp

ort

proces

ses

biosen

sors

enviro

nment

al

proces

sing

sustain

able

agricu

lture

patho

gen d

etectio

n

plant/

animal

produ

ction

veteri

nary

medicin

e

biopro

cessin

g

for fo

od

nono

-bio in

dustri

al

produ

cts

n Number of projects


biosel

ective

surfac

e

bio-se

parat

ion

micro-flu

idics

nano

bio

proces

sing

nucleic

acid

bioeng

ineeri

ng

drug d

elivery

modelin

g

Figure 2. Topics Addressed in Agrifood Nanotechnology Projects

21

50

15

29

43

3026

90

43

85

15 17

43

7

26 25

26

Figure 3. USDA Research Areas for Agrifood Nanotechnology Projects

Figure 4. Type of Research in Agrifood Nanotechnology

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


patho

gen/

conta

m

detec

tion

identit

y pres

./tracki

ng

smart

treatm

ent/de

livery

smart

syste

ms integ

.

nano

devic

es for

mol/

cell b

io

nano

scale

sci an

d eng

enviro

nment

/ag w

aste

educa

tion/work

force

n Appliedn Basic n Development

17%

28%

55%

52

1815

29

80

41

31


Figure 5. Estimated Time to Commercialization

50

40

30

20

10

0


0–5 ye

ars

5–10 ye

ars

10–15 ye

ars

15–20 ye

ars

20–50 ye

ars

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the three types of research in agrifood nanotechnology, while Figure5 displays the anticipated commercialization timeframe for the projects. Most projects fall into the“applied research” category (55%) and are estimated to be commercialized in 5–15 years.The major-ity of the “development” and “0–5 years” entries come from the United States Patent and TrademarkOffice (USPTO database.As shown in Figure 6, the majority of projects fall into post-harvest (47%),consumer applications (39%), or retail (27%).This again reflects an emphasis on projects related to foodpackaging and pathogen/contaminant detection during food processing.

33

47

50

20

10

28

Figure 6. Sector of Food Supply Chain

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


all

agroe

cosys

tems

pre-ha

rvest

post-h

arvest reta

il

consu

mer

post-c

onsum

ption

transp

ortatio

n

Figure 7 indicates that lab and industry workers are the primary groups who will be exposedto emerging agrifood nanotechnology applications. Consumers will also be exposed, given thenumber of applications in food packaging. In these cases, we did not examine whether thenanomaterials would leach from the packaging material and did not search for studies in thisarea. Also, in many cases, it was too difficult to determine exposure endpoints from thedescription of the project. Consequently, results from this analysis should be used cautiously.

Exhaustive searches for “known toxicity studies” were not conducted for each project;therefore, these results are not summarized. However, general knowledge about toxicity andexposure was used for the qualitative risk/benefit ranking. Figures 8 and 9 highlight the envi-ronmental and health results, respectively, of this ranking. It is interesting that no projects areconsidered to be high risk, indicating that toxic materials are not intended for wide-scalerelease (see methodology section). However, risks to lab and industry workers could remainhigh according to the ranking system used in this analysis. It will be important in future stud-ies to analyze risks to sub-populations or different endpoints.The results in this paper shouldbe viewed as simply a starting point for further analysis. More rigorous risk/benefit analysisfor each project is needed to more accurately rank the projects..

8

28

40

75

43

62

20


Figure 7. Possible Exposure Endpoints


Lab W

orkers

Indust

ry W

orkers

Farmers

Consum

ers

Unknow

nOthe

r

Ecosys

tems

n Lown Mediumn High

14%

49%

37%

25%

Risk Benefit

75%

Figure 8. Environmental Risks and Benefit: Qualitative Ranking

141

108

16

77

21

1217

150

120

90

60

30

0

30

25%

14%

61%55%

Risk Benefit

45%

Figure 9. Health Risks and Benefit: Qualitative Ranking

10%

16%74%

20%

Risk Benefit

80%

Figure 10. Health Risks and Benefits for Projects, includingConsumers as Exposure Endpoints (n = 77)

Of the160 projects, 77 are projects in which research and development could lead tonanoproducts to which consumers would be exposed. Of the77 projects, 64 are classified as“medium health risk” and 13 as “low health risk” (Figure 10). Of the 17 projects leading toecosystem exposure endpoints, four are classified as “medium environmental risk” and threeas “low environmental risk” (Figure 11).When mined in this way, the database is of valuein selecting priorities for safety evaluations. For example, medium-risk projects for whichthere will be human and/or environmental exposure endpoints should be of priority formore rigorous risk/ benefit analyses and environmental, health and safety (EH&S) research.

n Lown Mediumn High

n Lown Mediumn High


29%12%

59%

18%

Risk Benefit

82%

Figure 11. Environmental Risks and Benefits for Projects, includingEcosystems as Exposure Endpoints (n = 17)

Figure 12. EPA, USDA, and NSF Funding for AgrifoodNanotechnology, 2000–2005

Figure 12 depicts the amount of USDA ($10.9 million),EPA ($0.78 million), and NSF ($3.5million) extramural funding in agrifood nanotechnology between 2000 and fall 2005.Thetotal amount of extramural funding for projects in this database across all three agencies was$15.2 million. Funding levels were not available for several projects, including some fromthe USDA-Current Research Information System (CRIS) database. Furthermore, someprojects at these agencies may have been entirely missed, so these numbers likely are under-estimates of investments in nanotechnology at USDA, NSF, and EPA. Other agency anddepartmental funding is not shown, as this information was not available from the searches.

n Millions of dollars

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 EPA USDA NSF

n Lown Mediumn High

$0.78

$3.5

$10.9

Current and Future WorkUsing this database, we have selected a draftset of case studies for subsequent risk-benefitand governance analyses.The case studies spana range of topics, research areas and tech-niques, timeframes, sectors, safety issues, andendpoints. Other selection criteria include:

• likelihood of products entering the marketplace in the near future;

• availability of extensive data and information on the research;

• reflection of larger social or economicissues; and

• potential to offer significant benefits.

We are currently gathering informationon the draft set of case studies in order to bet-ter identify and categorize the potentialhuman health and environmental risks andbenefits.We will focus largely on the scientif-ic and technical risk/benefit issues (e.g.,human and environmental health), althoughwe will not exclude socioeconomic issuesthat overlap with these.

Case studies eventually will be used toconsider the following questions:

• Are there current regulatory or non-regu-latory governance systems that cover the

proposed applications or products? If so,what are they?

• Do these systems address the risk and ben-efit issues? If so, how? If not, where are thegaps?

• What are other strengths and weaknesses ofexisting systems?

If there currently are no systems in place forthe products or the issues, what are the possi-bilities for developing such systems underexisting legal or organizational frameworks?

This analysis is similar to one done on theproducts of biotechnology (i.e., geneticallyengineered organisms) by the Council onEnvironmental Quality and the Office ofScience and Technology Policy (CEQ/OSTP)in 2000.30 We will use the CEQ/OSTP analy-sis as a guide.Our analysis will strive to be spe-cific as to how governance systems cover thehealth and environmental safety issues ofemerging agrifood nanotechnology products.

In the end, the database, coupled with theproposed case studies, will begin to providethe public with information in the emergingarea of agrifood nanotechnology. Once again,we welcome comments and feedback on ourinitial analysis. More information about themethodological approach employed in devel-oping the database can be found in the fol-lowing section.

32

30. CEQ/OSTP Assessment: Case Studies of Environmental Regulation for Biotechnology.Washington, DC: Office ofScience and Technology Policy.Available at http://www.ostp.gov/html/012201.html, accessed July 5, 2006.

OverviewWe began developing the database in summer2005 by selecting two broad search terms—“nano + food” and “nano + agriculture”—and searching four databases (USDA-CRIS,USPTO, EPA-Science Inventory, NSFAwards) and five government websites (NIH,DOD, DOE, DHS, FDA) for relevant projects.We then manually reviewed the projects foraccuracy and appropriateness. We ultimatelyincluded 160 projects in the database.We thencategorized each project with respect to typeof research (basic, applied, or development);projected time to commercialization; andtechniques, topics, and research areas, as speci-fied in a USDA report on agrifood nanotech-nology.31 The lead author, Dr. Kuzma, thenanalyzed and categorized each project forpotential environmental and health risks andbenefits. Definitions related to each aspect ofcategorization are provided below, along within-depth information about the searches ofeach database or website.

After the initial categorization, a majorityof the principal investigators were asked toreview and edit the categorizations and classi-fications of their projects by providing addi-tions or corrections. Seventeen responses werereceived (14% response rate).A majority of therespondents completely agreed with the cate-gorization. Others suggested only minorchanges. Additional information about the

principal investigator review process is provid-ed below, as is a brief guide on how to accessand use the database.

Categories for Entries

Type of Research:Development—specific product cited largelyexperiments or studies to optimize product.

Applied—specific application noted, but mayalso lead to better understanding.

Basic—fundamental understanding is goal;specific application not stated (although therecould be one in the future).

Time to Commercialization:0–5 years—applied/development projects thatdirectly address regulatory or product opti-mization issues.The applications of the workappear to be very near-term with minimalregulatory concerns or the products arealready in the properties are being studied oroptimized.

5–10 years—applied/development researchthat is based upon proven technology and forwhich there are no serious safety concerns.

10–15 years—applied research that is in theearly stages of concept or development.


Methodology

31. In this report, there is a matrix that includes thematic research and development topics such as environmentalprocessing, pathogen detection, plant/animal transgenics/cloning, bioprocessing foods/industrial products, andsustainable agriculture on one axis, and nano-techniques such as transport processes, bio-selective surfaces,bioseparation, micro-fluidics, nano-bioprocessing, nucleic acid engineering, drug delivery, and modeling on theother.There are also eight broad categories of research: detection, identity preservation and tracking, smarttreatment delivery systems, smart systems integration for agriculture and food processing, nanodevices formolecular and cellular biology, nanoscale materials science and engineering, environmental issues and agricul-tural waste, and education of the public.

15–20 years—applied/basic research forwhich applications are not specified but canbe envisioned.

20–50 years—basic research for which few, ifany, applications are envisioned, but forwhich fundamental knowledge will eventu-ally lead to some.

Techniques:More than one technique might be utilizedin a given project (multiple boxes might bechecked):

Transport processes—nanomaterials as agentsfor transporting chemicals, molecules, etc.

Bio-selective surfaces—nanomaterials withenhanced or reduced ability to bind or holdspecific molecules and/or organisms.

Bio-separation—nanomaterials or nano-processes with the ability to separate mole-cules, biomolecules, or organisms.

Microfluidics/MEMs—liquid streams used toseparate, control, or analyze at the nanoscale.They might have special flow properties atthis scale. Microelectromechanical systems(MEMs) are also included in this category.They are devices with channels and wells,electrodes for detection, connectors, and flu-idic input/output ports.

Nano-bioprocessing—use of nanoscale technol-ogy and/or biological processes to create adesired compound or material from a definedstock. The product itself may be bulk ornanoscale.

Nucleic acid bioengineering—use of DNA asbuilding blocks to form nanoparticles or useof nanoparticles for genetic engineering.

Drug delivery—use of nanomaterials ornanomethods to deliver drugs to animals.

Modeling—use of nanotechnology to buildmodels of systems or the modeling of nanoma-terials in systems.

Topics:The project might fit more than one topic(multiple boxes might be checked):

Biosensors—use of nanotechnology for sensorsbased upon biological processes or biologicalmolecules or for detection of biological mole-cules, processes, or organisms.

Environmental processing—use of nanotechnolo-gy for studying environmental phenomena,removing contaminants in the environment, orremediating or reducing waste. Includes studyof nanomaterials in the environment as well.

Sustainable agriculture—use of nanotechnologyfor reducing agricultural inputs or outputs thatcan harm the environment or human health(e.g., pesticides) or are in short supply (e.g.,water); or for making products from agriculturein a sustainable way.

Pathogen detection—use of nanotechnology todetect pathogens in surroundings, organisms, orfood.

Plant/animal production—use of nanotechnologyto improve the cultivation of plants or animals,including via transgenics or cloning.

Veterinary medicine32—use of nanotechnology toimprove animal health and/or the safety of ani-mal-derived foods.

Bioprocessing for food—use of nanotechnologyfor better food processing or food quality.

34

Nano-bioindustrial products—use of nan-otechnology for developing industrial prod-ucts from agriculture or its by-products.

USDA Research Areas:The project might fit more than one topic(multiple boxes might be checked), involv-ing nanotechnology in the following ways:

Pathogen and contaminant detection—pathogenor contaminant detection in agriculture,food, or the environment.

Identity preservation and tracking—systemsthat provide producers, processors, and cus-tomers with information about the prac-tices and activities used to produce a partic-ular crop or agricultural product. Such sys-tems may also provide information on theorigin and movement of crops, animals, orproducts.

Smart treatment delivery systems—systems thatdeliver molecules in agricultural productionor processing in time-controlled, spatiallytargeted, regulated, responsive, or other pre-cise ways. Such systems could have the abil-ity to monitor effects of delivery.

Smart system integration for agriculture and foodprocessing—integration of a working systemwith sensing, reporting, localization, andcontrol. System could be used anywherealong the farm-to-table continuum, or atmultiple points.

Nanodevices for molecular and cell biology—devices based on or applied to molecularand cellular biology that separate, identify,study, modify, or sense.

Nanoscale materials science and engineering—development of novel materials throughmaterials science and engineering. Work tobetter understand the behavior and proper-ties of nanomaterials.

Environmental issues and agricultural waste—study of nanomaterials in the environment,such as in the transport and bioavailability ofnutrients and pollutants. Understand trans-port and toxicity of nanomaterials in agricul-tural pollutants. Nanotechnology applied toenvironmental or waste issues.

Educating the public and future workforce—edu-cation about nanotechnology and nanoprod-ucts; studies on ethical and social issues (citedin USDA report, although not reflected inUSDA’s short title of this research area);infrastructure support; technology transfersupport; and public understanding of risksand benefits.

Sectors:The work or research could be applied tomore than one sector (multiple areas mightbe listed in the database):

Agroecosystems—application for or researchon agricultural systems, and/or on surround-ing natural systems.

Pre-harvest—application or research on thefarm or in the forest, during agricultural pro-duction.

Transportation—application or research deal-ing with transporting agricultural or forestraw commodities or with products from thefarm to the processor or retailer.


32.The authors added this category, which is not in USDA Nanoscale Science and Engineering 2003 Report.

Post-harvest—research or application after har-vest, at the stage of processing the commodityor product.

Retail—research or application dealing withstorage, display, etc., at the place where theproduct is sold.

Consumer—research or application dealingwith the consumer end, such as storage and useof agricultural products in the home.This cat-egory is used for research that primarilyimproves the quality of the end product (e.g.,better taste).

Post-consumption—research or applications forafter the product is consumed. For example,food safety and illness detection.

Exposure Endpoints:Boxes are checked if there is exposure to thefollowing (multiple boxes might be checked):

Lab workers—most nanomaterial or particlesare made or studied in the lab at some point.In most cases, lab workers will be exposed.Thestudy of naturally occurring nanomaterialswould be a case in which this box would notbe checked.

Farmers—farmers are exposed if the nanomate-rial, particle, or method is being used on thefarm.

Ecosystems—ecosystems are exposed if thenanomaterial is (1) used on the farm (animalsand plants on the farm,or the farm agroecosys-tem), (2) used for wide environmental applica-tions, or (3) not disposed of properly. Weassume that material used in manufacturing orthe lab is disposed of properly. So, if this box ischecked, it is because the material is intendedat some point for environmental release.

Industry workers—industry workers will beexposed during production, manufacture,transport, processing, or at the retail/distribu-tion stage.

Consumers—if consumers will likely come incontact with the material, this box is checked.The applications are either intended for con-sumer products or are left in the material as aresult of production or processing.

Others—in some cases, there might be sub-populations that are specifically exposed as aresult of the application or research.

Unknown—this box is checked when thedescription of the project is too vague, or theapplications are too broad to determine whowill be exposed.

Known Toxicity Records:No—we could not easily (via a quick websearch for articles) find toxicology studies onthe nanomaterials cited in the project descrip-tion, or the materials in question are not spec-ified in the project description.

Yes, benign—we found studies that indicate lowtoxicity or hypothesize that the particles (e.g.,DNA) are generally non-toxic. However,please note that toxicity is still dependent onthe system tested in those studies (in vivo, invitro, acellular endpoints), the form of the par-ticle, and the amounts.

Yes, toxic—we found studies that indicate thatthe nanomaterials or materials are harmful tohealth and/or the environment, or the class ofcompounds is generally known to be toxic.

Environmental/Ecological Risks or Health Risks:This is just a first-pass, qualitative ranking.

36

More information is needed on virtually allof these projects for better qualitative orquantitative risk assessment.

Low—if exposure to humans, animals or theenvironment is minimal, and the particlesare generally non-toxic, we categorize therisk as low.

Medium—if exposure to humans, animals orthe environment is minimal OR the particlesare generally not-toxic, we categorize risk asmedium. In this category, there are relativelybenign particles that are widely used in foodand agriculture. Likewise, a toxic particle thatis meant to stay in the lab or processing plantcould also be in this category. In the cases ofnanotechnology applied to biobased prod-ucts, “medium” was used for environmentalor ecological risks with the question ofwhether harvesting and processing are donein a sustainable way (i.e., life cycle issues).

High—exposure to humans, animals or theenvironment is widespread and particlesshow toxicity or are expected to be toxic.

Environmental/Ecological or Health Benefits:This is just a first-pass, qualitative ranking.More information is needed on virtually allof these projects for benefits assessment.

Low—application or research not meant toimprove human or animal health or theenvironment.

Medium—application or research mightimprove health or the environment, but not

explicitly developed for that purpose or foraddressing a major societal problem.

High—application or research specificallydeveloped to address an important societalneed for improving health or the environment.

Does this fit nanotechnology?33

After reading the project abstract, objectives,and additional information, we are using thethree criteria of the National Nano-technology Initiative (NNI) definition todetermine whether the project fits the defini-tion of nanotechnology. If so, the box ischecked. In some cases, there is not enoughinformation to make such a determination,and we note this in the comment box.

Does this fit agrifood?Nanotechnology should be applied to orused to study agriculture, food, forestry, oragroecosystems for this box to be checked.Sometimes the project description is vague,or the work is broad to determine whetherit fits.This is noted in the comment box.

Search Process

USDA CRIS Database:The USDA maintains a database called theCurrent Research Information System (CRIS)that documents and publicizes informationabout ongoing and recently completedresearch projects funded by USDA(http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/). We searched theUSDA CRIS database using the following keywords:“nano + food” or “nano + agriculture.”Projects were limited to those active after 2000.The search was completed on August 15,2005.


33.The National Nanotechnology Initiative lists the following three criteria for defining nanotechnology: (1) researchand technology development at the atomic, molecular, or macromolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately1-100-nanometer range; (2) creating and using structures, devices, and systems that have novel properties and func-tions because of their small and/or intermediate size; and (3) ability to control or manipulate on the atomic scale.

The text of each project was thensearched for the words “nano + food” or“nano + agriculture” to exclude false leadsas artifacts of the search terms. Initial resultsincluded many projects that did not fit agri-food nanotechnology, such as those contain-ing the term NaNO (sodium nitrite) or theuse of measurements at the nanoscale (e.g.,nanometers, nanoliters). To be included inthe survey, the project must have utilized orcreated materials on the nano-scale. Theproject must also have pertained to food oragriculture production or to agroecosys-tems. Once we had deemed a project rele-vant, we entered the project information inthe database.We included a total of 90 proj-ects from the CRIS database search.Although forestry projects arose, this wasnot used as a search term, so other projectsfunded by the USDA in this area may exist.

USPTO:The USPTO maintains a database of patentapplications that have been granted or thatare pending (http://www.uspto.gov/patft/).To search the USPTO database of patentapplications, we used the same key words asin the case of the CRIS database search, aswell as similar criteria for selecting appropri-ate projects.The key words used in the searchwere “nano + (food or agriculture)”, and astarting cut-off date of December 1, 1999 forfiled patents was used. More than 600 proj-ects contained the search terms.About 40 ofthem fit our definition of nanotechnologyand agrifood. When there was a question asto whether a project fit, we erred on the sideof including it. Due to differences in how thedata are presented in each patent applicationand the length of the patent applications, thedescription given in the application was par-aphrased and placed in the “objective” or

“additional information” sections of thedatabase. The search was concluded onOctober 14, 2005.

NSF:The NSF website maintains an “Awards” sec-tion that provides information about NSF-funded research projects (http://www.nsf.gov/ awardsearch/). We search the“Awards” page using the following terms:“nano food” (35 projects) or “nano agricul-ture” (15 projects).When “nano agricultural”was substituted for “nano agriculture,” thesame 15 projects appeared. The search wasconducted on November 11, 2005. Projectswere then scrutinized for their fit to our def-inition of nanotechnology and agricultureand food.

EPA:The EPA maintains the National Center forEnvironmental Research’s webpage, whichprovides information about EPA-fundedresearch projects (http://es.epa.gov/ncer/ru/index.html). We searched this webpageusing the key word “nano.”We found 13 proj-ects.We then read each abstract to see whetherthe work was applicable to agriculture andfood. None contained the keywords “agricul-ture” or “food.” However, one had “soil” as akey word,and this was included in the database.

Additionally, we searched the ScienceInventory (SI) (http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/), asearchable database of EPA science activitiesand scientific/technical work products, usingthe term “nanotechnology.” All “RecordType” boxes were selected for the search, sothe projects resulted from Archived and fullEnvironmental Information ManagementSystem (EIMS) searches. The SI providesinformation about current or recently com-pleted activities, providing a snapshot of EPA

38

science being conducted in its research labo-ratories and centers and program and region-al offices, as well as through grants and otherassistance agreements to universities andother institutions. Four entries arose from thesearch. One contained the keyword “soil,”and it was included in the database.When thesearch term “nano” was used, 21 entriesarose. None was found to be directly relatedto agriculture or food. Drinking-water proj-ects that were found were not included in thedatabase. Searches were conducted inDecember 2005.

NIH:The NIH website was searched for “nan-otechnology,” and the page NIH Nanotech-nology and Nanoscience Information(http://www.becon2.nih.gov/nano.htm)came up. Each of the links on this page wasscanned for NIH-funded research in agri-food nanotechnology. The Nanomedicine-funded research site (http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/nanomedicine/fundedresearch.asp)was searched. No projects mentioning foodor agriculture were found, although thebasic science might be applicable to foodand agriculture in several projects.

The Summary of Funded NIH Bio-engineering Nanotechnology Initiative SmallBusiness Innovation Research (SBIR) Grantsfor 2000 through 2004 was searched for thekey words “food” or “agriculture.” Five proj-ects were found to contain these key wordsand they were added to the database. Searcheswere conducted in December 2005.

DOE:The Department of Energy Office of Sciencesite was searched for “nanotechnology.” TheDOE Office of Science supports nanotech-nology through its Materials Sciences subpro-

gram.The Materials Sciences subprogram wassearched under “Research Programs”(http://www.science.doe.gov/bes/dms/Research_Programs/research_program.htm).Summaries of research in the national DOElabs were listed on this page. Each summarywas searched for “food” or “agriculture” or“agri.” No projects with these search termswere found. The DOE Basic Energy Sciencessite was searched, which led to the DOENanoscale Science Research Centers page( h t t p : / /www. s c i e n c e . do e . gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Re lea s e s/DOE-SC/2006/nano/index.htm). When possible,center websites were searched for “food” or“agri.” Most centers did not have searchablefeatures on their sites. The document“Nanoscale Science, Engineering, andTechnology in the DOE” (http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/brochures/files/NSRC_brochure.pdf) was also searched. In this case, “agri-culture” was found, but only in a generalstatement in the document that nanoscaleapplications could have benefits to agricul-ture. Searches were conducted in December2005. No projects from DOE were added tothe database.

DHS:The Department of Homeland Security website was searched for “nano”(http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/). Two itemswere retrieved. Neither mentioned specificresearch projects in agriculture or food nan-otechnology.The National Plan for Researchand Development in Support of CriticalInfrastructure Protection mentioned nan-otechnology, and food/agricultural safety andsecurity were mentioned separately in thedocument. Searches were conducted inDecember 2005. No projects from DHS wereadded to the database.


DOD:Nanotechnology research awards at DODwere searched (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b02232001_bt079-01.html).None contained the key words “food” or“agri” in the title. The Office of NavalResearch nanotechnology site was alsosearched for “food” and “agri” (http://www.nanosra.nrl.navy.mil/). No specific researchprojects on agrifood nanotechnology werefound. Searches were conducted inDecember 2005.

FDA:FDA’s website was searched using the term“nanotechnology,” which led to its nanotech-nology homepage (http://www.fda.gov/nan-otechnology/).When the site was searched for“nanotechnology research,” several Powerpointpresentations came up indicating that FDAdoes research in this area through its centers.The content of these presentations wasreviewed. Research projects at FDA seem tofocus on biological effects of nanomaterialsand nanomaterials. No specific projects werefound that focused on research and develop-ment in agrifood nanotechnology.Some of thegeneral toxicity research will apply to agrifoodnanotechnology products, however. Searcheswere conducted in December 2005.

Principal Investigator Review andValidation of the Entries

The majority of principal investigators(n=121, those for whom we could find contactinformation) were sent entries for their proj-ects and the definitions of the categories (pro-vided at the beginning of this section). Theywere asked to review the classification of theirresearch and to make additions or corrections.We received 17 responses (14% response rate);

of these, 11 completely agreed with the cate-gorization. Other principal investigators askedfor minor adjustments to their entries. In onecase, the time to commercialization wasdecreased from 10–15 years to 3–5 years. Inthree cases, additional categories of techniques,topics, or research areas were added (however,none was removed). In one case, a principalinvestigator supplied additional information onthe nature of the nanomaterials that allowedfor a more appropriate classification of the risksand benefits. In another case, the principalinvestigator indicated that the majority of herwork is not in nanotechnology, although theproject in the database states that nanomateri-als will be made in the laboratory. Changessuggested by principal investigators wereincorporated into the database.

How to Use the AgrifoodNanotechnology Database

Available at: http/nanotechproject.org/50Users may interact with the database in twoways. First, each project can be viewed in itsentirety as an individual record. Second, sev-eral topical reports have been generatedaround specific criteria, including Risks andBenefits, Sectors and Research Areas,Topicsand Techniques,Toxicity and Endpoints, andTime to Commercialization.

NOTE: A Windows computer with MicrosoftAccess 2000 or greater installed is necessary toopen the database.

Unzipping and Opening the Database:1. Double-click on the zipped file and select

“Extract All Files” from menu on the left.

2. When the Extraction Wizard opens, click“Next.”

40

3. Click on the “Browse” button, selectwhere you would like to save the databaseand click “Next.”Then click “Finish.”

4. Navigate to the extracted folder and dou-ble-click on the file labeled “Inventory ofAgrifood Nanotechnology.mdb.”

5. If a Security Warning message appears,click “Open.”

6. As shown below, the opening page of thedatabase will have several search options.

Navigating Through the Database Records:1. Selecting “Open Individual Records” will

open a form containing all the informa-tion collected and the criteria used in ourstudy (see sample below).

2. The buttons on the bottom left of thescreen are used to navigate through therecords.

Opening and Printing Reports:1. Selecting any of the reports listed will

open the respective report.

2. Navigating through the report is identicalto the process described above.

3. To print the document, select the FileMenu and click “Print.”

Please submit any edits, suggestions, or addi-tional information about the projects listed inthis database to Dr. Jennifer Kuzma [email protected].


Main Switchboard

Open Individual RecordsExit Nanotechnology Inventory

Nanotechnology Funding

Reports

Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits

Nanotechnology Sectors and Research Areas

Nanotechnology Topics and Techniques

Nanotechnology Toxicology and Endpoints

Time to Commercialization

Inventory of Agrifood Nanotechnology

Record: 1Additional Information

Microsoft Access - [Nanotechnology]

Research Title

Primary Investigators

Location of Research Funding Sources

Grant Amount

Timeline of Research

Data Source

Time to Commercial Type of Research

Techniques Topics Research Areas

File Exit Insert Records Window Help Type a question for help

Exposer Endpoints

Questions Regarding ContentObjective

Additional Information

CommentsLook into specificity and toxicity of particles to do a better qualitative risk ranking.

This is a serious food borne pathogen and bene-fits to health could be considerable

Transport Process

Bio-Selective Surfaces

Bio-Separation

Micro-Fluids

Nano Bio-Processing

Nucleic Engineering

Drug Delivery

Modeling

Original Database No.

Section:

Lab WorkersFarmersEcosystems

Industry WorkersConsumersOther

Unknown

Known ToxicityRecords

Does this fit nanotech?

Does this fit agrifood?

Bio-Sensors

Enviromental Process

Sustainable Agriculture

Pathogen Detection

Plant/Animal Production

Veterinary Medicine

Bio-Processing Food

Nano Bio-Industry

Pathogen and Contaminant Detection

Identity Preservation and Tracking

Smart Treatment Delivery System

Smart Systems: Integration forAgriculture and Food Processing

Nanodevices for Molecular andCellular Biology

Nanoscale materials Scienceand Engineering

Educating the Public andFuture Workforce

Could reduce antibiotic use and antibiotic inwater/environment

Would the particle be toxic to organisms inecosystems? Or remove harmful bacteria

Not sure if those nanoparticles would bind tohuman bacteria that are beneficial. Could change

Health Benefit

Env/Ecol. Benefit

Health Risk

Env/Ecol. Risk

Abstract

Acknowledgements

About the Authors

Foreword


Nanotechnology: Coming to a Supermarket or Farm Near You

Big Things in Small Packages: What Is Nanotechnology?

A Tiny Revolution in Food and Agriculture

Examples Are Poor Substitute for Complete Picture

Should We Be Worried About Food and Agriculture Nanotechnology?

Agriculture Biotechnology: A Bountiful Harvest of Cautionary Tales

Back to the Future: Will Nanotechnology Repeat the Mistakes of Biotechnology?

Anticipating Rather than Reacting: Building a Database of Future Applications

What We Learned About Food and Agriculture Nanotechnology

Putting the Database to Work: Forecasting Food and Agriculture Innovations

The Beginning of a Conversation, Not a Last Word

Analysis of Early-Stage Agrifood Nanotechnology Research and Development

From Context to Content

Results and Conclusions

Current and Future Work

Methodology

Overview

Categories for Entry

Search Process

Principal Investigator Review and Validation of the Entries

How to Use the Agrifood Nanotechnology Database

1

3

5

7

9

9

10

11

13

15

17

18

19

20

23

23

24

32

33

33

33

37

40

40

40

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARSLee H. Hamilton, President and Director

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair David A. Metzner, Vice Chair

PUBLIC MEMBERS

James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress; Bruce Cole, Chairman, NationalEndowment for the Humanities; Michael O. Leavitt, The Secretary, U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services; Tami Longabergr, Designated Appointee within the FederalGovernment; Condoleezza Rice, The Secretary, U.S. Department of State; Lawrence M.Small, The Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Margaret Spellings, The Secretary, U.S.Department of Education; Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States

PRIVATE CITIZEN MEMBERS

Carol Cartwright, Robin Cook, Donald E. Garcia, Bruce S. Gelb, Sander R. Gerber, Charles L. Glazer, Ignacio E. Sanchez

The PROJECT ON EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES was launched in 2005 by the WilsonCenter and The Pew Charitable Trusts. It is dedicated to helping business, govern-ments, and the public anticipate and manage the possible human and environmentalimplications of nanotechnology.

THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS serves the public interest by providing information,advancing policy solutions and supporting civic life. Based in Philadelphia, with anoffice in Washington, D.C., the Trusts will invest $204 million in fiscal year 2006 toprovide organizations and citizens with fact-based research and practical solutions forchallenging issues.

The WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS is the living, nationalmemorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered inWashington, D.C. The Center establishes and maintains a neutral forum for free, openand informed dialogue. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and privatefunds and engaged in the study of national and international affairs.

CONTENTS

Project on EmergingNanotechnologies

PEN 4 SEPTEMBER 2006

Jennifer Kuzma and Peter VerHage

IN AGRICULTURE

AN

DFOOD PRODUCTION

NANOTECHNOLOGY

ANTICIPATED APPLICATIONS

One Woodrow Wilson Plaza1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202.691.4000F 202.691.4001www.wilsoncenter.org/nanowww.nanotechproject.org

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

Project on EmergingNanotechnologies is suported by

THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS

pen 4 nanotechnology...nanotechnology in agriculture and food production 7 nanotechnology: coming to...

Documents