Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA Asked to Regulate Nanotechnology

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the fda-begins-regulating-ipods dept.

WillAffleckUW writes "According to the Washington Post, a coalition of environmental and consumer groups has asked the FDA to look at regulating nanotechnology. They point out that there are more than 100 nanotechnology products and that nanoparticles can penetrate cells and tissues, migrate through the body and brain and cause biochemical damage."

7 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. From the 1st page of www.fda.gov by Intron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Products FDA Regulates

    Food
    Foodborne Illness, Nutrition, Dietary Supplements...

    Drugs
    Prescription, Over-the-Counter, Generic...

    Medical Devices
    Pacemakers, Contact Lenses, Hearing Aids...

    Biologics
    Vaccines, Blood Products...

    Animal Feed and Drugs
    Livestock, Pets...

    Cosmetics
    Safety, Labeling...

    Radiation-Emitting Products
    Cell Phones, Lasers, Microwaves...

    Combination Products

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  2. Re:and they say "Shure!" by DougLorenz · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is a major difference between nanoparticles and self-replicating nanobots...

    People who are afraid that minature killer robots are going to wipe out humanity should dial back the amount of time they spend watching the SciFi channel...

    --
    Slashdot, where you get modded down as redundant for stating an opposing viewpoint... Independent thought anyone?
  3. Re:Oh Gawds... by mugnyte · · Score: 2, Informative

    Keep in mind there is a current trend for cosmetics and supplements to use the word "nano" in front of all thing marketing-speak. The concern from this trend is from having the particles penetrate the subdermal layer and travel throughout the body.

    see concern story here and a rebuttal here for examples

  4. A Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know Slashdot likes to blindly bash things that might prohibit technological advance. But it's been said that the effects of nanotubes could be as dangerous as asbestos.

    Here's a study conducted by researchers from NASA, Wyle Labs, UofT Medical:

    http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ 77/1/126

  5. No faith in the FDA when ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... they approve and allow dangerous chemicals in USA milk :
    http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/geneticEngineering/ rBGHintro.php/

  6. Re:Look into the Constitution or the Swimsuit idea by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative
    But, you raise a good point. To avoid the regulation, you merely need sell your non-motile nanotechnology for use only within your firm's state, and ensure that it won't be shipped or moved to another state.


    Even so, there is well-established legal precedent that the Commerce Clause together with the elastic ("...necessary and proper...") clause allows Congress to regulate activity which might effect the market for interstate commerce even where the activity itself is neither "interstate" nor "commerce", including growing agricultural products (the seminal case concerned wheat, the recent reaffirmation concerned marijuana) for personal consumption.

  7. Nano particles Kills rats in under 4 hours. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    A real experiment that was done with carbon nano particles:

    Rats exposed to coal dust and charcoal dust sneeze, but just as you expect, they live just fine.

    Rats exposed to carbon nano particles are dead in under four hours, drowning in their own blood.

    The little nano particles gunked up the Nucleus in each lung cell, killing the lungs.

    Ah, so do you want to buy a nano-anything yet?

    I'll pass on it, thanks.

    I prefer my technology to stay outside of my cell membranes, if that is OK with you.