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."

8 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Oh Gawds... by duerra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about the FDA regulate... food and drugs? This is kind of broad, don'tcha think? I mean, jeez, "nanotechnology" encompases a whole load of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the FDA, including the equipment that I'm writing this message with, and the equipment you're reading this with. Hell, why not ask the FCC to regulate nanotechnology. It would make just as much sense. Or the Department of Homeland Security. Or any other government bureaucracy with interests to protect.

    Or better yet, how about the government just stay the eff out of things for a change and let's see what happens, and deal with issues as they arise? That would be a novel idea, wouldn't it? The last thing I need is the FDA telling me I can't buy the latest and greatest geeky ballpoint pen because the ink might be poisonous - or, god forbid, get me high.

    Of course, maybe TFA just failed to mention that they only wanted things that actually deal with F&D regulated. I guess neither would surprise me at this point.

    --
    A community-oriented lyrics site
    1. Re:Oh Gawds... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, however, the reach of the FDA *is* surprisingly broad. For example contact lenses and tampons are regulated by the FDA ... and they are neither food nor drugs.

      Similiarly the FDA's scope reaches into approving materials (e.g. plastics) and so forth that might be used in the packaging of food or drugs, or even used in the presence of food or drugs, or even used in a facility where packaging of food or drugs is taking place.

      e.g. the FDA would be interested in the presence of asbestos in a facility that makes the plastic used in the packaging of tampons. (which again are neither food nor drugs).

      Anyhow, with that kind of scope its reasonable to be watching for 'harmful' elements in clothing and wheels -- as these shirts and wheels might be on staff or forklifts in facilities that manufacture or transport food and drugs...

      Once you realize that "nanotechnology" plays a part in almost every part of your daily life, from the clothes you wear, to the wheels your car rides on, to the TV you watch, to, well... you get my drift.

      If by getting your drift you mean that evidently the FDA also plays a part in almost every part of your daily life. ;)

    2. Re:Oh Gawds... by ScoLgo · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Lets just create the Department of Nanotechnology..."

      The only thing I like about that idea is the resulting acronym...

      (D)epartment (O)f (N)ano(T)echnology

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
  2. Remember Kids by youngerpants · · Score: 5, Funny

    Only you can prevent Grey Goo

  3. How to kill nanotech in its infancy... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you want to kill off an industry, the best way to do so is to regulate it the way the medical industry and the aviation industry are regulated.

    In both cases, the industry in question is regulated not at the results level but at the process level. To change the way an airplane is manufactured, you have to get your manufacturing process recertified by the FAA. It's a great way to prevent technological progress. To put this into perspective, modern piston airplanes are still using mechanical fuel injection. We're talking technology that was first put into use in the 1950s.

    As a result, it takes the financial commitment of basically building an entirely new company in order to manufacture composite airplanes (as opposed to using aluminum sheetmetal and rivets). Manufacturers aren't allowed to truly compete with each other by continuously improving their products in meaningful ways because the cost of improving the product is too high. Everything has to be recertified when a real improvement is made.

    And the same is true for medical equipment, which is one of the big reasons your out of pocket expense for a simple MRI session is several thousand dollars.

    So if we want to make sure that the U.S. is dead last in nanotech, the best way to do it is to regulate it the way we regulate medical equipment and aviation.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  4. The last thing Nanotechnology needs... by SFSouthpaw · · Score: 5, Funny

    is micro management.

    --
    ---southpaw
  5. Nanotech is more than tiny machines by TimmyDee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Currently, many nanotech applications are in products (or proposed to be in products) that would come in direct contact with our bodies. Take sunscreen, for example. Some brands of sunscreen are being made with nanoparticles (thus making them nanotechnology) that can penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Do we have a clue what happens when those nanoparticles interact with our brain cells? Hell no! Has that stopped it from being on the market? Hell no!

    The issue at stake here is that we have a whole slew of products that have a significantly larger potential impact on our health. I'm not talking about the "smart" counter-top that will make plates out of itself just before dinner (although that would be cool -- I think Popular Science came up with that gem). I'm talking about practical applications of nanotech NOW. Nanoparticle sunscreen is just the first part. You'd better bet that the whole biomedical industry is looking into more advanced, more invasive nanotech applications. The jurisdiction would fall under the FDA sooner or later. Better sooner than later so they're not caught with their pants down.

    (I'm sure I'll get modded down for this one, but I think that we need to be cautionary to some degree. Otherwise we may have another DDT or thalidomide on our hands.)

    --
    Per Square Mile, a blog about density
  6. 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