Slashdot Mirror


FDA Gets Mixed Advice on Nanotechnology

mikesd81 writes, "There's an article at the Associated Press about how the government must balance close oversight of the fast-growing field of nanotechnology against the risk of stifling new development. Contrasting view came from a panel of experts brought together to discuss how nanotechnology should be regulated. The article states that submicroscopic particles are being incorporated in the thousands of products overseen by the FDA, including drugs, foods, cosmetics and medical devices and the products consist of roughly 20% of each dollar spent by U.S. consumers. Matthew Jaffe of the U.S. Council of International Business says, "The key is to use science to weigh both the benefits and the risks of nanotechnology. That's a balance the FDA already seeks to strike in assessing other products." From the article: "'The success of nanotechnology will rely in large part on how FDA plays its regulatory role,' said Michael Taylor of the University of Maryland's School of Public Health. The FDA doesn't believe nanotechnology is inherently unsafe, but does acknowledge that materials at the nano scale can pose different safety issues than do things that are far larger. 'The FDA wants to learn of new and emerging science issues related to nanotechnology, especially in regard to safety,' said Randall Lutter, the agency's associate commissioner."

5 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. "Nanotechnology", bah! by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This business of calling surface chemistry of finely divided powders "nanotechnology" is a bit much.

  2. too broad by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The term "nanotechnology" is much too broad. Let's use "nanoscale materials" for this sort of thing, and "nanomechanics" for what all us /.'ers think when we hear "nanotechnology".

  3. Re:What worries is me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    None of this will be relevant for decades. Nanotech today (except for these surface chemistry guys) amounts to nothing more than glorified MEMS (i.e., dirty CMOS) processing. These nanomachines you worry about are a long way off.

  4. Post nano11 world by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a world where the EPA let firefighters clean up toxic carcinogenic nano-particle riddled debris after the WTC towers left smashed asbestos dust on all surfaces, I really don't trust the FDA with my life. Government will do what is expedient, not what is in the best interest of health based on scientific or even logical reasoning.

  5. What's all the paranoia for? by DoubleRing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not like we haven't been exposed to nanoparticles all the time. Just set a stick on fire. Right before your eyes, thousands of nanoparticles are being created. If you examined the soot, you'd find buckyballs and tubes. And when you smell smoke, OMG, you're inhaling nanoparticles! Plus, your body even has the ability to deal with self-replicating invasive nanoparticles (technically they are not "alive).

    Well, I guess we shouldn't go barreling blindly though, we don't want another asbestos.

    --
    Before you die, you see DoubleRing...