Insofar as I can tell, nanotech is divided into two categories, inorganic and bio-based/inspired. As an example of the latter, in my lab, we build objects, lattices and machines from DNA. Others do related things with proteins or combinations.

The inorganic end of the game entails working with carbon nanotubes (basically little pieces of graphite rolled up into needles), other inorganic nanotubes or metallic nanoparticles (gold, cadmium selenide, etc.) These are likely components in nanoelectronics and nanophotonics.

The two parts of nanotech that I’ve described are not entirely separate: for example, we sometimes try to organize the latter nanospecies with DNA.

I have no clue how any of this is relevant to food, except conceivably in its extraction (don’t see that either, but it’s a thought). The bio-nano species are of exactly the same value/danger as the molecules in the cells we eat anyhow. I don’t see any danger there. Only a Lucretia Borgia wannabe would put any of the inorganic species into food.

At least in our lab, I should point out that the quantities we use today are small on the food scale. A typical experiment uses at most a few picomoles of material — nanograms to micrograms on a good day.

[I asked him for a bit more explanation of his Lucretia Borgia comment and noted that selenium is an essential element in human nutrition. His response: "These are small, but not all that small. They can clog up the works if they aggregate. Selenium is an essential element, but only in the proper chemical form." Oh.]

Think about asbestos. When silicate minerals occur in large, non-friable particles – they’ don’t present a risk for increased rates of lung cancer. But when they occur in tiny, needle-like particles – like asbestos minerals do – they pose a significant threat. Another example is pure carbon, which when in the form of soot or diamonds is quite innocuous – but which becomes a a carcinogen when present as needle-shaped nanotubes.

Very tiny particles (in the 3 micron and less size range) can pose significantly greater risks to health as they have a strong tendency to stick in the lungs and mucous membranes when inhaled. They also have enhanced abilities to penetrate tissue – even skin. Nanoparticles are also more prone to release from surfaces they occur on than coatings made of common materials are.

This is an area, IMO, where a *lot* more research needs to be done. OSHA has done some very preliminary work on nanotechnology, from their website comes this important caveat: “Engineered nanomaterials may have unique chemical and physical properties that differ substantially from those of the same material in bulk or macro-scale form.”

Some of their reports that deal specifically with the FDA regualtion of nanotechnology are:

Dietary Supplements:
http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/pen17/

Food Packaging:
http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/nano_food_packaging/

General FDA Oversight:
http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/regulating_products_nanotechnology_does/

Why are these discussions all so polar? Threat or Promise? Evil vs Good?

What exactly is ever that easy?

Even for those who eat boxes everything, how long does something have to last on the shelf? Who benefits from lengthening that time?

Check out also the critical research work of the ETC Group http://www.etcgroup.org/es/