Nano Safety Worries Scientists More Than Public

Nanotech Coward writes "The unknown human health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology are a bigger worry for scientists than for the public, according to a new report in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. The new report was based on a national telephone survey of American households and a sampling of 363 leading U.S. nanotechnology scientists and engineers. It reveals that those with the most insight into a technology with enormous potential — and that is already emerging in hundreds of products — are unsure what health and environmental problems might be posed by the technology."

Ok,

[AltGrendel]

So they are all worried about grey goo? [wikipedia.org]

Then you should RTFA

[mangu]

Well informed scientist see more possible causes for harm than the non-informed general public. This hardly comes as a surprise to me.

If you had taken time to read the article instead of rushing to get the first post, you would know that what's causing surprise is not that scientists see possible causes for harm, but that "The new findings are in stark contrast to controversies sparked by the advent of technologies of the past such as nuclear power and genetically modified foods, which scientists perceived as having lower risks than did the public".

Re:not surprising

[foobsr]

Where I live, it has to be labelled:

The EU recognises the consumers' right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice. Since 1997 Community legislation has made labelling of GM food mandatory for:
* products that consist of GMO or contain GMO;
* products derived from GMO but no longer containing GMO if there is still DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification present;
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm [europa.eu]

However, I am not so sure whether Joe Sixpack cares.

CC.

Re:not surprising

[Ajehals]

My prime concern with GM foods is the copyright / patent element, although this extends beyond GM foods into conventionally modified varieties as well. The fact that in many areas it is now a requirement that the crops grown come from licensed seed types and those types are owned by the suppliers not the grower may cause fairly large problems down the road.

The main issues I see (other than the ones you already pointed out) are the fact that 'heritage' varieties are being lost, simply because the new GM replacements have better guarantee's as to the end product, biodiversity is reduced which in turn makes large scale crop failures more likely (i.e. there is a single point of failure as all the plants are genetically similar, a single biological or environmental threat could destroy an entire crop). I would also suspect that monetizing this seed IP could well lead to higher seed prices (you get a higher yield after all) which may be an issue for smaller farmers, especially subsistence farmers.

AFAIK The health elements of GM seeds have not been fully investigated, nor will they be (no one investigated the health implications of new varieties created conventionally after all) so the potential for problems exists (the BSE crisis in the UK was caused in some degree by modern and more cost effective farming practices after all).

The biggest problem however is not with GM itself but the fact that it it now impossible to have a discussion about any remotely controversial scientific topic without it becoming a contest of marketing efforts, both sides (and there generally are only two that are heard) making false claims or overstating risks or benefits and most importantly trying to turn complex issues into soundbytes.

Re:not surprising

[CustomDesigned]

Most scientists working in this area see no harmful effects from GM food, yet many in the general public think GM food is going to kill them, cause cancer, or other such nonsense. Or human cloning. Many people in the general public are absolutely terrified of human cloning, yet I'd bet most scientists see no problem with this from a biotech standpoint, except for a few ethical considerations.

That is a straw man. The issues with GM have to do with labelling (so you know you're not getting what the term "tomato" usually stands for, whether or not you like the alleged improvements) and stuff escaping and destroying ecosystems.

We already have a problem with BT corn escaping and contaminating crops of small/poor farmers. Surprise, surprise, the pollen gets blown into other fields. Fortunately, most people aren't highly allergic to the toxin, but then Monsanto might come along and sue them to take away their livelihood (I'm only aware of an actual example with GM canola, but its going to happen). There's nothing like having to beg giant faceless corporations for permission to plant your subsistence crops. And you thought proprietary computer software was bad...

Labelling of GMO food is important because our understanding of nutrition is always incomplete. Tang was cutting edge for the Apollo mission, but is a nutritional joke comparable to Koolaid now. The "improvements" to GMO food are worth trying, but *only* if there is a way for consumers with bad reactions to avoid them. A conventional example is MSG. Most people don't have a problem with it, it has been used for centuries, it improves the flavor of food. But I personally know several people for whom MSG triggers severe migraine headaches. They *really* need to know which packages have MSG without having to guess about cowardly disguises like "natural flavor". We carefully label "may contain traces of peanuts" because peanut allergy can be life threatening. But a severe migraine puts the sufferer out of commission for a day - a big hit to productivity.

When less informed people hear about problems they don't fully understand, they often don't describe them accurately or even recognizably, allowing those willfully ignoring the problems to attack straw men.