鈥淚T鈥橲 OK because it鈥檚 natural.鈥� Heard that one before? The notion that a substance or process is more likely to be harmful if it鈥檚 synthetic is common among environmental and health pressure groups. Last week we heard it from the , which campaigns for organic food and farming in the UK.
Its latest concern is nanoparticles, which it has banned from all its certified organic products on account of the risk they might pose to people鈥檚 health 鈥� but the ban only applies if they鈥檙e man-made. Natural nanoparticles such as soot are fine, says its press release, since 鈥渓ife has evolved with these鈥�.
It is true that the health threats from many nanoparticles are still largely unknown. We know they can behave very differently to larger particles. For example, this week we report that ultrafine particles from car exhausts, which are slightly larger than nanoparticles, have been implicated in cardiovascular disease (see 鈥淗ow pollution triggers heart disease鈥�). There is no evidence that people who apply suncreams that contain nanoparticles are putting themselves at risk, as the Soil Association implies, but there is still a great deal of research to be done.
Advertisement
Whether or not a nanoparticle is safe has nothing to do with whether it is 鈥渘atural鈥�, however. There are plenty of nano-substances found in nature that we would do best to avoid: soot, for example, and many viruses. Just because they existed in the environment in which we evolved doesn鈥檛 mean we are immune to their effects. It鈥檚 fine to flag up risks as they arise, but not to use false, unscientific distinctions when pressing your case.
Nanotechnology 鈥� Follow the emergence of a new technology in our continuously updated .
