LETTER TO THE EDITOR

We totally agree with you (FIHN February/March, p3) that it would be a disaster if nanotechnology went the same way as genetic modification. So, please everyone: let's not run ahead of ourselves again. This time, it would be sensible and responsible if the scientific research into the safety of the various applications was done before any products are marketed, and also if this could be done in a neutral atmosphere of expectation.

The proponents for GM spent years making all sort of outlandish claims for the applications of genetic modification and trying to silence those who voiced fears about possible health effects, by branding them as 'anti-science' or 'anti-progress'. Now, 10 years later, the promises are almost as far off as ever, while the fears have sadly been confirmed in animal feeding trials by scientific teams around the world, showing a variety of highly worrying health effects from GM consumption.

Already, a long list of potential risks to health from nanoparticles have been identified by scientists. These include the fact that the particles are so small they can pass across all of the body's membranes, including the blood/brain barrier and the placenta; the concern that the extremely small size means that the particles will not be recognised and controlled by the immune system; and that nanoparticles may promote the production of free radicals in the body and thus increase the risk of cancer.

We rely on food and the proper functioning of our body's processes for our health. Please remember that the science of nutrition and these processes are very far from complete, while the science of how nanoparticles interact with living systems has not even begun. We urge people to avoid over-excited thoughts that assume we can somehow override or artificially 'improve' on these natural processes, when in fact we would have little idea of what we are doing.

Gundula Azee, policy manager, Soil Association