Woo-hoo. Your toothpaste has silver ions.
Its official. Marketing departments are hot for the nano-consumer. 'Nanotechnology' products are now hitting the market at 3-4 products a week, provided that you have a very loose and broad definition of the term: nanotechnology. If marketing had its way, Nanotechnology would single handily bring together Christ, the hidden Imam, John Lennon and Jimmi Hendirx for a concert on Neptune.
Be warned dear consumers: Germany has officially experienced the world's first nanoproduct recall due to consumers reporting adverse health effects. Despite industry's rush to market, and the marketing drums of hype, there is still a lot of debate on defining what nanotechnology is and what it isn't. There is a big difference between nanoparticles and macromolecules compared to say, a nanorobot with the design complexity of a nuclear aircraft carrier.
Not all nanoparticles are bad mind you - provided that you know what they are actually doing to your body and you feel confidant that the company that provides them has done their due diligence in knowing how they will affect you and the environment. But here's the problem....
There hasn't been a proportional investment in nanotoxicology in vetting 'nanotechnology' products before they go to market. This is true in the US, Canada, Japan, Europe, China, Russia, and India. In the US alone, the FDA has a definition for nanotechnology but severely lacks any infrastructure to properly vet it.
My guess is that the 'nano' prefex will soon obtain a stigma with a lot of marketing hype, then people rush to the store to buy anything labeled nano. They won't bother to think about how nanoproducts might work because the general public really doesn't want to understand biochemistry or ecosystem systemics. From that point some users may have health problems because industry doesn't really want to regulate toxicology itself in an effort to externalize costs. Afterwards, the media picks up on the story and blames everyone but the consumer. Then there will be public backlash, then there will be congressional hearings, and then there will be a regulatory slowdown in nanotechnology research. Further funding for advanced applications of the really promising aspects of nanotechnology will only be awarded to those that survive keeping ones sanity in this sociopolitical and economic gauntlet. (Unless you are working on weapons for the Defense Department, in which case you don't have to deal with any of this nonsense.) And so on, and so on.
In my opinion, smart companies and researchers will cautiously avoid using the nano prefix if they are concearned about the long term health of their research efforts, brand, and inevitable blowback from the hype. Which is unfortunate. If anything is certain, legislators and the public should be investing more pre-empitve energy examining the public policy issues related to nanotechnology. It would certainly be a better use of time than discussing peppy pantsuits.
UPDATE:
This was brought to my attention from the National Safety Council:
Committee chairman pushes for stronger commitment to nanotechnology safety research
Rep. Bart Gordon, D-TN, chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, is pushing for a stronger federal commitment to environmental, health and safety research as part of the nation's $1.5 billion nanotechnology initiative.
At an April 16 hearing to reauthorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative's research budget, Gordon said risks associated with the burgeoning industry need to be addressed "from the beginning in a straightforward and open way."
Nanotechnology is advancing rapidly, Gordon said, noting that at least 600 products containing nanoscale materials have been developed – including aerosols and cosmetics. He cautioned that "negative public perceptions about the safety of a technology" could affect the industry's ultimate acceptance by the public.
Congress authorized funding for the initiative in 2003 through 13 federal agencies. Ten percent of funding is set aside for environmental, health and safety research. Gordon and others want risk reduction research to be embedded into nanotechnology product development.
So there you have it.