'Grey goo' food laced with nanoparticles could swamp BritainBy Fiona Macrae
The Daily Mail
Jan. 10, 2010
IRS Launches Investigation Of Clinton Foundation
VIDEO: Migrant Attacks Police at Frankfurt Airport in Germany
Germany: Muslims Threaten to 'Exterminate' Nudist 'Sluts'
Trump Not Listed in Google Search for 'Presidential Candidates'
Dutch Leader Geert Wilders Calls for EU Ban On Muslim Immigration
Britain is on the brink of a massive expansion in foods containing controversial 'grey goo' nanoparticles, according to the former head of the Food Standards Agency.
Low-calorie chocolate and beer that doesn't go flat could be on sale within just five years, Lord Krebs said last night.
However, he and other peers believe there will be no requirement for the hi-tech products to be labelled as containing nanoparticles - microscopic compounds that can worm their way into the brain, liver and kidneys with unknown consequences.
But critics said the public have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies, and point out that new legislation will mean that cosmetics that contain nanoparticles will have to be clearly labelled.
Once derided by Prince Charles as 'grey goo', nanoparticles are tiny particles - 300 million would fit in a pinhead - with powerful properties that make them of interest to food companies.
Although they are small, they have a large surface area at which key chemical reactions can take place. This means that relatively low numbers of sugar nanoparticles can have the same effect as a large amount of normal sugar, creating tasty chocolate or cakes with a fraction of the calories.
The same principle could be applied to fat, allowing the creation of low-fat icecreams and mayonnaise that taste like the real thing.
Nanotechnology-inspired packaging promises to improve food shelf-life, and in the U.S. plastic beer bottles have been lined with 'nanoclay' to stop the brew from going flat.
Lord Krebs chaired an inquiry by the House of Lords science and technology committee into the safety of nanotechnology in food, which found that although there is no evidence that the tiny particles are harmful, there are 'large gaps' on our knowledge.
The committee called for the Food Standards-Agency to compile a database of nanoproducts that can be accessed by the public. The FSA is not in favour of nanoparticles being declared on food labels, saying they are cluttered enough already.
The inquiry also criticised the food industry for being unnecessarily ' secretive' about the products it has in the pipeline. It said this seemed mainly to be because it was concerned about the public's reaction.
Julian Hunt of the Food and Drink Federation said: 'Given that nanotechnology is in its infancy in the food and drink sector, and that bringing innovations to market is a long and complex process, we are surprised that the report seems to criticise the food industry for an apparent reluctance to communicate extensively on this subject.
'There are many questions and unknowns about the potential future uses of nanotechnologies in our sector, and there is much work still to be done by scientists, governments and regulators, as well as the food and drink industry.'