Covering complexities of nanomaterials.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution released a report on the challenges and benefits arising from the introduction of nanomaterials into the environment.  The report, issued on November 12, was covered by two major news sources in Europe, namely BBC News and The Guardian.   

The topic of how and why nanomaterials behave differently than their bulk counterparts is difficult and riddled with uncertainty.  Both articles effectively covered the complex issue in a very balanced way, stressing the urgent need for testing the biological impacts of nanomaterials and possible regulation of these new materials. 

However, over-generalized statements in the press release from the Royal Commission may be misleading to newcomers to the field.  Both BBC News and The Guardian picked up the statement that the Commission “found no evidence of harm to health or the environment from nanomaterials.” But supplementary reports commissioned as a part of the study found a growing evidence base that support the potential for manufactured nanoparticles to cause biological effects. They identify adverse biological responses that have common metabolic themes, such as oxidative stress, interference in cell to cell transfer of molecules and mitrochondrial damage. 

The Guardian gets credit for more fully explaining why the commission "found no evidence" of nanoparticles causing harm to health and the environment. The reason? Not because rigorous testing has shown them to be safe but because of inadequate testing to date. The Guardain reports that "the lack of tests and environmental monitoring for nanoparticles meant it was impossible to know if the materials were already a cause for concern." And the chair of the Royal Commission tells the newspaper: "Would we know if nanomaterials were causing harm? The answer is, no we wouldn't. We have no evidence that they cause harm, but a lot of that is because of a lack of evidence."