We have decided to formally add nanoparticles to the ZRecs Guide to Safer Children's Products' list of "chemicals of concern" (a bit of a misnomer, since nanotechnology refers to a particle's size, not its chemical composition) and have been adding a few products here and there as we've identified their use of them. Many consumers are familiar with the presence of nanoparticles in the active ingredients in sunscreen - it's what makes the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in most sunscreens rub on clear instead of white - but we actually are not adding nanoparticle checks to our sunscreen category, at least for now. So where are we tracking nanoparticles, and why not sunscreen?

Nanoparticles in non-personal care items

Concerns about nanoparticles, which are particles sized between 1 and 100 nanometers in length, stem from their ability to pass through cell membranes, their high propensity to function as catalysts in chemical reactions, and largely unknown reactions with biological systems. Interest in nanotechnology by the advocacy and public health community has grown as the use of nanoparticles in consumer products has grown exponentially in the last several years. They are widely used in sunscreens, and are also used in fabrics (to give them antibacterial, "wrinkle-free," or stain- and dirt-resistant properties), cookware (at least some of the new Teflon-free nonstick cookware uses them), and are even beginning to show up in a few feeding products and food storage containers now available for import.

And nanoparticles are beginning to appear in unusual places. We have come across one brand of baby wipes that uses nanoparticles of silver, although it's unclear if these are sold in the U.S., and nanosilver is now being found in stuffed toys and other children's items for their antimicrobial properties.

The other threat of nanosilver, as with any other antibacterial and antimicrobial agent that comes into widespread use, is the effect of biocides on developing immune systems as well as on the environment, as these antimicrobial agents are then released into the environment through washing and disposal. Kids build up good immune systems based on fighting off "bad" bacteria and microbes, not by being shielded from them.

As with many of the substances we track in the ZRecs Guide, science may yet show that there are certain safer or less safe uses for nanoparticles, or that concerns about their impact on human health are unfounded. But the purpose of our guide is to help consumers, particularly parents, avoid chemicals that may later be proven to have caused them or their families harm.

What we won't be tracking - for now

Our current focus for the time being will be in nanotechnology used in food-contact items and other non-personal care products, such as fabrics and plastics. This is in part because the case of nanoparticles in sunscreens is more complicated.

Badger, one of our favorite sunscreen brands on the market, has a lengthy explanation of their use of nanoparticle zinc oxide, and interactions among sunscreen ingredients, the reasons for using nanoparticles, and the different types of nanoparticles in use, mean that the use of nanoparticles in sunscreen can't really be examined in isolation to determine whether a sunscreen is "safe." Effective protection from UVA and UVB rays, the status of other active and inactive ingredients in the product, water solubility, and other factors all go into whether or not experts consider a sunscreen to be a good choice.

More research on this issue is needed, and we are open to collecting information about nanoparticles in sunscreens if findings clarify the issue.

And there are other possible sources of nanoparticle exposure that we won't be covering, at least for the time being. Antimicrobial treatments in car seats, for example, are widespread and may involve the use of nanoparticles, and we are working on adding car seat assessments to the ZRecs Guide in some form. But compared to crucial factors like crash testing, ease of installation, and other factors that literally protect your child's life, the use of nanoparticles, formaldehyde, or chemicals in plastic are of little interest to us, and could cause someone to choose a car seat that put their child at far greater risk. Our position on chemicals in car seats, at least for now, is to follow emerging trends and encourage companies to consider these factors as a variable that will impact their car seats' desirability at some point in the future.

Will companies confess?

When we started documenting the presence of BPA in children's products back in 2007, we called companies' customer service departments as consumers and requested information about the presence or absence of BPA in their products. The primary obstacle to our obtaining this information was a lack of ready and verified information, which we corrected for using multiple-call cross-checks and requests to speak with managers, technicians, and R&D departments. But ultimately, there were few companies that tried to hide whether their products had BPA or not.

But the case of nanoparticles may turn out to be different in an industry burned by consumer demands for BPA-free plastics.

IndustryWeek published an interesting article on this a couple days ago. As one might expect from a publication whose mission is "connecting manufacturing's leaders," it assumes that tech we know little about should be fine to use until proven otherwise, which is the polar opposite of the position taken by safety and public health advocates. But IW's analysis of the nexus between consumer concern and admissions of its use by companies may help clarify the tug-of-war we find ourselves in as we work to collect information from companies for the ZRecs Guide:

A personal injury claimant in a toxic tort suit bears the burden of proving that a specific substance caused his or her injury, and the toxicological and epidemiological knowledge required to meet this burden in the field of nanotechnology does not yet exist. This difficulty is multiplied in class action suits, where class treatment of a group's claims requires a plaintiff to also demonstrate that the facts underlying his or her own case are sufficiently similar to those of every other individual within the purported class - differences in each individual's exposure type, dose, medical conditions, and alternative causes of their conditions are likely to subsume any similarities, rendering class treatment unlikely.

Consumer claims, such as false advertising, require no showing of physical harm because they seek only economic damages. These claims typically seek reimbursement of the purchase price of a product pursuant to a state consumer protection statute, and are often bundled together into a class action in order to aggregate damages that are individually relatively small. The theory underlying such a claim is likely to be one of the following: failure to label a product as containing nanomaterials; failure to warn consumers of the possible health risks of the nanoparticles contained in a product; or misrepresentation of the benefits or risks of a nanotechnology-enabled product.

Several consumer groups have already spoken out in favor of product labeling that clearly identifies nanomaterial ingredients, while at the same time, some companies have stopped disclosing the nanoparticle content of its products to avoid potentially negative safety connotations. It therefore appears likely that the labeling and marketing of nanotechnology-enabled products will become a litigated issue in the near future. [Link]

We have already seen this occurring with some companies' published statements about nanoparticles, with what was once proudly declared as the latest in technology now shifting into euphemism. Companies still want to tout the special properties of their products, but are increasingly wary of naming the source.

Pure Plushy, manufacturer of "memory foam" stuffed animals and infant pillows with nanosilver, used to promote their products with this statement: "With the additive of Silver Nanoparticles, our product has been clinically proven to fight against harmful bacteria, molds and mites." It now states instead that "Our line of plush toys has antimicrobial properties that provide protection from molds, mites, and bacteria." [Via Friends of the Earth]

We'll continue to report on our growing understanding and interest in nanoparticles, with an eye towards precautionary safety measures but also practical solutions based on reasonable cause for concern. In other words, we won't push your child-safety buttons; we'll just try to make sure you stay informed about an evolving issue that we should all be keeping an eye on.

Like what we do? Get Z Recommends delivered free via RSS or email, and share this post using the links below!