A One Health approach to managing the applications and implications of nanotechnologies in agriculture

Abstract

The need for appropriate science and regulation to underpin nanosafety is greater than ever as ongoing advances in nanotechnology are rapidly translated into new industrial applications and nano-enabled commercial products. Nevertheless, a disconnect persists between those examining risks to human and environmental health from nanomaterials. This disconnect is not atypical in research and risk assessment and has been perpetuated in the case of engineered nanomaterials by the relatively limited overlap in human and environmental exposure pathways. The advent of agri-nanotechnologies brings both increased need and opportunity to change this status quo as it introduces significant issues of intersectionality that cannot adequately be addressed by current discipline-specific approaches alone. Here, focusing on the specific case of nanoparticles, we propose that a transdisciplinary approach, underpinned by the One Health concept, is needed to support the sustainable development of these technologies.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Human and environmental exposure pathways not considering agri-nanotechnology.
Fig. 2
Fig. 3: A possible One Health framework for the risk assessment of agri-nanotechnologies.

References

  1. 1.

    Wang, J. X. et al. Translocation of inhaled TiO2 nanoparticles along olfactory nervous system to brain studied by synchrotron radiation X-ray fluorescence. High. Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. 29, 76–79 (2005).

  2. 2.

    Sun, T. Y., Bornhöft, N. A., Hungerbühler, K. & Nowack, B. Dynamic probabilistic modeling of environmental emissions of engineered nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4701–4711 (2016).

  3. 3.

    Bardos, P., Merly, C., Kvapil, P. & Koschitzky, H. P. Status of nanoremediation and its potential for future deployment: risk–benefit and benchmarking appraisals. Remediation 28, 43–56 (2018).

  4. 4.

    Wang, P., Lombi, E., Zhao, F. J. & Kopittke, P. M. Nanotechnology: a new opportunity in plant sciences. Trends Plant Sci. 21, 699–712 (2016).

  5. 5.

    Wickson, F., Carew, A. L. & Russell, A. W. Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38, 1046–1059 (2006).

  6. 6.

    Future and emerging technologies. European Commission (20 February 2019); http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/future-and-emerging-technologies

  7. 7.

    Stone, V. et al. The essential elements of a risk governance framework for current and future nanotechnologies. Risk Anal. 38, 1321–1331 (2018).

  8. 8.

    Teunenbroek, T. V., Baker, J. & Dijkzeul, A. Towards a more effective and efficient governance and regulation of nanomaterials. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 14, 54 (2017).

  9. 9.

    Kraegeloh, A., Suarez-Merino, B., Sluijters, T. & Micheletti, C. Implementation of safe-by-design for nanomaterial development and safe innovation: why we need a comprehensive approach. Nanomaterials 8, 239 (2018).

  10. 10.

    Hjorth, R., van Hove, L. & Wickson, F. What can nanosafety learn from drug development? The feasibility of “safety by design”. Nanotoxicology 11, 305–312 (2017).

  11. 11.

    Karcher, S. et al. Integration among databases and data sets to support productive nanotechnology: challenges and recommendations. NanoImpact 9, 85–101 (2018).

  12. 12.

    Risk Governance of nanotechnology (RIA). European Commission (27 October 2017); http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/nmbp-13-2018.html

  13. 13.

    Haas, P. M. Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and mediterranean pollution control. Int. Organ. 43, 377–403 (1989).

  14. 14.

    Haas, P. M. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int. Organ. 46, 1–35 (1992).

  15. 15.

    Bos, P. M. J. et al. The MARINA risk assessment strategy: a flexible strategy for efficient information collection and risk assessment of nanomaterials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 15007–15021 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Owen, R. & Handy, R. Formulating the problems for environmental risk assessment of nanomaterials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 5582–5588 (2007).

  17. 17.

    Silva, T. et al. Particle size, surface charge and concentration dependent ecotoxicity of three organo-coated silver nanoparticles: comparison between general linear model-predicted and observed toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 468–469, 968–976 (2014).

  18. 18.

    Espinasse, B. P. et al. Comparative persistence of engineered nanoparticles in a complex aquatic ecosystem. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 4072–4078 (2018).

  19. 19.

    Malysheva, A., Voelcker, N., Holm, P. E. & Lombi, E. Unraveling the complex behavior of AgNPs driving NP-cell interactions and toxicity to algal cells. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 12455–12463 (2016).

  20. 20.

    Levard, C. et al. Sulfidation of silver nanoparticles: natural antidote to their toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 13440–13448 (2013).

  21. 21.

    Lombi, E. et al. Transformation of four silver/silver chloride nanoparticles during anaerobic treatment of wastewater and post-processing of sewage sludge. Environ. Pollut. 176, 193–197 (2013).

  22. 22.

    Pulido-Reyes, G., Leganes, F., Fernández-Piñas, F. & Rosal, R. Bio-nano interface and environment: a critical review. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 36, 3181–3193 (2017).

  23. 23.

    Gottschalk, F., Sonderer, T., Scholz, R. W. & Nowack, B. Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, fullerenes) for different regions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 9216–9222 (2009).

  24. 24.

    Maynard, A. D. Old materials, new challenges? Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 658–659 (2014).

  25. 25.

    Nowack, B. et al. Progress towards the validation of modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials by analytical measurements. Environ. Sci. Nano 2, 421–428 (2015).

  26. 26.

    Gondikas, A. et al. Where is the nano? Analytical approaches for the detection and quantification of TiO2 engineered nanoparticles in surface waters. Environ. Sci. Nano 5, 313–326 (2018).

  27. 27.

    Kühnel, D. & Nickel, C. The OECD expert meeting on ecotoxicology and environmental fate: towards the development of improved OECD guidelines for the testing of nanomaterials. Sci. Total Environ. 472, 347–353 (2014).

  28. 28.

    Miller, G. & Wickson, F. Risk analysis of nanomaterials: exposing nanotechnology’s naked emperor. Rev. Pol. Res. 32, 485–512 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Dusinska, M. et al. Towards an alternative testing strategy for nanomaterials used in nanomedicine: lessons from NanoTEST. Nanotoxicology 9, 118–132 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Dusinska, M. et al. Immunotoxicity, genotoxicity and epigenetic toxicity of nanomaterials: new strategies for toxicity testing? Food Chem. Toxicol. 109, 797–811 (2017).

  31. 31.

    Smolkova, B., Dusinska, M. & Gabelova, A. Nanomedicine and epigenome. Possible health risks. Food Chem. Toxicol. 109, 780–796 (2017).

  32. 32.

    Zhou, G. & Hu, W. Public acceptance of and willingness-to-pay for nanofoods in the U. S. Food Control 89, 219–226 (2018).

  33. 33.

    Sohal, I. S., O’Fallon, K. S., Gaines, P., Demokritou, P. & Bello, D. Ingested engineered nanomaterials: state of science in nanotoxicity testing and future research needs. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 15, 29 (2018).

  34. 34.

    Bettini, S. et al. Food-grade TiO2 impairs intestinal and systemic immune homeostasis, initiates preneoplastic lesions and promotes aberrant crypt development in the rat colon. Sci. Rep. 7, 40373 (2017).

  35. 35.

    France Plans to ban Titanium Dioxide in Food Products (USDA, 2018).

  36. 36.

    Missaoui, W. N., Arnold, R. D. & Cummings, B. S. Toxicological status of nanoparticles: what we know and what we don’t know. Chem.-Biol. Interact. 295, 1–12 (2018).

  37. 37.

    Patzelt, A. et al. Do nanoparticles have a future in dermal drug delivery? J. Control. Release 246, 174–182 (2017).

  38. 38.

    Bakand, S. & Hayes, A. Toxicological considerations, toxicity assessment, and risk management of inhaled nanoparticles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, 929 (2016).

  39. 39.

    Fröhlich, E. & Roblegg, E. Oral uptake of nanoparticles: human relevance and the role of in vitro systems. Arch. Toxicol. 90, 2297–2314 (2016).

  40. 40.

    Sun, T. Y. et al. Probabilistic modelling of engineered nanomaterial emissions to the environment: a spatio-temporal approach. Environ. Sci. Nano 2, 340–351 (2015).

  41. 41.

    Malysheva, A., Lombi, E. & Voelcker, N. H. Bridging the divide between human and environmental nanotoxicology. Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 835–844 (2015).

  42. 42.

    Huggett, D. B., Cook, J. C., Ericson, J. F. & Williams, R. T. A theoretical model for utilizing mammalian pharmacology and safety data to prioritize potential impacts of human pharmaceuticals to fish. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 9, 1789–1799 (2003).

  43. 43.

    Williams, M., Saison, C. L. A., Williams, D. B. & Kookana, R. S. Can aquatic distribution of human pharmaceuticals be related to pharmacological data? Chemosphere 65, 2253–2259 (2006).

  44. 44.

    Scott-Fordsmand, J. J. et al. Environmental risk assessment strategy for nanomaterials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 1251 (2017).

  45. 45.

    One Health: A New Professional Imperative (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2015).

  46. 46.

    Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (WHO, 2015).

  47. 47.

    McEwen, S. A. & Collignon, P. J. Antimicrobial resistance: a One Health perspective. Microbiol. Spectr. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.ARBA-0009-2017 (2018).

  48. 48.

    Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2013).

  49. 49.

    Lammie, S. L. & Hughes, J. M. Antimicrobial resistance, food safety, and One Health: the need for convergence. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 7, 287–312 (2016).

  50. 50.

    CVM Updates: CVM Reports on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Food-Producing Animals (FDA, 2010).

  51. 51.

    Van Boeckel, T. P. et al. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5649–5654 (2015).

  52. 52.

    Zhu, Y. G. et al. Continental-scale pollution of estuaries with antibiotic resistance genes. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 16270 (2017).

  53. 53.

    Gillings, M. R. Evolutionary consequences of antibiotic use for the resistome, mobilome, and microbial pangenome. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00004 (2013).

  54. 54.

    Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E. & Milo, R. The opportunity cost of animal based diets exceeds all food losses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3804–3809 (2018).

  55. 55.

    Mission Statement. One Health Initiative (2016); http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/mission.php

  56. 56.

    Boqvist, S., Söderqvist, K. & Vågsholm, I. Food safety challenges and One Health within Europe. Acta Vet. Scand. 60, 1 (2018).

  57. 57.

    Wegener, H. in Improving Food Safaety Through a One Health Approach (eds Relman, D. A. et al.) 331–349 (National Academies Press, 2012).

  58. 58.

    Lebov, J. et al. A framework for One Health research. One Health 3, 44–50 (2017).

  59. 59.

    Choi, B. C. K. & Pak, A. W. P. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin. Investig. Med. 29, 351–364 (2006).

  60. 60.

    Wickson, F. & Carew, A. L. Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: learning from transdisciplinarity. J. Respons. Innov. 1, 254–273 (2014).

  61. 61.

    Joffe, M., Gambhir, M., Chadeau-Hyam, M. & Vineis, P. Causal diagrams in systems epidemiology. Emerg. Themes Epidemiol. 9, 1 (2012).

  62. 62.

    Rezaei, A. Food safety: the farmer first health paradigm. One Health 5, 69–73 (2018).

  63. 63.

    Owen, R., Bessant, J. & Heintz, M. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (Wiley, 2013).

  64. 64.

    Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Pol. 42, 1568–1580 (2013).

  65. 65.

    Burgess, J. et al. Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 299–322 (2007).

  66. 66.

    Grieger, K. D., Linkov, I., Hansen, S. F. & Baun, A. Environmental risk analysis for nanomaterials: review and evaluation of frameworks. Nanotoxicology 6, 196–212 (2012).

  67. 67.

    Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J. & Kokotovich, A. Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: a case studies approach. Risk Anal. 28, 1081–1098 (2008).

  68. 68.

    Renn, O. A model for an analytic–deliberative process in risk management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33, 3049–3055 (1999).

  69. 69.

    Gubala, V. et al. Engineered nanomaterials and human health: Part 2. Applications and nanotoxicology (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 90, 1325–1356 (2018).

  70. 70.

    Ivask, A., Mitchell, A. J., Malysheva, A., Voelcker, N. H. & Lombi, E. Methodologies and approaches for the analysis of cell–nanoparticle interactions. Wiley Inter. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 10, e1486 (2018).

  71. 71.

    Du, J. et al. ZnO nanoparticles: recent advances in ecotoxicity and risk assessment. Drug Chem. Toxicol. https://doi.org/10.1080/01480545.2018.1508218 (2018).

  72. 72.

    Du, J. et al. A review on silver nanoparticles-induced ecotoxicity and the underlying toxicity mechanisms. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 98, 231–239 (2018).

  73. 73.

    Bondarenko, O. et al. Toxicity of Ag, CuO and ZnO nanoparticles to selected environmentally relevant test organisms and mammalian cells in vitro: A critical review. Arch. Toxicol. 87, 1181–1200 (2013).

  74. 74.

    Guadagnini, R. et al. Toxicity screenings of nanomaterials: challenges due to interference with assay processes and components of classic in vitro tests. Nanotoxicology 9, 13–24 (2015).

  75. 75.

    Ivask, A. et al. Complete transformation of ZnO and CuO nanoparticles in culture medium and lymphocyte cells during toxicity testing. Nanotoxicology 11, 150–156 (2017).

  76. 76.

    Sekine, R., Khurana, K., Vasilev, K., Lombi, E. & Donner, E. Quantifying the adsorption of ionic silver and functionalized nanoparticles during ecotoxicity testing: test container effects and recommendations. Nanotoxicology 9, 1005–1012 (2015).

  77. 77.

    Malta Initiative Workshop Brussels. Nanosafety Cluster (11 December 2018); https://www.nanosafetycluster.eu/calendar/318/162-Malta-Initiative-Workshop.html

  78. 78.

    Le, T. C. et al. An experimental and computational approach to the development of ZnO nanoparticles that are safe by design. Small 12, 3568–3577 (2016).

  79. 79.

    Lynch, I. European NanoSafety Cluster Compendium. NanoSafety Cluster (2016); http://www.nanosafetycluster.eu/www.nanosafetycluster.eu/home/european-nanosafety-cluster-compendium.html

  80. 80.

    Singh, R. & Lillard, J. W. Jr Nanoparticle-based targeted drug delivery. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 86, 215–223 (2009).

  81. 81.

    Mitter, N. et al. Clay nanosheets for topical delivery of RNAi for sustained protection against plant viruses. Nat. Plants 3, 16207 (2017).

  82. 82.

    Kah, M., Kookana, R. S., Gogos, A. & Bucheli, T. D. A critical evaluation of nanopesticides and nanofertilizers against their conventional analogues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 677–684 (2018).

  83. 83.

    White, J. G.-T. J. Achieving food security through the very small. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 627–629 (2018).

  84. 84.

    Wickson, F., Delgado, A. & Kjølberg, K. L. Who or what is ‘the public’? Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 757–758 (2010).

  85. 85.

    Lyons, K. & Whelan, J. Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in Australia. NanoEthics 4, 53–66 (2010).

  86. 86.

    Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K. L. & Wickson, F. Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst. Sci. 20, 826–845 (2011).

  87. 87.

    Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J. & Wynne, B. From bio to nano: learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Sci. Cult. 15, 291–307 (2006).

  88. 88.

    Petersen, A. & Bowman, D. Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders’ constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 12, 67–79 (2012).

  89. 89.

    Toumey, C. Rules of engagement. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2, 386–387 (2007).

  90. 90.

    Akin, H. et al. Are attitudes toward labeling nano products linked to attitudes toward GMO? Exploring a potential ‘spillover’ effect for attitudes toward controversial technologies. J. Respons. Innov. 6, 50–74 (2018).

  91. 91.

    Dudo, A., Choi, D. H. & Scheufele, D. A. Food nanotechnology in the news. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56, 78–89 (2011).

  92. 92.

    Felt, U., Schumann, S. & Schwarz, C. G. (Re)assembling natures, cultures, and (nano)technologies in public engagement. Sci. Cult. 24, 458–483 (2015).

  93. 93.

    Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H. & Keller, C. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51, 283–290 (2008).

  94. 94.

    Sozer, N. & Kokini, J. L. Nanotechnology and its applications in the food sector. Trends Biotechnol. 27, 82–89 (2009).

  95. 95.

    Ganesh Pillai, R. & Bezbaruah, A. N. Perceptions and attitude effects on nanotechnology acceptance: an exploratory framework. J. Nanopart. Res. 19, 41 (2017).

  96. 96.

    Sodano, V., Gorgitano, M. T., Verneau, F. & Vitale, C. D. Consumer acceptance of food nanotechnology in Italy. Brit. Food J. 118, 714–733 (2016).

  97. 97.

    Frewer, L. J. Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 44, 683–704 (2017).

  98. 98.

    Sodano, V. Food nanotechnologies and policy challenges. Environ. Chem. Lett. 16, 5–10 (2018).

  99. 99.

    Lyons, K. & Smith, N. Governing with Ignorance: understanding the Australian Food Regulator’s response to nano food. NanoEthics 12, 27–38 (2018).

  100. 100.

    Beketov, M. A., Kefford, B. J., Schäfer, R. B. & Liess, M. Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11039–11043 (2013).

  101. 101.

    Destoumieux-Garzón, D. et al. The one health concept: 10 years old and a long road ahead. Front. Vet. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00014 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.D. is grateful for support from the Horizon 2020 NANoREG2 projects (H2020-NMP-2014-2015- 646221) and RiskGONE (H2020-NMBP-TO-IND-2018-814425). F.W. acknowledges support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme for the New HoRRIzon project under grant agreement no. 741402. E.D. gratefully acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council through the ARC Future Fellowship Scheme (FT130101003). We thank M. Cicera for refining the figures.

Author information

Correspondence to Enzo Lombi.

Additional information

Journal peer review information: Nature Nanotechnology thanks Kristen Lyons and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lombi, E., Donner, E., Dusinska, M. et al. A One Health approach to managing the applications and implications of nanotechnologies in agriculture. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 523–531 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0460-8

Download citation

Further reading