Dear EarthTalk: What is “nanotechnology?” I’ve heard that nanoparticles are already in consumer products, yet we haven’t really studied their potential health impacts. – Dan Zeff, San Francisco, CA

Nanotechnology makes use of minuscule objects-whose width can be 10,000 times narrower than a human hair-known as nanoparticles. Upwards of 600 products on store shelves today contain them, including transparent sunscreen, lipsticks, anti-aging creams and even food products.

Global nanotechnology sales have grown substantially in recent years, to $50 billion in 2007, according to Lux Research, author of the annual Nanotech Report. And the final tally isn’t in yet, but analysts had predicted 2008 sales to be $150 billion. The National Science Foundation says the industry could be worth $1 trillion by 2015, when it would employ two million workers directly.

What makes nanoparticles so useful is their tiny size, which allows for manipulation of color, solubility, strength, magnetic behavior and electrical conductivity. Nanoparticles do exist in nature, and they’re also created inadvertently through some industrial processes. What’s new-and potentially hazardous-is the widespread engineering of these particles for commercial purposes.

While there is no conclusive evidence that nanomaterials are either unsafe or not, health advocates worry that we’re already putting them on our bodies and ingesting them as if they’d been thoroughly tested and proven safe. Animal studies, including one with rats at the University of Rochester, have shown that some nanoparticles can cross the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain from toxins in the bloodstream. And inhaled nanoparticles have also harmed the lungs of animal test subjects.

Despite these and other studies, nanomaterials are virtually unregulated in the U.S. And of $1.3 billion budgeted for research in 2006, only $38 million went to examining risks to health and to the environment.

“While the benefits of nanotechnology are widely publicized, the discussion of the potential effects of their widespread use in consumer and industrial products is just beginning to emerge,” reports the Journal of Nanobiotechnology. “Both pioneers of nanotechnology and its opponents are finding it extremely hard to argue their case as there is limited information available to support one side or the other.”

Europe’s regulators are far more wary about nanotechnology than their American counterparts. Britain’s Royal Society recommended in 2004 that nanoparticles be viewed as brand new substances, and the European Commission is examining them on a case-by-case basis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is loosely charged with regulating nanotechnology here, but has barely dipped its toe in the water.

Taken together, the evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the use of nano-ingredients in consumer products. It’s just not known if they’re safe, which begs the question: Why have we gone ahead and approved them for commercial use? Indeed, we may look back at our current decade and see it, for better or worse, as a time when tiny things caused big and momentous changes in our lives.

CONTACTS: EU’s REACH Law, www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nanotechnology Page, www.epa.gov/ncer/nano.

Dear EarthTalk: How is the fur industry doing these days? Has it been impacted by activism from PETA and similar groups?‚ ‚  — Clara Andrews, Edmonds, WA

An accurate source of up-to-date numbers is hard to come by, but it’s safe to say that the fur industry has been hurt by the ongoing and very visible anti-fur campaign-sometimes featuring top supermodels-by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights groups.

Whether or not activist efforts are the cause, the governments of the United Kingdom and Austria have banned fur farming in their countries altogether, while The Netherlands has phased out fox and chinchilla farming. The U.S. has not taken any action against the industry, but the number of mink farms in the U.S. has plummeted from 1,027 in 1988 to less than 300 today, according to Weekly International Fur News.

But while the fur industry’s sales numbers may have trailed off through the 1990s, resurgence in the popularity of fur-especially among newly affluent high-fliers in Russia and China-has meant that business is booming for those furriers serving such far-flung markets.

By 2004 the industry was reporting banner sales-some $11.7 billion worldwide-despite the slumping post-9/11 economy. “Fur remains big with international designers and is set to continue as an integral part of fashion,” International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) chairman, Andreas Lenhart, told reporters.

According to IFTF data, the vast majority of the fur industry’s pelts-upwards of 85 percent-now come from farm-raised animals. (This does mean, though, that 15 percent are still caught in the wild, often by trapping methods that are painful as well as indiscriminate, catching unintended quarry, including endangered species and domestic pets.) The most farmed such animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchilla, lynx, muskrats and coyotes are also farmed for their fur. PETA reports that 73 percent of the world’s remaining fur farms are in Europe, while about 12 percent are in North America.

IFTF argues that fur farming has environmental benefits, such as providing good use for 647,000 tons of animal by-products each year from Europe’s fish and meat industries alone (they are fed to the captive animals), and generating a lot of manure, sold as organic fertilizer. Mink farming also provides fat for soaps and hair products, says IFTF.

Of course, anti-fur activists don’t see it this way. “The amount of energy needed to produce a real fur coat from ranch-raised animal skins is approximately‚ 15 times that needed to produce a fake fur garment,” says PETA. “Nor is fur biodegradable, thanks to the chemical treatment applied to stop the fur from rotting.” PETA adds that these same chemicals contaminate groundwater near fur farms if not handled responsibly.

Activists are also concerned, of course, about the conditions animals endure on fur farms. “The animals-who are housed in unbearably small cages-live with fear, stress, disease, parasites and other physical and psychological hardships…” reports PETA. The group adds that the animals are killed in very inhumane ways-such as by electrocution, gassing or poisoning-to preserve the quality of the pelts above all else.

CONTACTS: PETA, peta.org; IFTF, iftf.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

We’ve personified the bunny rabbit in a variety of ways — the Easter Bunny, Bugs Bunny, Peter Rabbit, hell, even screwing like rabbits — but you may not be nearly as allured by PETA’s description of how rabbit fur is collected for parts of fashion designer Donna Karan’s latest collection

“Animals killed for Donna Karan’s designs either had their necks broken or were electrocuted, beaten to death, or skinned alive,” said‚ PETA President Ingrid Newkirk, after several protesters jumped on stage at a Karan fashion show in New York over the weekend.

Apparently, Karan promised PETA folks that she would never use animal fur again. And apparently that isn’t the case. And apparently PETA folks don’t take too kindly to broken promises.

PETA members leaped onto the catwalk Sunday, waving signs that read, “Donna: Dump Fur,” and chanting, “Shame” at the designer. The protesters were dragged off and arrested.

The animal rights group has recently ramped up its efforts against Karan, protesting outside her shows, her office and even her home.

“Donna Karan is a cold and soulless woman who turns her back on animals to turn a buck,”‚ Newkirk said.

To read or watch more, visit FurIsDead.com.

“Butchered babies’ skins are a lack of compassion — not fashion,” PETA said Wednesday in an email to reporters.

In a move that should surprise no one, PETA is coming out strongly against Gucci for their supposed use of seal-fir in boots found in Russia.

In an e-mail to Gucci CEO Robert Polet, (Download it now) PETA describes what they call “documented seal hunt horrors.”

“Is this kind of blatant cruelty to animals something that Gucci wants to associate itself with?” the email states.

According to PETA, Canada’s annual seal hunt, which begins this week in Labrador and Newfoundland, is the largest massacre of marine mammals in the world.

“People worldwide have looked on in horror for years as the Canadian government has permitted the annual slaughter of up to 335,000 baby harp seals, with the quota set at 275,000 seals this year,” PETA said. “The terrified seals are shot or clubbed repeatedly, and as many as 42 percent are skinned alive.”

“Whether it’s clubbing baby seals, electrocuting minks on fur farms, or crushing lynxes’ legs in steel-jaw traps, every fur that Gucci sells represents unimaginable suffering,” siad PETA Assistant Director Matt Prescott. “From Moscow to Milan and everywhere in between, cruelty to animals is never in fashion.”

Have you ever dreamed of dressing up the Olsen twins to your heart’s desire? If so, your dream may come true. Although, the items you use to dress the tiny moguls may not be what is expected. A new dress-up game involving a “mauled mink messenger bag,” a “hanged hamster headband” and an “electrocuted ermine evening dress,” are just some of the things visitors to PETA’s, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, new site can fool around with when dressing “Hairy-Kate and Trashley Trollsen.”

“Meet the Trollsen Twins” is a new campaign run by peta2, PETA’s youth division. The campaign’s web site, which can be found at peta2.com, criticizes Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen for continuing to wear fur and sell fur in their clothing line The Row, renamed “Death Row,” by site creators.

Aside from having a dress up game for the twins the site also includes a well-crafted Full House spoof episode titled “Full House of Horrors.” In it, Jack Shepherd, author of PETA’s blog The PETA Files, stars as “Futureman” who comes to tell the Tanner family about Michelle’s fashion crimes in the future.

“It’s not just that these little Michelles are going to end up as a pair of fashion casualties who hide their shrunken bodies in entire families of dead animals,” says Futureman in the video. “The worst part is what happens to the animals who die for the Olsens’ sick, sick fur habit.”The reworked episode gets the Tanner family to kick Michelle out of the house for her future crimes as an animal killer. But, these are only two features of PETA’s newest web site.

“We create these sort of controversial, sort of funny campaigns,” said Dan Shannon, assistant director for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA. “People get to learn a serious lesson while poking fun at celebrities.”

The Olsen twins were chosen as targets for this campaign because they wear fur frequently; and according to Shannon, they seem to make a statement in doing so. PETA members have written to the twins many times to no avail since they have never received a response from the sisters.

In comparison, PETA members wrote to Eva Mendes after seeing her out wearing fur and received a letter sharing her horrified, apologetic, reaction. Mendes even went on to participate in PETA’s “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign.

“[The site has] gotten almost half a million hits so far so it’s been really successful for us,” said Shannon.

PETA tends to have ardent opposition as well as support, but Shannon said there is no concern about lawsuits. “Everything we’re saying on the web site is true,” he said. “People make their own decisions.”

PETA members are often criticized for using shock value and sensationalism to get the public’s attention. When trying to find responses form the fashion labels criticized in the website, Blast only received “no response” comments in return, though.

“The issues are shocking in and of themselves,” said Shannon. “All you have to do is tell people the truth.”

The peta2 web site also features links allowing visitors to write letters to the twins, asking them to stop wearing fur. A pre-written letter is available, but PETA encourages visitors to write their own letters, for maximum impact and influence.

Another link leads visitors to a page for peta2′s latest clothing designs, which vary from sweatshirts to messenger bags. In addition to a cartoon design of the Trollsen Twins, there are designs that read “Fur is Dead” and “Mean People Wear Fur.”

PETA maintains a list of fur-free retailers available on their Internet sites. Some include The Gap, Eddie Bauer and H&M. Polo Ralph Lauren, Betsey Johnson and Calvin Klein are some of the latest designers who have decided not to use fur in their collections too. Consumers can use this list to make informed decisions about the products they purchase and ask other fashion labels to stop using fur.

“Every purchase that you make sends a message,” said Shannon. “Most people deep down care about animals and don’t want to see them suffer.”

What do you think of this? Do you agree with PETA specifically targeting children with these kinds of advertisements? Do you agree with Futureman? Sound off in our comments section!