Okay.
The pros for nanotechnology are that the nano-particles generate products with unique, useful, and sometimes surprising properties. What is frequently observed is the chemistry at the nano-size is not the same as at a larger size, as Dr. Ostiguy said before. Also, the government and the private sector have spent a lot of money to develop this technology, which might be good for the economy. The concern with the development of nanotechnology is the way it works now. This will probably come with a lot of problems, I guess.
So the money also exclusively supports the development of nanotechnology in commercialization, but there is not enough on the health effects of the presence of nano-particles. We have no idea about the potential leachability and migration of nano-material from consumer products.
Many pieces of the puzzle are missing. Some nano-products are used directly in human consumer products—for example, personal care—and also in food, but we know almost nothing about that. We don't know what is the best metric to characterize the toxicity. Should we use weight? Should we use the surfaces? There is some deficiency in metrology, characterization, and toxicology that I will also point out during these discussions.
I will not cover all that the literature says about nanotechnology, but the absorption occurs principally by inhalation but can also occur by cutaneous and oral exposure. The nano-particles are distributed on the entire organism. After that, if it's not trapped by a specialized cell, a nano-particle can cross the blood-brain barrier, which is important to note here. They decrease the cell viability: DNA damage, oxidative stress, blood thrombosis, inflammation, and all these effects.
So what do we need? We need a national strategy in regard to nanotechnology development, maybe a CNI, Canadian nanotechnology initiative. We don't need to repeat what NNI has done so far, and they actually have done very well. The NNI is the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the U.S. So we may just need to start where they are, or closely collaborate in a complementary way with them.
On monetary resource equilibrium between the development of nanotechnology and the evaluation of toxicity, the federal government already works at the international level with the OECD. I think this is a good idea, but other initiatives should also be encouraged.
I say yes to the precautionary principle, but improving the knowledge and doing a real assessment of the risk is better in the long run.