If you read any design magazine regularly, you could be forgiven for thinking that trends in materials are almost as fickle as those in fashion. Our insatiable appetite for the new powers this rapid rate of change, forcing engineers to devise ever more innovative ways of covering and lighting our precious yet ephemeral consumer products.

Contrast these with the trends that are based upon breakthroughs in materials science, which work on a much slower timeline and take longer to emerge but also rarely die, instead morphing or branching out into other, less impactful trends as the technology is further developed. Think metal (and ceramic) injection molding, rapid prototyping, conductive polymers and that cool thing they do with injection foaming of Croc shoes.

Perhaps one of the biggest of these trends has been nanotech, so big that it has become a new science in of itself. The early part of this decade was a time when everyone coming through Material ConneXion’s doors wanted to know the latest on the nano world and how they could use its all powerful marketing weight to sell their products. Then Bam! Nothing. First thoughts were that it was the bigger issue of sustainability, perhaps the economic downturn. In fact, it was neither. It started in the cosmetics industry.

Chantecaille's Nano Gold Energizing Cream

A quick look at the “Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies” database on consumer products that contain nano materials (a collaboration between the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts) shows that of the 800 listed consumer products, 159 of them (20%) are cosmetics and sunscreens (two categories of the 34 listed) - a huge proportion. This clear emphasis on the use of nanotech to sell cosmetics was both the movement’s high-point and also the start of a downward spiral. Because the most successful use of nano was also where it most closely affected us, any concerns over its safety were going to hit hardest when it was being smeared over our bodies. There was plenty of good nano research in engineering fields such as strengthening of plastics, fire retardancy and functional coatings, but little of it ever reached our ears or - more importantly - came close to our bodies.

Consumer and NGO groups began the clarion call against nano in products around 2005; organizations such as the Campaign for safe cosmetics (www.safecosmetics.org) and the Environmental Working Group with their Cosmetics Database (www.cosmeticsdatabase.com) listing many nano products in the ‘hazardous’ category. This has been followed by state and government legislation in the US and abroad.

In the US, the FDA has taken action, with the formation of a Nanotechnology Task Force to “Explore opportunities to foster innovation using nanotechnology materials to develop safe foods, feeds, and cosmetics.” However, it does not currently require labels stating that products incorporate nanomaterials, and has not ruled on this issue despite action by consumer groups, such as Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports who submitted a letter to the FDA in October 2008 requesting a “full safety assessment on the use of engineered nanoparticles, particularly in cosmetics, sunscreens, and sunblocks), These groups have requested that the FDA follow the European model of labeling those products that contain nanoparticles and require manufacturers to submit safety assessment data on nanoparticles used in cosmetics. The FDA however, has yet to rule fully on this issue (apart from an update on sunscreens that does not assume any potential risk from the use of small particles in the product) and has not offered any final statement.

So what next?

It would seem that from the bright new future offered by the development of nanotech, we are now at a much more sober state of affairs, with consumers wary and governments adopting new regulations (EU) or at least thinking about it (US). It is likely that the ‘trend’ in nano is over until we see a breakthrough in a different sphere of research, such as coatings or biotech. Nano will continue to be used in cosmetics, but more thought will be expended in whether the purported benefits are worth the additional testing and labeling. As with many material breakthroughs, the scientists work on a different timeline than those wanting to market the developments. Hopefully this setback will not hinder our slow but sure move into a nano-future too much.