Nanotechnology Lawyer & Attorney : Bergeson & Campbell Law Firm : Nanotechnology Law Blog

On March 1, 2010, the European Commission (EC) issued a request, via the accelerated procedure, for a scientific opinion on the scientific basis for the definition of the term “nanomaterial” from the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). According to the EC, its services “urgently need to elaborate a working definition of the term ‘nanomaterials’ to ensure the consistency of forthcoming regulatory developments to guide, as appropriate, the effective implementation of existing regulation, and to contribute to international work and dialogue on nanotechnology definitions.” The EC states that it needs “clarification on the size ranges and other relevant characteristics and corresponding metrics reported in the scientific literature, the types of physical and chemical properties particular to nanomaterials, the relevant thresholds, as well as the most appropriate metrics to express such thresholds.” The deadline is May 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On March 1, 2010, Health Canada began a public consultation on its adoption of the Interim Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials (Interim Policy). Although Health Canada is accepting comments, it states that the Interim Policy “is effective immediately.” In preparing the Interim Policy, Health Canada states that it sought the informal feedback of some international stakeholders, industry trade groups, standards associations, and other Canadian federal departments. Comments are due August 31, 2010, and Health Canada intends to use the comments to update the Interim Policy as necessary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The NanoBusiness Alliance will hold its Ninth Annual Washington DC Roundtable on March 15-17, 2010, and it will begin with a networking dinner and reception. Legislative meetings are scheduled for March 16, 2010. On March 17, 2010, during the NanoBusiness Alliance Federal Roundtable, Charles Auer will moderate, and Lynn L. Bergeson will participate in, a panel on chemical and consumer product risk management policy and regulatory actions. The Roundtable is intended to stimulate dialogue between NanoBusiness Alliance members and federal agencies; provide members an opportunity to learn about the latest regulatory policy/impending regulatory actions and federal research initiatives; and familiarize NanoBusiness Alliance members with federal product approval authorities and processes and innovation strategies, with an emphasis on pending developments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a February 5, 2010, letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs, the Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG) provides its reactions to the recent Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) report on nanosilver and other nanometal oxide pesticide products. In its letter, SNWG highlights a number of the statements and recommendations from the SAP report that it considers “highly relevant for the shaping of EPA policy towards nanosilver materials.” SNWG notes that nanosilver is not a new material; clarity is needed on EPA concept of nano; real-life conditions are essential for realistic risk assessment; EPA policy must allow for sustainable technology development; and SAP frequently confounded general “nano”-related issues and uncertainties with issues specific to nanosilver.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) has released the minutes of its November 3-5, 2009, meeting regarding evaluation of the hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.  In addition to the general observations noted here, more information is available in our February 8, 2010, memorandum. First, the SAP final recommendations address nanosilver almost entirely, and little or no mention is made of “nanometal pesticide products.” Second, the Panel stated that existing models “are not appropriate” for use with silver nanomaterials and “will not accurately predict nanosilver exposure scenarios.” The Panel stated that it “strongly believe[s] that in addition to current data requirements under [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)], additional assays which compared nanoscale and bulk materials would be most beneficial in addressing” differences in toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics for nanoscale materials. This conclusion alone poses formidable challenges for nanosilver pesticide applicants wishing to obtain registration status under FIFRA. Third, the Panel agreed that pesticide products should be tested on a “case-by-case basis,” EPA should use a meta-analysis on the products to understand better trends in life cycle analyses, and “close attention” should be given to products that claim a non-ionic mode of action as an antimicrobial agent. Fourth, the Panel outlined detailed research needs that EPA should consider. The outline will discourage even the most optimistic potential FIFRA registrant for a nanopesticide as the research needs are extensive and likely costly. The Panel also identified the “most useful short-term information needs,” of which stakeholders should be aware. Finally, the Panel stated that a “critical issue” that “must be clarified is the use of [the] terminology ‘nano’” and that for standardization, “the unique property for nanosilver should be established.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on February 3, 2010, a proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for multi-walled carbon nanotubes. The proposed rule would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process the substance for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. EPA states that the required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. Comments are due March 5, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 19, 2010, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced three new peer-reviewed articles co-authored by NIOSH researchers. According to NIOSH, the articles report findings and conclusions from studies that examined issues related to potential occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials. Two articles in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene report on the design and application of the nanomaterial emission assessment technique, which was developed by the NIOSH nanotechnology field evaluation team. Part A describes the technique (Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7:127-132), while Part B discusses findings from use of the technique at 12 facilities. NIOSH states that the results summarized in Part B “demonstrated that the technique is useful in identifying and evaluating sources of nanomaterial emissions, and for evaluating engineering controls intended to minimize emissions and reduce exposures” (Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7:163-176). The third article, highlighted as a “featured research” paper in EHP, examines the potential for occupational exposure to engineered carbon-based nanomaterials in environmental laboratory studies. The article cautions that under some conditions, engineered nanomaterials can become airborne when mixed in solution by sonication.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 8, 2010, the United Kingdom (UK) House of Lords Science and Technology Committee announced the availability of its report entitled Nanotechnologies and Food, which criticizes the food industry for failing to be transparent about its research into the uses of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. In its report, the Committee urges the Government and Research Councils to fund research into potential health and safety risks arising from the use of nanomaterials in the food sector. The Committee recommends that the Food Standards Agency maintain a publicly available register of food and food packaging containing nanomaterials, and suggests that the register be made available online. The Committee calls for nanomaterials to be defined clearly in food legislation to ensure that all uses of nanomaterials in food are subject to appropriate risk assessment procedures. According to the Committee, regulatory definitions should use a change in functionality, i.e. how a substance interacts with the body, as the criterion that distinguishes a nanomaterial from its larger form, to ensure that any nano-sized materials with novel properties are included. The Committee also recommends that the UK work with other European Union (EU) nations to clarify what is meant by the phrase “properties that are characteristic to the nanoscale” in the draft definition proposed for the revised Novel Foods Regulation, by the inclusion in legislation of a more detailed list of what these properties comprise. The Committee also raises concerns about the potential for the illegal importation of food products containing nanomaterials not approved for use in food in the EU.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On January 8, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extended until February 8, 2010, the comment period for its November 6, 2009, proposed significant new use rules (SNUR) for multi-walled carbon nanotubes (CNT) and single-walled CNTs.  According to the January 8, 2010, notice, EPA received a request to extend the comment period.  On December 1, 2009, the U.S. World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Inquiry Point at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), on behalf of the European Economic Community (EEC) WTO TBT Enquiry Point, submitted a request to extend the comment period. According to the request, “the European Communities are currently reviewing the draft regulation,” and request that the comment deadline be extended. According to Charles Auer, formerly the Director of EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and now affiliated with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., this is the first request he is aware of from the EEC TBT Enquiry Point to OPPT. Auer noted that the EEC is not necessarily raising a trade concern, but may simply want to know the scope of the proposed regulation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks