Nano and Other Emerging Chemical Technologies Law Blog: Lawyer & Attorney : Bergeson & Campbell Law Firm : Nanotech and Chemical Legal Developments

The NanoRelease Project is intended to support the development of methods to understand the release of nanomaterials used in products. To do this, the Project will: (1) examine full life cycles of nanomaterials in products; (2) work through specific release scenarios at key exposure points of the life cycle; (3) organize existing material characteristics data and measurement methods for those release scenarios; (4) develop a “state of the science” report for release measurement; and (5) carry out inter-laboratory testing to promote improvements, standardization, and widespread use of methods. The NanoRelease Project completed Phase 1 in 2011, resulting in the selection of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) in polymers as the first material to be evaluated through inter-laboratory studies of methods. In Phase 2, three Task Groups of more than 40 experts are evaluating: (1) measurement methods; (2) the effect of materials selected on release rates; and (3) identifying the key exposure/release scenarios. Each Task Group will produce a white paper on their respective topic. Phase 3 is scheduled to begin in late 2012, with a “round robin” approach to inter-laboratory testing using a reference nanomaterial-matrix and positive controls for the study of MWCNT released from selected polymers. The NanoRelease Project is organized by Dr. Richard Canady of the ILSI Research Foundation, and is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, Health Canada, the American Chemistry Council, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Adhesive and Sealant Council, and the American Cleaning Institute.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that, in response to public comments, it will provide the public more time to comment on the December 28, 2011, proposed significant new use rules (SNUR) for 17 chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN). Of particular interest, seven of the PMN substances’ reported chemical names include the term “carbon nanotube” (CNT) or “CNT.” EPA states “the comment period is being reopened until 45 days following publication of the new notice (until approximately mid-March).”  Importantly, the docket reveals that requests for extension were submitted by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and the United Steelworkers Union (USW).  The USW comment specifically asserts that the “specific protection measures required for individual PMN substances indicate that personal protective equipment, including gloves and respirators, should be the first line of defense to protect workers.  These requirements do NOT follow occupational health and safety best practices” (emphasis in original). The comment then goes on to cite the ANSI/AIHA Z10 2005 standard and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards as best practices.

This is an important perspective in the ongoing worker protection debate and the requests for comment deadline extension suggest that the unions are likely to become more engaged in this discussion.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 27-28, 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAA) will host the “International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology.” The Working Party on Nanotechnology (WPN) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in collaboration with the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), organized the Symposium. Lynn L. Bergeson is on the Steering Committee and will speak at the Symposium. The objective of the Symposium is to explore systematically “the need for and development of a methodology to assess the economic impact of nanotechnology across whole economies, factoring in many sectors and types of impact, including new and replacement products and materials, markets for raw materials, intermediate and final goods, and employment and other economic impacts.” Participants will address the scope of economic impacts of nanotechnology; input and output factors; metrics for other technological assessments; consideration of the appropriateness of these metrics for nanotechnology materials and products; the role of research funding portfolios; intellectual property frameworks; venture capital; public-private partnerships; state and local initiatives; international cooperation; and metrics such as private sector and industry investments, patents and publications, and the development of a technologically-educated workforce as metrics for nanotechnology. Attendees are being invited from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and expertise, including technology leaders, key decision makers, economists, investors, policy analysts, scientists and engineers from industry, business, government, academia, and the general public. Registration will open February 10, 2012, and will be on a first-come, first-served basis until the capacity is met. Positions are expected to fill quickly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 26, 2012, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning its conditional registration of a pesticide product containing nanosilver as a new active ingredient for use as a preservative for textiles.  NRDC states that it seeks to limit public exposure to the nanosilver’s use in clothing, baby blankets, and other textiles. On December 1, 2011, EPA announced its conditional approval of HeiQ AGS-20.  As a condition of registration, EPA is requiring HeiQ to conduct a number of studies within four years, which EPA chose to allow time for protocol reviews prior to initiation of the studies, completion of the studies, and its review of the study results. NRDC states that it seeks to block EPA “from allowing nanosilver on the market without the legally-required data about its suspected harmful effects on humans and wildlife.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 25, 2012, the National Research Council (NRC) posted the pre-publication version of its report entitled A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked NRC to perform an independent study to develop and monitor the implementation of an integrated research strategy to address the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) aspects of engineered nanomaterials (ENM). NRC convened the Committee to Develop a Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials, which concluded that there is need for a research strategy that is independent of any one stakeholder group, has human and environmental health as its primary focus, builds on past efforts, and is flexible in anticipating and adjusting to emerging challenges.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Lynn L. Bergeson will participate in a February 7, 2012, Bloomberg BNA webinar entitled “The Greening of Consumer Products:  Legal, Regulatory, and Strategic Considerations.” Bloomberg BNA states that the webinar is intended to help users:

• Identify the core concepts of green product development and the maturation of conventional environmental protection themes on which green product steward concepts rely;
• Describe the diversity of legal and regulatory authorities, domestic and international, that are relevant to chemical, industrial, and consumer product manufacturers from a legal compliance perspective;
• Analyze the role of private party standards and evolving concepts of product stewardship in product design and management;
• Address the trends and emerging themes embedded in the commercial value chain that must be monitored to be competitive and successful;
• Explore the challenges and value of green product marketing; and
• Develop basic strategies for legal compliance and commercial success in green product marketing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association, North Carolina Department of Commerce, and Center of Innovation for Nanobiotechnology will co-host the Nanotech Commercialization Conference on April 4-5, 2012, in Research Triangle, North Carolina. Lynn L. Bergeson will speak at the Conference, which will include:

• National-level keynote speakers;
• Sessions, workshops, and exhibits showcasing the latest advances in the field;
• Discussions on financing, licensing, and business development geared toward the nanotech entrepreneur;
• Sessions and exhibits showcasing cutting-edge research, products, and technologies; and
• Networking opportunities with connected professionals.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 30, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report entitled EPA Needs to Manage Nanomaterial Risks More Effectively. According to OIG, the purpose of its review was to determine how effectively EPA is managing the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials. OIG states that it found “that EPA does not currently have sufficient information or processes to effectively manage the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials.” According to OIG, although EPA has the statutory authority to regulate nanomaterials, it “currently lacks the environmental and human health exposure and toxicological data to do so effectively.” EPA proposed a policy, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), that would identify new pesticides being registered with nanoscale materials.  After “minimal industry participation” in EPA’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP), a voluntary data collection program, EPA has chosen to propose mandatory reporting rules for nanomaterials under FIFRA, and is developing proposed rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As You Sow, a non-governmental organization (NGO), has published a framework providing guidelines intended for food and food packaging companies to assess exposure to and potential risks from food and food packaging products containing nanomaterials. According to As Your Sow, more than a dozen food companies, scientific organizations, and investor groups reviewed the framework, including:  Kraft, McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Whole Foods, and Yum! Brands; the Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Project on Emerging Nanotechnology, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Technical University of Denmark; As You Sow, Calvert Investments, and the Investor Environmental Health Network.  The framework offers tiered recommendations of steps companies should take and information they should obtain from their suppliers regarding the safety testing of nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials.  As You Sow recommends that, until there are “firm regulatory requirements and/or a central repository for safety data on nanomaterials, information requested in this framework should be provided to food and food packaging companies by their suppliers.” 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A coalition of nonprofit consumer safety and environmental groups sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on December 21, 2011.  The coalition is led by the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), and includes Friends of the Earth, Food and Water Watch, the Center for Environmental Health, the ETC Group, and the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy. ICTA states that its lawsuit “demands” FDA respond to the coalition’s 2006 petition. The 2006 petition requested FDA take several actions, including requiring specific product labeling and health and safety testing; analyzing the environmental and health impacts of nanomaterials in products approved by FDA; and regulating sunscreens containing nanomaterials. In the December 21, 2011, complaint, the coalition states that, since 2006, “nanomaterial consumer products have continued to proliferate without oversight.” The coalition asks the court to order FDA to respond to its 2006 petition without further delay.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published on December 28, 2011, proposed significant new use rules (SNUR) for 17 chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN). Of particular interest, seven of the PMN substances’ reported chemical names include the term “carbon nanotube” (CNT) or “CNT.”  EPA states that because of a lack of established nomenclature for CNTs, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory names for CNTs are currently in generic form, e.g., “carbon nanotube (CNT), multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT), double-walled carbon nanotube (DWCNT), or single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT).” EPA uses the specific structural characteristics provided by the PMN submitter to characterize more specifically the TSCA Inventory listing for an individual CNT. According to EPA, all submitters of new chemical notices for CNTs have claimed those specific structural characteristics as confidential business information (CBI). The proposed rule includes the generic chemical name along with the PMN number to identify that a distinct chemical substance was the subject of the PMN without revealing the confidential chemical identity of the PMN substance. Comments are due January 27, 2012.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 7, 2011, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) posted an item on its Science Blog entitled “Respiratory Protection for Workers Handling Engineered Nanoparticles.” The purpose of the blog item is to provide an update on the science and rationale behind NIOSH’s recommendations for the use and selection of respirators against engineered nanoparticles. The article summarizes respirator performance research and respirator selection. Concerning next steps, NIOSH states that, while its research to date has been done in laboratory settings, using filtration test systems and manikins under aggressive test conditions, further research is needed in field settings and using human test subjects.  According to NIOSH, “[w]ell-designed studies on face seal leakage of nanoparticles, especially workplace protection factor (WPF) studies that validate assigned protection factor (APF) levels for respirators against nanoparticles will be important,” and such studies are already underway.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 1, 2011, that it is conditionally registering a pesticide product containing nanosilver as a new active ingredient. HeiQ AGS-20 is a silver-based antimicrobial pesticide product approved for use as a preservative for textiles.  The final registration is not yet in the docket.  We believe, but cannot confirm, the final registration is largely similar to the draft proposed registration issued last year. As members of the nano community know well, this is very good news and demonstrates that EPA is prepared to make regulatory decisions involving nanotechnology, even where, as here, they are likely to inspire controversy.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 15, 2011, the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus hosted a briefing on the impact of nanotechnology on job creation. Topics addressed included the best ways to encourage private/public partnerships; what kind of jobs nanotechnology investment can create; and where private capital is investing money in nanotechnology. Guest speakers included:

• Hilary Flynn, Lux Research;
• Doug Jamison, Chief Executive Office, Harris & Harris; and
• Robert D. “Skip” Rung, President and Executive Director, Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute.

As noted in Jamison and Flynn’s slides, the discussion reinforced the view that nanotechnology is creating jobs and helping grow the economy. The U.S. is in danger of losing ground to the European Union and emerging economies, however. Rung described how state and regional organizations can be helpful in promoting the commercialization of nanotechnologies.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 15, 2011, the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus will host a briefing on the impact of nanotechnology on job creation. Topics to be addressed include the best ways to encourage private/public partnerships; what kind of jobs nanotechnology investment can create; and where private capital is investing money in nanotechnology. Guest speakers will include:

• Robert D. “Skip” Rung, President and Executive Director, Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute;
• Doug Jamison, Chief Executive Office, Harris & Harris; and
• Hilary Flynn, Lux Research.

The briefing will begin at 3:00 p.m. in Room 385 of the Russell Senate Office Building. To RSVP, please contact Matt Bormet.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in an October 26, 2011, Federal Register notice its final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, which includes a request for comment and information for its 2011 annual reviews. EPA requests information on a number of topics, including discharges of nanosilver from industrial manufacturing. EPA cites nanosilver’s use as an active pesticide ingredient, an antimicrobial in fabric; a preservative in textile products, and coating in drums in washing machines. EPA states that, since many of these uses have the potential to create a source of silver in wastewater discharges, it “is interested in gathering as much information as possible on the fate, transport and effects of nanosilver on the aquatic environment and human health.” Comments on EPA’s 2011 reviews are due November 25, 2011.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Nanotechnology Caucus will hold a briefing on November 15, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. concerning jobs and nanotechnology. The briefing will focus on how targeted federal investments can lead to jobs down the road. More details will be forthcoming.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an October 28, 2011, Federal Register notice, the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer announced the initiation of “Translation of Nanotechnology in Cancer” (TONIC), a public private industry partnership intended to promote translational research and development opportunities of nanotechnology-based cancer solutions. The notice states that an immediate consequence of this effort is the formation of a consortium involving government and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The consortium will evaluate “promising nanotechnology platforms and facilitate their successful translation from academic research to clinical environment, resulting in safe, timely, effective and novel diagnosis and treatment options for cancer patients.” According to the notice, membership in the TONIC consortium will be limited to companies that: (1) have a successful track record of translating diagnostics and drug formulations and reaching their regulatory approval; and (2) are engaged in the development of nanotechnology-based formulations with application to imaging, diagnostics, and therapy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted a September 2011 guidance document entitled Guidance to Facilitate Decisions for Sustainable Nanotechnology, which was prepared by the National Risk Management Research Laboratory of the Office of Research and Development. EPA states that it developed the guidance to assist in assessing the sustainability of nanoproducts, and it is intended “to lay the groundwork for developing a decision-support framework through continual updates as research in this area progresses.”  The foundation of EPA’s approach, according to the guidance, is to consider existing standards and methods for environmental, economic, and social assessments using a life cycle perspective and offer guidance by relaying first-hand knowledge of applying assessment tools to nanotechnologies, whenever possible.  The guidance includes overviews of various assessment methodologies to help stakeholders make informed choices when selecting tools appropriate for their goals.  According to EPA, the key steps to be included in the evolving framework include:  characterizing a nanoproduct and identifying potential risks and impacts; identifying relevant stakeholders; defining the goal and scope of an assessment; assessing environmental, economic, and social impacts; evaluating sustainability criteria; developing and evaluating alternatives; and selecting and implementing a decision to support sustainability.  EPA will review and update the guidance as additional information becomes available.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 20, 2011, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) released its 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy (Strategy), which is intended to provide guidance to the federal agencies that produce scientific information for risk management, regulatory decision-making, product use, research planning, and public outreach. The Strategy lists the following core research areas providing this information: (1) nanomaterial measurement infrastructure; (2) human exposure assessment; (3) human health; (4) environment; (5) risk assessment and risk management methods; and (6) informatics and modeling. The Strategy also considers the ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI) of nanotechnology. NNI held a webinar on October 20, 2011, to announce the release of the Strategy, and Lynn L. Bergeson served on the panel. The Strategy, fact sheet, brochure, and webinar are available online.  NNI will post the panelist materials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) will hold a webinar on October 20, 2011, to announce the release of the 2011 NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Research Strategy, and to discuss the development of the Strategy and its key focus areas. Dr. John Howard, Co-Chair of the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group, will serve as the moderator. Panelists will include:

• Dr. Treye Thomas, NEHI Working Group Co-Chair;
• Dr. Shaun Clancy, Evonik DeGussa Corporation;
• Dr. Janet Carter, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); and
• Lynn L. Bergeson, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

The webinar will include a 20-minute question-and-answer segment following the presentations.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 6, 2011, Senator Mark L. Pryor (D-AR) introduced the Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011 (S. 1662), which is intended to address potential health and safety risks from products that contain nanotechnology materials. The bill would establish a program within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the health and safety implications of using nanotechnology in everyday products and develop best practices for companies using nanotechnology. The legislation would authorize $48 million over three years, beginning in fiscal year 2013. In his press release, Pryor noted that the FDA already has facilities in place, such as the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) in Jefferson, Arkansas, that could conduct the scientific studies required by the bill. Pryor stated that there are over 800 known commercial uses of nanotechnology and over 1,300 consumer nanotechnology products available. The bill was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has posted comments received on its July 29, 2011, revised proposed regulation concerning the specification of hazard traits, environmental and toxicological endpoints, and other relevant data that are to be included in California’s Toxics Information Clearinghouse.  The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will use information from the Clearinghouse to help identify chemicals of concern in consumer products as part of its Green Chemistry Program. OEHHA’s August 2010 pre-regulatory draft regulation included a “nanomaterial hazard trait,” as well as other references to nanoparticles, which OEHHA removed from its December 17, 2010, draft regulation. The revised regulation does not refer to nanomaterials or nanoparticles, but includes the following definition regarding particle size or fiber dimension:

(a)        The particle size or fiber dimension hazard trait is defined as the existence of a chemical substance in the form of small particles or fibers or the propensity to form into such small-sized particles or fibers with use or environmental release.

(b)        Evidence for the particle size or fiber dimension hazard trait includes, but is not limited to:  measures of particle size less than or equal to 10 micrometers in mass median aerodynamic diameter for inhalation exposure, or less than 10 micrometers in any dimension for dermal or ingestion exposure, or fibers with a 3:1 aspect ratio and a width less than or equal to 3 micrometers.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 22, 2011, during a meeting of nano interests in Washington, D.C., the following people spoke:

• Jeffrey Weiss, Senior Director, Technical Barriers to Trade, Office of the United States Trade Representative, “U.S. Trade Policy and Nanotechnology”;
• Richard A. Canady, Ph.D., Director, Center for Human Health Risk Assessment Research Foundation, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), “NanoRelease and NanoCharacter Projects”; and
• Maria J. Doa, Ph.D., Acting Director of Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Regulation of Carbon Nanotubes under the Toxic Substances Control Act.”

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG) recently prepared a statement concerning nanosilver and its long history of safe and regulated use. SNWG notes the similarities between nanosilver and other antimicrobial silver materials available in the marketplace.  SNWG states that it “has interacted with the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] in challenged exchanges on how best to regulate nanopesticides leading to a clear, reasonable, and responsible path for registration.” SNWG urges EPA and other agencies not to impose unwarranted barriers to emerging nanotechnology industries. Instead, SNWG asks that EPA and other agencies “nourish the benefits these can provide while screening finished products claiming pesticidal properties on a case by case basis for any environmental risk.” SNWG seeks “a sensible path forward for registering nanopesticides that is not burdensome for either the government or industry.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The August 25, 2011, issue of Nature includes a letter from Hermann Stamm, European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (IHCP). In response to Andrew Maynard’s article entitled “Don’t define nanomaterials,” in the July 7, 2011, issue of Nature, Stamm argues that a definition of engineered nanomaterials for regulatory purposes is “urgently needed.” Maynard proposes that a “‘one size fits all’ definition of nanomaterials will fail to capture what is important for addressing risk,” and suggests that regulators use “a list of nine or ten attributes (including size and surface area) for which certain values trigger action.” Stamm, however, maintains that size is “the most appropriate parameter on which to base a broad definition.” Maynard concludes that adaptive regulations are necessary to respond to scientific evidence, while Stamm acknowledges that a definition “would need revision in line with fresh scientific evidence.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released on August 17, 2011, a document entitled Advancing Regulatory Science at FDA: A Strategic Plan. FDA states that its core responsibility is to protect consumers by applying the best possible science to its regulatory activities.  FDA notes that rapid advances in innovative science have provided new technologies to discover, manufacture, and assess novel medical products, and to improve food safety and quality. To keep pace with and use these new scientific advances, FDA developed the Strategic Plan. According to the Strategic Plan, one of the ways FDA intends to support new approaches to improve product manufacturing and quality is by developing new analytical methods, including improved methods and tools to detect and measure the physical structure, chemical properties, and safety of engineered nanomaterials in FDA-regulated products. The priority area entitled “Ensure FDA Readiness to Evaluate Innovative Emerging Technologies” includes the following statement regarding nanotechnology:

As medical products are being revolutionized by cutting-edge technologies like nanotechnology, it is more critical than ever for FDA to fully understand how nanomaterials are being used in these products.  FDA has established Nanotechnology Core Centers to provide critically needed equipment and technical staff to conduct product assessment and safety research in support of regulatory decision making.  These centers will facilitate investigations on the safety of products that use nanomaterials, establish methods to assess quality and effectiveness of products that use nanomaterials, and identify standards to be incorporated in the preclinical safety assessment of products that contain nanomaterials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has posted the presentations from the March 10-11, 2011, workshop entitled “US-EU: Bridging NanoEHS Research Efforts,” which was intended to continue the robust dialogue between the U.S. and European Union (EU) on issues of shared concern pertinent to nanotechnology research initiatives. The workshop covered the following areas:

• Significant discussion about environmental, health, and safety (EHS) questions for nanotechnology-enabled products;
• Hands-on participation in joint programs of work that will better leverage resources; and
• Development of communities of practice areas, including identification of key points of contact, interest groups, themes between key U.S. and EU researchers, and key U.S. and EU funding sources for near-term and future collaborations.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) re-introduced on August 1, 2011, the Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities Act (NANO Act), which seeks to promote the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology in the U.S. According to Rep. Honda, the legislation is designed to maintain the U.S.’s leadership role in nanotechnology research by promoting the development and commercialization of the results. At the same time, the NANO Act addresses concerns raised about the potential health and safety risks associated with nanotechnology. It would require the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) to develop a report for Congress outlining a national nanotechnology development strategy after consulting with relevant federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute of Environmental Health and Safety (NIEHS), and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on nanotechnology’s potential risks. Through creation of research priorities for the federal government and industry that will help ensure development and responsible stewardship, the NANO Act looks to remove uncertainty about risk and future federal regulation -- resolving uncertainty as one of the major obstacles to commercialization. The NANO Act also includes provisions to create partnerships, raise awareness, and implement policies promoting nanotechnology, including public-private investment partnerships; grant programs supporting research and education; tax credits for investments, education, and training in nanotechnology; and directing the National Science Foundation (NSF) to partner with industry to encourage development of training to support nanotechnology manufacturing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) issued a June 29, 2011, report entitled Racing Ahead: U.S. Agri-Nanotechnology in the Absence of Regulation, which claims that at least 1,300 products with engineered nanotechnology materials (ENM) have been commercialized, “despite myriad uncertainties about the public health and environmental effects of ENMs.” According to the report, several steps are needed for an operative and mandatory regulatory structure for nanotechnology products and processes, including an agreed legal definition of what constitutes an ENM and nanotech product data. The report describes the June 9, 2011, announcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of their intent to issue voluntary guidance to industry on nanotechnology products as “a small, but encouraging first step toward regulation.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced on July 29, 2011, that it revised its proposed regulation concerning the specification of hazard traits, environmental and toxicological end-points, and other relevant data that are to be included in California’s Toxics Information Clearinghouse.  The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will use information from the Clearinghouse to help identify chemicals of concern in consumer products as part of its Green Chemistry Program. Comments are due September 12, 2011.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed policy on nanoscale materials in pesticide products are due August 17, 2011. EPA offers two approaches for obtaining the information EPA believes it needs concerning nanoscale materials in pesticide products. Under the first approach, EPA would use Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to obtain information regarding what nanoscale material is present in a registered pesticide product and its potential effects on humans or the environment. EPA states that it would “prefer” to use this approach, despite industry’s concern over the use of the “adverse effects” reporting provision to obtain information. Under the second approach, EPA would use a data call-in (DCI) under FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(B). EPA also proposes to apply an initial presumption that active and inert ingredients that are the nanoscale versions of non-nanoscale active and inert ingredients already present in registered pesticide products are potentially different from those conventionally sized counterparts. Registrants could rebut this initial presumption on a case-by-case basis.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 19, 2011, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) announced the release of four reports from a series of workshops focusing on issues in the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety (EHS) arena. According to NNI, the workshops were a part of an ongoing strategy to coordinate nanotechnology-related EHS research by convening experts from industry, academia, and the federal government to share the latest information and newest developments, to discuss the current state-of-the-science, and to identify research gaps in the nanotechnology-related EHS field. NNI states that “knowledge gleaned from the nanoEHS workshop series was critical to the development of the soon-to-be-released, updated NNI EHS Research Strategy.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) July 7, 2011, Regulatory Agenda includes several notices concerning nanoscale materials:

• Test Rule for Certain Nanoscale Materials -- EPA states that it is developing a test rule under Section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require manufacturers (defined by statute to include importers) and processors of the multiwall carbon nanotube described in Premanufacture Notice (PMN) P-08-199, certain clays (e.g., kaolin (including halloysite) and bentonite (including montmorillonite)), alumina, and spray-applied nanomaterials to conduct testing for health effects, ecological effects, and environmental fate, as well as provide material characterization data. EPA intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in August 2011.
• Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) -- EPA is developing a SNUR for nanoscale materials under TSCA Section 5(a)(2). The SNUR would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process this/these chemical substance(s) for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. In addition, according to the notice, EPA is developing a proposal to require reporting and recordkeeping under TSCA Section 8(a), which would require that persons who manufacture these nanoscale materials notify EPA of certain information, including production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and available health and safety data. The notice regarding a TSCA Section 8(a) rulemaking was previously separate, but EPA states “those two efforts were combined into a single rulemaking.” EPA submitted a proposed rule regarding TSCA Section 8(a) reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review on November 22, 2010, where it remains. According to the notice, EPA intended to publish an NPRM in June 2011. Nothing has been published to date, however.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to publish a Federal Register notice on July 13, 2011, extending the comment period concerning possible approaches for obtaining information about what nanoscale materials are present in registered pesticide products until August 17, 2011. EPA states that it received requests from CropLife America, the Biocides Panel of the American Chemistry Council, the Chemical Producers & Distributors Association, and the International Center for Technology Assessment. The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) also requested a 90-day extension of the comment period, which was not granted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, announced that the Science and Space Subcommittee will hold a hearing on July 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT) on national nanotechnology investment. According to Rockefeller’s July 1, 2011, press release, as the Commerce Committee considers a reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the hearing will examine the potential of nanotechnology, federal initiatives to coordinate research investments, barriers to commercialization, possible environmental and health risks, and steps Congress can take to improve the return on federal nanotechnology investments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Nanotechnology Caucus will hold a lecture entitled “Nanotechnology 101” on June 22, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. (EDT) in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Please note that the location has been corrected.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the June 17, 2011, Federal Register a notice describing several possible approaches for obtaining certain additional information on the composition of pesticide products. EPA focuses particularly on information about what nanoscale materials are present in registered pesticide products, and defines “nanoscale material” as “an active or inert ingredient and any component parts thereof intentionally produced to have at least one dimension that measures between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers (nm).” Under one approach, EPA would use Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to obtain information regarding what nanoscale material is present in a registered pesticide product and its potential effects on humans or the environment. Under an alternative approach, EPA would obtain such information using a data call-in (DCI) under FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(B). According to the notice, EPA believes FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) “is the most efficient and expedient administrative approach to obtaining information about nanoscale materials in pesticides and EPA would prefer to use this approach.” The notice also proposes a “new approach” that EPA will use to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a nanoscale active or inert ingredient is a “new” active or inert ingredient for purposes of FIFRA and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, even when an identical, non-nanoscale form of the nanoscale ingredient is already registered. Comments are due July 18, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Nanotechnology Caucus will hold a lecture entitled “Nanotechnology 101” on June 22, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. (EDT) in Room 253 of the Dirksen Senate Building. The agenda includes:

• Opening Remarks: Vincent Caprio, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Commercialization Association;
• Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR);
• Sally Tinkle, Ph.D., Acting Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology National Science and Technology Council;
• Travis Earles, Ph.D. (Invited), Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology Initiatives, Lockheed Martin Corporation (formerly Assistant Director of Nanotechnology, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy);
• Jim Hussey, CEO, NanoInk;
• Frank Ignazzitto, Vice President, Government Business, QD Vision, Inc.;
• Ajay Malshe (Invited), Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer, NanoMech; and
• Scott Livingston, Chairman and CEO, Livingston Securities.

To RSVP, please contact Vincent Caprio.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 9, 2011, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced that the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) has developed a set of principles specific to the regulation and oversight of applications of nanotechnology. The principles are intended to guide the development and implementation of policies, as described in the title “U.S. Decision-making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials” that occur at the agency level. According to OSTP, the principles reinforce the overarching principles for the regulation and oversight of emerging technologies released on March 11, 2011. The principles also reflect recommendations from a report on nanotechnology prepared by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and, importantly, reflect the results of a multi-agency, consensus-based process lead by the National Economic Council (NEC), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OSTP, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). OSTP states that the goals of all of these documents “are to achieve consistent approaches across different emerging technologies and to ensure the protection of public health and the environment while avoiding unjustifiably inhibiting innovation, stigmatizing new technologies, or creating trade barriers.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on June 9, 2011, a pre-publication copy of a forthcoming Federal Register notice describing several possible approaches for obtaining certain additional information on the composition of pesticide products. EPA focuses particularly on information about what nanoscale materials are present in registered pesticide products, and defines “nanoscale material” as “an active or inert ingredient and any component parts thereof intentionally produced to have at least one dimension that measures between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers (nm).” Under one approach, EPA would use Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to obtain information regarding what nanoscale material is present in a registered pesticide product and its potential effects on humans or the environment. Under an alternative approach, EPA would obtain such information using a data call-in (DCI) under FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(B). According to the notice, EPA believes FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) “is the most efficient and expedient administrative approach to obtaining information about nanoscale materials in pesticides and EPA would prefer to use this approach.” The notice also proposes a “new approach” that EPA will use to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a nanoscale active or inert ingredient is a “new” active or inert ingredient for purposes of FIFRA and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), even when an identical, non-nanoscale form of the nanoscale ingredient is already registered. Comments will be due 30 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The June 6-8, 2011, Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) International Conference on Nanotechnology for Renewable Materials will include a “Lunch-n-Learn” session on June 6, 2011, from 12:00-1:00 p.m. (EDT). During the luncheon, which will be held in Washington, D.C., in Senate Visitors Center Room 201, TAPPI will introduce a Public-Private-Partnership model and its job creation potential in U.S. utilizing renewable nanocellulose materials. TAPPI will present leading edge research and development projects to help understand the significant impact federal investments give to keep the U.S. a global leader in manufacturing into the 21st century. RSVPs are due by 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on May 31, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a May 2011 letter, Representatives Ralph M. Hall (R-TX) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) ask Congressional members to join the bipartisan and bicameral Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus. The Caucus was formed over ten years ago and is intended to inform legislators about nanotechnology issues, including the effect of nanotechnology on job creation and other economic benefits to the U.S. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which was codified by Congress in 2003, coordinates the federal nanotechnology research and development of 25 federal agencies. Since enactment, the House has passed bills in the 110th (H.R. 5940) and 111th (H.R. 554 and H.R. 5116) Congresses to amend and reauthorize the NNI, but the Senate did not act in either Congress. Since fiscal year 2008, the NNI has received funding through annual appropriations bills. Nanotechnology stakeholders are urged to use this template letter to let their representatives and senators know of the importance of nanotechnology issues to their constituents and urge them to participate in the Caucus.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the University of California, San Francisco’s (UCSF) Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment announced the publication of its “Recommendations for Addressing Potential Health Risks from Nanomaterials in California,” which provides recommendations for addressing potential health risks from nanomaterials to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and to the state of California.  OEHHA contracted with UCSF to prepare the report, which provides an overview of nanotechnology materials, potential exposures, and human-health risks, and recommendations for addressing potential health hazards and risks from nanotechnology. Recommendations include those that can be implemented under the existing regulatory structure of OEHHA, such as establishing a publicly accessible clearinghouse and inventory of nanomaterial sources and products. The report also includes recommendations that are outside the scope of OEHHA, many of which may require legislative changes, such as requiring testing of release and exposure potential for nanomaterials in existing and new consumer products, and implementing a labeling system that requires labeling of products that contain nanomaterials.  According to UCSF, the recommendations primarily focus on requiring information on potential exposures and health hazards for nanomaterials used in the marketplace.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 6, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final significant new use rule (SNUR) under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance identified generically as multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT), which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-08-199. Under the final SNUR, persons intending to manufacture, import, or process MWCNT for a use that is designated as a significant new use by the final rule must notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. EPA states that it believes the final rule is necessary “because the chemical substance may be hazardous to human health,” and 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. The final rule will be effective June 6, 2011.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an important and little noticed May 3, 2011, Federal Register notice, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA) requested public comments concerning regulatory cooperation between the U.S. and the European Union (EU) that would help eliminate or reduce unnecessary divergences in regulation and in standards used in regulation that impede U.S. exports.  Of critical importance, the ITA plainly recognizes and acknowledges that the main impediments to greater trade and investment between the U.S. and EU “are not tariffs or quotas, but rather differences in regulatory measures.” The ITA seeks public input to help identify divergences in regulatory measures in the transatlantic marketplace, “so that the U.S. Government can work cooperatively with the European Union to address them.” This notice offers an important opportunity to educate the ITA on subtle, yet significant trade impacts that are derivative of regulatory and/or competitive issues. ITA also seeks recommendations for existing or emerging industry or product sectors that may benefit from regulatory cooperation between the U.S. and the EU. ITA asks that submitters be as specific as possible in describing the relevant product or product sector in which they believe there is an opportunity to facilitate trade without undermining U.S. public health, safety, environmental, and other legitimate policy objectives. ITA states that it is interested in receiving recommendations concerning any product sector that, due to the volume of trade between the U.S. and EU, “is a justifiable focus of enhanced regulatory cooperation.” Comments are due June 2, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In its 2011 position statement on sunscreens, the Nanodermatology Society states that it “believes that nano-based sunscreens do not pose serious health risks to consumers,” and agrees with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) that “[z]inc and titanium-based formulations are among the safest, most effective, sunscreens on the market.” According to the position statement, this is based on the current evidence showing:

• Consumers using zinc and titanium sunscreen products are exposed to 20 percent less UVA radiation than those using sunscreens without these products;
• Nano-titanium and zinc do not penetrate the outer layer of human skin, even through hair follicles; and
• Nano-titanium and zinc do not reach living cells, and therefore pose no risk of toxicity.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 14, 2011, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing entitled “Nanotechnology: Oversight of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for the Future.” Witnesses included:

• Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO);
• Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation;
• Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman of the Board, Liquidia Technologies;
• Dr. James Tour, Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, Rice University; and
• Mr. William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nanosphere, Inc.

The witnesses emphasized the need for Congress to reauthorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to ensure that the U.S. remains the global leader in nanotechnology. Other countries, such as Japan, China, and South Korea, have increased their investment in nanotechnology. Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL), Chair of the Subcommittee, thanked Dr. Teague for his service as Director of the NNCO. Dr. Teague’s last day will be April 15, 2011.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 6, 2011, several members of the NanoSafety Consortium submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a proposed testing agreement under Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under the proposed testing agreement, the substances to be tested may include multi-walled carbon nanotubes, double-walled carbon nanotubes, single-walled carbon nanotubes, and graphene nanoplatelets. Participants would conduct 90-day inhalation toxicity studies in rats, and submit interim progress reports to EPA at 60-day intervals, and a final report within 120 days of the conclusion of testing. Under the proposed testing agreement, if EPA promulgated a TSCA Section 5(a)(2) significant new use rule (SNUR) applicable to the test substances, then the testing agreement would have the status of a TSCA Section 5(b)(1)(A) test rule. The NanoSafety Consortium asked that EPA “expeditiously consider” the proposed testing agreement and begin the public comment and negotiation process at its “earliest possible convenience.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 14, 2011, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education will hold a hearing entitled “Nanotechnology:  Oversight of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for the Future.” Witnesses will include:

• Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office;
• Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation;
• Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman of the Board, Liquidia Technologies;
• Dr. James Tour, Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, Rice University; and
• Mr. William Moffitt, President and CEO, Nanosphere, Inc.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 25, 2011, the National Research Council (NRC) announced the availability of a report entitled Prudent Practices in the Laboratory, which updates NRC’s guidelines on the safe use of hazardous chemicals. NRC last updated the guidelines in 1995, and the new edition includes new topics, including the handling of nanomaterials. The update sets out general guidelines for the management of nanomaterials. NRC developed the guidelines “from accepted chemical hygiene protocols for handling compounds of unknown toxicity.” The guidelines cover topics such as planning and assessing the hazards of nanomaterial work, information on grading the risk of working with different types of nanomaterial, and suggestions on ways to make sure the working environment is designed to protect laboratory personnel from exposure to nanoparticles.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced that the University of Cincinnati NIOSH Education and Research Center (ERC) will sponsor a May 10, 2011, conference at the Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, on “Nanotechnology -- Health and Safety Considerations.” Registration is free. Speakers include:

• Dr. Andrew D. Maynard, Director, Risk Science Center, University of Michigan School of Public Health: “Nanomaterials dangerous? Who are you kidding! The art and science of working safely with sophisticated materials.”
• Dr. Kristen Kulinowski, Director, International Council of Nanotechnology, Rice University: “Training Workers to Safely Handle Nanomaterials.”
• Dr. Charles Geraci, NIOSH: “Recent Activities Specific to Carbon Nanotubes and Nano TiO₂. What are they, do they have broad application, and how do they impact a risk management program?”
• Dr. Vesselin Shanov, University of Cincinnati: “Advances in synthesis and application of carbon nanotube materials.”
• Dr. Jagjit Yadav, University of Cincinnati: “Toxicology of nanomaterials.”

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A March 11, 2011, memorandum from the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) sets forth the Obama Administration’s principles for regulation and oversight of emerging technologies, including nanotechnology. The ETIPC Co-Chairs include John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB); and Islam A. Siddiqui, Chief Agricultural Negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 10, 2011, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) announced the most recent update to its consumer products inventory, which now includes more than 1,300 manufacturer-identified, nanotechnology-enabled products, ranging from conventional products, such as non-stick cookware, to more unique items, like self-cleaning window treatments. When PEN launched its inventory in March 2006, it included 212 products. PEN Director David Rejeski predicted that, if the current trend continues, the number of products could reach 3,400 by 2020. Health and fitness items continue to dominate the PEN inventory, representing 56 percent of products listed. The most common nanomaterial used is nanoscale silver, which is used in 313 products (24 percent of the inventory). The inventory includes products from over 30 countries, including the U.S., China, Canada, Germany, and India.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 7, 2011, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced that it seeks comment on the types of hazard identification and risk management research that it should consider in updating the NIOSH 2009 nanotechnology strategic plan. According to the Federal Register notice, NIOSH would like to build on the accomplishments of ongoing research to develop strategic research goals and objectives through 2015. Comments are due April 15, 2011.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 17, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it awarded $5.5 million to three consortia to support innovative research on nanotechnology. EPA states that, in collaboration with the United Kingdom's (UK) Natural Environment Research Council, it is leading this scientific research effort to understand better the potential risks to people’s health and the environment. The grants EPA awarded are intended to help researchers determine whether certain nanomaterials can leach out of products such as paints, plastics, and fabrics when they are used or disposed of and whether they could become toxic to people and the environment.  According to EPA, the U.S. Consumer Product  Safety Commission (CPSC) has also contributed $500,000 through a new research partnership between the two agencies.  Grant awards were made to three consortia consisting of researchers from the U.S. and the UK Each U.S. team of researchers received $2 million from EPA and CPSC, for a total of $6 million. Each UK team will also receive $2 million from the UK agencies, resulting in a grand total of $12 million to conduct the research.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Under the fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget request submitted by President Obama to Congress on February 14, 2011, funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) would increase by $201 million, to $2.1 billion. According to an Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) fact sheet, agencies participating in the NNI have developed three signature initiatives in areas ready for advances through close and targeted program-level interagency collaboration: Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond; Sustainable Manufacturing: Creating the Industries of the Future; and Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion. Participating agencies will continue to support nanoscience and nanotechnology development through investigator-led research; multidisciplinary centers of excellence; education and training; and infrastructure and standards development. In addition, OSTP states, agencies will still maintain a focus on the responsible development of nanotechnology, with attention to potential human and environmental health impacts, as well as ethical, legal, and other societal issues. At a February 14, 2011, news briefing for reporters, OSTP Director John Holdren said budget reductions proposed by Republicans in Congress could be damaging if applied to federal research funding.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan. According to NNI, the Plan retains the “overall vision,” four goals, and eight program component areas outlined in the previous edition of the Plan, which was released in December 2007. For the first time, the Plan includes specific objectives under each goal, outlining concrete steps that NNI member agencies will take toward collectively achieving the NNI vision and goals.  NNI member agencies will use the Plan to guide the coordination of their research, training programs, and resources. NNI states that the Plan incorporates a broad rage of stakeholder input obtained through NNI-sponsored workshops, a formal Request for Information published in the Federal Register, and the NNI Strategy Portal website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has announced the release of the report for its April 2009 regional, state, and local (RSL) initiatives. According to NNI, the goals of the workshop and the report are “to advance development of nanotechnology research, education, infrastructure, commercialization, and positive societal outcomes by exploiting synergies between the various regional, state, and local initiatives; by promoting the sharing of information and resources; and by developing mechanisms for cross-sector interactions.” With stakeholder input from government, academia, industry, and RSL initiatives across the country, the workshop report outlines mechanisms for information exchange and improved collaboration among all sectors engaged in nanotechnology.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 10, 2011, Environmental Science & Technology posted a peer-reviewed pre-publication article entitled “120 Years of Nanosilver History:  Implications for Policy Makers,” which shows that nanosilver in the form of colloidal silver has been used for more than 100 years and, according to the authors, has been registered as a biocidal material in the U.S. since 1954.  The article states that 53 percent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered biocidal silver products likely contain nanosilver and most of the applications are silver-impregnated water filters, algicides, and antimicrobial additives that do not claim to contain nanoparticles.  The authors state: “The implications of this analysis for policy of nanosilver is that it would be a mistake for regulators to ignore the accumulated knowledge of our scientific and regulatory heritage in a bid to declare nanosilver materials as new chemicals, with unknown properties and automatically harmful simply on the basis of a change in nomenclature to the term ‘nano.’”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

B&C Consortia Management, L.L.C. (BCCM) is working with BASF Corporation (BASF) to create a consortium to provide the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) information on analytical methods that could be used to measure certain nanoscale materials in air, surface water, and soil.  The collaborative project will involve adapting known methods used to measure these substances in other media to the analysis of environmental media.  The term of the consortium will be at least two years, which can be modified by mutual agreement. On December 21, 2010, CDTSC issued a data call-in (DCI) for information regarding analytical test methods, and other relevant information, from manufacturers of nano silver, nano zero valent iron, nano titanium dioxide, nano zinc oxide, nano cerium oxide, and quantum dots. Experts within BASF will address issues concerning titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. BASF and BCCM seek other companies and experts to offer similar expertise for the remaining nanomaterials of interest and provide CDTSC with the help it needs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are pleased to announce that NanoBusiness Alliance (NbA) has selected Lynn L. Bergeson as one of its “Most Influential Nanotechnology Leaders from 2010.” The NbA is the industry association for the emerging nanotechnology industry. Through its extensive network of leading start-ups, Fortune 500 companies, research institutions, non-governmental organizations, and public-private partnerships, the NbA shapes nanotechnology policy and helps accelerate the responsible commercialization of nanotechnology innovation. On July 1, 2010, the NbA issued a Position Statement on Nanomaterials Product Sustainability, which reflects its members’ “enduring commitment to managing effectively the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nature Nanotechnology has posted a pre-publication version of an article entitled “Science Policy Considerations for Responsible Nanotechnology Decisions,” which is authored by regulatory officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), European Commission (EC), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The authors offer their perspectives on possible approaches to maximizing the environmental benefits of nanotechnology and products that contain nanomaterials while minimizing the negative impacts. For the path forward, the regulators recommend that researchers and risk managers work together to develop approaches to limit exposure and identify and address those properties of specific nanomaterial types that appear to be the source of potential hazards or exposures. According to the regulators, industry “should contribute significantly to this work because it best understands the characteristics and performance of the materials it produces, as well as what types of controls (such as personal protective equipment for workers) will function best in particular occupational situations.” In recognition of the possibility to avoid risk before nanomaterials enter the environment, the regulators “support the application of a life cycle perspective and encourage the development of safer-by-design methods and approaches such as green chemistry for sustainable production of chemicals in ways that reduce environmental impact.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 28, 2010, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116) was presented to President Obama for signature. The bill, as unanimously passed by the Senate on December 17, 2010, does not include reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The House passed similar legislation on May 28, 2010, by a vote of 262-150. The House bill would have reauthorized the NNI. The Senate version, on the other hand, contains no reference to nanotechnology.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) December 20, 2010, Regulatory Agenda includes several notices concerning nanoscale materials:

• Test Rule for Certain Nanoscale Materials -- EPA states that it is developing a test rule under Section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require manufacturers (defined by statute to include importers) and processors of the multiwall carbon nanotube described in Premanufacture Notice (PMN) P-08-199, certain clays (e.g., kaolin (including halloysite) and bentonite (including montmorillonite)), alumina, and spray-applied nanomaterials to conduct testing for health effects, ecological effects, and environmental fate, as well as provide material characterization data. EPA intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in April 2011.
• Reporting Under TSCA Section 8(a) -- Under TSCA Section 8(a), EPA is developing a proposal to establish reporting requirements for certain nanoscale materials.  According to the notice, the rule would propose that persons who manufacture these nanoscale materials notify EPA of certain information including production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and available health and safety data. The notice states that EPA intends to issue an NPRM in February 2011. EPA submitted a proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review on November 22, 2010.
• Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) -- EPA is developing a SNUR for nanoscale materials under TSCA Section 5(a)(2).  The SNUR would require persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process this/these chemical substance(s) for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. EPA intends to issue an NPRM in February 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 21, 2010, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) issued a data call-in (DCI) for information regarding analytical test methods, and other relevant information, from manufacturers of nano silver, nano zero valent iron, nano titanium dioxide, nano zinc oxide, nano cerium oxide, and quantum dots. According to CDTSC, Health and Safety Code Section 57018(a)(4) defines a “manufacturer” as a “person who produces a chemical in this state or imports a chemical into this state for sale in this state.”  Accordingly, CDTSC states, “persons and businesses who produce or import one or more of the above chemicals, in any quantity, must comply with the statute and this request.” CDTSC requests information about the analytical test methods that identify and quantify the specified nanomaterials, their metabolites, and their degradation products in water, air, soil, sediment, sludge, chemical waste, fish, blood, adipose tissue, and urine. CDTSC states it determined that little or no information on analytical test methods for these nanomaterials in the human body or the environment now exists.  To better understand the behavior, fate, and transport of these nanomaterials, CDTSC needs “appropriate analytical test methods” for manufacturers, contract and reference laboratories, and regulatory agencies.  CDTSC states that manufacturers “may be required to develop information consistent with the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 57019(c) and (d).” Manufacturers, including importers, must provide the requested information no later than one year from CDTSC’s December 21, 2010, letter, however, “timely attention and response is preferred.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 15, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it fined Kinetic Solutions Inc., doing business as Rabbit Air, $82,400 for allegedly selling unregistered and misbranded pesticides and making unproven claims about their effectiveness. According to EPA, Kinetic Solutions Inc. made illegal public health claims for its air purifier branded “Nano Silver Pre Filter” and the filter’s ability to control over 650 types of bacteria, a violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In addition, its air purifiers did not list a valid EPA Establishment Number on the packaging, a federal requirement that helps regulators keep track of where pesticides and devices are produced. EPA states that the violations were discovered through an online search and subsequent inspection by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). According to Kinetic Solutions Inc., the Nano Silver Pre Filter incorporates a substance called “nano silver” or “silver nano ions,” a substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate bacteria and mold. Products that kill or repel bacteria or germs are considered pesticides, and must be registered with the EPA prior to distribution or sale. According to EPA, the Nano Silver Pre Filter is a pesticide and was not registered as such as required by federal law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C) is pleased to announce that it attended the first day of the “Nanotechnology Innovation Summit,” which celebrated the tenth anniversary of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), to meet with many of our clients who showcased their products. The Summit was held December 8-10, 2010, at the Gaylord National Convention Center outside Washington, D.C. The Summit provided attendees an opportunity to meet with key federal government leaders and directors of many NNI agencies, as well as leaders and innovators from industry and academia.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) posted its Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Plan, which identifies mandated and selected assignment topics continuing from fiscal year (FY) 2010 and scheduled to be started during FY 2011. According to the Annual Plan, carryover assignments from FY 2010 include EPA’s approach to nanomaterials. The Annual Plan includes no additional information regarding the assignment, which is not included in its FY 2010 Annual Plan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in a December 13, 2010, Federal Register notice that it will hold a public information exchange meeting to receive comments and questions on the Nanomaterial Case Studies on January 4, 2011, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. According to EPA, the meeting will provide it an opportunity to highlight the Nanomaterial Case Studies and how EPA is using the studies as part of an ongoing process to refine a long-term research strategy to support the comprehensive environmental assessment of nanomaterials. Registration is required to attend the meeting, and EPA states that space is limited. Comments may be submitted in writing or made orally during the meeting. Written comments are due December 28, 2010. EPA intends to consider all such comments in evaluating whether or how to develop further case studies and workshops on nanomaterials. To date, EPA has published two Nanomaterial Case Studies -- Nanomaterial Case Studies: Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide in Water Treatment and in Topical Sunscreen (Final), and Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray (External Review Draft).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council request comments regarding the draft National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy (Strategy). The draft Strategy describes the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) environmental, health, and safety (EHS) vision and mission, the state of the science, and the research needed to achieve the vision.  It represents the consensus of the participating agencies on how to promote the responsible development of nanotechnology by providing guidance to federal agencies as they develop their agency-specific research priorities, strategies, and implementation plans to achieve this vision.  It describes the goals and research needs for five science topics that shape EHS research (nanomaterial measurement infrastructure, human exposure assessment, human health, environment, and risk assessment and risk management methods) and evaluates the state of the science for each of these topics.  The draft Strategy also includes an analysis of the fiscal year 2009 federal EHS research portfolio and identifies concepts and approaches to accelerate the pace of research in this crucial area.  The 2011 plan will update and replace the 2008 NNI EHS Research Strategy. Comments are due January 6, 2011.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released a draft Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) entitled Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers, which recommends that, until results from research studies can fully elucidate the physicochemical properties of carbon nanotubes (CNT) and carbon nanofibers (CNF) that define their inhalation toxicity, employers should take steps to minimize CNT and CNF exposures of all workers and implement an occupational health surveillance program that includes elements of hazard and medical surveillance.  The draft CIB includes more specific recommendations for employers and workers to minimize potential health risks associated with exposure to CNTs and CNFs. NIOSH will hold a public meeting on the draft CIB on February 3, 2011, in Cincinnati, Ohio. According to NIOSH, during the meeting, it will place special emphasis on:

• Whether the hazard identification, risk estimation, and discussion of health effects for CNTs and CNFs are a reasonable reflection of the current understanding of the evidence in the scientific literature;
• Workplaces and occupations where exposure to CNTs and CNFs occur;
• Current strategies for controlling occupational exposure to CNTs and CNFs (e.g., engineering controls, work practices, personal protective equipment);
• Current exposure measurement methods and challenges in measuring workplace exposures to CNTs and CNFs; and
• Areas for future collaborative efforts (e.g., research, communication, development of exposure measurement and control strategies).

Notification of intent to intend the meeting is due to NIOSH on January 28, 2011. Comments on the draft CIB are due February 18, 2011.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NanoBusiness Alliance included Lynn L. Bergeson in its recent interview series. The interview covers a wide range of issues related to nanotech environmental, health and safety, including such “hot” topics as establishing a nano nomenclature that is uniform, thoughtful, and useful for regulatory purposes; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) three Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) proposals that will have an immediate and significant impact on the commercialization of nanoscale materials; and the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs development of a policy under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that will apply to nanopesticides. The NanoBusiness Alliance is an industry association founded to advance the emerging business of nanotechnology and microsystems for corporations, start-ups, researchers, universities, investors, and a host of other key stakeholders.  The Alliance’s mission is to create a collective voice for the emerging small-tech industry and develop a range of initiatives to support and strengthen the nanotechnology business community, through public policy efforts, events, research, and the creation of partnerships.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 18, 2010, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate nano-copper pesticides. ICTA, which petitioned EPA in May 2008 to regulate nano-silver and other nano-pesticide products, singles out three registrations obtained by Osmose, Inc. for “micronized” copper carbonate. According to ICTA, “it does not appear that Osmose advised EPA when it applied for these three registrations that any of these products included intentionally produced nanoscale material, but, as explained below, it clearly knew this was the case.” The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has stated that it intends to treat any pesticide products containing nanoscale materials as new products, and ICTA notes that “registrants were also on notice well before 2008 that OPP wanted any applicant requesting registration of a pesticide product containing a nanoscale active ingredient or inert ingredient to disclose that fact during the application process.” ICTA claims that Osmose used the formulator’s exemption to register its products, although it intentionally modified the structure of the purchased active ingredient to create nanoscale particles, which it neglected to tell EPA. ICTA requests that EPA “immediately investigate” the three products, and revoke the registrations, if EPA determines that Osmose registered the products on the basis of an invalid claim. ICTA also requests that EPA “thoroughly investigate other possible nanoscale copper products, which should include but not be limited to copper-based wood treatment products currently available on the market, as similar actions under FIFRA may be necessary.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 16, 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Risk-Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis (ORACBA) convened a Risk Forum on “Moving Beyond Nanogeneralities -- Providing Focus to Nanopolicy Progress.” Presenters included Richard Canady, Ph.D., DABT, Director, Center for Human Health Risk Assessment Research Foundation of the International Life Sciences Institute; Steve Froggett, Expert Consultant, ICF International, Inc; and Guillaume Gruere, International Food Policy Research Institute. The speakers propose that the issues concerning nanotechnology and nanomaterials are so varied, broad, and controversial that they impeded the development of beneficial uses, even where the risks are negligible. The speakers suggest that, early in any discussion or in any risk assessment of nanomaterial uses, the problem selection and problem formulation are critical. If the selection and formulation are done well, regulators and stakeholders can make progress in risk assessment policy and risk management of specific uses of nanomaterials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 22, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) reporting rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. According to EPA’s April 26, 2010, Regulatory Agenda, the proposed rule would require persons who manufacture nanoscale materials notify EPA of certain information including available use, production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and available toxicity data pertinent to existing nanoscale materials. EPA states that the proposed reporting of these activities will provide it with an opportunity to evaluate the information and consider appropriate action under TSCA to reduce any risk to human health or the environment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 16, 2010, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) released revisions to its safer consumer product alternatives regulations for a 15-day comment period. Of particular note, CDTSC has removed all references to nanotechnology and nanomaterials in the proposed regulations, which previously defined nanomaterials and included “physical, chemical, or quantum properties specific to nanomaterials” on the list of prioritization factors that CDTSC would consider in placing chemicals on the list of Chemicals Under Consideration. The revised proposed regulations also no longer exclude nanomaterials from the de minimis exemption. Under the Green Chemistry Program, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will specify the hazard traits, environmental and toxicological end-points, and other relevant data to include in the state’s Toxics Information Clearinghouse. CDTSC will use information from the clearinghouse to help identify chemicals of concern in consumer products. OEHHA’s pre-regulatory draft regulation includes reference to nanoparticles and defines a “nanomaterial hazard trait.” Comments on CDTSC’s revised proposed regulations are due December 3, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has posted a June 17, 2010, document entitled “Interim Technical Guidance for Assessing Screening Level Environmental Fate and Transport of, and General Population, Consumer, and Environmental Exposure to Nanomaterials.” According to the Interim Guidance, EPA prepared it “to serve as a guide when developing screening level exposure and environmental fate and transport assessments for nanomaterials,” such as those submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) New Chemicals Program.  The Interim Guidance is applicable for neat nanomaterials (i.e., powdered or particulate forms), as opposed to nanoscale particles embedded within composites.  At this time, according to the Interim Guidance, EPA does not have models or methods capable of predicting the fate of, or exposure to, nanoscale particulates in the environment.  This fact, combined with the limited data for nanomaterials, means that there is uncertainty in estimating removal efficiencies, degradation half-lives, partitioning, and transport of nanomaterials.  To address the uncertainty, EPA recommends using a conservative bounding “what if” scenario, which assumes that nanomaterials are not removed during wastewater treatment or incineration (i.e., 0 percent removal efficiency), are persistent (i.e., P3), are highly bioaccumulative (i.e., B3), and are highly mobile in groundwater unless measured data is available that proves otherwise.  EPA describes this conservative approach as “prudent at this time given the limited available data and lack of historical knowledge regarding the behavior of nanomaterials in the environment.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Standards Board’s (NOSB) October 25-28, 2010, meeting, NOSB unanimously recommended that the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) prohibit engineered nanomaterials from certified organic products. NOSB considered a September 2, 2010, guidance document prepared by its Materials Committee concerning engineered nanomaterials in organic production, processing, and packaging. According to the Materials Committee, public comment “overwhelmingly agrees that nanotechnology in organic production and processing be prohibited at this time.” The Materials Committee notes, however, that “there is considerable debate and disagreement on what exactly nanotechnology is and what products of nanotechnology should be prohibited.”. The Materials Committee requested that the NOP allow NOSB to call for a symposium “to discuss the issues related to the human-engineered portion of this science,” which “would help to clarify these confusing issues, and serve to educate both the Board and the NOP on this topic.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 4, 2010, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) released a report entitled Voluntary Initiatives, Regulation, and Nanotechnology Oversight: Charting a Path, which reviews a number of voluntary options available for the oversight of nanotechnology products and processes. The report classifies the various types of voluntary initiatives and the partnerships that underlie them, and assesses the factors that are most likely to contribute to program success. The thesis of the report is that both non-regulatory and voluntary initiatives can play a constructive role in nanotechnology oversight. The report concludes that as nanotechnologies move forward, voluntary programs will play an important role in the governance portfolio available to the federal government, as well as states and municipalities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) draft Strategic Plan is available for comment until November 30, 2010. The Strategic Plan is the framework that underpins the work of the 25 NNI member agencies.  The Strategic Plan is intended to ensure that advances in nanotechnology research and development (R&D) and their applications to agency missions and the broader national interest continue. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to facilitate achievement of the NNI vision by providing guidance for agency leaders, program managers, and the research community regarding planning and implementation of nanotechnology R&D investments and activities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has posted an October 2010 Impact Sheet entitled “NIOSH Research Methods Demonstrate that Breathing Nanoparticles May Result in Damaging Health Effects,” which reports the results of recently published research concerning the health effects of inhaling single-walled carbon nanotubes. According to the Impact Sheet, NIOSH scientists invented a way to suspend nanotubes in air, thus allowing for control of the concentration of particles, unlike previous studies, which dosed the mice through aspiration. NIOSH scientists placed the mice into a controlled environment where they would breathe the air containing the particles, and studied the effects of exposure after one, seven, and 28 days.  The Impact Sheet states that, although the effects were similar, the new results “demonstrated that carbon nanotubes were more potent when inhaled than when aspirated.”  According to NIOSH, “this research has shown early indications of serious health outcomes that may have longer term effects such as cancer, and therefore, ongoing research is important to more clearly understand the implications of exposure to carbon nanotubes.  This study and continued NIOSH research could soon help the development of occupational safety and health recommendations for carbon nanotubes that will protect the health of nanotechnology workers.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a September 27, 2010, press release, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it will award $9.4 million over three years to support four research projects in regulatory science.  NIH will make the awards in partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which will contribute approximately $950,000.  According to the press release, the projects include research on nanoparticles and their characterization. NIH states that the projects were chosen “because they were the most meritorious proposals for addressing high priority areas in cutting-edge biomedical research and regulatory science.” Dennis E. Hourcade, Ph.D., Washington University, St. Louis, will receive funding for “Characterization/Bioinformatics-Modeling of Nanoparticle:  Complement Interactions.” NIH defines regulatory science as “the development and use of the scientific knowledge, tools, standards, and approaches necessary for the assessment of medical product safety, efficacy, quality, potency, and performance.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The State Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Pesticide Operations and Management (POM) Committee held a meeting on September 20, 2010. During the meeting, Jennifer McLain, Associate Director of the Antimicrobials Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), provided an update on EPA’s regulation of pesticides containing nanoscale materials. McLain’s presentation includes two previously unreported OPP regulatory activities. First, according to McLain, OPP intends to require that nanoproducts be labeled in the same way as other pesticide products. Ingredients would be listed as “nano-X,” and OPP would evaluate the claims on a case-by-case basis. Second, OPP apparently is considering issuing data call-ins to obtain information EPA may need to evaluate the registerability under FIFRA of nanoscale materials. Using its FIFRA data call-in authority is, of course, an option several industry groups have been urging in lieu of repurposing FIFRA Section 6(a)(2).

Plainly, OPP’s cryptic reference to FIFRA “nano labeling” requires far more explanation and some observers may find it disturbing. The presentation’s statement that “Nano-Products will be labeled the [sic] in the same way as other pesticide products” is, of course, ambiguous at best. Such an approach would lead to a number of important questions: What exactly is subject to labeling? Will the presence of any nanoscale material in a formulation trigger a nano label? How will confidentiality issues be addressed? The presentation raises other thorny issues, many of which appear to not have been publicly discussed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced on September 22, 2010, that it entered into a formal partnership with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Center for High-Rate Nanomanufacturing (CHN) that is intended to provide companies with practical research and guidance to promote occupational health and safety in nanotechnology. Through the new partnership, University of Massachusetts (UMass) Lowell, CHN, and NIOSH will “address safety issues so that discoveries can quickly turn into commercially available products.” NIOSH and UMass Lowell research teams will evaluate potential exposure to nanomaterials and recommend solutions at small- to medium-sized companies and research laboratories. NIOSH will publish best practices developed by UMass Lowell and CHN. UMass Lowell will host and NIOSH will co-sponsor the 5th International Symposium on Nanotechnology, Occupational, and Environmental Health on August 9-12, 2011, in Boston.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 22, 2010, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public workshop on state and federal nanomaterial activities. During the workshop, CDTSC and EPA discussed the results of California’s data call-in (DCI) for carbon nanotubes (CNT), its plans for future DCIs, and EPA’s efforts related to CNTs. The candidate chemicals for CDTSC’s second DCI, which it intends to issue this Fall, include nanosilver, nano zero valent iron, nano titanium dioxide, nano zinc oxide, nano cerium oxide, and quantum dots. CDTSC may also include in the DCI a request for more information concerning CNTs incorporated in nanometals. According to CDTSC, the DCI will focus its initial questions on analytical test methods for the respective nanomaterial chemical, as well as its metabolites and breakdown products, in various matrices. The meeting presentations for each of the DCI candidates include more specific information regarding applications, production, human health and environmental concerns, why CDTSC is interested, and possible DCI questions.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 17, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final significant new use rules (SNUR) for two chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN). The two chemical substances are identified generically as multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) (PMN P08177) and single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) (PMN P08328). Persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process either of these substances for a use that is designated as a significant new use by the final rule must notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. EPA states that it believes the SNURs are necessary because these chemical substances may be hazardous to human health and the environment. 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. The final rule is effective October 18, 2010.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) has rescheduled its workshop on state and federal nanomaterial activities for September 22, 2010. CDTSC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) are cosponsoring the workshop to discuss the results of California’s carbon nanotube (CNT) information call-in, future data call-in requests for additional nanomaterials, and federal efforts related to CNTs for nanomaterials. The workshop is open to the public.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has released for comment a pre-regulatory draft regulation regarding the specification of hazard traits, environmental and toxicological end-points, and other relevant data that are to be included in California’s Toxics Information Clearinghouse. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) will use information from the Clearinghouse to help identify chemicals of concern in consumer products as part of its Green Chemistry Program.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 23, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will hold a public workshop entitled “Medical Devices & Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and Biocompatibility Considerations.” According to FDA, the purpose of the workshop is to obtain information on manufacturing, characterization, and biocompatibility evaluation of medical devices containing or using nanomaterials and nanostructures, including diagnostics. FDA is seeking input on these topics and requests comments on a number of related questions. The workshop is open to the public, and the deadline for registration is September 15, 2010. Space availability permitting, on-site registration will be available on a first come first serve basis. Comments must be submitted by September 15, 2010, to be considered for the workshop discussion. All other comments are due October 22, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's (CDTSC) website, it is drafting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to facilitate information exchange, collaboration, and outline a working partnership on emerging chemicals, green chemistry, and materials management. Under the new MOU, EPA and CDTSC will:

1.  Establish chemical specific teams for priority chemicals of mutual interest;

     a.  Teams will develop specific goals, points of coordination, and focus areas.

2.  Share information on analytical methods, fate and transport, bioconcentration, toxicity, exposure, risk assessment, and similar topics relative to emerging chemicals;

3.  Share literature reviews, databases;

4.  Collaborate on identifying and prioritizing information and data gaps;

5.  Keep each other informed on workshops, symposia, web events, etc.;

6.  Share value-chain information (to the extent allowed by law):

     a.  Producers, importers;

     b.  Production volumes; and

     c.  Applications/intermediates/products.

7.  Explore ways to exchange information while protecting CBI; and

8.  Collaborate on research needs and funding. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 13, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is proposing to register conditionally a pesticide product containing nanosilver as a new active ingredient for a period of four years. According to EPA, the antimicrobial pesticide product, HeiQ AGS-20, is a silver-based product that is proposed for use as a preservative for textiles. As a condition of registration, EPA is proposing to require additional product chemistry, toxicology, exposure, and environmental data. EPA states that it will “evaluate these data as they are submitted during the period of the conditional registration to confirm the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment.” Under EPA’s new policy concerning public involvement in registration decisions, EPA is providing a 30-day opportunity for public comments on the proposed registration. Public comments will be accepted until September 11, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 13, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of a draft document entitled Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray, which EPA intends to serve as part of a process to help identify and prioritize scientific and technical information that could be used in conducting comprehensive environmental assessments of selected nanomaterials. EPA states that the Case Study does not attempt to draw conclusions regarding potential environmental risks of nanoscale silver, but instead aims to identify what is known and unknown about nanoscale silver to support EPA’s future assessment efforts. EPA states that it is releasing the draft Case Study “solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination review under applicable information quality guidelines.” The draft Case Study “has not been formally disseminated by EPA,” and it “does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination.” When preparing the final Case Study, EPA intends to consider any public comments received by September 27, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Due to California’s budget issues and resulting furlough for civil service employees, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) has postponed its August 13, 2010, workshop on state and federal nanomaterial activities. CDTSC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) are cosponsoring the workshop to discuss the results of California’s carbon nanotube (CNT) information call-in, future data call-in requests for additional nanomaterials, and federal efforts related to CNTs for nanomaterials. CDTSC states that it will reschedule the workshop at a later date.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Massachusetts Office of Technical Assistance (MOTA) will post this week a Technology Guidance Document entitled “Nanotechnology -- Considerations for Safe Development,” which includes recommendations intended to enhance the safety of nanotechnology.  According to MOTA, it is providing the Guidance for “the express purpose of assisting in the development of this technology, as failure to prevent exposures or releases will not just risk harm to health or the environment -- it will also impede the common interest in realizing the benefits that nanotechnology can provide.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website, on July 30, 2010, OMB received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a notice concerning “Pesticide Products Containing Nanoscale Materials.” No additional information regarding the notice is available on OMB’s website. During the April 29, 2010, meeting of EPA’s Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), William Jordan, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), stated that EPA was in the process of preparing a Federal Register notice on nanomaterials and pesticide products. The notice will announce a new interpretation of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) regulations, that the presence of a nanoscale material is reportable under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2). This controversial interpretation would apply to already registered products, as well as products pending registration. In the same notice, EPA is expected also to memorialize OPP’s view that an active or inert ingredient would be considered “new” if it is a nanoscale material. The new policy would apply even when a non-nanoscale form of that same active or inert is already in a FIFRA-registered product. On June 25, 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk, which recommends, among other actions, that EPA should complete its plan to clarify that nanoscale ingredients in already registered pesticides, as well as in those products for which registration is being sought, are to be reported to EPA and that EPA will consider nanoscale ingredients to be new. EPA responded that it agreed with GAO’s recommendation and is working on clarification of registrant’s responsibilities under FIFRA with respect to nanomaterials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

The August 2010 issue of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Environmental Factor includes an article regarding the Intramural NanoHealth Signature Program, which is intended to investigate the health effects of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) in susceptible populations. According to the article, ENMs are increasingly found in medications, cosmetics, electronics, and other consumer products, creating environmental as well as occupational exposures. Over the next three years, researchers in the Clinical Research Unit (CRU) will engage in bidirectional collaborations with the National Toxicology Program (NTP), labs in the NIEHS intramural program, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as they explore the effects of exposure among healthy and susceptible populations to ENMs that are already present in the atmosphere.  The team will study the effects in cells tissue, animals, and human subjects. The research team will test the hypothesis that selected engineered nanomaterials induce pulmonary inflammation and that asthmatic individuals are particularly susceptible to ENM effects, in a translational exposure model with three aims:

• Exposing human bronchial epithelia and alveolar macrophages -- native lungs cells donated by healthy volunteers -- to ENMs ex vivo to evaluate inflammation and cell toxicity;
• Comparing the ex vivo response to ENMs of human bronchial epithelia and alveolar macrophages between healthy and asthmatic individuals to understand whether pre-existing disease alters the effect of ENMs on human cells; and
• Performing controlled chamber exposures of human volunteers to select ENMs of interest to assess the potential for effects on lung function and inflammation.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 28, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice announcing that it is reopening the comment period for its February 3, 2010, proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) for the chemical substance identified generically as multi-walled carbon nanotubes (P-08-199).  According to the July 28, 2010, notice, a commenter noted that neither the proposed rule nor the docket contained specific carbon nanotube data or data supporting the nature of the dermal concern for carbon nanotubes. The commenter stated it was not possible to assess EPA’s evaluation and determination based on the current record. Another commenter noted that EPA’s subsequent reviews and concerns for carbon nanotubes have expanded, and that the proposed SNUR should reflect those updated data. EPA states that it has added additional explanation and references of its health and environmental concerns for carbon nanotubes to the public docket for consideration, and is reopening the comment period for 30 days. Comments are due August 27, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 20, 2010, Representative Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (H.R. 5786), which would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) “to ensure the safe use of cosmetics.” Under the bill, the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would:

1. Monitor developments in the scientific understanding of any adverse health effects related to the use of nanotechnology in the formulation of cosmetics; and
2. Consider scale-specific hazard properties of ingredients when conducting or reviewing safety substantiation of cosmetic ingredients.

Regarding cosmetic and ingredient statements, the bill would require manufacturers to submit electronically a statement containing certain information, including “the ingredient list as it appears on the cosmetic label or insert, including the particle size of any nanoscale cosmetic ingredients.” The bill would also allow the FDA Secretary to require that:

1. Minerals and other particulate ingredients be labeled as ‘nano-scale’ on a cosmetic ingredient label or list if not less than one dimension is 100 nanometers (nm) or smaller for not less than one percent of the ingredient particles in the cosmetic; and
2. Other ingredients in a cosmetic be designated with scale-specific information on a cosmetic ingredient label or list if such ingredients possess scale-specific hazard properties.

The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as the Committee on Education and Labor.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 6, 2010, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) published a Request for Information (RFI) on the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). According to OSTP, the purpose of the RFI is to enhance the value of the NNI “by reaching out to the nanotechnology stakeholder community for specific input for the next NNI Strategic Plan to be published in December 2010.  The RFI refers to the NNI goals identified from the 2007 Strategic Plan as a starting point for questions covering themes such as research priorities, investment, coordination, partnerships, evaluation, and policy. OSTP states that it is interested in responses that address one or more of its questions, which are broadly categorized under goals and objectives; research priorities; investment; coordination and partnerships; evaluation; and policy, as related to the NNI.  Responses are due August 15, 2010.  OSTP states that submissions prior to the July 13-14, 2010, NNI Strategic Plan Stakeholder Workshop “may also inform dialogues” at the Workshop. OSTP intends to hold an “online public comment event” July 13-August 15, 2010, to solicit input on the NNI Strategic Plan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 1, 2010, the NanoBusiness Alliance issued a Position Statement on Nanomaterials Product Sustainability, which reflects its members’ “enduring commitment to managing effectively the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology.” The NanoBusiness Alliance is committed to working with governments and nanomaterials stakeholders to manage the sustainable development and use of nanomaterials in a responsible way. The Position Statement states:

As an enabling technology applicable to diverse fields, including alternative energy, medicine, and electronics, among many others, nanotechnology offers tremendous value to society. As with any emerging technology, nanotechnology and nanoscale materials must be managed in a responsible way to identify and minimize any potential adverse effect on human health or the environment. The Alliance is committed to fostering the responsible and sustainable development of nanotechnology, to working with governmental and related nanotechnology stakeholders to develop appropriate scientific testing tools, methodologies, and data to characterize nanoscale materials, and to developing informed, science-based governance policies, laws, standards, practices, and regulations pertinent to nanoscale materials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are pleased to announce the release of the final white paper from the October 8-9, 2009, summit entitled “Environmentally Responsible Development of Nanotechnology,” which was held by The Research Triangle Environmental Health Collaborative. The charge for summit attendees was to explore issues regarding potential risk across nano-enabled product lifecycles, with the goal of generating a set of recommendations for North Carolina businesses regarding how to address such risks. The White Paper, to which Lynn L. Bergeson contributed, summarizes near-term recommendations resulting from the summit, as well as questions that should be considered in the interim to arrive at more solid long-term recommendations.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a report released on June 25, 2010, by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces challenges in effectively regulating nanomaterials that may be released in air, water, and waste because EPA lacks the technology to monitor and characterize these materials, or the statutes include volume-based regulatory thresholds that may be too high for effectively regulating the production and disposal of nanomaterials. In preparing its report, GAO identified examples of current and potential uses of nanomaterials; determined what is known about the potential human health and environmental risks from nanomaterials; assessed actions EPA has taken to better understand and regulate the risks posed by nanomaterials as well as its authorities to do so; and identified approaches that other selected national authorities and actions U.S. states have taken to address the potential risks associated with nanomaterials. GAO analyzed selected laws and regulations, reviewed information on EPA’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, and consulted with EPA officials and legal experts to obtain their perspectives on EPA’s authorities to regulate nanomaterials.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) seeks comment from stakeholders on how the federal government can best use its resources so three of the “newest and most promising technologies,” including nanotechnology, “provide the greatest economic benefits to society.” The President’s Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), which is part of PCAST, is soliciting information and ideas from stakeholders -- including the research community, the private sector, universities, national laboratories, state and local governments, foundations, and nonprofit organizations -- regarding the “Golden Triangle.” Each side of the Golden Triangle represents one of three areas of research that together are transforming the technology landscape today: information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 28, 2010, the House passed, by a vote of 262-150, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116), which would authorize funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), as well as the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science activities. The bill includes language from H.R. 554, the NNI Amendments Act of 2009, which the House passed in February 2009. H.R. 5116 would require NNI to work toward developing “standards related to methods and procedures for detecting, measuring, monitoring, sampling, and testing engineered nanoscale materials for environmental, health, and safety impacts.” The bill would fund research on “green nanotechnology” by creating research centers that would focus on methods and approaches to develop environmentally benign nanoscale products and nanoscale manufacturing processes; foster the transfer of the results of such research to industry; and provide for the education of scientists and engineers through interdisciplinary studies in the principles and techniques for the design and development of environmentally benign nanoscale products and processes. The bill would create a position, within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), for a Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology. The Coordinator would ensure that a research plan for the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research activities is developed, updated, and implemented.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 3, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Office of Pharmaceutical Science (OPS) posted on its website a Manual of Policies and Procedures (MAPP) entitled “Reporting Format for Nanotechnology-Related Information in CMC Review.” The purpose of the MAPP is to provide chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) reviewers within OPS with the framework by which relevant information about nanomaterial-containing drugs will now be captured in CMC reviews of current and future CDER drug application submissions.  According to the MAPP, this information “will be entered into a nanotechnology database under construction and ultimately be used to develop policy regarding these products.” Information to be collected includes whether the application contains nanomaterials; what type of nanomaterial is included in the product; whether the nanomaterial is a reformulation of a previously approved product; whether the nanomaterial is part of the drug substance or the drug product; whether the particle size was described in the application and what the reported particle size is; whether the techniques used to assess particle size are thoroughly described with respect to their adequacy; whether the nanomaterial is soluble or insoluble in an aqueous environment; and what other properties of the nanomaterial were measured and reported in the application, and how those properties were measured. The MAPP was effective June 3, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a May 25, 2010, letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), the Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG) expressed its concern regarding the pending Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) interpretation concerning the regulation of nanoscale pesticide products. In its letter, SNWG states that the new interpretation, which “includes an unsupported and arbitrary definition of ‘nanomaterial’ and ignores decades of historical safety data,” would be “a major and damaging change in policy.” SNWG lists the following concerns:

• Institutionalize an arbitrary definition of nanotechnology;
• Contradict the statutory language and purpose of Section 6(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA);
• Improperly characterize nanosilver as a ‘new’ pesticide;
• Stifle innovation without any benefit to human health and/or the environment; and
• Promote a negative public perception regarding nanotechnology as a whole.

SNWG urges EPA to consider its concerns prior to releasing the pending policy.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 29, 2010, during the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) meeting, William Jordan, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), presented slides regarding nanotechnology and pesticides. Jordan briefly described how OPP is defining nanoscale materials and how the technology is being applied to the field of pesticides. His presentation described OPP’s recent consultation with EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) concerning nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products, as well as other ongoing regulatory activity and future actions OPP intends to take.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 22, 2010, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that, on May 5, 2010, the University of California at San Francisco’s (UCSF) Program on Reproductive Health will hear comments from an expert panel and the public on a draft UCSF document entitled “A Nanotechnology Policy Framework: Policy Recommendations for Addressing Potential Health Risks from Nanomaterials in California.” The draft document includes a number of recommendations for OEHHA and other California policymakers about nanomaterials, including recommendations on assessing their risks. According to UCSF, following the meeting, it will prepare the document in final and present it to OEHHA “to better inform their risk assessment recommendations for decision makers and risk managers.” The draft document includes recommendations concerning characterizing nanomaterials for hazard identification and exposure potential; indentifying sources of nanomaterials; addressing exposure to nanomaterials; prioritizing and characterizing health effects; testing products for safety; and engaging and informing the public. The draft report recommends that, as a first step, “OEHHA should evaluate and ensure that nanomaterials are integrated into their programs and activities in parallel with conventional chemicals.” In addition, the draft report outlines recommendations intended to address nanomaterial concerns and identifies the OEHHA programs through which these recommendations can be implemented.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 15, 2010, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) released the text of the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 (S.3209), which is intended to address the “core failings” of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Also on April 15, 2010, Representatives Bobby Rush (D-IL), Chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, and Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, released a discussion draft of their TSCA reform legislation, the Toxics Chemicals Safety Act of 2010. While the bills do not explicitly address nanomaterials, both bills consider “characteristics” of chemical substances. The House bill defines “substance characteristic” as “with respect to a particular chemical substance, the physical and chemical characteristics that may vary for such substance, and whose variation may bear on the toxicological properties of the chemical substance, including (A) chemical structure and composition; (B) size or size distribution; (C) shape; (D) surface structure; (E) reactivity; and (F) other characteristics and properties that may bear on toxicological properties.” The Senate bill defines “special substance characteristics” as such physical, chemical, or biological characteristics, other than molecular identity, that the Administrator determines, by order or rule, may significantly affect the risks posed by substances exhibiting those characteristics. In determining the existence of special substance characteristics, the Administrator may consider: (A) size or size distribution; (B) shape and surface structure; (C) reactivity; and (D) “any other properties that may significantly affect the risks posed.”  How these, and a wide range of other measures in the bills, play out will have a significant impact on new chemicals generally, and nanoscale chemical substances in particular.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced that laboratory studies, reported in a paper posted online by the journal Nature Nanotechnology on April 4, 2010, discovered that carbon nanotubes were biodegraded by an enzyme found in white blood cells, neutrophils.  According to NIOSH, the researchers demonstrated that, unlike carbon nanotubes that were not biodegraded in this way, the biodegraded nanotubes did not cause inflammation in the lungs of mice.  NIOSH states that the results are important for scientists in evaluating the biological effects of carbon nanotubes, particularly their fate and role in inflammation, and that more research would be needed for determining the applicability of the findings in assessing potential risk in occupational exposures.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 5, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program awarded $2.38 million to 34 small businesses to develop “innovative, sustainable technologies to protect human health and the environment.” The awards focus on the following environmental research areas: increasing the efficiency of green building materials and systems; manufacturing innovation; prevention, monitoring, and control using nanotechnology; reducing greenhouse gases; new treatment technologies for drinking water; improving water infrastructure; reducing emissions from small air pollution sources and vehicles and biofuels production facilities; new approaches for cleaning up and monitoring hazardous waste sites; and new tools for homeland security systems. Examples of new technologies include NEI Corporation, which will develop a “self-healing nanocomposite to protect drinking water pipes from corrosion.” EPA is also requesting applications for the development of new environmental technologies. Applications are due May 11, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) March 30-31, 2010, conference regarding “Risk Management Methods & Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology,” Tom Kalil, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), announced that the OSTP would create a new interagency group on emerging technologies, including nanotechnology. Kalil’s announcement is reported in an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) policy alert, which notes that OSTP intends the group to provide agencies a forum in which to discuss emerging policy issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 30, 2010, Michael Bellot, Chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chemical Risk and Reporting Enforcement Branch, of the Office of Civil Enforcement, Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division, spoke at the Global Chemical Regulations Conference last week. Bellot described manufacturers of nanoscale materials as a “target-rich environment,” and stated that two-thirds of EPA’s 2009 chemical enforcement activity focused on nanoscale materials manufacturers. EPA did not go into detail on the scope of its enforcement activities, but suffice it to say entities that are engaged in nanoscale material manufacture and/or import should be mindful of this information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 4, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Design for the Environment (DfE) Program announced a partnership led by the DfE Program and Office of Research and Development (ORD). The partnership is conducting a screening-level life-cycle assessment of currently manufactured lithium-ion battery technologies and a next generation battery component that uses single-wall carbon nanotube technology. According to the DfE Program, the partnership offers the opportunity to mitigate current and future impacts and risks by helping battery manufacturers and suppliers identify materials and/or processes associated with the greatest environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of their products, and identify areas that could benefit from increased energy efficiency.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a March 2, 2010 letter, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) July 15, 2009, letter concerning sunscreen guidelines. EWG criticized the FDA for not having guidelines for sunscreen safety and efficacy. According to EWG, companies continue to profit by misleading consumers about the protection offered by their products. EWG urged FDA to publish a final rule for its August 2007 draft sunscreen guidelines. In its March 2, 2010, response, FDA stated that most sunscreen products are currently marketed under an over-the-counter drug monograph entitled “Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use.” According to the letter, FDA received over 3,000 comments in response to its August 2007 draft sunscreen guidelines. FDA concludes its response by stating:

Although we understand your concern regarding the protracted nature of this process, we trust that you will appreciate the need for us to continue to fully investigate and evaluate new research and development for sunscreen products, permit adequate opportunity for public comment, and weigh all research and development fairly and with full input from FDA subject area experts as well as industry stakeholders and the American public.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During the 68th annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, on March 4, 2010, dermatologist Adnan Nasir, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.A.D., gave a presentation on nanotechnology and how nanoparticles may eventually be used in cosmetic products. According to Dr. Nasir, the cosmetic industry leads all other industries in the number of patents for nanoparticles, which have the potential to enhance sunscreens, shampoos, conditioners, lipsticks, eye shadows, moisturizers, deodorants, after-shave products, and perfumes.  Nanoparticles used in sunscreens increase protection and coverage on the skin, while being less visible than microparticles. In anti-aging products, nanotechnology may allow active ingredients to penetrate the top layer of the skin. Researchers are currently exploring nanoparticle treatments of conditions such as melanoma.  Dr. Nasir noted, however, that dermatologists are concerned about the potential health risks posed by nanotechnology, and “anxiously await” the Food and Drug Administration’s review of the safety of nanoparticles.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

In a December 16, 2009, letter, three members of the Wisconsin Assembly requested that a Legislative Council study be conducted on the feasibility of creating a nanotechnology registry and the development of subsequent legislation to monitor the use, manufacture, and disposal of nanomaterials in Wisconsin. The letter, signed by State Representatives Terese Berceau (D), Chuck Benedict (D), and Penny Bernard Schaber (D), notes that entities manufacturing or using nanomaterials in Wisconsin are not required by state or federal regulation to identify materials they are using, how they transport and dispose of them, or where such work is taking place. According to the letter, data gaps present “serious concerns” to first responders and public agencies responsible for addressing health consequences or releases into air or water. The letter states: “The development of a registry in partnership with science, business, and the public sector -- and which enhances the economic development of our state -- is our ultimate goal.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced that it will hold a conference entitled “Nanomaterials and Worker Health:  Medical Surveillance, Exposure Registries, and Epidemiologic Research,” on July 21-23, 2010, at the Keystone Resort and Conference Center in Keystone, Colorado. According to NIOSH, the goal of the conference is to identify gaps in information and address questions focusing on occupational health surveillance, exposure registries, and epidemiologic research involving nanotechnology workers.  The conference will include invited and submitted papers, breakout sessions to allow for small group discussions, and poster presentation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG) issued a press release regarding its presentation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) at its November 3-6, 2009, meeting. EPA asked the SAP “to consider and review a set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.” According to EPA, companies with an interest in marketing products that contain nanosilver and/or other nanometals or nanometal oxides as pesticides regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have approached the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) seeking product registration. SNWG’s analysis included the key conclusions that nanosilver is not a new material and that EPA has “safely and successfully” regulated nanosilver products for decades.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 13, 2009, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) released two nanotechnology publications. NOISH posted a document entitled Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace: A Report from the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center, Project Updates for 2007 and 2008. The Report updates the February 2007 version, which described the progress of the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) since its inception in 2004 through 2006. In the November 2009 Report, NIOSH describes program accomplishments achieved in 2007 and 2008. NIOSH states that the NTRC has, with limited resources, continued to make contributions to all the steps in the continuum from hazard identification to risk management. The second document, entitled Strategic Plan for NIOSH Nanotechnology Research and Guidance: Filling the Knowledge Gaps, updates the September 2005 Strategic Plan using knowledge gained from results of ongoing research as described in the 2007 report Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace: A Report from the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center and the 2009 update. NIOSH states that the Strategic Plan for the nanotechnology program is the roadmap it is using to advance knowledge about the implications and applications of nanomaterials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 10, 2009, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) released findNano, an application for Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch that is intended to let users determine whether consumer products are nanotechnology-enabled. According to PEN, the application allows users to browse an inventory of more than 1,000 nanotechnology-enabled consumer products, from sporting goods to food products and electronics to toys, using the iPhone and iPod Touch.  Using the built-in camera, iPhone users can even submit new nanotech products to be included in future inventory updates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 6, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed significant new use rules (SNUR) under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for two chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN). EPA identified the substances generically as multi-walled carbon nanotubes and single-walled carbon nanotubes. According to the notice, these substances are subject to TSCA Section 5(e) consent orders issued by EPA. The consent orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The proposed SNURs are based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent orders, and designate as a significant new use the absence of the protective measures required in the corresponding consent orders. Persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process either of these two substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use would be required by the proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. 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 December 7, 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it will stream its November 3-6, 2009, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting on the Internet. EPA has asked the SAP “to consider and review a set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.” According to EPA, companies with an interest in marketing products that contain nanosilver and/or other nanometals or nanometal oxides as pesticides regulated under FIFRA have approached the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) seeking product registration. OPP believes, based on its understanding of the scientific literature, that pesticides containing nanoscale materials may pose different risks to humans and the environment than those of pesticides that do not contain nanomaterials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of the Nanomaterial Research Strategy (Strategy), which EPA describes as its new research strategy to understand better how manufactured nanomaterials may harm human health and the environment.  The Strategy outlines what research EPA intends to support over the next several years to generate information about the safe use of nanotechnology and products that contain nanoscale materials.  The Strategy also includes research into ways nanotechnology can be used to clean up toxic chemicals in the environment.  In its announcement, EPA states that its role among federal agencies “is to determine the potential hazards of nanotechnology and develop approaches to reduce or minimize any risks identified.  As part of the strategy, researchers are investigating widely used nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes, which are used in vehicles, sports equipment and electronics; and titanium dioxide, which is used in paints, cosmetics and sunscreens.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 23, 2009, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Technologies (PEN) hosted a meeting on “Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies.” The program is part of a collaborative research project involving experts from the London School of Economics (LSE), Chatham House, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and PEN. The project is funded by a grant from the European Commission to support pilot projects on “Transatlantic methods for handling global challenges.” The purpose of yesterday’s meeting was to discuss recommendations from the research effort that are part of a report released on September 10, 2009. The meeting was also intended to generate and examine new ideas to enable greater transatlantic convergence on nanotechnology oversight today and in the future.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced it will host the DTSC/California Nano-Industry Network Symposium, to be held November 16, 2009, in Sacramento, California. The Symposium, which is co-sponsored by the American Chemistry Council and Dupont, will use the DTSC’s nanotechnology data call-in as a backdrop. According to the preliminary agenda, the Symposium will feature two sessions. The first, entitled “Collaborative Efforts,” will discuss the key U.S. and international forums for collaboration on the health, safety, and environmental impacts of nanomaterials. The second session, “Company Engagement with Nanotechnology Safety,” will review examples of how companies can apply the evolving knowledge on nanomaterials safety to address systematically various areas of concern.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in a September 16, 2009, Federal Register notice that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) will meet November 3-6, 2009, “to consider and review a set of scientific issues related to the assessment of hazard and exposure associated with nanosilver and other nanometal pesticide products.” Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc SAP members for this meeting are due September 30, 2009. The meeting will be open to the public. EPA asks that written comments be submitted by October 20, 2009, to allow for distribution to the SAP, and that requests for oral comments be made by October 27, 2009.  EPA also states that written comments and requests to make oral comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting, however.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The London School of Economics (LSE), Chatham House, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars held a conference on September 10-11, 2009, on “Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies,” in London. LSE, Chatham House, ELI, and PEN are participating in an international collaborative project, Regulating Nanotechnologies in the EU and U.S., which is funded by a grant from the European Commission. Their research findings on issues of transatlantic regulatory cooperation were published in a report during the conference. The conference was intended to bring together regulatory experts from the United States (U.S.) and European Union (EU) to discuss recommendations from this research effort and to generate and examine new ideas that would enable greater transatlantic cooperation and convergence on nanotechnology oversight today and in the future. The materials released at the conference include a briefing paper entitled Regulating Nanomaterials:  A Transatlantic Agenda, and the report entitled Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies:  Towards Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced the Interagency Nanotechnology Implications Grantees Workshop, which will feature presentations on recent research by EPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH/NIEHS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and Department of Energy (DOE) grant researchers.  According to EPA, the November 9-10, 2009, meeting “will encourage collaboration and cooperation among nanotechnology grantees sponsored by EPA, NSF, NIEHS, NIOSH and DOE and between other federal grantees and federal nanotechnology researchers.” The meeting is open to members of academia, government, nongovernmental organizations, industry, and the general public. Two agendas are available: (1) other nanomaterials; and (2) metals and carbon-based nanomaterials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 25, 2009, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) held a public hearing to receive comments about its agenda and priorities for CPSC during fiscal year (FY) 2011, which begins October 1, 2010, and about its current strategic plan. CPSC invited participation by members of the public, and representatives from the Consumers Union, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), Thermo Fisher Scientific, National Association of State Fire Marshals, International Sleep Products Association, Kids in Danger, and American Apparel & Footwear Association testified. Don Mays, Consumers Union, and David Rejeski, PEN, addressed CPSC’s goals concerning nanomaterials.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. is pleased to announce that Lynn L. Bergeson will be speaking at the September 10-11, 2009, international conference on “Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies,” in London. The London School of Economics, Chatham House, the Environmental Law Institute, and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars have spent the past year examining issues of transatlantic regulatory cooperation. During the conference, their research findings will be published in a major report, which is scheduled to be released on September 10, 2009. The conference is intended to bring together regulatory experts from the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to discuss recommendations from this research effort and to generate and examine new ideas that would enable greater transatlantic cooperation and convergence on nanotechnology oversight today and in the future.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) announced that its inventory of nanotechnology-enabled consumer products includes over 1,000 items. When PEN began the inventory in March 2006, it included 212 products. According to PEN, health and fitness items represent 60 percent of the products listed. More products are based on nanoscale silver than any other nanomaterial, with 259 products (26 percent of the inventory) using silver nanoparticles. The inventory includes products from over 24 countries, including the U.S., China, Canada, and Germany. The inventory includes products that have been identified by their manufacturer or a credible source as being nanotechnology-based. PEN states that this update identifies products that were previously sold, but which may no longer be available. PEN encourages users to submit new and updated information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 18, 2009, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) released data showing that more than 1,200 companies, universities, government laboratories, and other organizations are involved in nanotechnology research, development, and commercialization. According to PEN, this is a 50 percent increase from the 800 organizations it identified two years ago. The data are part of PEN’s interactive map displaying the growing “Nano Metro” landscape, powered by Google Maps®. PEN’s accompanying analysis ranks cities and states by numbers of companies, academic and government research centers, and organizations and technology focus by sector.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today’s Federal Register includes a notice from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrawing the June 24, 2009, final significant new use rules (SNUR) for multi- and single-walled carbon nanotubes (CNT). EPA states that it published the final SNURs using direct final rulemaking procedures. Because EPA received a notice of intent to submit adverse comments on the rules, it is withdrawing the SNURs for CNTs. The Federal Register notice does not identify the commenter. The docket for the rulemaking includes a July 22, 2009, letter from WilmerHale stating that it intends to submit adverse comments on behalf of one or more clients. According to the notice, EPA “intends to publish in the Federal Register, under separate notice and comment rulemaking procedures, proposed SNURS for these two chemical substances.” The withdrawal is effective August 21, 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

According to its website, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has joined the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in inviting submission of scientific papers for a special issue of the Journal. The special edition is provisionally entitled “Human and Environmental Exposure Assessment for Nanomaterials,” and will be edited by Vladimir Murashov, Ph.D., a special assistant to the NIOSH Director. Submissions are due January 15, 2010. More information about submission requirements can be found on the Journal’s website.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an August 7, 2009, letter to the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP), the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) expressed its interest in working with OSTP and other federal agencies regarding the “human health and ecological impacts and lifecycle consequences of intentional and unintentional releases of engineered nanoparticles into the environment.” According to ECOS, state environmental agencies want to participate in national efforts to develop best assessment and management practices. ECOS suggests that one option is for ECOS to join one or more of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee Working Groups within the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) framework. ECOS asked OSTP for a meeting, “preferably this summer,” to obtain feedback on its key areas of interest and to discuss the best opportunities for its involvement in national efforts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a notice in the August 4, 2009, Federal Register, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) released its latest report to the Administrator. Under TSCA Section 4(e), the ITC is required ‘‘to make recommendations to the Administrator respecting the chemical substances and mixtures to which the Administrator should give priority consideration for the promulgation of rules for testing.” According to the report, “the ITC has no revisions to the TSCA section 4(e) Priority Testing List at this time.”

The report also describes the ITC’s emphasis during the reporting period (November 2008 to May 2009) on nanoscale materials and how best to regulate them. It summarizes the ITC’s recent reviews of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program’s interim report and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) nanotechnology guidelines. The report concludes by recommending data needs of ITC organizations be addressed and lists many of the data deficiencies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 28, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clarified its June 24, 2009, final Significant New Use Rules (SNUR) for multi- and single-walled carbon nanotubes (CNT).  According to EPA, upon review of the final rule, stakeholders asked whether the SNURs applied to all types of CNTs.  EPA responded:

 

This is not the case.  These SNURs only apply to the specific carbon nanotubes that were the subject of the premanufacture notices (PMN) submitted under Section 5 of TSCA and not to any other carbon nanotubes.  Other carbon nanotubes must be notified through EPA's New Chemicals Program.  The U.S. EPA strongly encourages all manufacturers and importers of nanoscale materials that are intended for commercial use to consult with the Agency in advance of production or importation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has posted a link to an article entitled “National Nanotechnology Partnership to Protect Workers,” which proposes the creation of a National Nanotechnology Partnership led by NIOSH. The article, posted online on July 7, 2009, by the Journal of Nanoparticle Research, suggests the partnership be a collaboration of government agencies, manufacturers, users, and others. The authors are John Howard, M.D. former NIOSH Director, and Vladimir Murashov, Ph.D., NIOSH.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 15, 2009, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced plans to hold a conference entitled “Nanomaterials and Worker Health:  Occupational Health Surveillance, Exposure Registries, and Epidemiological Research.” The conference is intended to identify gaps in information about potential occupational health effects of nanomaterials, as well as address questions related to occupational health and safety.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 16, 2009, the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN) released a report entitled Bridging the Credibility Gap:  Eight Corporate Liability Accounting Loopholes that Regulators Must Close, which discusses the effect of undisclosed potential and pending liabilities on investors. The report identifies eight regulatory loopholes that businesses could use to hide future liabilities from an investor’s risk assessment. Two case studies for asbestos and nanomaterials are used to assess the effectiveness of current disclosure requirements and recommend improvements.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a June 8, 2009, article, Dr. Annette McCarthy of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition stated on June 6, 2009, at the Institute of Food Technologists’ annual meeting that the “regulatory authority is sufficient to address nanotechnology but there are further questions.” McCarthy recommended that petitions to the FDA seeking acceptance of a nanotech food additive or coloring should address its “impact on identity and toxicity.” According to McCarthy, the idea of a Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) standard is not out of the question. Although a company “would have a hard time today” proving that a nanotechnology is generally recognized as safe, McCarthy thinks that “two years down the line, it could be a slam dunk; it could be very simple.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a notice in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) May 11, 2009, Regulatory Agenda, a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 4(a) test rule “may be needed to determine the health effects” of multiwall carbon nanotubes (CNT). EPA states that the results of the tests that could be required under the rule could assist in understanding the health effects of the substance to manage/minimize any potential risk and exposure. Results could also help with establishing a correlation between the chemical/physical properties and health effects needed to protect the health of workers handling the substance. EPA has not determined when it will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 28, 2009, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) released a report entitled Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology, which calls for the creation of the Department of Environmental and Consumer Protection, which would oversee product regulation, pollution control and monitoring, and technology assessment. According to report author J. Clarence Davies, Ph.D., the agency would be primarily a scientific agency with a strong oversight component, in contrast to current federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are primarily oversight bodies. Davies stated: “New thinking, new laws and new organizational forms are necessary.  Many of these changes will take a decade or more to accomplish, but there is an urgent need given the rapid pace of technological change to start thinking about them now.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 8, 2009, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a Federal Register notice announcing that it “intends to evaluate the scientific data on carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and develop appropriate communication documents, such as an Alert and/or Current Intelligence Bulletin [CIB], which will convey the potential health risks and recommend measures for the safe handling of these materials.” CIBs are issued by NIOSH “to disseminate new scientific information about occupational hazards. A CIB may draw attention to a previously unrecognized hazard, report new data on a known hazard, or disseminate information on hazard control.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 31, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the funding opportunity for its joint U.S. -- United Kingdom (UK) Research Program: Environmental Behavior, Bioavailability, and Effects of Manufactured Nanomaterials. EPA states that the outputs of the Program will be used to further scientific understanding of the fate, behavior, bioavailability, and effects of nanomaterials and risk management policy development. Two consortia, made up of UK and U.S. research institutions, will be selected for funding. EPA is seeking joint applications from U.S. and UK partners that:

• Propose integrated model(s) of fate, behavior, bioavailability and effects for several important and representative nanomaterial classes over key environmental pathways using intrinsic material properties and life cycle analysis as a starting point for model development;
• Validate and refine these model(s) through interdisciplinary research, addressing key assumptions and areas of uncertainty; and
• Develop effective methods and tools to detect, assess, and monitor the presence of nanomaterials in biological and environmental samples.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 30, 2009, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) posted a document entitled Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: Managing the Health and Safety Concerns Associated with Engineered Nanomaterials. The document reviews what is currently known about nanoparticle toxicity, process emissions and exposure assessment, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. NIOSH released a draft version of the document for comment in October 2005, and then released a revised and updated version for additional comment in July 2006. According to NIOSH, the final version of this document “incorporates some of the latest results of NIOSH research, but it is only a starting point.” NIOSH states that the document serves a dual purpose: it is a summary of NIOSH’s current thinking and interim recommendations; and it is a request from NIOSH to occupational safety and health practitioners, researchers, product innovators and manufacturers, employers, workers, interest group members, and the general public to exchange information that will ensure that no worker suffers material impairment of safety or health as nanotechnology develops.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 17, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it has completed a “proof-of-concept” study of a test that “quickly and accurately detects the presence of even the smallest amount of the deadly anthrax toxin.” According to FDA, the proof-of-concept study relies on a nanotechnology-based test platform built from tiny molecular-sized particles. The europium nanoparticle-based immunoassay (ENIA) was able to detect the presence of a protein made by the anthrax bacteria known as protective antigen (PA). PA combines with another protein, lethal factor, to form anthrax lethal factor toxin, the protein that enters cells and causes toxic effects. FDA states that its researchers showed that ENIA is capable of detecting PA in quantities that are 100 times lower than current tests, such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The ENIA uses nanospheres covered with thousands of light-emitting atoms of europium that emit light, which acts as a signal that PA is present. The ENIA detected PA in 100 percent of samples of mouse plasma compared to 36.4 percent through ELISA. A report on the results of this study appears in the March issue of Clinical and Vaccine Immunology.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 10, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a collaboration with the Alliance for NanoHealth (ANH) and its members. According to FDA, the collaboration is intended to “help speed development of safe and effective medical products in the emerging field of nanotechnology.” Under a memorandum of understanding, FDA and ANH will work to increase the knowledge of how nanoparticles behave and affect biologic systems, and to facilitate the development of tests and processes that could mitigate the risks associated with nanoengineered products. FDA states that all outcomes “will be placed in the public domain for the benefit of all stakeholders.” The ANH member institutions include Baylor College of Medicine; the University of Texas’ M.D. Anderson Cancer Center; Rice University; the University of Houston; the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston; Texas A & M Health Science Center; the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston; and the Methodist Hospital Research Institute.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a February 27, 2009, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Update entitled “Issues in Developing Worker Epidemiological Studies Related to Engineered Nanoparticles Are Discussed in Paper,” NIOSH scientists and a colleague from Emory University have prepared a paper concerning issues that researchers will need to consider in designing sound epidemiological studies of workers who may be exposed to engineered nanoparticles in the manufacturing and commercial use of nanomaterials.  According to the authors, even though the fundamental principles of epidemiology can be applied to engineered nanoparticles, researchers will face challenges typically not encountered in studies involving traditional materials. These challenges relate to the unique characteristics and properties of engineered nanomaterials, the relative newness of nanotechnology, and the fact that nanotechnology is not an industry in itself, but a process that may involve different industry sectors and occupational groups. The factors that would influence the design of an epidemiological study include:

• Heterogeneity (the chemical and physical diversity of engineered nanoparticles);
• Temporal factors (the challenge that nanotechnology, generally, has not been in use for the length of time it may take for some diseases to become apparent);
• Disease endpoints (determining what diseases or symptoms to look for on the basis of limited research evidence);
• Exposure characterization (determining what to measure and how to measure it); and
• Study population (finding a group of workers for a study who have been exposed to the same type of engineered nanoparticle at levels high enough and for a long enough time to provide scientifically reliable and comparable results).

The paper will be published by the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During the February 18, 2009, Food and Drug Law Institute’s Second Annual Conference on Nanotechnology Law, Regulation, and Policy, Dr. Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein, Associate Center Director for Post-Market Operations at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), stated that FDA will not issue guidance until companies bring products to them so that FDA can learn more about the effects of nanotechnology. Sackner-Bernstein acknowledged that the companies might not be submitting products due to “uncertainty over excessive burden from regulation.”  He described FDA’s role as “an encouraging gatekeeper,” and urged companies to submit their products and test results. Deputy Director Douglas Throckmorton, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), stated:  “We are at work understanding what we have at hand, developing a full inventory of nanoscale products before we get into the guidance business.  But I will say this, we know much less than we need to on the effect of nanoscale materials on manufacturing.” Norman Alderson, FDA Associate Commissioner for Science, described the challenges of nano-engineered materials, including the lack of: standards and reference materials; toxicological and biocompatibility data for most products; and standardized physical and chemical characterization procedures.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 13, 2009, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) released a statement regarding the National Research Council’s (NRC) December 10, 2008, report regarding its review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Research.  According to the statement, NNI member agencies noted the report’s “substantial and important recommendations for further progress on EHS research,” and “look forward to working with the NRC on achieving the vital and shared goals of clearly, proactively assessing the potential benefits and risks that may be associated with specific nanomaterials in specific applications.”  NNCO notes that it “do[es] not believe that the NRC evaluation recognized the breadth and depth of the NNI commitment to EHS research. . . .  Furthermore, the report drew a number of conclusions with which the NNI member agencies respectfully disagree.” NNCO provided detailed comments to the NRC in a January 5, 2009, letter. On February 24-25, 2009, NNCO held a workshop regarding the science related to EHS aspects of engineered nanoscale materials in the area of human and environmental exposure assessment, one of the five EHS research categories identified in the Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 19, 2009, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) will hold a full-day nanotechnology symposium on nanomaterials regulation from a variety of perspectives. According to CDTSC, the symposium will focus on the regulatory aspects of nanotechnology, the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and CDTSC’s chemical information call-in program including nanoscale materials. CDTSC states that federal interest in nanomaterial regulation and California’s efforts “provide a great opportunity for fostering technological advances that recognize environmental and public health concerns. The goal is to create a partnership where we can enhance research where needed and promote sustainable processes as well as applications.” Registration is required. The symposium will also be available via web cast.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 13, 2009, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced the availability of “Current Intelligence Bulletin 60: Interim Guidance for the Medical Screening and Hazard Surveillance for Workers Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles.” NIOSH offers the following recommendations for workplaces where workers may be exposed to engineered nanoparticles in the course of their work:

• Take prudent measures to control exposures to engineered nanoparticles;
• Conduct hazard surveillance as the basis for implementing controls; and
• Continue use of established medical surveillance approaches.

According to NIOSH, its recommendations respond to ongoing interest by employers and other stakeholders in having authoritative occupational safety and health guidance in the manufacturing and industrial use of engineered nanomaterials. NIOSH states that its recommendations also reflect its ongoing leadership in providing such interim scientific guidance as research progresses for determining whether engineered nanomaterials pose risks for adverse occupational health effects.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February 3, 2009, Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced the Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities (NANO) Act (H.R. 820), which is intended to ensure the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology. Honda based the legislation on the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Nanotechnology, a panel of California nanotechnology experts with backgrounds in established industry, startup companies, consulting groups, non-profits, academia, government, medical research, and venture capital convened by Honda and then-California State Controller Steve Westly during 2005.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 14, 2009, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) released a report entitled A Hard Pill To Swallow: Barriers to Effective FDA Regulation of Nanotechnology-Based Dietary Supplements, which describes problems at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in regulating nano-enabled dietary supplements and offers recommendations for improving oversight. According to the report, FDA’s ability to regulate the safety of such dietary supplements “is severely limited by lack of information, lack of resources and the agency’s lack of statutory authority in certain critical areas.” The authors note that, under current law, supplement manufacturers must disclose only limited information about their products, and the information available is the result of manufacturers promoting their use of nanotechnology when marketing their products. PEN states that, according to its inventory of federal environmental, health, and safety research on nanotechnology, the U.S. government provides less than $1 million annually to study the direct impact of nanoscale materials on the gastrointestinal tract.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a January 22, 2009, letter, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) announced that it is requiring the submission of data “regarding analytical test methods, fate and transport in the environment, and other relevant information from manufacturers of carbon nanotubes” (CNT). CDTSC states that the term “manufacturers” includes persons and businesses that produce CNTs in California or import CNTs into California for sale.  According to the letter, CDTSC is using its authority under California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 699, Sections 57018-57020. Section 57019(d)(2) requires that the data requested be provided within one year of the date of the letter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 15, 2009, Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN), Chair of the House Science Committee, introduced the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 554). The bill is identical to H.R. 5940, which passed the House in the previous Congress with a 407-6 vote. The legislation would reauthorize the multi-agency research program that Congress established in 2003 through the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Pub. Law 108-153). Under the Act, federal agencies would be required to develop a research plan and implementation strategy that specifies near- and long-term goals, sets milestones and time frames for meeting near-term goals, clarifies agencies’ roles in implementing the plan, and allocates sufficient resources to accomplish those goals. The bill would authorize funding for research in areas of national need, such as research to develop renewable energy and batteries that could store energy more efficiently, and would direct agencies to take steps to help private companies commercialize nanotechnology applications.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a draft January 7, 2009, document, non-governmental organizations (NGO) such as Beyond Pesticides and the Pesticide Action Network for North America recommend that the Obama Administration take a number of immediate actions within its first 100 days, including establishing a moratorium on pesticidal nanotechnology. The NGOs call for the suspension of the registration of nanoproducts with pesticidal properties, and the removal of untested products from the market.  The NGOs urge the Obama Administration to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a clear testing protocol that identifies the full range of potential adverse health and environmental effects of nanoproducts with pesticidal properties. The NGOs cite the 60-day comment period on the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) petition as an acknowledgment by EPA of “the critical need for in-depth review of products utilizing nanotechnology pesticides.” ICTA petitioned EPA in May 2008 to regulate nanoscale silver products as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 12, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released
its interim report on the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP), which is a
voluntary program that EPA established to assemble existing data and information from
manufacturers and processors of certain nanoscale materials. Under the Basic Program, EPA
invited participants to voluntarily report available information on the engineered nanoscale
materials they manufacture, import, process, or use. As of December 8, 2008, 29 companies or
associations submitted information to EPA covering 123 nanoscale materials and a further seven
companies have outstanding commitments to the Basic Program. Under the In-Depth Program,
EPA invited participants to work on a plan for the development of data on representative
nanoscale materials over a longer time frame. As of December 8, 2008, four companies have
agreed to participate. EPA states that, based on the current interim results, “the NMSP can be
considered successful.” EPA notes that a number of the environmental health and safety data
gaps still exist, however, and “EPA is considering how to best use testing and information
gathering authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act [(TSCA)] to help address those
gaps.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a January 5, 2009, Federal Register notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces receipt of several premanufacture notices (PMN) concerning multi-walled carbon nanotubes (CNT). Under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. According to the notice, EPA received the CNT PMNs on September 17, 2008, and the projected end date was December 15, 2008. The submitter name is claimed as confidential business information (CBI). Comments on the PMNs are due February 4, 2009.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a December 12, 2008, Federal Register notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces receipt of several premanufacture notices (PMN) from Nano-C, Inc. concerning fullerenes. Under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. According to the notice, EPA received the fullerene PMNs on November 5, 2008, and the projected end date is February 2, 2009.  Comments on the PMNs are due January 12, 2009.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 29, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is in the process of finalizing a major joint research effort with a number of United Kingdom (UK) agencies that is intended to develop and validate predictive tools and similar conceptual models that predict exposure, bioavailability, and effects of manufactured nanomaterials in the environment. The UK agencies include the Natural Environment Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, and Environment Agency.  According to EPA, the research partnership will include a joint call issued by all organizations involved and will incorporate a common review and evaluation process.  EPA states: “The intent is to form consortia of both UK and US investigators using combined but independent national funding arrangements.” EPA expects the solicitations to be issued in February 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a notice in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) November 24, 2008, Regulatory Agenda, EPA intends to publish an interim evaluation in March 2009 of the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP), and a final evaluation of the NMSP, including next steps, in April 2010. The NMSP is a voluntary program that EPA established to assemble existing data and information from manufacturers and processors of certain nanoscale materials. The notice states that, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has the authority to require the development of data necessary for risk assessment when statutory findings concerning (1) production volume and exposure/entry into the environment or (2) potential hazard can be made, and to prevent and eliminate unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 12, 2008, EHP-in-Press posted an article entitled “Oxidatively Damaged DNA in Rats Exposed by Oral Gavage to C₆₀ Fullerenes and Single-walled Carbon Nanotubes.” According to the article, C₆₀ fullerenes and single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) are expected to be used in medicine and consumer products with potential human exposure. The objective was to determine whether the hazardous effects of these particles involve oxidative stress with generation of oxidatively damaged DNA that might be the initiating event in the development of cancer. The authors concluded that oral exposure to low doses of C₆₀ fullerenes and SWCNTs is associated with elevated levels of 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2’-deoxyguanosine in the liver and lung, “which is likely to be caused by a direct genotoxic ability rather than an inhibition of the DNA repair system.” EHP-in-Press articles have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Environmental Health Perspectives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 19, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability for review and comment of a petition requesting EPA regulate nanoscale silver products as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). According to the notice, EPA “has determined that the petition raises issues that potentially affect private and public sector stakeholders.” The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and 13 other consumer, health, and environmental groups filed the petition. Comments are due January 20, 2009.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 30, 2008, Consumers Union petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require a full safety assessment on the use of engineered nanoparticles, particularly in cosmetics, sunscreens, and sunblocks, and “to investigate possible enforcement action to ensure accurate labeling as to the presence or absence of nanoparticles.” Consumers Union cites new findings in the December 2008 issue of Consumer Reports, and states that the findings “confirm that use of certain nanoparticles is widespread in mineral-based sunscreens, and that company representatives are making erroneous assertions about these particles in their products.” Consumers Union purchased sunscreens that contain titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide, focusing on products that, according to company representatives, do not contain nanoparticles. According to the Consumer Reports article, Consumers Union found that four of the five companies’ statements about their products, asserting that they did not contain nanoparticles, were incorrect.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency posted a submission made by BASF Chemical Company under Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which requires U.S. chemical manufacturers, importers, processors and distributors to notify EPA within 30 calendar days of new, unpublished information on their chemicals that may lead to a conclusion of substantial risk to human health or to the environment. In its July 8, 2008, submission, BASF submitted the results of a subchronic inhalation study in rats, reporting that the no observed effect concentration is below 0.1 mg/m³. In a September 9, 2008, letter, EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) states that it conducts preliminary screens of all Section 8(e) submissions and routinely requests additional information from submitters to complete these preliminary screens or to evaluate submissions further. OPPT requested the complete report from BASF.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to the Office of the Federal Register, tomorrow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will publish a notice regarding the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requirements potentially applicable to carbon nanotubes (CNT). EPA states that it “generally considers CNTs to be chemical substances distinct from graphite or other allotropes of carbon listed on the TSCA Inventory.” As a result, many CNTs may therefore be new chemicals under TSCA Section 5. Manufacturers or importers of CNTs not on the TSCA Inventory must submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) (or applicable exemption) under TSCA Section 5 where required under 40 C.F.R. Part 720 or Part 723. To determine the TSCA Inventory status of a CNT, a manufacturer may submit to EPA a bona fide intent to manufacture or import under 40 C.F.R. Section 720.25.  According to the notice, some time after March 1, 2009, EPA anticipates focusing its compliance monitoring efforts to determine if companies are complying with TSCA Section 5 requirements for CNTs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) recently posted two blog items regarding a consent order negotiated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The October 9, 2008, item states that EPA intends to issue a sanitized version of a consent order negotiated with a producer of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). According to EDF, the order was prompted by EPA’s review of a premanufacturing notification (PMN).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an October 2, 2008, Update entitled “NIOSH Nanotechnology Research News Notes:  New Papers on PPE, Toxicity; New Partnerships, Award,” the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) describes two new peer-reviewed papers, two new international partnerships, and a professional award.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 30, 2008, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) released the results of a poll regarding nanotechnology and synthetic biology. According to PEN, almost half of U.S. adults have heard nothing about nanotechnology, and nearly nine in 10 Americans say they have heard only a little or nothing at all about synthetic biology. PEN states that, based on the poll results, “the level of U.S. public awareness about nanotechnology has not changed measurably since 2004,” when PEN sponsored the first poll on the topic. In synthetic biology, advanced science and engineering are used to construct or re-design living organisms so that they can carry out specific functions. PEN predicts that this emerging technology will likely develop rapidly in the coming years. According to PEN, the first synthetic biology “blockbuster” drug is anticipated to hit the market in the near future -- an affordable treatment for the 500 million people in the world suffering from malaria.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Beginning November 15, 2008, the Continental Western Insurance Group will no longer cover bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury from “nanotubes or nanotechnology in any form.” The company said its intent was to “remove coverage for the, as of yet, unknown and unknowable risks created by the products and processes that involve nanotubes.” According to the company, “reports have raised concerns regarding health risks from workers that may be inhaling carbon nanotubes during the manufacture of certain products. The carbon nanotubes resemble asbestos fibers in appearance, raising the concern that they may cause illness similar to that linked to asbestos.” The company concluded that it would not be prudent “to knowingly provide coverage for risks that are, as of yet, unknown and unquantifiable. We are all too aware of what happened to companies involved in asbestos-related exposures in the past, and see this as a very similar issue. By excluding coverage for bodily injury and property damage specifically caused by nanotubes and nanotechnology, we can continue to provide coverage for other exposures in the multitude of companies and products using nanotechnology now and in the future.” According to the notice to policyholders, the exclusion would apply to situations including “the use of, consumption of, ingestion of, inhalation of, absorption of, contact with, existence of, presence of, proliferation of, discharge of, dispersal of, seepage of, migration of, release of, escape of, or exposure to nanotubes or nanotechnology.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 18, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that, to ensure nanotechnology is developed in a responsible manner, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and EPA awarded $38 million to establish two Centers for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEIN).  EPA contributed $5 million to the overall award, which is the largest award for nanotechnology research in its history.  The CEINs will conduct research on the possible environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanomaterials, using very different approaches than previous studies. Led by the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and Duke University, the CEINs will study how nanomaterials interact with the environment and human health, and are intended to result in better risk assessment and mitigation strategies to be used in the commercial development of nanotechnology.  Each CEIN will work as a network, connected to multiple research organizations, industry, and government agencies, and will emphasize interdisciplinary research and education.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 18, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that EPA Region 5 will host the 2008 International Environmental Nanotechnology Conference: Applications and Implications, October 7-9, 2008, in Chicago, Illinois. According to EPA, researchers from Asia, Australia, and Europe will join U.S. scientists and government officials to discuss nanotechnology applications for environmental cleanup, pollution control, and the implications of releasing engineered nanoparticles into the environment. Partner agencies represented at the conference include the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and University of Illinois at Chicago’s Great Lakes Centers for Occupational and Environmental Safety and Health.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held its publicized Public Meeting on Nanotechnology on Monday, September 8, 2008, near its main offices in Rockville, Maryland. The meeting consisted of a plenary session led by Dr. Norris Alderson, Co-Chair of the FDA Nanotechnology Task Force, followed by separate breakout sessions for prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, food and color additives (including food contact substances), and dietary supplements.  In general, the meeting yielded no new information pertinent to FDA’s nanotechnology plans or policies.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recent press reports have indicated, and an attorney with the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) has confirmed, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contacted ICTA last week and informed the organization that it (EPA) intends to seek public comment on the nanoscale silver petition filed by ICTA and 13 other consumer, health, and environmental groups on May 1, 2008. The petition demanded, inter alia, that EPA regulate as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act consumer products containing nanoscale silver. The petitioners requested that EPA respond to the petition “within a reasonable time.”

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 On August 21, 2008, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars released its latest nanotechnology report, The Consumer Products Safety Commission and Nanotechnology, written by Dr. E. Marla Felcher. Dr. Felcher states that “[a] rapid increase in both the number and complexity of [nanotechnology-enabled consumer] products places significant responsibility on [the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)] to take the lead in regulating this new technology, but the agency is not in a position to do so.” After providing a brief history of the CPSC, Dr. Felcher asserts that the agency “has never lived up to its expectations,” and highlights five weaknesses in CPSC’s oversight capacity as exemplifying why CPSC is unable “to oversee the safety of complex, high-tech products made using nanotechnology”:

1. Its data collection system is not nano ready;
2. It has limited ability to inform the public about health hazards associated with nanotechnology products;
3. It has limited ability to ensure that recalled products are removed from store shelves;
4. It lacks sufficient enforcement personnel to identify manufacturers that fail to report nanotechnology product hazards; and
5. It does not have sufficient authority to promulgate mandatory safety standards for nanotechnology products.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold an October 8-9, 2008, workshop regarding enabling standards for nanomaterial characterization.  According to the workshop overview, there is an “urgent need” to elevate new protocols and practices for characterizing the physicochemical properties of nanomaterials, and their in vitro and in vivo properties with respect to biological systems, to that of internationally accepted standards to accelerate research, development, risk identification, regulation, and widespread public adoption of nanotechnology. The workshop is intended to address this need on several fronts. Workshop sponsors and contributors include:  ASTM International; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory (NCL) at NCI-Frederick; National Cancer Institute (NCI); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); NIST; National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); and Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI).  The workshop is limited to 100 attendees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an August 7, 2008, Federal Register notice, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will convene a public meeting on September 8, 2008, on FDA-regulated products that may contain nanoscale materials. According to the Federal Register notice, FDA also is seeking public comments and available data “that will assist [FDA] in further implementing the recommendations of the Nanotechnology Task Force Report . . . relating to the development of agency guidances.” Written comments in response to the Federal Register notice must be received by FDA no later than October 24, 2008. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 28, 2008, the City Council of Cambridge, Massachusetts voted to accept a set of recommendations for a municipal health and safety policy on nanomaterials. The recommendations were set forth in a report prepared by the Cambridge Public Health Department (CPHD) and the Cambridge Nanomaterials Advisory Committee (CNAC). Cambridge now becomes the second city in the United States -- Berkeley, California is the other -- to have taken municipal action on nanomaterials. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are pleased to announce that CRC Press has published Nanotechnology and the Environment, which Lynn L. Bergeson co-authored. Nanotechnology and the Environment includes a general explanation of nanomaterials, their properties, and their uses; describes the processes used to manufacture nanoscale materials; furnishes information on the analysis of nanomaterials in the environment and their fate and transport, including the effects of wastewater treatment on nanomaterials; discusses possible risks to human health and the environment; and describes developing regulations to manage those risks. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 22, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) posted a web page entitled “Pesticide Issues in the Works:  Nanotechnology, the Science of Small.” The web page states: “[The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)] and EPA’s implementing regulations provide an effective framework for regulating pesticide products that are a product of nanotechnology or that contain nanoscale materials.” According to the page, “EPA is currently examining potential hazard, exposure, policy, regulatory, and international issues that may be associated with pesticides that are a product of nanotechnology or that contain nanoscale materials.” While EPA has met with several companies “to discuss requirements for some specific nanoscale materials being considered for use as pesticides,” EPA has not yet received a formal registration application. EPA “strongly recommends” that companies contact the pesticide registration Ombudsmen “to arrange a pre-application conference as early as possible in the development of any pesticide that would be a product of nanotechnology or that would contain nanoscale material.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 22, 2008, Jim Willis stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is prepared to issue a rule under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to obtain data regarding nanoscale materials. Under the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) Basic Program, EPA asked companies to report data voluntarily on the engineered nanoscale materials they manufacture, import, process, or use. As of July 22, 2008, manufacturers of approximately 60 nanoscale materials had responded to EPA that they would participate in the NMSP. Willis stated that he hoped more companies would participate, so that data on about 100 nanoscale materials would be provided. The deadline for submissions under the Basic Program is July 28, 2008. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 17, 2007, Senators Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Chair of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, John Kerry (D-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) introduced the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. The bill would reauthorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and amend aspects of the program to prioritize better research and development activities. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 25, 2008, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) released a report entitled Assuring the Safety of Nanomaterials in Food Packaging: The Regulatory Process and Key Issues, which concludes that engineered nanoscale materials use in food packaging materials raise new safety evaluation challenges for regulators and industry. The report uses hypothetical food packaging applications to examine how the regulatory process would apply to nanotech food packaging materials and to identify issues that should be addressed to ensure the process works effectively. According to the report, the unique focus of its dialogue among experts and stakeholders from government, industry, and the public interest community was “upstream” -- on products that have not yet been commercialized, but which contain features of products that would likely move from development into the marketplace.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are pleased to announce that Lynn L. Bergeson will be speaking on June 2, 2008, at the Nano Science and Technology Institute (NSTI) Nanotech 2008 conference, which will run from June 1-5, 2008. She will be participating in a session on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. In addition, she is a co-presenter of the poster entitled “Nanomaterials down the drain: perception and reality.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 20, 2008, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) posted an entry on its science blog entitled “Nanotechnology: Should carbon nanotubes be handled in the workplace like asbestos?” The entry was prompted by the release of two recent reports contributing to the carbon nanotube/asbestos fiber comparison debate. The entry asks what the implications are to the risk assessment and risk management of carbon nanotubes in U.S. workplaces, and states:

However, questions have been raised about using these research findings for risk assessment analysis in the light of study limitations such as use of model animals, artificial administration methods, and sometimes extremely high doses, which are not representative of those exposures usually present in the workplace environment.  Such limitations are not unusual for pioneering scientific studies.  They simply mean that at this stage of the research, gaps remain that need to be closed by further study before quantitative risk assessment can be conducted.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 20, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that it would like to initiate discussions regarding testing of nanoscale materials under the in-depth portion of the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP). Under the NMSP, companies that manufacture, import, process, or use nanoscale materials for commercial purposes voluntarily submit data to EPA and also participate in the development of additional data. To date, EPA has received three submissions for nanoscale materials under the basic program. EPA has also received commitments from ten additional companies to submit data on nanoscale materials under the basic program. Thus far, no one has signed up to participate in the in-depth portion of the NMSP, however. EPA encourages anyone interested in starting this dialogue to contact it. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 16, 2008, EHP-in-Press posted an article entitled “Raw Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes Induce Oxidative Stress and Activate MAPKs, AP-1, NF-κB, and Akt in Normal and Malignant Human Mesothelial Cells.” According to the article, the unique physicochemical and mechanical properties of single-wall carbon nanotubes have many potential new applications in medicine and industrial uses. The article states that exposure to single-wall carbon nanotubes induced generation of reactive oxygen species, increased cell death, enhanced DNA damage, H2AX phosphorylation, and activated poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, activator protein-1, nuclear factor kappa B, protein p38, and protein serine-threonine kinase in a dose-dependent manner.  The article concludes that the cellular and molecular findings reported suggest that single-wall carbon nanotubes “can cause potentially adverse cellular responses in mesothelial cells through activation of molecular signaling associated with oxidative stress, which is of sufficient significance to warrant in vivo animal exposure studies.” EHP-in-Press articles have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in Environmental Health Perspectives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) May 5, 2008, Unified Agenda includes an item regarding the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP), which is a voluntary program that EPA established to assemble existing data and information from manufacturers and processors of certain nanoscale materials. The notice states that, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has the authority to require the development of data necessary for risk assessment when statutory findings concerning (1) production volume and exposure/entry into the environment or (2) potential hazard can be made, and to prevent and eliminate unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. On January 28, 2008, EPA announced the NMSP. According to the Unified Agenda notice, EPA intends to publish in March 2009 an interim evaluation of the NMSP, and a final evaluation of the NMSP, “including next steps,” in April 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 1, 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), together with 13 other consumer, health, and environmental groups, filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demanding that EPA regulate as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and that it take additional actions under FIFRA and other environmental statutes concerning, consumer products containing nanoscale silver. ICTA also released an inventory of the nano silver-containing consumer products referenced in the petition. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link