Federal Agencies Will Hold Workshop on Enabling Standards for Nanomaterial Characterization

Posted on August 21, 2008 by Lynn L. Bergeson

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FDA Announces Public Meeting on Nanoscale Materials

Posted on August 11, 2008 by Lynn L. Bergeson
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.

FDA states that the main objective of the public meeting “is to determine what factors [FDA] should consider in providing guidance on” the following:

  • The information and data that may be needed to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of FDA-regulated products containing nanoscale materials; and
  • The circumstances under which a product’s regulatory status might change due to the presence or use of nanoscale materials (for example, making a device no longer exempt from [Section] 510(k) submission requirements).

Persons wishing to speak at the meeting must register and submit a presentation summary by September 2, 2008. Registration details are provided in the Federal Register notice.
Tags: , , , ,

FDLI and PEN Will Cosponsor First Annual Conference on Nanotechnology Law, Regulation, and Policy

Posted on December 18, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson

The Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) will hold a conference on February 28-29, 2008, on “Nanotechnology Law, Regulation and Policy.” Questions addressed during the conference will include:

  • How is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) going to implement its Nanotechnology Task Force Report?
  • How is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) going to deal with nanotech issues in the workplace?
  • Is Congress ready to act on nanotechnology if federal regulators don’t?
  • What first and second generation nanotechnology products are already on the market, and what’s to come?
  • Do Europe and Asia approach nanotechnology safety and oversight differently than the United States?
  • When it comes to nanotechnology, should size make a regulatory difference?
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Bush Administration Releases Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety Oversight

Posted on November 16, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson
On November 8, 2007, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a memorandum regarding “Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety Oversight.” According to the memorandum, OSTP and CEQ “led a multi-agency consensus-based process” to develop principles intended to guide the development and implementation of policies for nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety oversight at the agency level.  The memorandum says that federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) “must implement sound policies to protect public health and the environment,” and “agencies that perform nanotechnology research and development or that use nanotechnology in accomplishing their mission must provide appropriate oversight.”

The memorandum states that these agencies should follow the following principles in developing policies for environmental, health, and safety oversight related to nanotechnology:

  • Purpose:  Federal oversight approaches should be cognizant of the potential benefits of nanotechnology, including health, economic, and environmental benefits, while recognizing uncertainties surrounding the evolving science and technology.  The purpose of considering environmental, health, and safety oversight approaches in the context of nanotechnology is to protect human health and the environment.
  • Current Understanding:  The federal government’s current understanding is that existing statutory authorities are adequate to address oversight of nanotechnology and its applications.  As with any developing area, as new information becomes available the federal government will adapt or develop additional oversight approaches, as necessary, to address the area of nanotechnology.
  • Information Development:  Adequate information should be developed with respect to the effects of nanomaterials on human health and the environment.  To the extent practicable and respecting confidential information (e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)), this information should be developed in an open and transparent manner by stakeholders, including the federal government and developers of nanomaterials.
  • Risk Assessment and Risk Management:  The federal government should use standard oversight approaches to assess risks and benefits, and manage risks, considering safety, health and environmental impacts, and exposure mitigation.  As experience is gained, these approaches can be refined.  The federal government should strive to reach an appropriate level of consistency in risk assessment and management approaches across the government.
  • International:  Recognizing the global efforts to develop nanotechnology, the federal government should proactively promote international cooperation.  The federal government should encourage coordinated and collaborative health and environmental research and test data development across the international community.  The federal government should also promote access to information across the international community.  These efforts will allow the federal government to contribute to, and take advantage of, risk assessment and risk management approaches, as appropriate, across the international community.
  • Regulatory Path Forward:  In light of the “Purpose” of oversight as described above, the federal government should consider the following, to the extent permitted by law and where applicable, in establishing environmental, health, and safety regulations for nanotechnology:
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

First Annual Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue Held in October

Posted on November 13, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson

On October 25-26, 2007, the European Commission (EC) held the First Annual Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue. Presentations included:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FDA Releases Proposed Rule Regarding Sunscreens

Posted on August 24, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson
Yesterday the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a proposed rule that would amend the final monograph for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug products as part of FDA’s ongoing review of OTC drug products. The proposed rule addresses formulation, labeling, and testing requirements for both ultraviolet B (UVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation protection, would introduce four-star rating system for the level of UVA protection, and would require a warning statement. FDA previously delayed regulations concerning UVA protection until reliable testing methodologies could be developed. The proposed rule specifically solicits comment on “the safety and effectiveness of sunscreen ingredients formulated in particle sizes as small as a few nanometers.”  Comments on the proposed avobenzone combinations will be due 60 days after publication of the Federal Register notice. Comments on all other parts of the proposed rule and on FDA’s economic impact determination will be due 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. In the proposed rule, FDA states that it “recognizes that more sunscreens containing small particle size titanium dioxide and zinc oxide ingredients enter the market each year.” According to the proposed rule, FDA is interested in receiving comments and data about these sunscreen ingredients and products containing these ingredients, their safety and effectiveness, and how they should be regulated.  FDA notes that it received a citizen petition “shortly before publication of this document that, among other things, raises these issues.”  FDA is currently evaluating the citizen petition, which is filed as CP17 in Docket No. 1978N-0038.  FDA encourages other parties to submit additional data or information on the safety and effectiveness of sunscreen ingredients formulated in particle sizes as small as a few nanometers.
Tags: , , , ,

FDA Nanotechnology Task Force Issues Report

Posted on July 26, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson
On July 25, 2007, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nanotechnology Task Force issued its report, which addresses regulatory and scientific issues and offers recommendations for each. The Task Force intends its report to outline ways for FDA to enhance its knowledge of nanotechnology to support its oversight for products using such technology, and to inform interested stakeholders what information may be needed to support the marketing of FDA-regulated products that use nanoscale materials. The Task Force recommends FDA consider developing specific guidance for manufacturers and researchers, including guidance to clarify what information should be provided to FDA about products and when the use of nanoscale materials may change the regulatory status of particular products. In its press release announcing the availability of the Task Force report, FDA states that, as with other FDA guidance, “draft guidance documents would be made available for public comment prior to being finalized.” The Task Force also recommends that FDA work to assess data needs to better regulate nanotechnology products; develop in-house expertise; ensure consideration of relevant new information on nanotechnology as it becomes available; and evaluate the adequacy of current testing approaches to assess safety, effectiveness, and quality of nanoscale materials.
Tags: , , , ,

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Issues Statement on the Occupational and Environmental Risks of Nanotechnology

Posted on July 19, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson
The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) recently issued a position statement on nanotechnology risks. The CSTE statement observes that the “health, safety and environmental effects of nanomaterials are poorly understood,” and that “our limited knowledge of [nanotechnology’s] potential harm is cause for concern.” Among other things, CSTE calls: for increased funding for research on the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology; for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require content-labeling on products containing nanoparticles that are aerosolized or applied to the skin; and for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue standards for the protection of workers, the public, and the environment against known or suspected harmful effects of nanoparticles.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Reviews Nomination of Nanoscale Silver for Testing

Posted on June 27, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson
At its June 22, 2007, meeting, the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) reviewed nominations of several substances for testing, including nanoscale silver. The Food and Drug Administration nominated nanoscale silver for toxicological studies “based on (a) increasing widespread use in drug, food and cosmetic products, and (b) the general lack of data on the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these materials.” Comments on the testing nomination were submitted by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM); the Nano Testing Consortium; and the Silver Institute.
Tags: , , , , , ,

FDA Announces New Advisory Committee to Address Risk Communication

Posted on June 18, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson

On June 4, 2007, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a new advisory committee intended to counsel FDA on how to strengthen the communication of risks and benefits of FDA-regulated products to the public. The Risk Communication Advisory Committee will:

  • Help FDA better understand the communication needs and priorities of the general public;
  • Advise FDA on the development of strategic plans to communicate product risks and benefits; and
  • Make recommendations to FDA on what current research suggests about crafting risk and benefit messages, as well as how to most effectively communicate specific product information to vulnerable audiences.
Tags: , , ,

July Issue of Consumer Reports Includes Article on Nanotechnology

Posted on June 5, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson
The July 2007 issue of Consumer Reports includes an article entitled “NANOtechnology: Untold Promise, Untold Risk.” According to Consumer Reports, while nanotechnology “promises to be the most important innovation since electricity and the internal combustion engine,” “some applications might pose substantial risks to human health and the environment.” The article states that nanomaterials are already being used in consumer products such as car wax, computer chips, and sunscreen, and that approximately $2.6 trillion worth of goods worldwide are expected to use nanotechnology by 2014, up from $50 billion in 2006. Consumers Union (CU), the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, concludes that the responsibility for protecting consumers rests mainly with government and industry.  In particular, CU believes that the government should provide more funds for risk research and regulation, and that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should assess safety information on nanoingredients in cosmetics, food additives, and other products before they are sold, and should require manufacturers to report health problems linked with those ingredients. The full article is available in the July 2007 issue of Consumer Reports.
Tags: , , , , ,

Joint Economic Committee of Congress Releases a New Study on Nanotechnology

Posted on April 17, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson
In mid-March 2007, Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), the ranking minority member of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), released a new Congressional study on nanotechnology. On balance an extremely positive report, the JEC Study “discusses the range of sciences currently covered by nanotechnology,” describes “what nanotechnology is and how it relates to previous scientific advances,” as well as “the most likely future development of different technologies in a variety of fields,” and includes a review of the federal government’s current nanotechnology policy. Importantly also, the report urges three changes pertinent to the use of nanotechnology in products: product labeling; disclosure to FDA of safety testing and publication of any adverse results; and enhanced public education in the area of nanotechnology.
Tags: , , , ,

Senate Requests GAO Review of NNI

Posted on March 22, 2007 by Lynn L. Bergeson
In a March 15, 2007, letter, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which was created to accelerate the discovery, development, and deployment of nanoscale science and technology. For fiscal year 2006, NNI received $1.2 billion in research and development funding, and 22 federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), participate in NNI. According to the letter, one key expectation for NNI was “to ensure that adequate attention and research funding was made available to gain a better understanding of the potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks associated with nanomaterials.” The letter states that the Committee and Caucus “are extremely concerned that this has not happened and that there is a lack of transparency with regard to how much federal attention and funding this important aspect of the initiative is receiving.”

To determine the extent to which federal agencies have undertaken EHS research and how they are prioritizing and managing this research, the Committee and Caucus ask GAO to:

  •  Review the extent to which NNI-related resources have been devoted to study the EHS risks of nanomaterials;
  • Identify the key areas of research for which this EHS funding has been used;
  • Determine what processes the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Working Group uses to prioritize and coordinate these various EHS research efforts; and
  • Review and identify any EHS-related research and regulatory activities, independent of the NNI, that EPA, FDA, CPCS, and OSHA have undertaken, the amount of funding made available for these efforts, and the extent to which information about these efforts has been communicated to the Working Group to ensure that they are considered in the overall research planning processes for the NNI.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,