So I work in a research group that is interested in environmental nanoscience. Some of us study nanoparticles that already exist in nature, and others are more interested in what happens when all this nanocrap we’re making enters the environment. One of the latter researchers presented at group meeting what I am about to describe, but first let me set the scene:
Part of the problem with the recent boom in nanotechnology is that we really don’t know the toxicological or environmental effects of all of the thousands of nanoparticles being used in new consumer products. (check out the Nanotechnology consumer products inventory to see what products now contain ‘nano’ components)
One might think in times like these that it would be useful for governmental agencies to actually step in and do something useful to address the lack of regulation on nanotech companies. Unfortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a statement on January 28th, 2008 defining how nanomaterials should (or in this case, should not) be regulated. They declare that even though a material with nanoscale dimensions may exhibit a remarkably different reactivity than its larger counterparts (this is the founding principle of nanoscience), it should be regulated according to previously established .
That means that Benny the Bear, complete with a silver nanoparticle coating, will not require additional safety testing. What will it take for the EPA to realize that this is not acceptable? We barely know anything about this stuff!! Will we need to recall a bunch of these products in the future like we did for lead in kids toys ? You sure you want your kid playing with this cuddly little guy?
Agreed they should be wrapping their heads around this and they appear to be thinking about it, but the process of government policy never keeps up with technology development. While the EPA’s statement notes that it does not currently use particle size as identifying criteria for a chemical, it does include molecular identity and they do use structural as well as compositional features as criteria (page 3). Which would cover a lot of ground.
The safety and environmental fate issues appear to be ones the EPA and other gov’t entities are in the process of working out (see http://www.nano.gov/) so I would expect to see more comprehensive policy developed in ?? 2-5 years. Unless the lawmakers have a knee-jerk before new policy is worked out, which could/likely be a bad thing.
Hi Betsy, thanks for the comments!
I agree that regulation always lags a little, but it’s not like the nano-tech boom was unexpected. People have been predicting this for ages. Given the language in this new statement, I wouldn’t expect anything anytime soon to change regarding their stance. My feeling is that it is just to difficult for the EPA to regulate all of these new products out there, with virtually infinite size/shape/coating/core combinations that can change nanoparticle reactivities. There are countless examples in the literature of how materials behave much differently when they exist as nanoparticles.
Obviously it will not be easy (characterizing nanoparticles is very difficult/expensive), but the EPA’s definition of different ‘molecular identities’ is very restricting in terms of demanding regulation. When I read it, I see the same old jargon of how chemicals/materials need to fit precisely into a specific category for their inventory. Nano-stuff isn’t conventional and is difficult to categorize but that does not mean we should turn a blind eye and assume they’re as safe as their non-nanosized counterparts
Given what scientists now know about how matter behaves at this scale, it is neglectful to let companies pump out tons of this stuff without knowing anything about it. And because nanotechnology is such a priority for the current U.S. administration, no policy regarding regulation would be knee-jerk. Consider the billions of dollars spent on nano-tech R&D: only a minuscule fraction of it is actually spent on understanding it’s environmental impact. I feel the time is now to start acting on what continue to promote both economically and scientifically.