Nanotechnology Toxicity Controls Proposed

Do we need new legislation to regulate Nanotechnology?

J. Clarence Davies, Senior Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, last week released a report titled “Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology.” Davies had two purposes for writing this report: first, to describe the “menu of possibilities” of laws that exist under which the adverse effects of nanotechnology (NT) may be dealt with, and second, to “provide evidence relevant for determining what needs to be done to manage NT.”

Nanotechnology is currently used in everything from nanoelectronics to the generation of biomaterials; its possibilities are almost limitless. “It has implications for almost every type of manufacturing process and product,” says Davies, such as in “therapies for several different types of cancer, much more efficient lighting and battery storage, a major reduction in the cost of desalinating water, clothes that never stain and glass that never needs cleaning.”

However, even though nanotech is rapidly developing, Davies points out that “the toxicity aspects of [nanotechnology] are just beginning to be explored.” He discusses several existing regulations such as the Toxic Substances Control Act, enacted in 1976 to “prevent new chemicals from being marketed without adequate safeguards”, under which NT may be regulated because all nanomaterials are similar in the physical property of size. NT may also be regulated under the Occupational Safety Hazard Act of 1970, but the actual methods and equipment used to detect nanomaterials are expensive, and OSHA, says Davies, “traditionally has been starved for resources.”

Davies believes the existing laws could be coordinated, amended and strengthened in order to properly assess the risks of NT. Another option, however, is the creation of a new law, which would be implemented in the next five to 10 years.

This law, as proposed by Davies, would focus on the nanomaterials themselves, before they are distributed to consumers, so as to analyze the materials before they are exposed to the environment. Manufacturers would be required to do toxicity testing on new products, just as in drug or chemical research and development.

There are four stages in Davies’ proposal. First, the regulatory agency in charge, such as the EPA, would establish ground rules. What are covered, what are not, are old NT products subject to the law, etc. Second, each material or product would require a “sustainability plan,” which would include Life Cycle Analysis, results from testing, proposed restrictions on use, etc, to be submitted to the regulatory agency. The general public would get a review period, and the material/product would be approved or not. The final stage would involve “follow-up,” and continued toxicological investigations, if needed.

The implementation of a new law such as this would not be an easy task. Not only is the law-making process slow and arduous, manufacturers will surly balk at footing the bill for the required tests. “The law,” says Davies, “would need to be balanced between giving the government the information it would like but not imposing on manufacturers burdens that would stifle entrepreneurship.”

Furthermore, Davies believes that “the drawbacks of trying to fit NT under existing laws make the attempt [to create a new law] worthwhile.” As NT is not currently regulated, and not much toxicity testing has been done, “Society”, says Davies, “must openly face the issues of whether the technology has or could have adverse effects, what these effects are, and how to prevent them in the future.”

Davies was trained as a political scientist at Dartmouth College (B.A.), and Columbia University (PhD). He received financial support from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnology, which is supported by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts, from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and from Resources for the Future.
Reference:Leona Scanlan,dailytech