MEP Calls for Greater Nanotech Regulation

Concerns about the impact of nanotechnology on our health and the environment are prompting calls for stricter regulation in the European Union. The European Parliament is assembling a draft report in relation to the regulation of nanomaterials. The report  suggests that

“nanomaterials…potentially present significant new risks due to their minute size, such as increased reactivity and mobility, possibly leading to increased toxicity in combination with unrestricted access to the human body… The current discussion about nanomaterials is characterised by many contradictions or even paradoxes, with disagreement and thus political
struggles.”

The draft noted differing views, for instance inventories compiled by respected institutions list over 800 manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-based consumer products on the market, whilst manufacturer trade associations claim that these figures are overestimations, but yet provide no concrete figures themselves. Also, manufacturers highlight the diversity of applications and shrink this down to zero when it comes to regulatory discussions about nanomaterials.

In addition the report cites that companies are all too willing to use nano-claims to market their products but are “strictly opposed to objective labelling requirements.”

This debate follows other communications and action plans seeking to address the issue, as well as opinions from the scientific committee on health risks and the safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products.

Nanoparticles are increasingly being added to cosmetic products despite a lack of information about their safety. For example, nano-sized titanium dioxide and zinc oxide particles are used in sunscreens to protect against UV radiation without leaving a white tinge on the skin. Toothpastes contain biocomposites to promote tooth repair. Nanocapsules are used to transport active ingredients deeper into the skin (which is of concern because if the nanoparticles are absorbed into the bloodstream they may be transported around the body and cause damage to DNA). Fullerenes (football shaped molecules consisting of carbon atoms) are used for this purpose, but have been found to cause DNA damage and cell death in human tissues and brain damage in fish exposed to modest concentrations. Carbon nanotubes have been found to cause the same type of damage as asbestos.

Carl Schylter MEP,  of the Swedish Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, who is piloting the discussion has suggested that nanotechnology’s promise will ‘crumble to ashes’ if regulatory measures are not taken to ensure pre-market product  safety. He noted,

“Nanotechnology entails new toxicological risks, which are vaguely defined and difficult to test, a field in which our knowledge about immune-defense response- if it is able to react at all in any given situation - is poor. EU scientific committees point to major deficiencies not only in key data, but even in methods of obtaining such data. But many representatives of industry claim that all relevant data are available and that there are no methodological deficiencies.”

He added, “When we know that nanoparticles are capable of penetrating the blood-brain barrier, how can we allow sun creams on to the market when we cannot guarantee that they have been tested to explore the possible differences in behaviour they may exhibit compared with previous creams?

Nanotechnology entails entering into areas with a limited amount of knowledge. The old mechanical models used for bigger objects and their behaviour no longer entirely apply. Neither can nanoparticles always behave in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics. They sometimes fall into a theoretical grey area but, above all, into a legal grey area. It is our role, as politicians, to ensure that nanotechnology is regulated in a way that protects the environment and mankind.”

The MEP is calling for regulation to be drawn up specifically to deal with nanotechnology and has criticised the Commission for failing to provide this so far, saying that a recent document looking at the regulatory aspects of nanomaterials,

“is seriously undermined by the complete absence of any information about the specific properties of nanomaterials, their actual uses and potential risks and benefits…As long as current legislation is devoid of any nano-specific provisions in Community law and as long as data and even methods to assess the risks of nanomaterials are missing, better implementation of current law alone cannot bring about the necessary level of protection.”

The Commission’s review indicates that current legislation is satisfactory but implementation should be improved. Schlyter suggests,

“The Commission’s analysis is based on a one-dimensional, legalistic overview of the current rules but those rules are about as effective in addressing nanotechnology as trying to catch plankton with a cod fishing net.”

The draft report calls for amongst other things:

• The ‘no data, no market’ rule be applied “for all applications of nanomaterials in consumer products or in products leading to discharges to the environment.”
• Labelling for all consumer products containing nanomaterials.
• Urgent development of adequate testing protocols.
• Ethical guidelines to ensure full respect for ethical values in possible use of nanotechnology converging with biomedical applications.
• Considers that regulatory action on nanomaterials should also address nanomaterials generated unintentionally through combustion processes, given the very high number of air-pollution related deaths every year.