US Advisor Talks About Nanotech Regulation

J. Clarence (Terry) Davies, Senior Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, is one of the foremost authorities on environmental research and policy. Here he talks about the regulation of nanotechnology.

Q: Do you think governments are doing enough to protect consumers from the potential health risks associated with nanomaterials, especially with regards to cosmetic products? If not what kind of regulatory framework do you think they should put into place?
 

No, my answer is absolutely no. Almost whatever aspect of that question one looks at the answer is no. The government is not devoting enough funding to research, it isn’t organising the research on health and environmental effects in the right way, the laws are inadequate and in the sense that they could be adequate, they are not being implemented adequately to protect the public from the problems of nanotechnology.

Q: Why do you think that is?

I think there are a lot of reasons. Clearly a major reason is that the previous administration was a pro-business administration and their perception, which I personally think is not an accurate perception, is that any kind or regulation, or any kind of raising of the issues of health and environmental effects is something that industry does not want. I would argue that at least in the long run industry would be much better off if we face these issues and have an adequate framework for oversight. The complexity of the issue is obviously another factor and novelty, the fact that the whole American system at least is geared to not doing anything unless you are faced with a crisis or some kind of disaster. All of those things are elements here too.

Q: Do you think the use of nanotechnology will be a problem in cosmetics?

I am not a toxicologist but I think the short answer is that we don’t know, and do I think there could be adverse effects. Yes clearly. Do I think there will be? I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that.

Q: Why are companies racing to use nanotechnology when the health and environmental effects are largely unknown?

They are using it because they have advantages, so that they can make a better product, but I presume that most manufacturers who use them think that they are safe. Some companies have undertaken some testing on them, although for the most part we don’t know how much, but in terms of cosmetic manufacturers in particular, we have no idea how much testing has been done, because they don’t share their data with anyone. In the US there is no legal authority to require them to share that data or produce that data.

Q:Do you think the cosmetic regulations in America will need to be overhauled completely?

Yes that is right. The problem is not one specific to nanotechnology the problem is true of cosmetics across the board, so yes they would have to be overhauled. The chemicals legislation as well, the Toxic Substances Act which is our equivalent of REACH would have to be overhauled for similar reasons.

Q: What sort of things should the government be doing to better regulate nanotechnology?

It’s a complicated and diverse technology, making it difficult, but in terms of basic functions, the government should have some ability to require health and safety testing. It should have the ability to look at the results of testing and it should have the ability to require labelling, or restrict distribution or recall products or take measures to make sure that the adverse effects do not occur. It should also be able to mandate some kind of adverse effects reporting system, because pre-market review of cosmetics and chemicals is to me a major and necessary step but it is never going to be 100 per cent effective, so you need a post-market surveillance effort that requires manufacturers to report on adverse effects and hopefully set up some kind of system for identifying if those adverse effects occur.

Q: Do you think the benefits of nanotechnology outweigh the potential risks and with the current lack of regulation do you think we will be able to adequately manage the risk if the adverse health effects are proven?

Different situations imply at least to me different things. I mean I am willing to take a much higher risk in following much greater uncertainties for a nano-drug that can cure cancer than I am for a nano-lipstick and there obviously lots of degrees in between. We know something about the benefits side but we know very little about the health effects side.

Q: Would you use personal care products that incorporated nanotechnology?

I would be inclined to wait until the health effects had been established, but it is tricky, because some things like sunscreen have a definite positive health effect. The Environmental Working Group has come out in favour of using titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in sunscreens. I think the line is very hard to draw and it is hard to know what the balance looks like. In general the promise of the technology as a whole is tremendous, it is hard to exaggerate the potential positive contributions that nanotechnology as a whole can make and the public really has very little knowledge about the technology. Part of the problem of knowing whether we should go ahead and allow these things to be used is that whilst we can say that, for example, in lipstick it doesn’t serve any great public use, therefore we shouldn’t do it until we know more about the effects, there is the danger that if the government, lets say, bans the use of nanomaterials in lipstick, it will not be limited to lipstick in the public’s mind. They may say that all nanotechnology is dangerous and bad and I worry about that having an adverse effect on the development of the technology as well. It is a problem because if you look at it in a cross benefits context or a precautionary context the fact that you cannot make the determination solely on individual products or applications, because whatever you do is going to have implications for the technology as a whole that’s a major complicating factor.

Q: Do you think that will be solved with regulation?

You could solve this with regulation. If the public has some reason to have faith in the government’s ability to determine the safety of products, then I think that would make a big difference. You could say that educating the public about different applications or different types of nanomaterials could help but I am doubtful that this would solve the problem of the public associating any kind of action or prohibition on one part of the areas across the whole board.

Q: Is there any existing regulation that applies to nanotechnology?

Some kinds of products containing nanomaterials are being regulated under existing law, such as drugs, medical devices and food additives, not because they are nanomaterials but because those kinds of products are subject to pretty stringent regulations, so in that sense certain applications of nanotechnology are being regulated but there is no general regulation. The one act which people have pressed to regulate nanotechnology in general is the Toxic Substances Control Act. In July the EPA come out with a paper that pretty much said they are not going to use the act for that purpose, so even the weak laws that could be used are not being used to regulate nano in general.