Nanotechnology Regulation: Various Items
It's amazing how items accumulate in an in-box when you've been out of town. Such is the case here. Several articles and other items of interest have come to my attention, but posting them here has been difficult lately. With that, here are some regulatory items that may be of interest to readers:
First, a forthcoming paper from the American Chemistry Society, "The Impact of Toxicity Testing Costs on Nanomaterial Regulation," analyzes the costs of testing the toxicity of nanoparticles in relation to the regulating agencies that bear the burden of this risk analysis. The author suggests a tiered regulatory system, such as the EU's REACH program.
Second, Michael Berger of Nanowerk published an article discussing the adequacy of current regulations in relation to nanomaterials. The article draws heavily from a PhD thesis, "Regulation and Risk Assessment of Nanomaterials– Too Little, Too Late?" Mr. Berger uses this thesis to reopen the discussion concerning the adequacy of current regulation as it relates to nanotechnology development.
Third, the International Medical Device Regulatory Monitor reports that FDA "has no plans to toughen its regulations on nanotechnology." The article quotes Norris Alderson, FDA's Associate Commissioner for science, as saying, "the science does not dictate that there is a need to do more than what we're already doing now." The article also reports that FDA has no plans to update its 2007 Task Force report. The article points out this may be a departure from the considerations of international counterparts.
Finally, the Risk Policy Report indicates that California may be getting ready to move forward on nanotechnology regulation. AB 935 has been proposed, and it is expected that the bill will be amended "to propose a detailed nanotechnology regulatory program for California." As it currently sits, AB 935 is a general, place-holder, bill “to state the Legislature’s intent to enact legislation to address emerging toxicity issues surrounding the increasingly widespread utilization of engineered nanomaterials."
I hope this is enough reading material for your Monday morning. Enjoy!
California Considering Statewide Nano Regs
At least one California legislator is said to be considering statewide legislation to "monitor and regulate" nanotechnology in the state. Assemblyman Mike Feuer chaired a meeting on April 23 at UCLA to discuss options for developing nanotech regulation without impairing its growth. Assemblyman Feuer is one of the leading voices in California concerning nanotechnology regulation.
While the legislation isn't expected to be introduced until sometime next year, different options are said to be under consideration. One option creates a multi-agency task force led by the University of California and the California EPA, while another option calls for quick action by EPA itself.
This is another example of state and local regulatory bodies stepping in to create nanotechnology oversight regulation in the absence of federal activity. California's consideration joins Berkeley, Cambridge, and Wisconsin as the potential "first-movers."
The multi-agency approach is a new concept that I've not seen attempted before (admittedly, that is hard to accomplish on the municipal level), but it makes sense on a lot of levels. We'll all have to watch what California does towards the end of this year and into next year.
