New Edition of Nanotechnology Law Report

Here is the Summer 2009 edition of Nanotechnology Law Report.  The newsletter contains the below-listed articles (and more):

  • EPA Issues Significant New Use Rules for Carbon Nanotubes
  • Are Nanoparticles Released by Cutting or Compounding Nano-Composites?
  • Annual Nano TiO2 Production Estimated at 44,000 Metric Tons
  • Are Nano Consumer Products Headed Underground?
  • Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology
  • Regulating Nanotechnologies
  • More Interesting Nano-Regulatory Developments
  • Nano Tug of War
  • Pumpkins & Nanoparticles
  • Green Nano
  • NanoBiotech 2009
  • Take two silver nanoparticles and call me in the morning
  • International Approaches to the Regulatory Governance of Nanotechnology
  • ETUC Resolution on Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials
  • Private Spending on Nano Exceeds Government Spending
  • EMERGNANO Released

Nanotechnology Law Report -- Spring 2009

Recommendations for New Nano-Specific Regulation

As Mike Heintz reported earlier today, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies issued a report yesterday providing some guidance regarding where it believes the next administration should start with the issue of nanotechnology regulation next January.

J. Clarence Davies, "Nanotechnology Oversight: An Agenda for the New Administration," Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, PEN 13, July 2008.

Among other suggestions, Mr. Davies advocates enacting new nano-specific legislation in the following areas.

TSCA: Mr. Davies offers specific legislative language for amending TSCA "to make clear that nanomaterials are covered as new substances." Other changes he suggests: "remove the catch-22 that requires EPA to show that a new chemical poses a risk before the agency can obtain enough information to determine whether it actually poses a risk;" "remove the conditions and requirements that guarantee that EPA can never regulate an existing substance;" and narrow TSCA’s confidential business information and data sharing provisions.

FFDCA: Mr. Davies argues the FFDCA should be amended to require submission and review by FDA of cosmetic active ingredient registration information.  He further maintains that "FDA should also be authorized to forbid marketing of any cosmetic containing an ingredient that is not safe or for which adequate test data are not available," and that applicable FDA laws should be altered "to make clear where and how to draw the line between a drug and a cosmetic."  Mr. Davies additionally recommends requiring premarket safety testing on food and cosmetic ingredients incorporating nanoscale materials, and increased post-marketing surveillance and reporting.

DSHEA: Mr. Davies calls for amending DSHEA so that it does not prohibit "FDA from imposing testing or approval on dietary supplements (vitamins, herbs, etc.) and placing the burden of proof on FDA to provide that a supplement is safe."

Other recommendations by Mr. Davies beyond long-term regulatory action are:

Research: dramatically increase federal nano-related EHS research funding (FY 2009 - $100 million; FY 2010 - $150 million), require a federal peer-reviewed EHS research plan; strengthen NNI; encourage separation of NNI promotional and oversight functions; and establish a Nanotechnology Effects Institute.

Regulatory Coordination: establish an interagency group devoted solely to nanotechnology regulation; develop a nanotechnology plan within each agency; and improve intergovernmental coordination.

Resource Requirements: increase regulatory agency budgets and staffing.

EPA: define nanomaterials as "new" chemical substances and/or "significant new uses" of existing chemical substances under TSCA; promulgate a new compulsory information collection rule under TSCA Section 8; expand regulation of anti-microbials under federal pesticide law; promote "green" technology; and evaluate the application of other EPA statutes to nanotechnology.

FDA: establish criteria for determining which nanomaterials are "new" for regulatory purposes; collect information on safety testing, forthcoming products and adverse effects; regulate cosmetics and dietary supplements.

OSHA: communicate to workers and firms about nanotechnology; use existing OSHA regulations to deal with nanoparticles; issue OSHA standards for nanomaterials.

CPSC: hire new staff to study nanotechnology exposure; create a chronic hazard advisory panel for nanotechnology products posing significant exposure risks.

Voluntary Efforts: use the DuPont-Environmental Defense framework as a basis for analyzing nanotechnology risks; issue a nanotechnology handbook for small businesses.

Public Involvement: give the public more information about nanotechnology; obtain the public's views about nanotechnology; convene a stakeholder dialogue.

Mr. Davies concludes his article with an interesting analogy: "[N]anotechnology comes in a treasure chest of riches and a Pandora's box of evils. The challenge of the new century and to the new administration is to use the treasure while keeping shut the lid on the Pandora's box."

Report on Food Packaging

Earlier this week the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the Grocery Manufacturers Association released the report, Assuring the Safety of Nanomaterials in Food Packaging.  The report addresses the growing concern of using nanomaterials in food packaging and related applications.

Throughout the report, the author addresses the unique, and in some cases, not so unique, concerns raised by using nanomaterials in food packaging, all through the use of hypothetical applications.  The purpose of the report is to "tee-up" the regulatory issues faced by the FDA, as the primary regulatory agency in charge of food packaging, and the EPA as a secondary regulating authority.  The report provided a broad based look at the issues raised by this specific nanomaterial application.

Like other areas of potential regulation, the use of nanomaterials in such close proximity to food raises its own concerns and potential.  Beyond the discussion raised by the paper itself, which are absolutely worth considering, it is encouraging to see the GMA involved in this study.  Because of the number of regulatory topics that are emerging, and each one seemingly unique to its own industry of application, it becomes critical for stakeholders to involve themselves in the debate. 

New York Times Editorial On FDA

This morning's New York Times features an editorial discussing Peter Barton Hutt's before the House subcommittee responsible for FDA oversight.  Mr. Hutt warned that the FDA was "barely hanging on by its fingertips;"  others testifying before the subcommittee suggested the agency lacked funds and staffing to do its job:

In a hearing before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, members of the agency’s own scientific advisory board outlined the F.D.A.’s many weaknesses. It lacks scientists who understand rapidly emerging technologies — including genomics and nanotechnology — relevant to product safety. The agency is further hobbled by a high turnover rate of scientists, a decrepit information technology system, a weak organizational structure, and a shrinking inspection force.

That said, FDA has been researching nanotechnology issues for some time -- it formed its Nanotechnology Task Force in August 2006.   Still, it's interesting that nanotechnology safety issues have even found their way to the editorial page of the New York Times.

FDA Regulation of Nanotechnology?

By Tim Cahill:

Yesterday the FDA's Nanotechnology Task Force released its report on the scientific and regulatory challenges related to the use of nanotechnology in products regulated by the FDA. As reported in our July 10, 2007 post, the Task Force's report did not call for additional FDA regulatory authority in this area. The Task Force concluded that the use of nanomaterials in products regulated by the FDA presents challenges similar to those products using existing technologies and other emerging technologies. Further, the Task Force determined that the current science on nanotechnology does not suggest that products using nanomaterials require additional labeling.

The Task Force, however, did recognize that the unique properties of nanomaterials could at some point create challenges with respect to product safety and effectiveness. To that end, the Task Force recommended the consideration of agency guidance that would clarify what information manufacturers should provide to the FDA about products utilizing nanotechnology and would clarify the circumstances under which the use of nanomaterials would change the regulatory status of particular products. The report also recommends that the FDA assess its data needs to better regulate nanotechnology products, develop in-house expertise on nanotechnology issues, and create mechanisms that will ensure the consideration of new nanotechnology information as it becomes available. Finally, the report encouraged the FDA to evaluate the adequacy of current testing approaches to assess the safety, effectiveness, and quality of nanoscale materials.

The Task Force's report can be found here.

No Nano Regulation by FDA?

By: Tim Cahill and Michael Heintz:

FDA Week reported on July 6, 2007 that the FDA's Internal Nanotechnology Task Force is close to issuing its first report and is going to recommend that the agency not create "regulatory policies" for nanomaterials.  Instead, the task force is likely recommending that FDA create guidelines for "best practices."  The Task Force report will also likely urge FDA to work with academia and the National Nanotechnology Initiative to gather more information about nanotechnology risks and benefits. 

FDA Week also observes that an agency official stated as early as 2005 that the agency would not regulate products containing nanotechnologies any different than conventional products, and "The agency does not regulate the technology as a separate entity so products such as drugs or medical devices that employ nanotechnology are scrutinized while cosmetics are not. "  The Task Force report will also likely urge FDA to work with academia and the National Nanotechnology Initiative to gather more information about nanotechnology risks and benefits.

The Task Force was created in August 2006 to assess regulatory approaches that encourage the development of safe and effective FDA-regulated products that use nanomaterials, and the Task Force held a public meeting on these issues on October 10, 2006.

Similarly, Senator Mark Pryor's office indicated a report addressing nanotechnology research and regulatory efforts at FDA, EPA, OSHA, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission by the General Accounting Office (GAO) is due out in the Spring of 2008.

Check back for more information on both of these reports as they are released.

Former FDA Official Calls for Increased FDA Nanotech Authority

By Tim Cahill:

The April 20, 2007 edition of FDA Week reports that the former deputy commissioner in the FDA's policy office, Michael Taylor, repeated his call for Congress to grant FDA enhanced regulatory authority with respect to products that utilize nanotechnology, particularly cosmetics, dietary supplements, and foods.

Mr. Taylor believes that FDA should have the authority to force companies to disclose information about the nanotechnology they use in these products so the agency can better monitor the associated risks. Mr. Taylor made this assertion while speaking at a Food and Drug Law Institute conference on April 12th, and he initially raised this issue in a report he wrote last October for the Wilson Center's Project on Nanotechnology entitled "Regulating the Products of Nanotechnology: Does FDA Have the Tools It Needs?"

 

New Report Warns of Nanotechnology Risks in Cosmetics

By Tim Cahill:

On February 20, 2007, the Investor Environmental Health Network ("IEHN") issued a report entitled "Beneath the Skin: Hidden Liabilities, Market Risk and Drivers of Change in the Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Industry." IEHN represents 20 investment organizations with $22 billion under management that are seeking to ensure that the companies they invest in are taking appropriate steps to reduce risks associated with the toxic chemicals used in their products. The IEHN's report warns that nanotechnologies represent one of the significant health risks in the cosmetics industry and that investors in this industry must be aware that sweeping changes are likely to occur in this market. The report describes the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") current oversight of cosmetics as a "a porous and ill-defined regulatory framework" and cites to the fact that "cosmetics are generally exempt from pre-market review" as a major limitation in the FDA's ability to regulate cosmetics. As a result, the report recommends that cosmetics manufacturers take independent steps to monitor the safety of their products in order to avoid potential liability and gain a competitive advantage by increasing their brand trust.

The IEHN's report is certainly not the first to blast the FDA's ability to regulate the use of nanotechnologies in cosmetics. In an October 2006 report by former FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael R. Taylor, entitled "Regulating the Products of Nanotechnology: Does FDA Have the Tools It Needs?," the FDA's lack of oversight of cosmetics was identified as an area that must be addressed in order for the FDA to adequately monitor the safety of cosmetics containing nanotechnologies, particularly since cosmetic products with nanomaterials are reaching the marketplace faster than many other products regulated by the FDA. The IEHN's report recommends greater self-regulation by cosmetics manufacturers, but the FDA could impose stricter regulations in this area in the near future. The FDA is in the process of evaluating its ability to effectively regulate the use of nanomaterials in FDA-regulated products, and it has been reported that the agency will issue its findings in July 2007. How the FDA addresses cosmetics with nanomaterials will be one area to watch closely.