The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment has issued guidance for employers and employees working with nanomaterials and nanoproducts. The guidance provides information about designing suitable control measures to limit exposures according to the current state of knowledge about nanomaterial safety. It also recommends ways of instructing employees about good work practices, potential risks and risk management measures when new nanomaterials are introduced into the workplace. See Nanowerk, May 24, 2011.
Tag Archives nanotechnology
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published its first guidance document assessing the risk of engineered nanomaterial (ENM) applications in food and feed. Prepared in response to a European Commission request, the May 10, 2011, guidance comes after a six-week public consultation period during which EFSA received 256 comments from 36 organizations, including academia, industry, Member States, international authorities, and non-governmental groups. The guidance covers potential risks from applications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies across the food supply chain, including food additives, enzymes, flavorings, food contact materials, novel foods, feed additives, and pesticides. Outlining six toxicity testing methods, the guidance stresses the need for ongoing risk assessments in the burgeoning field of engineered nanomaterials and additional data on physical and chemical ENM characteristics in comparison with conventional applications. “A thorough characterization of the engineered nanomaterials followed by adequate toxicity testing is essential for the risk assessment of these applications,” EFSA…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a significant new use rule (SNUR) for a multi-walled carbon nanotube under section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); it would require manufacturers, importers or processors of the chemical to follow manufacturing and use conditions already reviewed by EPA. The SNUR would require that any chemical manufacturer, importer or processor of the substance identified generically (due to confidentiality claims) as multi-walled carbon nanotubes notify the agency 90 days before seeking to make or use the chemical in a way that differs from those EPA has already reviewed. Section 5 of TSCA gives EPA the authority to review new chemicals before they can be manufactured or imported into the United States. The SNUR exempts from the requirements certain uses of carbon nanotubes, such as when they have been fixed onto a surface or encapsulated in plastic. See Federal Register, May 6, 2011.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) economist, writing in the Journal of Consumer Affairs, has reportedly cited the lack of a suitable definition for nanotechnology as an obstacle to the potential labeling of foods and packaging incorporating nanoparticles or materials. According to Jean Buzby, while the National Nanotechnology Initiative defines nanotechnology in terms of size, i.e., “dimensions between approximately 1 and 100nm,” this range “is an arbitrary measure and was not set on any real meaning or relationship between particle size and toxicological effects or kinetics, such as chemical reaction rates.” Buzby apparently opines that the technology’s potential benefits need to be communicated to the public and calls for increased funding for safety research. In a related development, the Carolina Academic Press is reportedly poised to release a law school treatise on nanotechnology titled Nanotechnology Law and Policy Cases and Materials. Authored by Texas Tech University School of Law Professor…
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has finalized a new standard that apparently establishes parameters for monitoring the concentration, size and size-distribution of nanoscale particles in an inhalation chamber as part of an effort to assess their potential toxicity. ISO 10808-2010, titled “Nanotechnologies—Characterization of nanoparticles in inhalation exposure chambers for inhalation toxicity testing,” reportedly establishes a battery of tests that will help researchers learn about potential effects of nanoparticles on human health and the environment. ISO Technical Committee ISO/TC 229, Nanotechnologies, developed the standard, and its Chair Peter Hatto was quoted as saying, “Traditional methods used in other areas are considered insufficient for testing nanoparticles since parameters specific to them like particle surface area or number, might be crucial determinants of toxicity.” He called the test an “important asset to the industry.” See Nanowerk, January 26, 2011.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has requested public comments on its draft “Guidance on risk assessment concerning potential risks arising from applications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies to food and feed.” The comment period closes February 25, 2011. The draft guidance outlines under what circumstances nanomaterials in food and animal feed should be tested for potential health risks and how the risk assessment process should be conducted. According to the guidance, the risk of an engineered nanomaterial “will be determined by its chemical composition, physico-chemical properties, its hazard characterization and potential exposure.” At an initial stage for the proposed use of a nanomaterial in food or feed applications, where internal exposure, a high level of reactivity or mobility, and persistence of the nanomaterial exist, “in-depth testing” would be appropriate. While the guidance recognizes that characterization parameters “will depend on the nature, functionalities, and intended uses of the” engineered nanomaterial, certain…
The U.K. Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) Nanotechnologies and Food Discussion Group has held its first meeting to consider advancing recommendations from a House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology 2010 report. Fifteen stakeholders from consumer organizations, academia, industry, and government departments met on January 13, 2011, to “exchange information between different sectors within the nanotechnologies and food groups,” according to FSA. Established to address concerns that the U.K.’s food and packaging sectors were too secretive about nanotechnology, the group reportedly plans to meet three or four times annually with a review after 18 months. Issues to be discussed include (i) European Union regulations and definitions, (ii) guidance for assessing nanomaterials, (iii) intelligence gathering on nanotechnology research conducted by the food industry, and (iv) a proposal to create a U.K. register of “nanofoods” on the market. See FSA Press Release, January 12, 2011; FoodProductionDaily.com, January 13, 2011.
According to University of Kentucky researchers, manufactured nanoparticles discharged into waste streams could wind up in agricultural biosolids and thus enter the food chain. Jonathan D. Judy, et al., “Evidence for Biomagnification of Gold Nanoparticles within a Terrestrial Food Chain,” Environmental Science & Technology, December 2010. The study’s authors reportedly used gold nanoparticles to examine the uptake mechanism of tobacco plants and tobacco hookworms, finding that while both organisms absorbed nanoparticles, the hookworm exhibited concentrations 6 to 12 times higher than the plant. “We expected [nanoparticles] to accumulate, but not biomagnify like that,” said University of Kentucky environmental toxicologist Paul Bertsch in describing the process by which substances increase in concentration higher up the food chain. Meanwhile, a second study has raised questions about how predatory microbes retain nanoparticles. R. Werlin, et al., “Biomagnification of cadmium selenide quantum dots in a simple experimental microbial food chain,” Nature Technology, December 2010.…
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has announced the availability of a draft document that contains a toxicological assessment of the potential health risks of occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers. The draft document also provides recommendations for the safe handling of these materials, which can be found in many applications, including food packaging. NIOSH will hold a public meeting on February 3, 2011, in Cincinnati, Ohio, to explore (i) “whether the hazard identification, risk estimation, and discussion of health effects for carbon nanotubes and nanofibers are a reasonable reflection of the current understanding of the evidence in the scientific literature”; (ii) “workplaces and occupations where exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers occur”; (iii) “current strategies for controlling occupational exposure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers (e.g., engineering controls, work practices, personal protective equipment”; (iv) “current exposure measurement methods and challenges in measuring workplace exposures to carbon nanotubes…
The European Commission’s (EC’s) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks has approved a definition for “nanomaterial” as a basis for future regulatory safety evaluations and risk assessments. The committee concluded that size is the most relevant consideration in defining the term, and that no scientific justification exists to prefer any specific size limit other than the range from 1 to 100 nanometers. According to the committee, “size influences bio-distribution (and distribution kinetics) in an organism or in an ecosystem which should be taken into consideration in the risk assessment of nanomaterials.” The committee decided not to distinguish between natural and manufactured nanomaterials in its definition.
