Nanotech regulation under the spotlight

A lack of scientific knowledge means Australian regulators could be unable to adequately protect humans and the environment from possible risks of nanotechnology, says a new report released by the Australian government today.

While the report says there is no need for major changes to regulatory regimes, critics say the findings suggest nanomaterials are essentially "unregulated" and should be taken off the market until we know how to assess their risk.

The science and industry minister Senator Kim Carr today released the report, commissioned by the Australian Office of Nanotechnology, into the adequacy of nanotechnology regulation.

The report, by the Centre for Regulatory Studies at Monash University, identifies six gaps in regulation.

The most significant, it says, is regulators may fail to distinguish between nano forms of products that differ in properties from their equivalent conventional forms.

The report says another problem is that regulation is sometimes triggered when materials are over a certain weight or volume.

But, it says, this "may not be meaningful" to regulating nanomaterials, because we don't understand enough about them, and there are "real difficulties" in even measuring their presence.

Lack of knowledge could also make it difficult for food authorities to prevent materials "likely to cause bodily harm" from being in contact with food, the report says.

"Current deficiencies in knowledge are such that we simply do not know the effects of some engineered [nanomaterials] on human health," it says.

And the report says scientific uncertainty also means that risk assessment protocols used by regulators designed to project humans or the environment may not be appropriate.
"Unregulated"

Adelaide-based toxicologist Dr Sam Bruschi says the report highlights a worrying lack of regulation of nanotechnology.

"At the moment there is no evidence of any regulation of nanomaterials at all," says Bruschi, who has acted as a peer-reviewer for the US Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on human health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology.

He says there is a lack of information to back regulation because not enough resources are being committed to nanotechnology safety studies and regulatory agencies seem to be assuming the technology is safe until proven otherwise.

"All that is required is the political will to address duty of care to the public," says Bruschi.

He says some studies suggest cause for concern, citing recent evidence that needle-like carbon nanotube fibres, already in commercial use, lead to lesions similar to those caused by asbestos.

"Some people dismissed that but I actually found that study to be a bit upsetting in the sense that it really did support the idea that carbon nanotubes were acting much like asbestos," Bruschi says.

He says where a nanomaterial is likely to be exposed to the public-at-large, it should not be on the market until it's been proven safe.
"Truck-sized" loopholes

Bruschi's views back calls by the Friends of the Earth Nanotechnology Project, for the science and industry minister to halt sales of nanoproducts until new laws are introduced to ensure their safety, nanoproducts are labelled, and the public is more involved.

The project's spokesperson Dr Rye Senjen says urgent action is required to close the "truck-sized" loopholes in regulation identified by the new report.

Senator Carr released a statement today saying the government is committed to "responsible management of nanotechnology" within existing regulatory frameworks and applying a precautionary approach.

"The novel properties that may provide benefits to society also raise concerns about how engineered nanomaterials may interact with human and other biological systems," the statement says.