Andrew Maynard, Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan, United States, says the discussions over regulation of nanomaterials are concerning as the seem to be driven less by the science of how these materials might cause harm, and more by the politics of confusion and uncertainty. Engineered nanomaterials, with their unique properties, do present a new regulatory challenge, but the resolution of this challenge remains elusive. Maynard says: “In an evidence-driven society, now would be the time to take stock – to ask what the science tells us about risks associated with exposure to materials more generally, and to reformulate the problems we are trying to address when it comes to nanomaterials. But increasingly, evidence is taking a backstage role in the process of developing definitions for regulatory purposes.” He quotes Henrik Laursen, coordinator of the nano team in the European Commission’s environment department, who said the decision on a regulatory definition of nanomaterials would ultimately be a policy decision. This, Maynard says, “should ring alarm bells throughout the scientific community. The statement implies that the basis for determining whether a material or product is regulated as a nanomaterial will be a term of art, not of science. In other words, a producer of a nanomaterial will not be able to assume that the product will be regulated on the basis of evidence pertaining to the harm it might potentially cause. Or a consumer of nanomaterials will have no assurance that the safety of a material is based on science, rather than political expedience.” Maynard suggests that now is the time to shift toward evidence-based regulation of sophisticated materials, and away from the need to define nanomaterials for regulatory purposes. Stressing that this is not a call to ease restrictions on the use of new materials, or subvert attempts to alert consumers to nanomaterial-containing products, Maynard says “Instead of trying to make the science fit the assumptions, we need to ensure the assumptions adapt to the science – then we might be in a better position to use the best available scientific evidence to make informed decisions that protect health, while incentivize the production of safe and effective materials.” Maynard says he is no longer a strong proponent of developing a regulatory definition of nanomaterials, rather he says “we need to start thinking more innovatively about how we identify new materials that slip through the regulatory net – whatever we decide to call them. Only then will we have a hope of developing science-grounded regulation that protects people while supporting sustainable development.” The article can be viewed online at the link below.
http://umrscblogs.org/2011/04/15/why-we-don%E2%80%99t-need-a-regulatory-definition-for-nanomaterials/