This year I have been covering the sometimes-laughable efforts by the European Commission to define what a nanomaterial is so the Commission can develop a regulatory framework.
My views of this effort have evolved over time, and I see myself now firmly in the camp that believes arriving at a definition of nanomaterials when the science around the toxicity of nanomaterials is still so uncertain seems a counterproductive effort.
The counterargument that basically goes like this: How would one create a regulatory framework without a definition of some kind?
I suppose the simple answer to that would be to create a regulatory framework that was flexible and could be adjusted to the most recent and reliable science on the toxicity of nanomaterials. That seems a lot more sensible if one is indeed concerned about the potential threats of nanomaterials to the environment, health, and safety rather than quibbling over “how much” versus “how many” nanoparticles constitute a nanomaterial.
From what I could tell after speaking to some of the officials involved in this process, it seemed that arriving at a definition for nanomaterials was as much about public relations as about creating good regulatory policy.
That’s fine, of course, but after the EC announced its finalized definition for nanomaterials this week,it didn’t take long for the public, in the form of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), to both express disappointment with the definition and to mock the amount of time it took to develop. So much for good public relations.
The definition itself…well, I don’t see how it helps to narrow anything, which I understand to be one of the main purposes of definitions. It would seem that the nanoparticles that are given off when your car’s tires roll along the pavement are now up for regulatory policy (“Nanomaterial” means a natural, incidental or manufactured material containing particles…”). And due to the lack of distinction between “hard” and “soft” nanoparticles in the definition, Andrew Maynard points out, “someone needs to check the micelle size distribution in homogenized milk.”
So what is the fallout from this definition? It would seem to be somewhat less than had been anticipated earlier in the year, when worries surrounded getting the definition just right because it would immediately dictate policy.
Instead, we are told that:
“Nanomaterials are not intrinsically hazardous per se but there may be a need to take into account specific considerations in their risk assessment. Therefore one purpose of the definition is to provide clear and unambiguous criteria to identify materials for which such considerations apply. It is only the results of the risk assessment that will determine whether the nanomaterial is hazardous and whether or not further action is justified.”
So basically they have created a class of materials that at the moment are not known to be intrinsically hazardous; but if some day they are, there is now a separate class for them. While some may see as this as making some sense, the sense of it eludes me.
Dexter Johnson is a contributing editor at IEEE Spectrum, with a focus on nanotechnology.