The European Commission had just adopted a “cross-cutting designation of nanomaterials to be used for all regulatory purposes” (link). The definition builds on a draft definition released last year, but includes a number of substantial changes to this.
Here’s the full text of the definition: Continue reading EC adopts cross-cutting definition of nanomaterials to be used for all regulatory purposes
I‘ve just posted a piece over on the Risk Science Blog on regulatory definitions of engineered nanomaterials. What may come as a surprise to many readers given my comments over the years is the title – “Why we don’t need a regulatory definition for nanomaterials”! Have I flipped, lost my senses, or what?
As you might guess, I still think that engineered nanomaterials present a huge regulatory challenge – both from the perspective of avoiding unnecessary health impacts, and providing manufacturers with clear, rational rules for their safe use. But I also have this odd idea that regulations should at the minimum be built on evidence if the resulting rules and guidelines are to have any relevance and traction.
Sadly, it now looks like we are heading toward a situation where the definitions of nanomaterials underpinning regulations will themselves be based on policy, not science.
This scares the life out of me, because it ends up taking evidence off the table when it comes to oversight, and replacing it with assumptions and speculation on what people think is relevant, rather than what actually is – not good for safety, and certainly not good for business.
But you can read more about why I’m getting worried about a regulatory definition for nanomaterials over at the Risk Science Blog.