Nanotechnology is set to be an increasing focus for CPSC. Indeed, according to reseaerch made available last month by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, at least 1,000 consumer products, produced in 24 nations, already are made with nanotech. Health/fitness products comprise about 60% of items made with nanotech. Nanoscale silver, which has antibacterial properties, is in 26% of nanotech products . Other products with include appliances, automotive, coatings, electronics/computers, food/beverage, children's products and home/garden. At a CPSC hearing, last month, commissioners discussed this trend. Here is what PSL had to say about it.
Nanotechnology drew a good amount of commissioners' questioning at CPSC's August 25 hearing on its 2011 agenda and priorities and its strategic plan. Their interest was in response to the testimony of David Rejesky, who directs the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
He suggested that CPSC is "not an equal partner" among the agencies participating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Indeed, he asserted that the federal effort has seen more attention given to product development than to safety research, with most funds going to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation, leaving CPSC and other regulatory agencies "starved for money." He said it is time for Congress to switch funds to the oversight agencies -- their attention to nanotech safety will be crucial to public acceptance of the technologies, which, he pointed out, do promise benefits.
Moreover, he told commissioners that CPSC should beware of relying on other safety agencies -- such as the Environmental Protection Agency or Food and Drug Administration -- to assess safety because their priorities might differ from CPSC's, potentially leaving certain uses of nanotech unreviewed. He urged the commission to establish an "early warning officer," whose job would be to oversee emerging technologies in conjunction with the agency's Early Warning System that involves review of NEISS and other data to identify indications of emerging or overlooked hazards. He also suggested that Congress should give the CPSC $5 million to $10 million for targeted nanotech safety research.
Rajesky was not suggesting that CPSC's oversee its own research instead of working with other agencies, but rather in addition. Commissioner Anne Northup asked whether it would make sense for CPSC to handle projects when other agencies, such as NIH, were better funded and more experienced. She said, for example, that while NIH might not look specifically at nanomaterials use in pacifiers, it could look generally at the substance in question. Rajesky acknowledged her point, but said that his group's sense is that many issues could fall through the cracks nonetheless because there is a critical need for an overall understanding of what products involve nanotechnology (see related story on page 3). CPSC needs "to know what's out there so you can target research. If you can specify that, then you can go see what's being looked at" by other agencies and seek their help.
To Northup's similar question about relying on private academic research, he acknowledged its value but noted that the turnaround for research at universities can be in the three to four year range, too long for catching safety risks.
Commissioner Bob Adler asked if the nanotech industry is doing sufficient safety research on its own with the goal of avoiding the "Frankenstein" image sometimes attached to other industries like bioengineering. Rajesky explained that the field is made up of mostly small companies -- his rough estimate was 70% to 80%. He suggested that they are aware of the risks but due to tight budgets would be likely to welcome government funding of safety research. He also noted that the small-company structure of the industry could make it hard for CPSC to locate companies. Referring back to Northup's question about academic research, he suggested that finding companies might be how universities would be especially useful -- CPSC could use them as an entry point.
Chairman Inez Tenenbaum asked about how well and how quickly nanomaterials will be tracked, comparing the agency's tracking label work under the CPSIA to a similar project by Rajesky's group related to nanomaterials. He explained that it varies depending on the manufacturing sector and he noted there can be proprietary sensitivity about what information is collected and available for tracking purposes.
Commissioner Thomas Moore asked about the distinction between stand-alone nanotechnologies versus nanomaterials that are part of a larger product. Rajesky said his group is focused on the latter and pointed to products like coatings or fabrics that employ nanotech, saying that the potential risks extend beyond their lifecycles when they are put in landfills or otherwise discarded or destroyed. What can make nanotechnologies beneficial -- such as their ability to penetrate skin better -- also makes them worrisome.
Commissioner Nancy Nord pointed to CPSC's limited resources and asked Rajesky what he thinks CPSC can do to leverage its work. His answer was part of the discussion about CPSC working with other agencies but having the ability to direct where some research money goes. He also said CPSC's should keep aware of developments in China and other Pacific Rim nations where much activity is occurring.
CPSC's 2010 budget goals (PSL, 05/25/09, p. 4) include production of an annual report on overall use of nanomaterials in the marketplace and the consumer product categories that contain nanomaterials. Last year (PSL, 12/22/08, p. 2), a National Research Council report suggested that the U.S. approach to nanotech safety research is lacking.
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version