The Nano Risk Framework Gets Ready for Shanghai

John BalbusJohn Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., is Chief Health Scientist.

At its most recent meeting a few weeks ago, the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to the International Standards Organization (ISO) Technical Committee on Nanotechnologies approved a motion to have ISO develop a Technical Report based on the EDF-Dupont Nano Risk Framework (NRF). Or to put it another way in acronym-laden Washington-speak, the US TAG to the ANSI-accredited ISO TC229 approved a TR based on the EDF-DD NRF.

The motion to submit the NRF as the basis for this ISO technical report did not come from either EDF or Dupont. Other members of the TAG took this on and helped adapt the NRF for submission to the ISO. The vote was unanimous: All 21 members were in favor of moving the NRF forward in this way.

Surprising? In some ways yes, some ways no. A technical report is not a standard, and so countries and companies will not be bound to apply the report fully to their practices as they would an ISO standard. Nonetheless, representatives of a number of US industries are supporting the information-based approach to nanotechnology risk management incorporated in the NRF. And those of us concerned about the health effects of nanomaterials can support that.

The next step will be convening the TAG in Shanghai in November to review the document and start taking comments from the other country delegations. EDF will be there to try to ensure that the principles and science-based prudent approaches of the NRF are supported and are retained in the official ISO guidance.

This entry was posted in Health Policy, International, Nanotechnology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

One Comment

  1. Posted October 10, 2008 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    John,

    Thanks for this – development of an ISO TR based on the ED/DuPont document is an important step toward getting broader stakeholder input and buy-in to an effective stewardship framework for engineered nanomaterials and their products.

  • About this blog

    Science, health, and business experts at Environmental Defense Fund comment on chemical and nanotechnology issues of the day.

    Our work: Chemicals

  • Categories

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Filter posts by tags

    • aggregate exposure (10)
    • Alternatives assessment (3)
    • American Chemistry Council (ACC) (55)
    • arsenic (3)
    • asthma (3)
    • Australia (1)
    • biomonitoring (9)
    • bipartisan (6)
    • bisphenol A (19)
    • BP Oil Disaster (18)
    • California (1)
    • Canada (7)
    • carbon nanotubes (24)
    • carcinogen (22)
    • Carcinogenic Mutagenic or Toxic for Reproduction (CMR) (12)
    • CDC (6)
    • Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) (13)
    • chemical identity (30)
    • chemical testing (1)
    • Chemicals in Commerce Act (3)
    • Chicago Tribune (6)
    • children's safety (23)
    • China (10)
    • computational toxicology (11)
    • Confidential Business Information (CBI) (52)
    • conflict of interest (4)
    • consumer products (48)
    • Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) (4)
    • contamination (4)
    • cumulative exposure (4)
    • data requirements (46)
    • dermal exposure (1)
    • diabetes (4)
    • DNA methylation (4)
    • DuPont (11)
    • endocrine disruption (28)
    • epigenetics (4)
    • exposure and hazard (49)
    • FDA (8)
    • flame retardants (20)
    • formaldehyde (15)
    • front group (13)
    • general interest (22)
    • Globally Harmonized System (GHS) (5)
    • Government Accountability Office (5)
    • hazard (6)
    • High Production Volume (HPV) (22)
    • in vitro (14)
    • in vivo (11)
    • industry tactics (41)
    • informed substitution (1)
    • inhalation (18)
    • IUR/CDR (27)
    • Japan (3)
    • lead (6)
    • markets (1)
    • mercury (4)
    • methylmercury (2)
    • microbiome (3)
    • nanosilver (6)
    • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (20)
    • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (7)
    • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (5)
    • National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (7)
    • National Toxicology Program (1)
    • obesity (6)
    • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (3)
    • Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (4)
    • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (16)
    • Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) (3)
    • oil dispersant (18)
    • PBDEs (16)
    • Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) (22)
    • pesticides (7)
    • phthalates (17)
    • polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (5)
    • prenatal (6)
    • prioritization (35)
    • report on carcinogens (1)
    • revised CSIA (3)
    • risk assessment (69)
    • Safe Chemicals Act (24)
    • Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (33)
    • Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (20)
    • Small business (1)
    • South Korea (4)
    • styrene (6)
    • Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) (15)
    • systematic review (1)
    • test rule (17)
    • tributyltin (3)
    • trichloroethylene (TCE) (3)
    • Turkey (3)
    • U.S. states (14)
    • vulnerable populations (1)
    • Walmart (2)
    • worker safety (23)
    • WV chemical spill (11)
  • Archives