REACHing for nano

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.

In a previous post, I argued that the European Union's REACH Regulation for chemicals goes a long way to address the regulatory needs for nanomaterials – despite the fact that REACH never mentions nano and was not developed with nano in mind.  I also noted, however, that REACH will clearly need more than fine-tuning to ensure adequate nano oversight.  Apparently at least some in the European Parliament agree. 

Just this week, the Environment Committee of the European Parliament approved a report calling for a nano-specific review and updating of REACH.  (See the amendments that were adopted this week to the January draft report.)

Most notable is the report's call to extend the "no data, no market" cornerstone of REACH to nanomaterials – meaning that nanomaterials could not enter or remain on the market absent provision by their producers of at least basic information to assess their safety.

The report also calls for the development under REACH of nano-specific definitions, testing and assessment protocols, and data requirements.  And it argues for labeling of products containing nanomaterials.

The report comes not long after the European Commission issued its own recommendations for how to address nanomaterials under REACH.  While the Commission noted numerous challenges – most notably, the dearth of safety data and the difficulty of applying current risk assessment methodology – it argued that REACH addresses the potential risks of nanomaterials "in principle."  Looking at the same basic problems, the Parliament report reaches the opposite conclusion:  that REACH cannot in its current form adequately address nanomaterials.

Changes to REACH that the Parliament committee recommends include requiring:

  • a simplified registration for nanomaterials manufactured or imported (with a threshold based on e.g. surface activity instead of tonnage), providing core data on physico-chemical properties as well as toxicological and ecotoxicological effects,
  • a chemical safety report with exposure assessment for all registered nanomaterials, irrespective of hazard identification, and
  • notification for all nanomaterials placed on the market on their own, in preparations or in articles irrespective of tonnage and concentration thresholds.

See these articles from Euractiv, ENDSEurope and ChemicalWatch for more detail and document links (the last two require subscriptions).

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

One Comment

  1. Posted April 3, 2009 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    I believe the EPA is looking into how nanotechnology affects the environment. Please see my blog enviworods.com/public under "science and technology" category – "No Matter How Small" EPA specifically has oversight over nano silver.

  • 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