EDF Health

Regulating nano-silver as a pesticide

Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.

In May 2008, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) submitted a petition to EPA requesting that it regulate nano-silver used in products as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  The petition calls on EPA to take the following specific actions:

  1. Classify nano-silver as a pesticide.
  2. Determine that nano-silver is a new pesticide and require its registration as such.
  3. Analyze the potential risks of nano-silver to human health and the environment.
  4. Take enforcement actions against nano-silver-containing products being sold illegally without EPA approval under FIFRA. Read More »
Also posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology / Tagged , , , | Read 8 Responses

Nano reporting goes mandatory

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

It had to happen sooner or later. After several years spent by the UK and US governments conceptualizing, vetting, proposing, again vetting, developing, yet again vetting, and finally launching and reporting on their voluntary reporting programs for engineered nanoscale materials – only to have them largely spurned by the intended targets – other governments observing all this have decided that mandatory approaches are needed. Read More »

Also posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology / Tagged , , , | Authors: / Comments are closed

Nano Confessions: EPA all but concedes mandatory reporting and testing are needed

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

It’s been nearly a year since EPA launched its voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) – and over three years since EPA was urged, by a diverse group of stakeholders, to do so only in conjunction with the development of mandatory reporting rules as a backstop and to limit the duration of the basic part of the program to at most six months.

EPA ignored that advice, and proceeded with an open-ended voluntary program and no development of backstop rules.  Now EPA has issued its first evaluation of the NMSP.  So what did EPA find? Read More »

Also posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology / Tagged , , | Read 1 Response

Shining a (partly shaded) light on nanomaterials that present “substantial risk”

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

Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any company that manufactures, imports, processes or distributes chemicals in the U.S. to notify EPA within 30 days if it obtains new information that “reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.”  Are there Section 8(e) notices for nanomaterials? Read More »

Also posted in Health policy / Tagged , , | Comments are closed

Tired of Waiting … [with apologies to Ray Davies]

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

EDF’s recent news release that gave a less-than-glowing review to the performance of EPA’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) engendered a critique from Michael Heintz of Porter & Wright, accusing us of being “irresponsible” and potentially “sector damaging.” Our release had lamented the mediocre level of participation and lack of transparency surrounding the NMSP. I’ve posted a reply to Michael’s post, but also want to post it here. Read More »

Also posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology / Tagged | Comments are closed

EPA Nano Authority under TSCA, Part 5: Can EPA Regulate “Existing” Nanomaterials?

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

[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]

This final post in this series goes to the ultimate question, where the nanorubber really hits the road:  Can EPA regulate an “existing” nanomaterial’s production, use, or disposal under TSCA?  Read More »

Also posted in Health policy, Nanotechnology / Comments are closed