{"id":84,"date":"2009-07-14T15:01:58","date_gmt":"2009-07-14T20:01:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/2009\/07\/14\/hiding-a-toxic-nanomaterials-identity-tscas-disappearing-act\/"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:00:45","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:00:45","slug":"hiding-a-toxic-nanomaterials-identity-tscas-disappearing-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2009\/07\/14\/hiding-a-toxic-nanomaterials-identity-tscas-disappearing-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Hiding a toxic nanomaterial’s identity: TSCA’s disappearing act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n

In earlier posts (here<\/a> and here<\/a>), I discussed a notice EPA had received in July of 2008 from BASF<\/a> reporting toxic effects at very low doses of a carbon nanotube (CNT) observed in a 90-day rat inhalation study.\u00a0 In that notice, BASF had declared the specific identity of its CNT to be confidential business information, hence denying that information to the public.\u00a0 Now, in a setting more to its liking, it appears the company has decided to reveal the identity after all.<\/p>\n

The original notice was submitted by BASF as required under Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).\u00a0 That provision requires a company that makes a chemical 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<\/a> of injury to health or the environment.”<\/p>\n

Identity hidden<\/strong><\/p>\n

BASF complied – but in doing so, claimed the identity of the nanomaterial in question to be confidential business information (CBI), requesting that it be identified only generically as “Carbon Nano Tube.”\u00a0 No way, therefore, for the public to tell whether it was single- or multi-walled or much of anything else about its actual identity or structure.<\/p>\n

Identity revealed<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, just last week BASF published a paper in the journal Toxicological Sciences<\/em><\/strong> that is almost certainly based on the same study.\u00a0 (The abstract is publicly available<\/a>, but the full paper requires a subscription.)\u00a0 All of the details – the doses, number and type of animals, exposure conditions, and observed effects – match those reported in the Section 8(e) notice.<\/p>\n

But in this setting BASF chose to fully describe the identity of its CNT, disclosing for the first time that it is multi-walled and describing other structural features in detail.<\/p>\n

As I reported before, the study found this nanomaterial to be highly toxic, causing lung inflammation and granulomas at doses 200-fold lower than the high-concern level identified under EPA and international standards.\u00a0 That makes it at least an order of magnitude more toxic than crystalline silica and – as BASF itself describes in the published paper – also at least 10-fold more toxic than nano-structured carbon black.<\/p>\n

A major effort has been mounted in the nanotechnology community to demand that researchers fully identify and characterize their nanomaterials when publishing papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and that journals accept only such papers.\u00a0 See, for example, the “Minimum Information for Nanomaterial Characterization Initiative, or Characterization Matters<\/a> for short.<\/p>\n

That likely explains why BASF provides such a full identification and characterization in its recent paper.<\/p>\n

So why, then, did BASF claim the identity of its nanomaterial to be confidential when submitting the same study to EPA?<\/p>\n

The answer is simple:\u00a0 Because it could.<\/p>\n

Right-to-know under TSCA:<\/strong>\u00a0 Health impacts<\/strong> – yes; chemical identity<\/strong> – no<\/strong><\/p>\n

EPA routinely posts notices it receives under Section 8(e)<\/a> in which the chemical identity, and often the submitter’s identity, are claimed confidential and hence not publicly disclosed.\u00a0 It’s hard to imagine a less useful – and more frustrating – public disclosure system:\u00a0 Some chemical is found to cause serious health or environmental effects, serious enough for TSCA to require immediate submission to EPA.\u00a0 As a member of the public, you get to see just how bad the effects are – but are left to guess just what chemical causes the effects!<\/p>\n

The ultimate insult is that, under TSCA, EPA actually should<\/em> be prohibiting companies from declaring confidential the identity of a chemical that is the subject of a submitted health and safety study.<\/p>\n

Consider:<\/p>\n