Category Archives: regulation

Nanomaterials and safety: Europe’s non-governmental agencies make recommendations; (US) Arizona State University initiative; and Japan’s voluntary carbon nanotube management

I have three news items which have one thing in common, they concern nanomaterials and safety. Two of these of items are fairly recent; the one about Japan has been sitting in my drafts folder for months and I’m including it here because if I don’t do it now, I never will.

First, there’s an April 7, 2014 news item on Nanowerk (h/t) about European non-governmental agencies (CIEL; the Center for International Environmental Law and its partners) and their recommendations regarding nanomaterials and safety. From the CIEL April 2014 news release,

CIEL and European partners* publish position paper on the regulation of nanomaterials at a meeting of EU competent authorities

*ClientEarth, The European Environmental Bureau, European citizen’s Organization for Standardisation, The European consumer voice in Standardisation –ANEC, and Health Care Without Harm, Bureau of European Consumers

… Current EU legislation does not guarantee that all nanomaterials on the market are safe by being assessed separately from the bulk form of the substance. Therefore, we ask the European Commission to come forward with concrete proposals for a comprehensive revision of the existing legal framework addressing the potential risks of nanomaterials.

1. Nanomaterials are different from other substances.

We are concerned that EU law does not take account of the fact that nano forms of a substance are different and have different intrinsic properties from their bulk counterpart. Therefore, we call for this principle to be explicitly established in the REACH, and Classification Labeling and Packaging (CLP) regulations, as well as in all other relevant legislation. To ensure adequate consideration, the submission of comprehensive substance identity and characterization data for all nanomaterials on the market, as defined by the Commission’s proposal for a nanomaterial definition, should be required.

Similarly, we call on the European Commission and EU Member States to ensure that nanomaterials do not benefit from the delays granted under REACH to phase-in substances, on the basis of information collected on their bulk form.

Further, nanomaterials, due to their properties, are generally much more reactive than their bulk counterpart, thereby increasing the risk of harmful impact of nanomaterials compared to an equivalent mass of bulk material. Therefore, the present REACH thresholds for the registration of nanomaterials should be lowered.

Before 2018, all nanomaterials on the market produced in amounts of over 10kg/year must be registered with ECHA on the basis of a full registration dossier specific to the nanoform.

2. Risk from nanomaterials must be assessed

Six years after the entry into force of the REACH registration requirements, only nine substances have been registered as nanomaterials despite the much wider number of substances already on the EU market, as demonstrated by existing inventories. Furthermore, the poor quality of those few nano registration dossiers does not enable their risks to be properly assessed. To confirm the conclusions of the Commission’s nano regulatory review assuming that not all nanomaterials are toxic, relevant EU legislation should be amended to ensure that all nanomaterials are adequately assessed for their hazardous properties.

Given the concerns about novel properties of nanomaterials, under REACH, all registration dossiers of nanomaterials must include a chemical safety assessment and must comply with the same information submission requirements currently required for substances classified as Carcinogenic, Mutagenic or Reprotoxic (CMRs).

3. Nanomaterials should be thoroughly evaluated

Pending the thorough risk assessment of nanomaterials demonstrated by comprehensive and up-to-date registration dossiers for all nanoforms on the market, we call on ECHA to systematically check compliance for all nanoforms, as well as check the compliance of all dossiers which, due to uncertainties in the description of their identity and characterization, are suspected of including substances in the nanoform. Further, the Community Roling Action Plan (CoRAP) list should include all identified substances in the nanoform and evaluation should be carried out without delay.

4. Information on nanomaterials must be collected and disseminated

All EU citizens have the right to know which products contain nanomaterials as well as the right to know about their risks to health and environment and overall level of exposure. Given the uncertainties surrounding nanomaterials, the Commission must guarantee that members of the public are in a position to exercise their right to know and to make informed choices pending thorough risk assessments of nanomaterials on the market.

Therefore, a publicly accessible inventory of nanomaterials and consumer products containing nanomaterials must be established at European level. Moreover, specific nano-labelling or declaration requirements must be established for all nano-containing products (detergents, aerosols, sprays, paints, medical devices, etc.) in addition to those applicable to food, cosmetics and biocides which are required under existing obligations.

5. REACH enforcement activities should tackle nanomaterials

REACH’s fundamental principle of “no data, no market” should be thoroughly implemented. Therefore, nanomaterials that are on the market without a meaningful minimum set of data to allow the assessment of their hazards and risks should be denied market access through enforcement activities. In the meantime, we ask the EU Member States and manufacturers to use a precautionary approach in the assessment, production, use and disposal of nanomaterials

This comes on the heels of CIEL’s March 2014 news release announcing a new three-year joint project concerning nanomaterials and safety and responsible development,

Supported by the VELUX foundations, CIEL and ECOS (the European Citizen’s Organization for Standardization) are launching a three-year project aiming to ensure that risk assessment methodologies and risk management tools help guide regulators towards the adoption of a precaution-based regulatory framework for the responsible development of nanomaterials in the EU and beyond.

Together with our project partner the German Öko-Institut, CIEL and ECOS will participate in the work of the standardization organizations Comité Européen de Normalisation and International Standards Organization, and this work of the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], especially related to health, environmental and safety aspects of nanomaterials and exposure and risk assessment. We will translate progress into understandable information and issue policy recommendations to guide regulators and support environmental NGOs in their campaigns for the safe and sustainable production and use of nanomaterials.

The VILLUM FOUNDATION and the VELUX FOUNDATION are non-profit foundations created by Villum Kann Rasmussen, the founder of the VELUX Group and other entities in the VKR Group, whose mission it is to bring daylight, fresh air and a better environment into people’s everyday lives.

Meanwhile in the US, an April 6, 2014 news item on Nanowerk announces a new research network, based at Arizona State University (ASU), devoted to studying health and environmental risks of nanomaterials,

Arizona State University researchers will lead a multi-university project to aid industry in understanding and predicting the potential health and environmental risks from nanomaterials.

Nanoparticles, which are approximately 1 to 100 nanometers in size, are used in an increasing number of consumer products to provide texture, resiliency and, in some cases, antibacterial protection.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded a grant of $5 million over the next four years to support the LCnano Network as part of the Life Cycle of Nanomaterials project, which will focus on helping to ensure the safety of nanomaterials throughout their life cycles – from the manufacture to the use and disposal of the products that contain these engineered materials.

An April 1, 2014 ASU news release, which originated the news item, provides more details and includes information about project partners which I’m happy to note include nanoHUB and the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISENet) in addition to the other universities,

Paul Westerhoff is the LCnano Network director, as well as the associate dean of research for ASU’s Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering and a professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment.

The project will team engineers, chemists, toxicologists and social scientists from ASU, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue, Yale, Oregon’s state universities, the Colorado School of Mines and the University of Illinois-Chicago.

Engineered nanomaterials of silver, titanium, silica and carbon are among the most commonly used. They are dispersed in common liquids and food products, embedded in the polymers from which many products are made and attached to textiles, including clothing.

Nanomaterials provide clear benefits for many products, Westerhoff says, but there remains “a big knowledge gap” about how, or if, nanomaterials are released from consumer products into the environment as they move through their life cycles, eventually ending up in soils and water systems.

“We hope to help industry make sure that the kinds of products that engineered nanomaterials enable them to create are safe for the environment,” Westerhoff says.

“We will develop molecular-level fundamental theories to ensure the manufacturing processes for these products is safer,” he explains, “and provide databases of measurements of the properties and behavior of nanomaterials before, during and after their use in consumer products.”

Among the bigger questions the LCnano Network will investigate are whether nanomaterials can become toxic through exposure to other materials or the biological environs they come in contact with over the course of their life cycles, Westerhoff says.

The researchers will collaborate with industry – both large and small companies – and government laboratories to find ways of reducing such uncertainties.

Among the objectives is to provide a framework for product design and manufacturing that preserves the commercial value of the products using nanomaterials, but minimizes potentially adverse environmental and health hazards.

In pursuing that goal, the network team will also be developing technologies to better detect and predict potential nanomaterial impacts.

Beyond that, the LCnano Network also plans to increase awareness about efforts to protect public safety as engineered nanomaterials in products become more prevalent.

The grant will enable the project team to develop educational programs, including a museum exhibit about nanomaterials based on the LCnano Network project. The exhibit will be deployed through a partnership with the Arizona Science Center and researchers who have worked with the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network.

The team also plans to make information about its research progress available on the nanotechnology industry website Nanohub.org.

“We hope to use Nanohub both as an internal virtual networking tool for the research team, and as a portal to post the outcomes and products of our research for public access,” Westerhoff says.

The grant will also support the participation of graduate students in the Science Outside the Lab program, which educates students on how science and engineering research can help shape public policy.

Other ASU faculty members involved in the LCnano Network project are:

• Pierre Herckes, associate professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
• Kiril Hristovski, assistant professor, Department of Engineering, College of Technology and Innovation
• Thomas Seager, associate professor, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment
• David Guston, professor and director, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes
• Ira Bennett, assistant research professor, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes
• Jameson Wetmore, associate professor, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, and School of Human Evolution and Social Change

I hope to hear more about the LCnano Network as it progresses.

Finally, there was this Nov. 12, 2013 news item on Nanowerk about instituting  voluntary safety protocols for carbon nanotubes in Japan,

Technology Research Association for Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes (TASC)—a consortium of nine companies and the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) — is developing voluntary safety management techniques for carbon nanotubes (CNTs) under the project (no. P10024) “Innovative carbon nanotubes composite materials project toward achieving a low-carbon society,” which is sponsored by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO).

Lynn Bergeson’s Nov. 15, 2013 posting on nanotech.lawbc.com provides a few more details abut the TASC/AIST carbon nanotube project (Note: A link has been removed),

Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) announced in October 2013 a voluntary guidance document on measuring airborne carbon nanotubes (CNT) in workplaces. … The guidance summarizes the available practical methods for measuring airborne CNTs:  (1) on-line aerosol measurement; (2) off-line quantitative analysis (e.g., thermal carbon analysis); and (3) sample collection for electron microscope observation. …

You can  download two protocol documents (Guide to measuring airborne carbon nanotubes in workplaces and/or The protocols of preparation, characterization and in vitro cell based assays for safety testing of carbon nanotubes), another has been published since Nov. 2013, from the AIST’s Developing voluntary safety management techniques for carbon nanotubes (CNTs): Protocol and Guide webpage., Both documents are also available in Japanese and you can link to the Japanese language version of the site from the webpage.

NANoReg invites you to April 11, 2014 workshop in Athens, Greece

For anyone interested in nanomaterials and/or attending an EHS-themed (environment, health, and safety) event in Athens, Greece, NANoREG is holding an April 2014 workshop at the Industrial Technologies 2014 conference (April 9 – 11, 2014). From a March 14, 2014 news item on Nanowerk (Some links have been removed),

NANoREG will identify EHS [environment, health, and safety] aspects that are most relevant from a regulatory point of view. It will provide tools for testing the EHS aspects and the assessment and management of the risks to the regulators and other stakeholders.

To assure that the final results of the project can be implemented in an efficient and effective way, Industry and Regulators are strongly involved in the project.
We kindly invite you to attend the NANoREG workshop and to give your opinion on the regulatory testing of nanomaterials, as a valuable contribution to future economic success of nanotechnology!

The workshop will take place on Friday, April 11, 2014 from 11:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. in Athens, Greece, as part of the Industrial Technologies 2014 event. For registration please use the offi cial registration portal: www.naturalway.gr/industrial_technologies

Here’s more about the workshop from the NANoREG workshop page on the Industrial Technologies 2014 website,

1. The NANoREG approach: Answers from Science to the questions/needs of Industry and the Regulation Authorities.
2. First entrypoints, the regulatory questions and needs, an overview, matching of needs
3. NANoREG results: Materials, SOPs and the advancement of Regulatory Risk Assessment and Testing.
4.Overview of the NANoREG projects.
5. Whe window for industry participation, keeping pace with innovation.
6. Modes of collaboartion [sic] for industry.
7. Outlook

A joint workshops of EU FP7 Projects SANOWORK, nanoMICEX and Scaffold funded under the topic NMP.2011.1.3-2 “Worker Protection and exposure risk management strategies for nanomaterials production, use and disposal”, will focus on the main achievements of the three Projects in the related area. All three projects are committed to support the needs of companies and aim to provide a practical overview of the results of current research in the field of management of exposure to nanomaterials.

Here are links to the other three projects collaborating on the NANoREG workshop  SANOWORKnanoMICEX, and Scaffold.

Ecotoxicology and environmental fate of manufactured nanomaterials—testing guidelines from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has released guidelines for testing manufactured nanomaterials according to a March 11, 2014 news item on Nanowerk,

As part of its Programme on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials, and in particular work on the testing and assessment of manufactured nanomaterials, OECD initiated a series of expert meetings to improve the applicability of the OECD Test Guidelines to nanomaterials. With this in mind, the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials agreed to address the ecotoxicology and environmental fate of manufactured nanomaterials.

The OECD Expert Meeting on Ecotoxicology and Environmental Fate took place on 29th-31st January 2013 in Berlin, Federal Press Office. The event was hosted by the German delegation and funded by the German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) as well as the United States Environment Protection Agency (US EPA).

Three documents were published one of which being a preview,

The OECD expert meeting on ecotoxicology and environmental fate — Towards the development of improved OECD guidelines for the testing of nanomaterials by Dana Kühnel and Carmen Nickel. Science of The Total Environment Volume 472, 15 February 2014, Pages 347–353 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.055

This document is open access.

The report itself,

OECD. ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE.
JOINT MEETING OF THE CHEMICALS COMMITTEE AND
THE WORKING PARTY ON CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY. Environment, Health and Safety Publications
Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials. ENV/JM/MONO(2014)1

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FATE OF MANUFACTURED NANOMATERIALS:
TEST GUIDELINES Expert Meeting Report
Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials No. 40

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Fate of Manufactured Nanomaterials: Test Guidelines

There’s an addendum which includes the presentations made at the meeting (you can find both the report, proper, and the addendum on this page scroll to report no. 40),

OECD. ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE JOINT MEETING OF THE CHEMICALS COMMITTEE AND
THE WORKING PARTY ON CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY. Environment, Health and Safety Publications. ENV/JM/MONO(2014)1/ADD

ADDENDUM TO EXOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FATE OF MANUFACTURED
NANOMATERIALS: TEST GUIDELINES

Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials No. 40
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Fate of Manufactured Nanomaterials:
Test Guidelines.

As it can get a little tricky accessing OECD documents, I’ve tried to give a couple different links and as much identifying information as possible. Good luck!

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) report on responsible development of nanotechnology plus news about upcoming survey on nanotechnology commercialization

I stumbled onto this OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation for Development) information in the context of research on another, unrelated, story about the current state of nanotechnology standards and regulations (Dec. 23, 2013 news item on Nanotechnology Now) which is not likely to be written up here.  Getting back to this posting, I found a report from the OECD’s Working Party on Nanotechnology dated Nov. 29, 2013 and titled: RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
Summary Results from a Survey Activity (report no. DSTI/STP/NANO(2013)9/FINAL). This 34 pp. report includes the latest information for 25 countries that agreed to take part in the survey. Here’s the information supplied by Canada,

Canada
While Canada does not have a distinct policy for nanotechnology, the Government of Canada is engaged in a number of activities which specifically address the responsible development of
nanotechnology:
Policy principles for regulation and oversight: Federal departments are working together under the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council Nanotechnology Initiative to strengthen current policy principles to guide government decision-making concerning the responsible development of nanotechnology. These principles address the need to protect human health, safety, and the environment, while not unnecessarily hampering innovation and the exploitation of potential benefits from nanotechnology use.
Research and international collaboration: In collaboration with domestic and international partners, the Government of Canada is actively involved in research and other activities to assess the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials and to develop appropriate and internationally compatible approaches for their responsible development and application (e.g. through safety assessment work at the OECD, ISO/IEC nanotechnology standards development, bilateral regulatory co-ordination, and government research and government-funded extramuralresearch).
Development of new policy tools: In October 2011, Health Canada introduced a Working Definition of Nanomaterials to provide a tool to assist the Government to gather safety information about nanomaterials in support of Health Canada’s mandate. The Working Definition is not an additional source of authority, but applies within existing regulatory frameworks that allow for obtaining information (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/nano/pol-eng.php).
Federal science and technology (S&T) strategies: Federal strategies for S&T research recognise the interconnection between responsible innovation, regulation, and socioeconomic development. Through its 2007 strategy, Mobilising Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage, for example, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnology. Federal strategies set out the general priority areas for government S&T research support (www.science.gc.ca/S&T_Reports-WS5F25C99B-1_En.htm). [Ed. Note: I would describe the information as statistical data rather than strategy and,in fact, the webpage you're being directed to is titled: Science and Technology Data.)
• Interdepartmental collaboration and coordination: Federal science-based departments and agencies (SBDAs) are engaged in an initiative to foster interdepartmental collaboration and coordination of activities for the responsible governance of nanotechnology. The results of this initiative will inform SBDA work and activities concerning innovation, regulation, public engagement and research.
External collaboration and coordination: Federal departments and agencies collaborate with external partners, such as provincial nanotechnology associations, on issues related to the responsible development of nanotechnology. (p. 9)

I mentioned the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council Nanotechnology Initiative in a June 26, 2013 posting.

As for this OECD report, there's always the question, What constitutes 'responsible' development? The OECD report provides an answer,

For the purpose of this activity the responsible development of nanotechnology was described as actions to stimulate the growth of nanotechnology applications in diverse sectors of the economy, while addressing the potential risks and the ethical and societal challenges the technology might raise. Policy and initiatives for the responsible development of nanotechnology aim both at supporting research (and/or business activities) and implementing effective legal and regulatory frameworks in order to assure that risk and safety standards are met. They also aim at supporting and stimulating the debate on the place of science and technology in society by engaging with the public on social and ethical issues. As nanotechnology develops, countries and regions have begun to develop, refine and/or articulate regulatory approaches to support the responsible development of nanotechnology. (p. 7)

The question as to which countries have a specific policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology is answered at length (from the OECD report),

All participating delegations responded to the questions on whether a dedicated policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology was in place or if nanotechnology was addressed as part of other policies; and whether a dedicated research programme for nanotechnology was in place or if nanotechnology formed a part of other research programmes.

Many delegations reported a specific policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology, with 11 delegations, out of the 25 participating, indicating the development of a policy brief, a regulatory framework, a legislative framework and/or an overall strategy for the responsible development of nanotechnology. All of these delegations reported that the policy had already been implemented. Some of the delegations that indicated a dedicated policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology also indicated that nanotechnology was included within other policies.

Where there was a dedicated policy for nanotechnology, the policy operated at the national level in all cases with the exception of Spain, which indicated that there was a nanotechnology policy in some of its regions, in parallel with the national dedicated nanotechnology policy for R&D and innovation.

Nine delegations [Canada was one of the nine delegations] indicated there was no dedicated policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology, but those delegations indicated that nanotechnology was included as part of other policies.

Two delegations indicated there was neither a dedicated policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology nor a policy of which nanotechnology was a part. However, these delegations either reported a dedicated research programme on nanotechnology, or that nanotechnology had been recognised as a strategic research area.

Finally, three delegations, out of the 25 participating, indicated that a policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology was under development (Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom) with publication planned for 2013-2014. For those countries, nanotechnology is currently included under the general umbrella of science and technology policy.

The majority of delegations highlighted the importance of collaboration and co-operation across- ministries, departments and agencies to ensure responsible and efficient development of the technology. Indeed, nanotechnology was expected to impact on a variety of industrial and economic sectors; this cross- sectoral nature appears to be a challenge for policy makers who require the involvement of all governmental stakeholders likely to be impacted by nanotechnology development. The majority of delegations involved a number of relevant ministries and departments in the development of their strategies for the responsible development of nanotechnology. This broad involvement was noted as a clear requirement in order to succeed in the development of nanotechnology.

… (pp. 7-8)

Finally, there is an OECD survey currently underway regarding nanotechnology commercialization according to a Dec. 20, 2013 notice on the Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) website (Note: A link has been removed),

NIA Members Consultation: OECD WPN Survey on Nanotechnology Commercialisation Policy – Deadline: 3 January 2014
Posted on 20 Dec 2013

The Working Party on Nanotechnology (WPN) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is undertaking a project examining policies that support the commercialisation of nanotechnology research. It aims to identify:

Which existing government policies help companies efforts in commercialisation;
How significant this support is; and
What else governments could do/do more of, that would most significantly increase the commercialisation of nanotechnology research.

As part of its role within the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), NIA is asking its members to provide their views to the project via a short questionnaire.

Participating members have the option to remain anonymous, with their identity and other information kept confidential by the project.

The findings from the questionnaire responses will be presented in a final OECD WPN Report and will be made available to all participants in the new year.

Only NIA members have access to the questionnaire and I cannot find any mention of it on the OECD website although I did stumble on this delightful page titled: OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology: Second meeting of the Working Party on Nanotechnology, which contains a number of documents including one which outlines a 2007 Canadian project: Nanotechnology Pilot Survey by Statistics Canada.

I hope to hear about this commercialization survey in a more timely fashion than I’ve been managing lately. In any event, it’s nice to get caught up on the Canadian nanotechnology scene.

On a related front: In March 2013 the OECD and the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) held a joint symposium about assessing nanotechnology’s economic impacts. My Sept. 19, 2013 posting features the final report on the symposium. There’s also my July 23, 2012 interview with Vanessa Clive, Industry Canada’s Nanotechnology Policy Advisor and one of the symposium organizers. Finally, there’s the OECD’s 2010 report, The Impacts of Nanotechnology on Companies: Policy Insights from Case Studies. This report was co-designed and co-led by Vanessa, one of her Canadian colleagues and a Swiss colleague. The report itself was written by OECD staff as per Vanessa’s comments in my March 29, 2012 posting.

US National Insitute for Occupational Health and Safety issues report on strategies for handling nanomaterials

A Dec. 19, 2013 news item on Nanowerk announces the release of a recent publication about the safe handling of nanomaterials from the US National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), Note: A link has been removed,

Occupational health risks associated with manufacturing and using nanomaterials are not yet clearly understood. However, initial toxicological data indicate that there is reason for caution. NIOSH is committed to promoting the responsible development and advancement of nanotechnology through its research and communication efforts to protect workers. NIOSH has taken a leading role in conducting research and making recommendations for nanotechnology safety in work settings. See the nanotechnology topic page for a list of documents and resources.

Recently, NIOSH has released a document titled, Current Strategies for Engineering Controls in Nanomaterial Production and Downstream Handling Processes, which provides information on how to control exposures for many of the most common processes seen in facilities that use or produce nanomaterials or nano-enabled products.

A Nov.8, 2013 NIOSH news release provides some additional insight into NIOSH’s strategy,,

Engineering controls are favored over administrative controls and personal protective equipment for lowering worker exposures, because they are designed to remove the hazard at the source, before it comes into contact with the worker. However, evidence showing the effectiveness of controls during the manufacture and downstream use of engineered nanomaterials in specific applications has been scarce.

The NIOSH recommendations fill a gap for science-based guidance that employers and workers can apply now, as research continues for better understanding of nanomaterial characteristics, and ways in which workers may be exposed, that may pose the risk of adverse health effects.

The consumer products market currently has more than 1,000 nanomaterial-containing products including makeup, sunscreen, food storage products, appliances, clothing, electronics, computers, sporting goods, and coatings. As more nanomaterials are introduced into the workplace and nano-enabled products enter the market, it is essential that producers and users of engineered nanomaterials ensure a safe and healthy work environment, the new document states.

Processes discussed in the document and for which controls are recommended and described include reactor operations and cleanout processes, small-scale weighing and handling of nanopowders, intermediate and finishing processes, and maintenance tasks. The document also includes recommendations for evaluating the performance of control technologies and control systems.

There’s a Dec. 9, 2013 NIOSH blog posting written by Jennifer L. Topmiller and Kevin H. Dunn which provides more detail about workers’ exposure to nanomaterials,,

Engineered nanomaterials are materials that are intentionally produced and have at least one primary dimension less than 100 nanometers (nm). Nanomaterials have properties different from those of larger particles of the same material, making them unique and desirable for specific product applications.  The consumer products market currently has more than 1,000 nanomaterial-containing products including makeup, sunscreen, food storage products, appliances, clothing, electronics, computers, sporting goods, and coatings [WWICS 2011].

It is difficult to estimate how many workers are involved in this field. By one estimate, there are 400,000 workers worldwide in the field of nanotechnology, with an estimated 150,000 of those in the United States [Roco et al. 2010]. The National Science Foundation has estimated that approximately 6 million workers will be employed in nanotechnology industries worldwide by 2020.

Occupational health risks associated with manufacturing and using nanomaterials are not yet clearly understood.  However, initial toxicological data indicate that there is reason for caution. NIOSH is committed to promoting the responsible development and advancement of nanotechnology through its research and communication efforts to protect workers. NIOSH has taken a leading role in conducting research and making recommendations for nanotechnology safety in work settings. …

The greatest exposures to raw nanomaterials are likely to occur in the workplace during production, handling, secondary processing, and packaging. In a review of exposure assessments conducted at nanotechnology plants and laboratories, Dr. Derk Brouwer determined that activities which resulted in exposures included harvesting (e.g., scraping materials out of reactors), bagging, packaging, and reactor cleaning [Brouwer 2010]. Downstream activities that may release nanomaterials include bag dumping, manual transfer between processes, mixing or compounding, powder sifting, and machining of parts that contain nanomaterials.  Similar to controlling hazards in traditional macro-scale manufacturing, engineering controls are recommended to reduce exposures to nanomaterials.

… Because little has been published on exposure controls in the production and use of nanomaterials, this document focuses on applications that have relevance to the field of nanotechnology and on engineering control technologies currently used, and known to be effective, in other industries.

Assessing how well the exposure control works is also essential for verifying that the exposure goals of the facility have been successfully met. This document covers a range of control evaluation tools including airflow visualization and measurement and containment test methods, such as tracer gas testing. Additional methods, such as video exposure monitoring, also provide information on critical task-based exposures and helps identify high-exposure activities and help provide the basis for interventions.

intriguingly, there’s also a plea for partnership at the end of this Dec. 9, 2013 NIOSH posting,

Producers and users of engineered nanomaterials are invited and encouraged to partner with NIOSH. Companies that have installed exposure controls, such as local exhaust ventilation, or are interested in assessing and reducing worker exposures can work with NIOSH engineers to develop and evaluate exposure mitigation options. Partnering with NIOSH not only benefits your company by providing an assessment of process emissions and recommending effective exposure control approaches  but also expands the knowledge base that benefits the industry as a whole.  Please feel free to contact us through the comment section below or by sending an e-mail to [email protected].  Thank for your interest in protecting workers!

You can find the NIOSH report, Current Strategies for Engineering Controls in Nanomaterial Production and Downstream Handling Processes here.

Regulators not prepared to manage nanotechnology risks according to survey

The focus of the survey mentioned in the heading is on the US regulatory situation regarding nanotechnology and, interestingly, much of the work was done by researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC; Vancouver, Canada). A Dec. 19, 2013 news item on Nanowerk provides an overview,

In a survey of nanoscientists and engineers, nano-environmental health and safety scientists, and regulators, researchers at the UCSB Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) and at the University of British Columbia found that those who perceive the risks posed by nanotechnology as “novel” are more likely to believe that regulators are unprepared. Representatives of regulatory bodies themselves felt most strongly that this was the case. “The people responsible for regulation are the most skeptical about their ability to regulate,” said CNS Director and co-author Barbara Herr Harthorn.

“The message is essentially,” said first author Christian Beaudrie of the Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia, “the more that risks are seen as new, the less trust survey respondents have in regulatory mechanisms. That is, regulators don’t have the tools to do the job adequately.”

The Dec. (?), 2013 University of California at Santa Barbara news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, adds this,

The authors also believe that when respondents suggested that more stakeholder groups need to share the responsibility of preparing for the potential consequences of nanotechnologies, this indicated a greater “perceived magnitude or complexity of the risk management challenge.” Therefore, they assert, not only are regulators unprepared, they need input from “a wide range of experts along the nanomaterial life cycle.” These include laboratory scientists, businesses, health and environmental groups (NGOs), and government agencies.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Expert Views on Regulatory Preparedness for Managing the Risks of Nanotechnologies by Christian E. H. Beaudrie, Terre Satterfield, Milind Kandlikar, Barbara H. Harthorn. PLOS [Public Library of Science] ONE Published: November 11, 2013 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080250

All of the papers on PLOS ONE are open access.

I have taken a look at this paper and notice there will be a separate analysis of the Canadian scene produced at a later date. As for the US analysis, certainly this paper confirms any conjectures made based on my observations and intuitions about the situation given the expressed uneasiness from various groups and individuals about the regulatory situation.

I would have liked to have seen a critique of previous studies rather than a summary, as well as, a critique of the survey itself in its discussion/conclusion. I also would have liked to have seen an appendix with the survey questions listed in the order in which they were asked and seen qualitative research (one-on-one interviews) rather than 100% dependence on an email survey. That said, I was glad to see they reversed the meaning of some of the questions to doublecheck for someone who might indicate the same answers (e.g., 9 [very concerned]) throughout as a means of simplifying their participation,

Onward to the survey with an excerpt from the description of how it was conducted,

Subjects were contacted by email in a three-step process, including initial contact and two reminders at two-week intervals. Respondents received an ‘A’ or ‘B’ version of the survey at random, where the wording of several survey questions were modified to reverse the meaning of the question. Questions with alternate wording were reversed-coded during analysis to enable direct comparison of responses. Where appropriate the sequence of questions was also varied to minimize order effects.

Here’s how the researchers separated the experts into various groups (excerpted from the study),,

This study thus draws from a systematic sampling of US-based nano-scientists and engineers (NSE, n=114), nano-environmental health and safety scientists (NEHS, n=86), and regulatory decision makers and scientists (NREG, n=54), to characterize how well-prepared different experts think regulatory agencies are for the risk management of nanomaterials and applications. We tested the following hypothesis:

  1. (1) Expert views on whether US federal agencies are sufficiently prepared for managing any risks posed by nanotechnologies will differ significantly across classes of experts (NSE vs. NEHS. vs. NREG).

This difference across experts was anticipated and so tested in reference to four additional hypotheses:

  1. (2) Experts who see nanotechnologies as novel (i.e., as a new class of materials or objects) will view US federal regulatory agencies as unprepared for managing risks as compared to those who see nanotechnologies as not new (i.e., as little different from their bulk chemical form)
  2. (3) Experts who deem US federal regulatory agencies as less trustworthy will also view agencies as less prepared compared to those with more trust in agencies
  3. (4) Experts who attribute greater collective stakeholder responsibility (e.g. who view a range of stakeholders as equally responsible for managing risks) will see agencies as less prepared compared to those who attribute less responsibility.
  4. (5) Experts who are more socially and economically conservative will see regulatory agencies as more prepared compared to those with a more liberal orientation.

The researchers included Index Variables of trust, responsibility, conservatism, novelty-risks, and novelty-benefits in relationship to education, gender, field of expertise, etc. for a regression analysis. In the discussion (or conclusion), the authors had this to say (excerpted from the study),

Consistent differences exist between expert groups in their views on agency preparedness to manage nanotechnology risks, yet all three groups perceive regulatory agencies as unprepared. What is most striking however is that NREG experts see regulatory agencies as considerably less prepared than do their NSE or NEHS counterparts. Taking a closer look, the drivers of experts’ concerns over regulator preparedness tell a more nuanced story. After accounting for other differences, the ‘expert group’ classification per se does not drive the observed differences in preparedness perceptions. Rather a substantial portion of this difference results from differing assessments of the perceived novelty of risks across expert groups. Of the remaining variables, trust in regulators is a small but significant driver, and our findings suggest a link between concerns over the novelty of nanomaterials and the adequacy of regulatory design. Experts’ views on stakeholder responsibility are not particularly surprising since greater reliance on a collective responsibility model would need the burden to move away exclusively from regulatory bodies to other groups, and result presumptively in a reduced sense of preparedness.

Experts’ reliance in part upon socio-political values indicates that personal values also play a minor role in preparedness judgments.

I look forward to seeing the Canadian analysis. The paper is worth reading for some of the more subtle analysis I did not include here.

NanoDefine: a project for implementing the European Union’s definition for nanomaterials

Here”s an excerpt from the Dec. 13, 2013 news item on Azonano about a new consortium focused on measuring nanomaterials and, if I understand the news item rightly, refining the definition so that it can be implemented,

A 29-partner consortium of top European RTD [?] performers, metrology institutes, and nanomaterials and instrument manufacturers, gathered at a launch meeting in Wageningen, NL, [Netherlands] last month to begin the mobilisation of the critical mass of expertise required to establish the measurement tools and scientific data that help to implement the EU recommendation on the definition of a nanomaterial.

We have come a long way in exploring the full potential of nano as a key enabling technology, yet, there are still uncertainties surrounding environment, health and safety (EHS) issues and the questions that need to be addressed: what is or isn’t a nanomaterial. One challenge consists in the development of methods that reliably identify, characterize and measure nanomaterials (NM) both as substance and in various products and matrices. In responses, the European Commission has recently recommended a definition of NM as a reference to determine this (2011/696/EU).

The NanoDefine project will explicitly address this question over the next four years.

I have written about the European Union’s definition of nanomaterials in an Oct, 18, 2011 posting,

After all the ‘sturm und drang’ in the last few months (my Sept. 8, 2011 posting summarizing some of the lively discussion), a nanomaterials definition for Europe has been adopted. It is the first ‘cross-cutting’ nanomaterials definition to date according to the Oct. 18, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

“Nanomaterials” are materials whose main constituents have a dimension of between 1 and 100 billionth of a metre, according to a Recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial (pdf) adopted by the European Commission today. The announcement marks an important step towards greater protection for citizens, clearly defining which materials need special treatment in specific legislation.

I also featured some specific critiques of the then newly proclaimed definition in an Oct. 19, 2011 posting and again in an Oct. 20, 2011 posting.

The Institute of Nanotechnology Dec. 12, 2013 news release, which originated the news item, provides more details about the NanoDefine project,

Based on a comprehensive evaluation of existing methodologies and a rigorous intra-lab and inter-lab comparison, validated measurement methods and instruments will be developed that are robust, readily implementable, cost-effective and capable to reliably measure the size of particles in the range of 1 – 100 nm, with different shapes, coatings and for the widest possible range of materials, in various complex media and products. Practical case studies will assess their applicability for various sectors, including food/feed, cosmetics etc.

One major outcome of the project will be the establishment of an integrated tiered approach including validated rapid screening methods (tier 1) and validated in depth methods (tier 2), with a user manual to guide end-users, such as manufacturers, regulatory bodies and contract laboratories, to implement the developed methodology.

NanoDefine will closely collaborate with its sister projects in the NanoSafety Cluster (www.nanosafetycluster.eu) as well as engage with international EHS, RTD and metrology initiatives. NanoDefine will also be strongly linked to main standardization bodies, such as CEN, ISO and OECD, by actively participating in Technical Commissions and Working Groups, and by proposing specific ISO/CEN work items, to integrate the developed and validated methodology into the current standardization work.

For more information:
NanoDefine: ‘Development of an integrated approach based on validated and standardized methods to support the implementation of the EC recommendation for a definition of nanomaterial’ receives funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n°604347 and runs from 1/11/2013 – 31/10/2017

Visit the project website: www.nanodefine.eu (currently under construction) [as of Dec. 13, 2013 there is no landing page]
Contact the Project Coordinators:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Visit the NanoSafety Cluster website: www.nanosafetycluster.eu

I have searched on this blog to see if I’ve stumbled across the Institute of Nanotechnology, located in the UK, previously but cannot find any other mentions (which may be due to the search function and my impatience for paging through apparently irrelevant search results). At any rate, here’s more about the institute from its About Us webpage (Note: Links have been removed),

Background

The Institute of Nanotechnology (IoN) was founded by Ottilia Saxl in January 1997. It is a registered Charity, whose core activities are focused on education and training in nanotechnology. It grew out of the Centre for Nanotechnology, part funded by the DTI through the UK’s National Initiative on Nanotechnology (NION). The Institute was one of the world’s first nanotechnology information providers and is now a global leader.

The Institute works closely with governments, universities, researchers, companies and the general public to educate and inform on all aspects of nanotechnology. It also organises various international scientific events, conferences and educational courses that examine the implications of nanotechnology across a wide variety of themes and sectors.

As most people know (except maybe policymakers), implementation is the tricky part of any rule, policy, and/or law and  the definitions are crucial.

Want to open a nano business or export/import nano products anywhere in the world? Check out the Nanotechnology Industries Association’s (NIA) Regulatory Monitoring Database

The Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) has announced a very nifty-sounding database, from the Nov. 4, 2013 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

The Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) today launched its Regulatory Monitoring Database (you need to be a registered NIA member to access the database). This Database is a comprehensive tool that allows its users to monitor nano-specific regulations and standards around the world.

Here’s more from the Nov. 4, 2013 NIA news release, which originated the news item,

As legislative texts across the globe increasingly include provisions related to nanotechnologies, it is becoming ever more crucial for businesses to understand and anticipate both what policy-makers are developing, and what standards could apply to them. NIA’s Regulatory Monitoring Database sets out to improve its users’ understanding of these and aid them in taking the appropriate courses of action for their businesses.

Colour-coded so as to be easy-to-use and simple to navigate, the Database informs users of the latest developments, their importance and their expected impact. Specially-tailored Analysis Pages are also made for each item, and information about key actors, main dates, nano-relevant quotes from the text, and the history of the development are also provided.

Here’s a look at the video promoting the database,

As anyone who’s been following the regulatory scene will tell you, this cannot have been a small project to start and I imagine maintenance is going to be expensive, so, there is a cost associated with access to the database, from the news release,

Non-NIA Members are invited to subscribe to this new service. Access to the database is provided free of charge to NIA Corporate and Associate Members, while NIA Affiliate Members are eligible for a discount on the fee equal to the cost of their annual membership fee.

Given that the NIA has offices in Brussels (Belgium), Lisbon (Portugal), and London (UK),, this effort might be seen as Eurocentric. The video never does mention any specific jurisdictions. Personally and despite the claim that the database is a “comprehensive tool that allows its users to monitor nano-specific regulations and standards around the world,” I’m curious as to how much information they have about regulations in  China, Japan, India, and other places outside Europe and from linguistic families not found there.

Nano info on food labels wanted by public in the US?

There’s some social science research about nanotechnology and food labeling in the US making its rounds on the internet. From an Oct. 28, 2013 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

New research from North Carolina State University and the University of Minnesota finds that people in the United States want labels on food products that use nanotechnology – whether the nanotechnology is in the food or is used in food packaging. The research (“Hungry for Information: Public Attitudes Toward Food Nanotechnology and Labeling”) also shows that many people are willing to pay more for the labeling.

Study participants were particularly supportive of labeling for products in which nanotechnology had been added to the food itself, though they were also in favor of labeling products in which nanotechnology had only been incorporated into the food packaging.

The Oct. 28, 2013 North Carolina State University (NCSU) news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, has a title that can be viewed as misleading  especially in light of how other news media have interpreted it,

Public wants labels for food nanotech — and they’re willing to pay for it

Yes but it’s not exactly ‘the public’ (from the news release),

“We wanted to know whether people want nanotechnology in food to be labeled, and the vast majority of the participants in our study do,” says Dr. Jennifer Kuzma, senior author of a paper on the research and Goodnight-Glaxo Wellcome Distinguished Professor of Public Administration at NC State. “Our study is the first research in the U.S. to take an in-depth, focus group approach to understanding the public perception of nanotechnology in foods.” [emphasis mine]

The researchers convened six focus groups – three in Minnesota and three in North Carolina – and gave study participants some basic information about nanotechnology and its use in food products. Participants were then asked a series of questions addressing whether food nanotechnology should be labeled. Participants were also sent a follow-up survey within a week of their focus group meeting. [emphasis mine]

Since ‘focus group’ isn’t likely to grab attention in a headline whoever wrote the news release decided on a more dramatic approach citing the ‘public’ which resulted in this still more dramatic headline for an Oct. 29, 2013 news item on Red Orbit (Note: Links have been removed),

Most Americans Want To See Labels On Their Nanofoods

Americans overwhelmingly want to know when they are eating food products that use nanotechnology, and are happy to pay the additional labeling costs, according to a new study published this month in the journal Review of Policy Research.

“Our study is the first research in the United States to take an in-depth, focus group approach to understanding the public perception of nanotechnology in foods,” said Dr. Jennifer Kuzma of North Carolina State University, the study’ s senior author. [emphasis mine] “We wanted to know whether people want nanotechnology in food to be labeled, and the vast majority of the participants in our study do.”

Curious, I read the paper (which is open access),

Hungry for Information: Public Attitudes Toward Food Nanotechnology and Labeling by Jonathan Brown, University of Minnesota; Jennifer Kuzma, North Carolina State University. Published: Online Oct. 7 [2013] in Review of Policy Research DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12035

First off, this study is, by my standards, a well written piece of research. The writers have grounded their work in the literature,  explained their approach and methodology, and provided many appendices including one with the script used by the focus group moderators. Surprisingly, I’ve read more than one piece of ‘social science research’ which did not provide one or more of the previously mentioned aspects essential to a basic, solid research paper. In other words, there are a lot of sloppy social science research papers out there. Thankfully, this is not one of them. That said, I do have a comment about the paper’s title and a nit to pick regarding the methodology.

The paper’s title has a ‘look at me’ quality which has found its way into the news release and ultimately some of the headlines in various online publications (including this post). The paper’s title in the context of a publication called Review of Policy Research is less problematic due to its audience, i.e., policy wonks who are likely to discount the title as simply an attempt to get attention. The point is that the audience for Review of Policy Research is not likely to take that title at face value, i.e., uncritically. However, as this ‘look at me’ title is rewritten and makes its way through various media outlets, the audience changes to one that is much more likely to take it at face value.

Researchers are in a bind. They want attention for their work but can risk media coverage which distorts their findings. As for the level of distortion to be found, here’s information about the methodology and sample (participants), from the research paper,

Seven focus groups, 90 minutes in length and ranging in size from seven to ten participants, were conducted between September 2010 and January 2011 in the Minnesota cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, and Bloomington, and the North Carolina cities of Raleigh, Garner, and Cary. [emphasis mine' Cities were selected based on the main city location, the largest suburb, and finally a randomly selected city between 30,000 and 60,000 residents, all within the counties of Hennepin, Minnesota, and Wake, North Carolina.

Participants were recruited using a stratified random sample, with the goal of having equal female and male numbers in each group, while matching a demographic county profile. Those who had a prior background in or extensive knowledge of nanotechnology were excluded from participation. The profiles were based on age, sex, race, education, family household income, and ideology (liberal, moderate, and conservative) criteria and generated by means of census data in conjunction with information supplied from select city community centers. Telephone and cell phone samples for each city were acquired and used to recruit 12 participants for each focus group, with the expectation of 75 percent attendance per group. Participants were given light dinner refreshments and $100 cash for their participation.

A total of 56 participants partook in one of the seven focus groups (n1 = 8, n2 = 10, n3 = 8, n4 = 7, n5 = 8, n6 = 7, and n7  = 8). The overall demographic distribution contained more males (64 percent, n = 36) versus females (36 percent, n = 20); whites/Caucasians (84 percent, n = 47) versus blacks/African Americans (11 percent, n = 6) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (4 percent, n = 2); and those with a postgraduate or professional degree (27 percent, n = 15) versus college graduate (23 percent, n = 13), some college (16 percent, n = 9), high school graduate (14 percent, n = 8), technical college graduate (7 percent, n = 4), some high school (5 percent, n = 3), some technical college (2 percent, n = 1), and “Other” education (2 percent, n = 1). Race/ethnicity and education had n = 1 and n = 2 “No Answer” responses, respectively. The most common age bracket was 50–60 (36 percent, n = 20) compared with “Over 60” (23 percent, n = 13), 41–49 (23 percent, n = 13), 31–39 (7 percent, n = 4), and “Under 30” (7 percent, n = 4). Additionally, two provided “No Answer” for their ages.

So, 56 people, at the most. from two different states are representing Americans. Under Study Limitations subhead, the researchers outline some of their own concerns regarding this research (from the paper),

Several limitations of our focus group study are worth noting. The small sample size (n = 56 for focus groups and worksheet responses; n = 34 for postsurvey) reduces inferential power for the quantitative worksheet and postsurvey results.  Additionally, a small sample size coupled with underrepresentation for multiple demographics (e.g., non-Caucasians, females, those under age 40, and so on) restricts generalizability of results, whether quantitative or qualitative. For focus groups, however, this is to be expected as the goal is in-depth and quality discussions that explore issues heretofore under-investigated. [all emphases mine]

The nature of focus group execution presents further challenges. For example, introverted individuals may not participate as readily, and this potential imbalance skews the discussion toward the extraverted participants’ ideas. A technique to mitigate this bias, which was employed by our moderators, is to directly ask quieter participants questions once a topic is generated. Although directed calling is effective at ensuring all views on a specific topic are eventually heard, more talkative participants nonetheless exert essential control as their initial contributions determine the topics to be covered. Extraverts will thus be overrepresented in the conversation flow.

Another challenge with employing focus groups relates to moderator-controlled variations. While one discussion guide (i.e., set of specific guiding questions) was used for all focus groups (see Appendix A), the moderator frequently had to ask various follow-up questions to maintain substantive dialog. Consequently, several impromptu questions stimulating important exchanges were not raised uniformly in all groups. Fortunately, such variability was not widely problematic, as all focus groups consisted of the same six phases with the same preliminary prompts. Below we present the results from our study that relate to food and nanotechnology products and their labeling.

The results from the research are suggestive but this work does not offer proof that Americans want nano information on their food labels and are will to pay more. However this research lays the groundwork for future queries as the researchers themselves note in their Discussion at the end of the paper,

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to concentrate on public attitudes toward nanofood labeling in the United States. As such, we took an exploratory and grounded theory approach to reveal insights that could be important for developing policies and programs. Focus group discussions, in-group response worksheets, and postsurvey results from this study begin to form a picture of what people view as important for nanofood governance and labeling more specifically. Future studies will be needed to further explore these results, as there were several limitations to this study including the small sample sizes for the postsurvey (n = 34) and focus groups (n = 56) in the context of applying inferential statistics, sample underrepresentation for some demographic variables, potential overrepresentation of extroverted opinions in focus group conversations, and intergroup moderator consistency (see also the “Study Limitations” section above). These limitations are often associated with focus group research.

The researchers also describe the various themes that emerged from the focus group discussions,

Labeling discussions activated numerous topics directly and indirectly related to nanofood product labeling. Skepticism and the influence of historical experiences were two themes that emerged in this study that have not been extensively covered in previous literature on public perception of nanotechnology. Participants were skeptical concerning actions, intentions, and promised outcomes, often without reference to particular organizations or their trust of them. In part, skepticism stemmed from historical experiences with other product domains like pesticides, nutritional and allergenicity labels, and prior food safety claims. Participants relied heavily on previous experiences related to nanofood labeling in order to form opinions on this new domain.

I encourage you to read the research yourself. As these things go, this study is quite readable. However, I do have one final nit to pick, household income. While the researchers used the data to develop their stratified, random sample, they don’t seem to have taken income into account when analyzing the results or considering problems in the methodology. It seems to me that household income might be a factor in how people feel about paying more for food labels that include nano information.

This is the second nanofood-themed post I’ve published recently, see my Oct. 23, 2013 posting for a report of a food and nano panel held at the Guardian’s (newspaper) offices in London, UK>

2013 U.S.-EU (European Union) NanoEHS (Environment, Health, and Safety) Workshop—sorry you can’t register yet

The October 2013 issue (6th newsletter) from NanoValid, an EU-funded (European Union) funded project; mentioned in my Aug. 6, 2013 posting, featuring a Sept. 2013 workshop on characterizing nanomaterials, mentions activities such as an upcoming 2013 US-EU EHS (Environment, Health, and Safety) nano workshop (from the US-EU.org’s nano EHS event page),,

NOTICE: Registration for this event has been delayed due to the U.S. government shutdown. We are working to open registration as soon as possible and will post the registration link on http://us-eu.org/2013-u-s-eu-nanoehs-workshop/ as  soon as it is live. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your patience.

DATE: December 2-3, 2013

LOCATION: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia

SCOPE: This event will bring together the U.S.-EU Communities of Research (CORs), which are a platform for scientists address environmental; health; and safety questions about nanomaterials, by developing a shared repertoire of protocols and methods to overcome research gaps and barriers. The Communities were established in 2012, and this workshop is intended to further develop and support the CORs’ activities.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this workshop is to publicize progress towards COR goals and objectives, clarify and communicate future plans, share best practices, and identify areas of cross-Community collaboration.

OUTCOMES: This workshop will culminate in a publicly-available workshop summary. Presentation slides will also be posted on us-eu.org.

STRUCTURE: U.S. – EU events will span 2 days before the 2013 NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE) grantees conference (http://www.nseresearch.org/).

  • Monday, December 2: Self-Managed Meetings of Individual CORs at NSF
  • Tuesday, December 3: “U.S.-EU: Bridging NanoEHS Research Efforts” Joint Workshop. All of the CORs will convene to report progress, communicate future goals, share best practices, and identify potential areas for collaboration.

Attendees are invited to remain for:

  • Wednesday-Friday, December 4-6: NSE grantee conference. Day 1 will focus on the research and education activities of ongoing grant projects in the area of environmental health and safety.

ATTENDEES: Participants will include American and European scientists and policy makers from academia, research institutes, industry, and governments. This workshop will be free and open to the public with registration on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration will likely be capped at approximately 100 people.

I found a more direct link to the 2013 NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Grantees Conference here. Also, here’s a link to the October 2013 (6th) issue of the NanoValid newsletter..