Tag Archives: Health Canada

Regulating nanomaterials according to the US GAO and EPA

Leave a reply

It’s been a banner week for information about nanomaterials regulation. As I noted yesterday, the US General Accountability Office has just released its  report titled Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk. Hats off to the authors: Anu Mittal, lead author, and Elizabeth Erdmann, David Bennett, Antoinette Capaccio, Nancy Crothers, Cindy Gilbert, Gary Guggolz, Nicole Harkin, Kim Raheb, and Hai Tran.

In discussing some of the oversight and regulatory issues associated with nanotechnology and other emerging technologies they had this to say (from the report),

Nanotechnology is an example of a fast-paced technology that poses challenges to agencies’ policy development and foresight efforts. We have conducted past work looking at the challenges of exercising foresight when addressing potentially significant but somewhat uncertain trends,5 including technology-based trends that proceed at a high “clockspeed,” that is, a (1) faster pace than trends an agency has dealt with previously or (2) quantitative rate of change that is either exponential or exhibits a pattern of doubling or tripling within 3 or 4 years, possibly on a repeated basis.6 As our prior work has noted, when an agency responsible for ensuring safety faces a set of potentially significant high-clockspeed technology-based trends, it may successfully exercise foresight by carrying out activities such as

• considering what is known about the safety impact of the trend and deciding how to respond to it;

• reducing uncertainty as needed by developing additional evidence about the safety of the trend; and

• communicating with Congress and others about the trends, agency responses, and policy implications.

Similarly, our 21st Century Challenges report raised concern about whether federal agencies are poised to address fast-paced technology-based challenges. [GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005)] Other foresight literature illustrates the potential future consequences of falling behind a damaging trend that could be countered by early action. These analyses suggest that unless agencies and Congress can stay abreast of technological changes, such as nanotechnology, they may find themselves “in a constant catch-up position and lose the capacity to shape outcomes.” (p.7/8 print version, p. 11/2 PDF)

(Seems to me the Canadian government could also do with some thoughtful consideration of fast-changing technologies and the challenges they pose to the institutional oversight mechanisms currently in place.)

The report goes on to describe various nano-enabled product categories in various industry sectors. It’s an overview that includes products (e.g. nano-enabled cell phones) currently or soon-to-be on the market. I was particularly taken with an image of a cell phone  that tagged parts  already nano-enabled (on some models) along with parts that may, in the future, become nano-enabled (p. 14 print version or p. 18 PDF).

The toxicity roundup is one of the best presentations I’ve seen. For example,

  • Size. Research assessing the role of particle size on toxicity has generally found that some nanoscale (<100 nanometers) particles are more toxic and can cause more inflammation than conventionally scaled particles of the same composition. Specifically, some research indicates that the toxicity of certain nanomaterials, such as some forms of carbon nanotubes and nanoscale titanium dioxide, may pose a risk to human health because these materials, as a result of their small size, may be able to penetrate cell walls, causing cell inflammation and potentially leading to certain diseases. For example, the small size of these nanomaterials may allow them to penetrate deeper into lung tissue, potentially causing more damage, according to some of the studies we reviewed. In addition, some nanomaterials may disperse differently into the environment than conventionally scaled materials of the same composition because of their size. However, according to EPA, the small particle size may also cause the nanomaterials to agglomerate, which may make it more difficult for them to penetrate deep lung tissue. (pp. 23/4 print version, pp. 27/8 PDF)

This a much more measured but still cautious approach to the toxicology issues as they relate to size and this approach is maintained throughout.

There’s more than one way to be exposed,

In addition to toxicity, the risk that nanomaterials pose to humans and the environment is also affected by the route and extent of exposure to such materials. Nanomaterials can enter the human body through three primary routes: inhalation, ingestion, and dermal penetration. (p. 25 print version, p. 29 PDF)

They also make the distinction between exposure as a consequence of consuming products and exposure due to occupation.

Moving on from toxicity, their section on the international scene wowed me because this is the only report I’ve seen which notes that Canada’s nanomaterials inventory has yet to occur.

One thing I hadn’t realized was how similar Environment Canada’s and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s approach to nanomaterials has been. From my April 2, 2010 posting,

Here’s what Environment Canada has to say about nanomaterials (the information on this page is dated from 2007 …) NOTE: The page originally cited is no longer available, go to this page,

The Domestic Substances List (DSL) is the sole basis for determining whether a substance is new. Any chemical or polymer not listed on the DSL is considered to be new to Canada and is subject to the notification requirements under the Regulations. Substances listed on the DSL do not require notification1 in advance of manufacture in or import into Canada.

The Act and the Regulations apply to new nanomaterials just as any other substance, whether a chemical or a polymer.

…

Substances listed on the DSL whose nanoscale forms do not have unique structures or molecular arrangements are considered existing. Existing nanomaterials are not subject to the Regulations and do not require notification. For example, titanium dioxide [emphasis mine] (CAS No. 13463-67-7) is listed on the DSL and since its nanoscale form does not have unique structures or molecular arrangements, it is not subject to the Regulations.

Compare,

In its 2008 document, EPA stated that a nanomaterial is a new chemical for purposes of regulation under TSCA only if it does not have the same “molecular identity” as a chemical already on the inventory. Under TSCA, a chemical is defined in terms of its particular molecular identity.

…

Thus, because titanium dioxide is already listed on the TSCA inventory, nanoscale versions of titanium dioxide, which have the same molecular formula, would not be considered a new chemical under TSCA, despite having a different size or shape, different physical and chemical properties, and potentially different risks. [emphasis mine] (p. 34 print version, p. 38 PDF)

I gather the EPA adopted the strategy one year after Environment Canada. Given how often the various jurisdictions copy each other’s approaches, I wonder which country (or possibly a jurisdiction such as the European Commission) actually set this strategy.

The report offers an excellent summary of Canada’s current regulatory approach and plans. I’ve reproduced the passage in full here,

Canadian officials have proposed but have not implemented a one-time requirement for companies to provide information on nanomaterials produced in or imported into Canada. Canadian importers and manufacturers would be required to report their use of nanomaterials produced or imported in excess of 1 kilogram. In 2009, Canadian officials reported to the OECD that information required would include chemical and trade name; molecular formula; and any available information on the shape, size range, structure, quantity imported or manufactured, and known or predicted uses. Also required would be any available information on the nanomaterial’s physical and chemical properties—such as solubility in water and toxicological data, among others. Under the proposal, companies could claim information as confidential, but regulators would publish a summary of information provided. Canada plans to use this information to help develop a regulatory framework for nanomaterials and to determine which information requirements would be useful for subsequent risk assessments. Canadian officials stated they originally hoped to issue this requirement in the spring of 2009 but could not predict when it would be implemented.

With regard to current law, a report prepared for the government of Canada in 2008 stated that Canada has no specific requirements for nanomaterials and is considering whether they are needed. However, Health Canada and Environment Canada—two agencies responsible for health and the environment—have taken the first steps in recognizing the potentially unique aspects of nanomaterials. These regulatory agencies are currently relying on existing authority delegated to them through legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to address nanomaterials. Specifically, in June 2007, Environment Canada released a new substances program advisory announcing that nanomaterials will be regulated under the act’s new substances notification regulations. Per this advisory, any nanomaterial not listed on Canada’s chemical inventory—the Domestic Substances List—or with “unique structures or molecular arrangements” compared to their non-nano counterparts, requires a risk assessment. A review panel of the Canadian Academies found that, while it is not necessary to create new regulatory mechanisms to address the unique challenges presented by nanomaterials, the existing regulatory mechanisms could and should be strengthened in a variety of ways, such as by creating a specific classification for nanomaterials and by reviewing the regulatory triggers that prompt review of the health and environmental effects. (pp. 45/6 print version, pp. 49/50 PDF)

As far as I’m aware, there are no comparable summaries available in Canadian reports available to the public. No doubt there are nits to be picked but all I can say is thank you for giving me the most comprehensive and succinct overview I’ve seen yet of the emerging Canadian regulatory framework for nanomaterials.

For interested parties, there is some additional information about Health Canada’s public consultation on their interim definition of nanomaterials in my April 28, 2010 posting.

The myth of Canada’s nanomaterials reporting plan

Leave a reply

The myth of Canada’s nanomaterials reporting plan/inventory lives on. A group (Program on Reproductive Health and Environment) at the University of California in San Francisco just issued a draft set of policy recommendations titled “A Nanotechnology Policy Framework: Policy Recommendations for Addressing Potential Health Risks from Nanomaterials in California.”  From the news item on Nanowerk,

This draft document addresses the new challenges that nanomaterials present to the policy and risk assessment process because of their unique properties. It draws upon lessons we can learn from past chemical policy experiences and other recent nanotechnology reports in making recommendations for California. There will be a public meeting to discuss the draft document and receive feedback from the Science Advisory Panel and the general public. All public comments must be received by May 5, 2010.

I took a look at the report and found this on page 19,

Canada recently moved to implement a new program that requires manufacturers of nanomaterials to provide physical, chemical and toxicity data about nanoproducts they make in more than one kilogram quantities. They will then use this data to create new risk assessments and further regulation.

Unfortunately, there is no such program currently being implemented in Canada but it is mentioned in reports from other jurisdictions such as this one from California and, if memory serves, the January 2010 House of Lords report on nanotechnologies and food. There is never a citation for this documented ‘fact’ and I suspect that this is due to the ‘information’ being copied from one report to the next without any authentification. (Frankly, I probably would have done the same had I been in that situation. You don’t have time to track down every single assertion in every document [from reputable sources] you review before preparing a report.)

I last posted about the reporting plan/inventory/scheme here as part of an introduction to questions to Health Canada about the proposed plan and also about a nanomaterials definition.

Nanotechnology and the Council of Canadian Academies assessment report

Leave a reply

I started discussing the Council of Canadian Academies and its mid-term assessment report (Review of the Council of Canadian Academies; Report from the External Evaluation Panel 2010) yesterday and will finish today with my thoughts on the assessment of the Council’s nanotechnology report and its impact.

Titled Small is Different: A Science Perspective of the Regulatory Challenges on the Nanoscale (2008), the Council’s report is one of the best I’ve read. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants an introduction to some of the issues (and was much struck by its omission from the list of suggested nanotechnology readings that Peter Julian [Canadian MP] offered in part 2 of his interview).  Interestingly, the Council’s nanotechnology report is Case Study No. 3 in the mid-term expert panel assessment report’s Annex 6 (p. 33 in the print version and p. 37 in PDF).

Many respondents were concerned that Health Canada has made no response to, or use of, this report. However, Health Canada respondents were highly enthusiastic about the assessment and the ways in which it is being used to inform the department’s many – albeit still entirely internal – regulatory development activities: “We’ve all read it and used it. The fact that we haven’t responded to the outside is actually a reflection of how busy we’ve been responding to the file on the inside!” [emphases mine]

The report has been particularly valuable in providing a framework to bring together Health Canada’s five – very different – regulatory regimes to identify a common approach and priorities. The sponsor believes the report’s findings have been well-incorporated into its draft working definition of nanomaterials, [emphasis mine] its work with Canadian and international standards agencies, its development of a regulatory framework to address shorter- and longer-term needs, and its creation of a research agenda to aid the development of the science needed to underpin the regulation of nanomaterials in Canada.

I think the next time somebody confronts me as to why I haven’t responded externally to some notice (e.g., paid my strata fees), I’ll assure them that I’ve been ‘responding on the inside’. (Sometimes I cannot resist the low-hanging fruit and I just have to take a bite.)

As for the second paragraph where they claim that Health Canada has incorporated suggestions from the report for its nanomaterials definition, that’s all well and good but the thinking is changing and Health Canada doesn’t seem to be responding (or to even be aware of the fact). Take a look at the proposed definition in the current draft bill before the US Senate where in addition to size, they mention shape, reactivity, and more as compared the Health Canada 1 to 100 nm. size definition. (See details in this posting from earlier in the week where I compare the proposed US and Canadian definitions.)

Additionally, I think they need to find ways to measure impact that are quantitative as well as this qualitative approach, which itself needs to be revised. Quantitative measures could include the numbers of reports disseminated in print and online, social networking efforts (if any), number of times reports are mentioned in the media, etc. They may also want to limit case studies in future reports so they can provide more depth. The comment about the ‘internal’ impact could have been described at more length. How have the five different Health Canada regulatory regimes come together? Has something substantive occurred?

Finally, it’s hard to know if the Julian’s failure to mention the council’s report in his list of nanotechnology readings is a simple failure of memory or a reflection of the Council’s “invisibility”. I’m inclined to believe that it’s the latter.

Comparing nanomaterials definitions: US and Canada

7 Replies

In light of yesterday’s (April 26, 2010) posting about Health Canada and their nanomaterials definition, Andrew Maynard’s April 23, 2010 post at 2020 Science (blog) is quite timely. Andrew has some details about new nanomaterials definitions being proposed in the both the US Senate and House of Representatives so that their Toxic Substances Control Act can be amended. From Andrew’s posting, an excerpt about the proposed House bill,

The House draft document is a little more explicit. It recommends amending section 3(2) of the original act with:

“(C) For purposes of this Act, such term may include more than 1 form of a substance with a particular molecular identity as described in sub-paragraph (A) if the Administrator has determined such forms to be different substances, based on variations in the substance characteristics. New forms of existing chemical substances so determined shall be considered new chemical substances.” (page 6)

with the clarification that

“The term ‘substance characteristic’ means, with respect to a particular chemical substance, the physical and chemical characteristics that may vary for such substance, and whose variation may bear on the toxicological properties of the chemical substance, including—

(A) chemical structure and composition

(B) size or size distribution

(C) shape

(D) surface structure

(E) reactivity; and

(F) other characteristics and properties that may bear on toxicological properties” (page 11)

Both the Senate bill and the House discussion document provide EPA with the authority to regulate any substance that presents a new or previously unrecognized risk to human health as a new substance. This is critical to ensuring the safety of engineered nanomaterials, where risk may depend on more than just the chemistry of the substance. But it also creates a framework for regulating any new material that presents a potential risk – whether it is a new chemical, a relatively simple nanomaterial, a more complex nanomaterial – possibly one that changes behavior in response to its environment, or a novel material that has yet to be invented. In other words, these provisions effectively future-proof the new regulation.

I prefer the definition in the draft House of Representatives bill to Health Canada’s because of its specificity and its future-oriented approach. Contrast their specificity with this from the Interim Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials:

Health Canada considers any manufactured product, material, substance, ingredient, device, system or structure to be nanomaterial if:

1. It is at or within the nanoscale in at least one spatial dimension, or;

2. It is smaller or larger than the nanoscale in all spatial dimensions and exhibits one or more nanoscale phenomena.

For the purposes of this definition:

* The term “nanoscale” means 1 to 100 nanometres, inclusive;

* The term “nanoscale phenomena” means properties of the product, material, substance, ingredient, device, system or structure which are attributable to its size [emphasis mine] and distinguishable from the chemical or physical properties of individual atoms, individual molecules and bulk material; and,

* The term “manufactured” includes engineering processes and control of matter and processes at the nanoscale.

You’ll notice the House of Representatives’ draft bill offers five elements to the description (chemical composition, size or size distribution [emphasis mine], shape, surface structure, reactivity, and other characteristics and properties that may bear on toxicological properties). So in the US they include elements that have been identified as possibly being a problem and leave the door open for future discovery.

The proposed legislation has another feature, Andrew notes that,

Both the Senate bill and the House discussion document provide EPA with the authority [emphasis mine] to regulate any substance that presents a new or previously unrecognized risk to human health as a new substance. This is critical to ensuring the safety of engineered nanomaterials, where risk may depend on more than just the chemistry of the substance. But it also creates a framework for regulating any new material that presents a potential risk – whether it is a new chemical, a relatively simple nanomaterial, a more complex nanomaterial – possibly one that changes behavior in response to its environment, or a novel material that has yet to be invented. In other words, these provisions effectively future-proof the new regulation.

As far as I can recall, Peter Julian’s (MP – NDP) tabled draft bill for nanotechnology regulation in Canada does not offer this kind of ‘future-proofing’ although it could be added if it is ever brought forward for debate in the House of Commons. Given the quantity of public and political discussion on nanotechnology (and science, in general) in Canada, I doubt any politician could offer those kinds of amendments to Julian’s proposed bill.

As for Canada’s proposed nanomaterials reporting plan/inventory/scheme, Health Canada’s proposed definition’s vagueness makes compliance difficult. Let me illustrate what I mean while I explain why I highlighted ‘size distribution’ in the House of Representatives draft bill by first discussing Michael Berger’s article on Nanowerk about environment, health and safety (EHS) research into the toxicological properties of nanomaterials. From Berger’s article,

” What we found in our work is that nanomaterials purchased from commercial sources may not be as well characterized as indicated by the manufacturer,” Vicki H. Grassian, a professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Iowa, tells Nanowerk. “For example, it might be stated that a certain nanoparticle is being sold as 30 nm in diameter and, although ’30 nm’ might be close to the average diameter, there is usually a range of particle sizes that can extend from as much as small as 5 nm to as large as 300 nm. [emphases mine]”

That’s size distribution and it reveals two problems with a reporting plan/inventory/scheme that uses a definition that sets the size within a set range. (Julian’s bill has the same problem although his range is 1 to 1000 nm.) First, what happens if you have something that’s 1001 nm? This inflexible and unswerving focus on size will frustrate the intent both of the reporting plan and of Julian’s proposed legislation. Second, how can a business supply the information being requested when manufacturers offer such a wide distribution of sizes in  products where a uniform size is claimed? Are businesses going to be asked to measure the nanomaterials? Two or three years or more after they received the products? [Aug.4.10 Note: Some grammatical changes made to this paragraph so it conveys my message more clearly.]

Then Berger’s article moves onto another issue,

Reporting their findings in a recent paper in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (“Commercially manufactured engineered nanomaterials for environmental and health studies: Important insights provided by independent characterization”), among other problems Grassian and first author Heaweon Park also discuss the issue of batch-to-batch variability during the production of nanoparticles and that some nanomaterials which were being sold as having spherical morphology could contain mixed morphologies such as spheres and rods [emphases mine].

That’s right, you may not be getting the same shape of nanoparticle in your batch. This variability should not pose a problem for the proposed reporting plan/inventory/scheme since shape is not mentioned in Health Canada’s definition but it could bear on toxicology issues which is why a plan/inventory/scheme is being proposed in the first place.

Interestingly, the only ‘public consultation’ meeting that Health Canada/Environment Canada has held appears to have taken place in 2007 with none since and none planned for the future (see my April 26, 2010 posting).

Apparently, 3000 stakeholders have been contacted and asked for responses. I do wonder if an organization like Nano Quebec has been contacted and counted not as a single stakeholder but as representing its membership numbers (e.g. 500 members = 500 stakeholders?) whatever they may be. There is, of course, a specific Health Canada website for this interim definition where anyone can offer comments. It takes time to write a submission and I’m not sure how much time anyone has to devote to it which is why meetings can be very effective for information gathering especially in a field like nanotechnology where the thinking changes so quickly. 2007 seems like a long time ago.

Finally, Dexter Johnson on his Nanoclast blog is offering more perspective on the recent Andrew Schneider/National Nanotechnology Initiative dust up. Yes, he gave me a shout out (and I’m chuffed) and he puts the issues together to provide a different perspective on journalistic reporting environment, health and safety issues as they relate to nanotechnology along with some of the issues associated with toxicology research.

Health Canada answers questions about a nanomaterials reporting plan/inventory and about its interim policy definition of nanomaterials; news flash: IBM & a plot to bomb their nanotech facility in Switzerland

8 Replies

I’ve been tracking down information about Canada’s manomaterials reporting plan/inventory/scheme since January 2009 when it was first announced publicly, i.e. somewhere other than a government report or government website. Here’s my most recent posting where I detail information found in a Feb. 2010 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) report. In my searches I also found a notice of a a request for comments (closing date: Aug. 31, 2010) about an Interim Policy Statement for Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials . I gather this request for feedback/public consultation is being held prior to developing the ‘nanomaterials reporting plan’ for Canadian businesses to provide information about the nanomaterials in their products circa 2008.

The whole endeavour has been a bit puzzling so I emailed Health Canada with some questions which Christelle Legault, Media Relations Officer | Agente des relations avec les médias, Regulatory Communications and Media Relations Division | Division des communications réglementaires et des relations avec les médias, Public Affairs, Consultation and Communications Branch | Direction générale des affaires publiques, de la consultation et des communication, Health Canada | Santé Canada, very kindly answered. (Her business card must be very crowded.)

Q1 – Is information about this reporting plan/inventory/scheme publicly available other than in OECD documents? Where would the average Canadian be able to locate this info?

Plans to develop an information gathering initiative for nanomaterials were discussed as part of a previous multi-stakeholder workshop. Background information on this initiative is provided in the document entitled “Proposed Regulatory Framework for Nanomaterials under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999” available under “Nanomaterials” on Environment Canada’s New Substances Website at:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/subsnouvelles-newsubs

The New Substances Website is used to communicate information to stakeholders on the regulatory program for nanomaterials under the Canadian Environment Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999).

Q2 – When is the projected date for the proposed reporting plan/inventory/scheme to take place? Will it be 2011?

Information gathering initiatives for nanomaterials are currently under consideration by the Government. At this time, there are no confirmed timelines.

Q3 – How did you promote this ‘Interim statement’ consultation so there’d be some response?

The Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials was distributed to over 3,000 stakeholders in Canada and internationally via e-mail, as well as being posted on Health Canada’s website:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/consult/_2010/nanomater/index-eng.php

Q4 – Were you aware that your adopted definition for nanomaterials is not harmonious with the 2007 definition being used by Environment Canada where nano titanium dioxide (a very commonly used nanoparticle in many products) is explicitly excluded.

The New Substances Advisory Note that was published in 2007, entitled: Requirements for Nanomaterials under the New Substances Notification Regulations (Chemicals and Polymers), relates to existing legislation for nanomaterials under CEPA 1999. The Advisory Note does not define nanomaterials, rather it describes the requirements of existing legislation to notify new nanomaterials to the Government for assessment prior to import or manufacture.

Whereas, the Interim Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials is intended to provide guidance to stakeholders on the broad scope of what is considered a nanomaterial. The working definition establishes a working means of identifying nanomaterials that will support the administration of the various laws and regulations (including CEPA 1999) that the Government uses to regulate nanomaterials. The scope of the working definition is intended to be broad so that all Government legislative and regulatory programs are captured. In some cases, the scope of nanomaterials for specific regulatory programs may be narrower than that of Health Canada’s Working Definition.

Q5 – Are there plans for public outreach/dialogue/engagement events on the topic of nanomaterials and other nanotechnology issues?

HC will be providing feedback to stakeholders after the Interim Policy Statement consultation period is completed. Depending on the result of the consultation, HC will decide on the need to further engage the stakeholders.

Q6 – Is there going to be another multi-stakeholder meeting as there was in 2007, as per the OECD report?

There are currently no scheduled multi-stakeholder meeting concerning the Environment Canada-Health Canada nanomaterial regulatory program. However, the Government is committed to holding meaningful consultations with interested stakeholders as it further develops its nanomaterial regulatory program.

Q7 – If there will be another multi-stakholder meeting, do you have details about which civil society groups, academics, business interests, policy watchdogs, and other interested parties will be invited and when it will take place?

The consultation workshop held in 2007 had representation from a wide range of stakeholders including several industry associations and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), environmental and health NGOs as well as Canadian university researchers. Regulatory authorities from other jurisdictions and other Canadian federal government departments were also part of the consultative process. For future consultations, stakeholder participation will consist of similar representation and will also include other identified interested parties as nanotechnology activity in Canada increases.

Q8 – Is there a launch date (as opposed to the vague Spring 2010) for the proposed NanoPortal mentioned in the OECD report (no. 20, Feb. 2010) of the Working Party on Nanomaterials?

Health Canada’s NanoPortal is at the last stage of development. Health Canada is now working on the final details and will provide a launch date in the near future.

Thank you Ms. Legault for providing answers to my questions.

Plot to bomb IBM nanotech facility in Switzerland

There aren’t many details so I’m not sure how solid this information is but it seems that a small group of one woman and two men were arrested. April 15, 2010, in an apparent plot to bomb an IBM nanotech facility being built in Rueschlikon (near Zurich). You can read slightly more here. The news seems to have been broken just hours ago.

Canada, nanotechnology, and food

Leave a reply

On the heels of last week’s House of Lords report (Nanotechnologies and food) I thought I’d take a look at the Canadian scene. Here’s what I found after a fast online search.  Health Canada has a nanotechnology web page here. It doesn’t seem to have been updated since early 2007.  There are no links or reports posted, just a promise such as this found on the web page,

Regulating products to ensure the health and safety of Canadians and the environment is a priority for Health Canada. Currently, the Department is using the existing legislative and regulatory frameworks to regulate applications of nanotechnology, but it is recognized that new approaches may be necessary in the future to keep pace with the advances in this area.

There is a description of the Canadian situation on a webpage hosted by the International Union of Food Science and Technology and Institute of Food Technologists here, titled An Overview of Food Related Nanoscience in Advanced Foods and Materials Network (AFMNet) and in Canada authored by Rickey Yada and Lorraine Sheremata [sic]. This doesn’t appear to have been updated after late 2007. From the web page,

In conclusion, although nanoscience research efforts in Canada have progressed substantially over the past few years with the activities of AFMNet, NINT [National Institute of Nanotechnology] and regional nodes, a number of issues still remain to be addressed: major gaps still exist in our understanding of the health, safety, environmental and societal impacts of nanotechnology – filling these gaps will be critically important to the long term success of nanotechnology; in order for the benefits of science and technology at the nanoscale level (e.g. reproductive and genetic technologies, regenerative medicine, synthetic biology, food science) to be realized and accepted, public trust will have to be gained via a coherent and rational approach to stewardship and finally; careful planning and strategic research coordination is necessary to avoid duplication of research efforts, thereby, allowing for synergistic and complementary efforts.

You can visit AFMNet here if you’re curious about this academic organization which gives information useful to researchers.

Interestingly and since the last time I looked (probably mid-2009), the National Institute of Nanotechnology has added a NE3LS (Nanotechnology Ethical, Environmental, Economic, Legal and Social Issues) research programme here. Coincidentally, Lorraine Sheremeta (one of the authors of the food science and nanotechnology web page I referenced just previously) is a member of this research group. From the web page,

The NE3LS researchers focus on understanding the development of nanoscience and technology within a broader societal and transnational context. Current and ongoing research is focused on the development of a deeper understanding of issues related to the environment, human health and safety, law, policy and ethics, public opinion, commercialization and the development of a socio-historical analysis of the growth of nanoscience and technology.

NE3LS research has an important role to play in ensuring that acceptance or rejection of nanotechnology by society is based on a genuine understanding of specific technologies and the appropriate weighing of risks and benefits (both known and potential).

As I’m coming to expect, there are no posted reports and no links to more information.

I gather the Canadian government believes that food, health, and safety as regards nanotechnology is important but no additional information is to be shared with the rest of us.