Tag Archives: nanosilver

Nanosilver—US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gets wrist slapped over nanosilver decision in textiles while Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) publishes article about nanosilver

Leave a reply

I have two pieces about nanosilver today (Nov. 11 ,2013). The first concerns a Nov. 7, 2013 court ruling in favour of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stating that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to follow its own rules when it accorded HeiQ Materials (a Swiss textile company) permission to market and sell its nanosilver-based antimicrobial fabric treatment in the US. From the NRDC’s Nov. 7, 2013 press release,

Court Ruling in NRDC’s Favor Should Limit Pesticide Nanosilver in Textiles

In a decision handed down today, the court said the EPA had improperly approved the use of nanosilver by one U.S. textile manufacturer [HeiQ Materials; headquarteed in Switzerland]. The court vacated the approval and sent it back to the agency for reevaluation. The lawsuit has been closely watched as a test case for the growing use of nanotechnology in consumer products.

“The court’s ruling puts us a step closer toward removing nanosilver from textiles,” said Mae Wu, an attorney in NRDC’s Health Program. “EPA shouldn’t have approved nanosilver in the first place. This is just one of a long line of decisions by the agency treating people and our environment as guinea pigs and laboratories for these untested pesticides.”

NRDC sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in early 2012 to limit the use of nanosilver out of a concern for public health. Today the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a key point NRDC raised: that the EPA didn’t follow its own rules for determining whether the pesticide’s use in products would be safe.

Beginning in December 2011, EPA approved the company HeiQ Materials to sell nanosilver used in fabrics for the next four years and required the company to provide data on toxicity for human health and aquatic organisms. In early 2012, NRDC filed a lawsuit against EPA seeking to block nanosilver’s use, contending, among several points, that the agency had ignored its own rules for determining the safety of nanosilver.

The key part of today’s Ninth Circuit ruling addressed EPA’s determination that there is no risk concern for toddlers exposed to nanosilver-treated textiles. The agency’s rules state that if there’s an aggregate exposure to the skin or through ingestion at or below a specific level, there is a risk of health concerns. But the Ninth Circuit found that the EPA had data showing that nanosilver was right at the level that should have triggered a finding of potential risk, but approved the pesticide anyway. That led to the Ninth Circuit vacating EPA’s approval and sending it back down to the agency for reevaluation.

Published in July 2013 (?), Nate Seltenrich’s article, Nanosilver: Weighing the Risks and BenefitsNanosilver: Weighing the Risks and Benefits, for the journal, Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) [published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]) provides some insight into the court case and the issues,

It takes a special sort of case to spur attorneys into a debate over the drooling habits of toddlers. Yet that’s where lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Swiss chemicals company HeiQ found themselves in January 2013 as they debated in a federal appeals court the extent to which 1-year-olds and 3-year-olds chew, salivate, and swallow.1

At issue in the NRDC’s suit against the EPA, which is still awaiting ruling, was whether the agency was right in granting a conditional registration in December 2011 to a nanosilver-based antimicrobial fabric treatment manufactured by HeiQ.2 The EPA’s risk assessment was based in part on assumptions about exposure of 3-year-olds by sucking or chewing on nanosilver-laced textiles such as clothing, blankets, and pillowcases.

NRDC lawyer Catherine Rahm, however, begged to differ with the agency’s methods. In the January hearing, she argued that the agency record shows infants are more likely than any other subset of children to chew on fabrics that could contain the pesticide, and that if the agency were to recalculate its risk assessment based on the body weight of a 1-year-old, nanosilver concentrations in HeiQ’s product could result in potentially harmful exposures.

It’s an obscure but critical distinction as far as risk assessment goes. And given the implications for HeiQ and other companies looking to follow in its footsteps, the case has landed at the center of a prolonged conflict over the regulation of nanosilver and the growing deployment of this antimicrobial ingredient in a variety of commercial and consumer products.

Yet regardless of which side prevails in the case, the truth about nanosilver is not black and white. Even the loudest voices joining the NRDC’s call for strict regulation of nanosilver concede that context is key.

Seltenrich goes on to recount a little of the history of nanosilver and provide a brief a relatively balanced overview of the research. At the end of the article, he lists 37 reference documents and offers links, should you wish to research further. For anyone interested in HeiQ, here’s the company website.

The second nanosilver news item is from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation( online. In an article by Evelyn Boychuk titled, Silver nanoparticle use spurs U.S. consumer database; Database tracks growing number of consumer goods containing nanomaterials, these nanoparticles are discussed within the context of a resuscitated Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) Consumer Products Inventory (CPI), which was mentioned in my Oct. 28, 2013 posting titled: Rising from the dead: the inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products. The articles offers an easy introduction to the topic and refers to a database of silver,nanotechnology in commercial products (complementary to the larger CPI).

Nanosilver disinfectant spray: final report from the US Environmental Protection Agency

Leave a reply

The Aug.5, 2012 news item on Nanowerk is an announcement of the final report from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Center for Environmental Assessment on nanosilver  (nano Ag) disinfectant spray,

This report presents a case study of engineered nanoscale silver (nano-Ag), focusing on the specific example of nano-Ag as possibly used in disinfectant sprays.
This case study is organized around the comprehensive environmental assessment (CEA) framework, which structures available information pertaining to the product life cycle, environmental transport and fate, exposure-dose in receptors (i.e., humans, ecological populations, and the environment), and potential impacts in these receptors. The document does not draw conclusions about potential risks. Instead, it is intended to be used as part of a process to identify what is known and unknown about nano-Ag in a selected application. In turn, the external review draft of the document provided a starting point to identify and prioritize possible research directions to support future assessments of nanomaterials.

The Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray (Final Report) is approximately 423 pages and the comprehensive environmental assessment framework mentioned seems to be an analytical tool used to establish directions for future research. In a July 5, 2012 posting (Toxicology convo heats up: OECD releases report on inhalation toxicity testing and Nature Nanotechnology publishes severe critique of silver toxicity overanalysis) I made note of some comments on inhalation testing and reports about nanosilver toxicity issued by international institutions that seem à propos in this context. (I first wrote about this study in an Aug. 17, 2010 posting when the EPA had released a draft version for comments.)

Toxicology convo heats up: OECD releases report on inhalation toxicity testing and Nature Nanotechnology publishes severe critique of silver toxicity overanalysis

2 Replies

This has to be one of the rawest reports I’ve seen and that’s not a criticism. The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has released no. 35 in its Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials titled, INHALATION TOXICITY TESTING: EXPERT MEETING ON POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO OECD TEST GUIDELINES AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.

This report is the outcome of a meeting which took place in fall 2011 according to the July 4, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

The expert meeting on Inhalation Toxicity Testing for Nanomaterials was held on 19-20 October 2011 in The Hague, hosted by the Netherlands, with the aim of discussing the results of the OECD Sponsorship Programme (under the responsibility of SG3) on this specific topic and addressing issues relevant to inhalation toxicity. Fifty experts from the WPMN as well as the OECD Working Group of the National Coordinators for the Test Guidelines programme (WNT) participated in the meeting.

This is a partial list of recommendations from the report,

Recommendations raised by the speakers for the discussion

7. Various recommendations were raised by the speakers that served as points for discussion. These recommendations do not necessarily reflect a general agreement. …

• “Provide explicit guidance for the generation of aerosols (sample preparation) based on the exposure scenario”. Hans Muijser

• “Generation of a test atmosphere should have workplace characteristics, but should be adapted to adjust for rodent respirability”. Günter Oberdörster

• “A choice for a dry aerosol or a liquid aerosol should depend on the given test substance and planned test approach (hazard- or risk driven)”. Otto Creutzenberg

• “Aerosol characterization should include size distribution, mass, number and morphology of the material”. Günter Oberdörster

• “Mass concentration is not sufficient for comparison of nanomaterials of the same chemical composition”. Flemming Cassee

• “Dry powders will appear as agglomerate upon aerosolization, which needs to be addressed in the sample preparation guidelines”. Flemming Cassee

• “Dissolution behaviour of the test substance should be assessed in physiological fluids mimicking various lung-specific pH ambiences (neutral, acid)”. Otto Creutzenberg

• “Data analysis should include interpretation of aerosol characteristics, NOAEL, risk assessment implications, mode of action and a strategy for dosimetric extrapolation to humans. The inclusion of biokinetic data is important”. Günter Oberdörster

• “Include biokinetics in the guidance, since different distribution patterns in the whole organism are likely dependent on physicochemical characteristics of nanoparticle aerosols and the dose at the target site will therefore be different. This will allow the assessment of accumulation of nanomaterials in the body at low exposure levels and long-term exposure. A way to perform it is by radiolabelled materials, chemical elemental analysis to determine organ concentrations and transmission electron microscopy”. Wolfgang Kreyling. Others who have suggested inclusion of biokinetics or recognized the importance were Otto Creutzenberg, Frieke Kuper, Günter Oberdörster and David Warheit. (p. 13)

You actually see who made the recommendations! Speakers discussed carbon nanotubes, titanium dioxide, cerium oxide, zinc oxide and more, all of which you can read about in summary form in this 38 pp. report.

Meanwhile, Nature Nanotechnology has published an incendiary commentary about nanosilver and the latest request by the European Commission for another study.  Michael Berger has devoted a July 4, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight article to the commentary,

A commentary by Steffen Foss Hansen and Anders Baun in this week’s Nature Nanotechnology (“When enough is enough”  [behind a paywall]) pointedly asks “when will governments and regulatory agencies stop asking for more reports and reviews, and start taking regulatory action?”

Hansen and Baun, both from the Technical University of Denmark’s Department of Environmental Engineering, take issue with yet another scientific opinion on nanosilver that has been requested by the European Commission in late 2011: “SCENIHR – Request for a scientific opinion on Nanosilver: safety, health and environmental effects and role in antimicrobial resistance” (pdf). Specifically, the EC wants SCENIHR to answer four questions under the general heading of ‘Nanosilver: safety, health and environmental effects, and role in antimicrobial resistance’.

“Most of these questions – and possibly all of them – have already been addressed by no less than 18 review articles in scientific journals, the oldest dating back to 2008, plus at least seven more reviews and reports commissioned and/or funded by governments and other organizations” Hansen tells Nanowerk. “Many of these reviews and reports go through the same literature, cover the same ground and identify many of the same data gaps and research needs.”

Here’s a prediction from Hansen and Baun as to what will be in the next report due in 2013  (from the Nature Nanotechnology commentary When enough is enough in 7, 409–411 (2012) published online  July 1, 2012 [Note: I have removed links and footnotes]),

… we predict that the SCENIHR’s upcoming review will consist of five main sections summarizing: the properties and uses of nanosilver; human and environmental toxicity; microbial resistance; risk assessment; and research needs. We also predict that the SCENIHR’s report will say something along the following lines: “Nanosilver is reportedly one of the most widely used nanomaterials in consumer products today but the scale of production and use is unknown. The antibacterial properties of nanosilver are exploited in a very diverse set of products and applications including dietary supplements, personal care products, powdered colours, textile, paper, kitchenware and food storage.” And like many previous reviews and reports, the new report is likely to cite the Consumer Product Inventory maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

…

We acknowledge that answering the question of how to regulate the use of nanosilver is not easy given the different views of the different stakeholders in this debate and the complex regulatory landscape associated with the many applications of nanosilver. …

…

Arguably, we all want that the pros and cons of regulatory policy options be based on the best available science while taking broader socio-economical and ethical aspects into consideration before deciding on the appropriate regulatory measures concerning human and environmental exposure to nanosilver. Although it is common for independent scientific experts to be commissioned to gather, analyse and review the available scientific information, and to provide recommendations on how to address a given risk, we do not see the need for further reviews. It is time for the European Commission to decide on the regulatory measures that are appropriate for nanosilver. These measures should then be implemented wholeheartedly and their effectiveness monitored.

I predict this commentary will provoke some interesting responses and I will try to add the ones I can find to this posting as they become available.

ETA July 6, 2012: Dexter Johnson weighed in with his July 5, 2012 posting (Note: I have removed a link),

What may make the matter even worse is that we may already have a pretty substantial framework—in the US, at least—on which to base nanosilver regulations, which dates back to the 1950s. It concerned what was called at the time collodial silver, which is essentially what today is called nanosilver.

But getting back to current stagnant state of affairs, it’s hard to know exactly what’s causing the paralysis. It could be concern over implementing regulations in a depressed economy, or just a fear of taking a position. But in both these instances, the lack of action is making the situation worse. …

Manning innovation award

Leave a reply

I’ve been seeing quite a few ads on television for the Manning Innovation Awards. From the How to Apply page on the Ernest C. Manning Awards Foundation’s website,

The Ernest C. Manning Awards Foundation has been recognizing and encouraging innovation in Canada since 1982. By means of a nomination, Canadian resident citizens, who have demonstrated recent innovative talent in developing and successfully marketing a new concept, process or procedure, may be eligible for one of these awards: Principal Award ($100,000), Award of Distinction ($25,000), Innovation Awards (2 at $10,000).

The deadline for this year’s nominations is Dec. 1, 2011.

The Foundation seems to have a very liberal view as to what constitutes innovation. The 2011 winners represented a diversity of accomplishments, from the Oct. 6, 2011 news release,

The 2011 Ernest C. Manning Awards Foundation award recipients are:

– Dr. Philip G. Hill, Vancouver, BC for developing a technology to use clean-burning natural gas in diesel engines; ($100,000 Encana Principal Award);

– Mary P. Gordon, Toronto, ON for developing a social innovation in which a baby teaches children about parenting, neuroscience and caring for one another; ($25,000 David E. Mitchell Award of Distinction); [emphasis mine]

– Randal (Randy) J. Marsden, Edmonton for developing a wipe-able computer keyboard that is easy-to disinfect, button-less, and is touch-and tap-sensitive; ($10,000 Manning Innovation Award);

– Mark J. Morin, Restoule, ON for developing aerodynamic mud flaps that reduce spray and drag and improve airflow around vehicle wheels; ($10,000 Manning Innovation Award);

– David Pellerin, 18, Sherbrooke, QC for his organic light emitting diodes (OLED) project in which he developed luminescent components from organic polymer compounds; ($4,000 Young Canadian Award);

– Shayla Larson, 16 and Adam Noble 17, Lakefield, ON for their research addressing the potential hazards associated with widespread use of nanosilver, an increasingly common commercial and industrial antimicrobial agent; ($4,000 Young Canadian Award); [emphasis mine]

– Christopher Chopcian, a grade 11 student, Sarnia, ON for developing a miniature computer-controlled heart assist pump that improves the quality of life for people waiting for a heart transplant; ($4,000 Young Canadian Award);

– Charlotte Donaldson and Megan Smith, two grade 11 students, Chignecto West, NS for developing an aquatic rescue spinal board that significantly improves immobilization, particularly for children ($4,000 Young Canadian Award);

In announcing the ten 2011 winners, Foundation President David B. Mitchell said, “There is a critical need for more innovation in Canada. Canadians need to create and commercialize innovations to compete in the global economy. We want to support, celebrate and draw attention to Canadian innovators and, young Canadians showing potential to become future innovators, who have the imagination to innovate and the stamina to succeed.”

I’m glad to see social innovation included; congratulations to the 2011 winners; and good luck to the 2012 nominees.

Nanosilver risk assessment in Germany and a new approach to risk assessment suggested at Univ. of Michigan

2 Replies

There’s a move to ban the use of nanosilver in food and articles used daily (think of the socks you don’t have to wash very often because they don’t smell) in Germany until there’s been a full risk assessment. From the April 14, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

In its opinion on toxicity aspects of nano silver, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) had recommended to waive the use of nano silver in foods and articles of daily use until the data situation allows for a final assessment of the health risks. Mainly industry objected to this assessment by BfR that enough data were available for the evaluation of the health risks of nano silver in consumer products and foods. For that reason BfR had invited experts from research and science as well as representatives of associations and industry to a workshop in order to discuss existing risks and possible options for a comprehensive consumer protection. “The discussion confirmed the words of caution of BfR”, said BfR President Professor Dr. Dr. Andreas Hensel, “because the situation continues to be characterised by the fact that not enough secured scientific findings about the specific effects of nano-sized silver particles are available.

” Metallic silver and different silver compounds are used, for instance, in cosmetic agents as well as in different consumer products, mainly because of their anti-microbial effect. For textiles not only medical/therapeutic applications but increasingly also hygiene aspects play a role. The anti-microbial finishing of textile fibres is mainly to act against odour formation as a result of the microbial decomposition of sweat. In the meantime nano-sized silver particles are increasingly being used. Nano particles are particles with a diameter of less than 100 nanometres.

This is interesting in light of yesterday’s April 14, 2011 posting about the European Commission’s attempts to establish a definition for nanomaterials before any attempts to regulate their use. Then today I came across a posting by Dr. Andrew Maynard, Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor titled Why we don’t need a regulatory definition for nanomaterials. His comments represent a significant shift in opinion since I first started following his work in 2007,

Engineered nanomaterials present regulators with a conundrum – there is a gut feeling that these materials present a new regulatory challenge, yet the nature and resolution of this challenge remains elusive. But as the debate over the regulation of nanomaterials continues, there are worrying signs that discussions are being driven less by the science of how these materials might cause harm, and more by the politics of confusion and uncertainty.

…

Yet the more we learn about how materials interact with biology, the less clear it becomes where the boundaries of this class of materials called “nanomaterials” lie, or even whether this is a legitimate class of material at all from a regulatory perspective.

In an evidence-driven society, now would be the time to take stock – to ask what the science tells us about risks associated with exposure to materials more generally, and to reformulate the problems we are trying to address when it comes to nanomaterials. But increasingly, evidence is taking a backstage role in the process of developing definitions for regulatory purposes. This was highlighted recently by Henrik Laursen [quoted in my April 14, 2011 posting] , coordinator of the nano team in the European Commission’s environment department, who was reported on Euractiv.com as stating that ultimately, the decision on a regulatory definition of nanomaterials would be a policy decision.

This should ring alarm bells throughout the scientific community.

Andrew has been heavily involved with the nanotechnology effort and discussion for many years. This is the biographical information available from his faculty page (it is by no means comprehensive),

Prof. Maynard is a leading authority on the responsible development and use of emerging technologies. His research interests span identifying, assessing and managing emergent risks, to exploring innovative solutions to established and emerging human health and environmental risks, to equipping people with the tools they need to make informed decisions in the face of risk and uncertainty. Prof. Maynard is a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Challenges of Emerging Technologies, serves on numerous review and advisory panels around the world, and has testified on a number of occasions before U.S. Congressional committees.

Andrew explains why his ideas about regulation changed and how he wants to approach it,


Five years ago, the state of the science was such that it still seemed feasible that a regulatory definition of nanomaterials could be crafted. Today, that hope is looking increasingly tenuous. We know that size matters when it comes to understanding the risks presented by materials generally – and particles more specifically – and that characteristics such as physical form and chemistry are also important. But these are relevant from diameters of tens of micrometers – where particles begin to be able to penetrate organisms – down to the nanometer size range. At different length scales, different material-biology interactions lead to different mechanisms of action that have the potential to cause harm in different ways. But there are no rules that are generalizeable to the nanoscale specifically – that much the science is clear on. And this alone calls into question the scientific-basis of enforcing nanoscale-specific regulations.

Rather, the science suggests that we have a bigger task in hand – how do we develop a better understanding of how any particle capable of entering or otherwise interacting with an organism might cause harm, and how do we codify this in evidence-based guidelines that will inform regulation?

Here’s his proposal in a nutshell,

Difficult as it may be given the momentum of current efforts to define nanomaterials for regulatory purposes, now is the time to shift toward evidence-based regulation of sophisticated materials.

Andrew has written a paper about this proposal along with David B. Warheit and Martin A. Philbert, The New Toxicology of Sophisticated Materials: Nanotoxicology and Beyond (behind a paywall), in the journal Toxicological Sciences, (2011) 120 (suppl 1): S109 – S129, doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq372, in 50th Anniversary Issue.

I am intrigued but not yet convinced. I really must make time to read the paper. In any event, I encourage you to read Andrew’s full posting on the topic.

German report on nanosilver toxicity and some thoughts on the US EPA silver nanomaterials consultation

Leave a reply

More about nanosilver toxicology (see earlier posting about US EPA silver nanomaterials consultation) this week courtesy of an article by Michael Berger about a new report from a group of German researchers. From the article on Nanowerk,

Silver had already been recognized in ancient Greece and Rome for its infection-fighting properties but in modern times pharmaceutical companies made more money developing antibiotics. However, thanks to emerging nanotechnology applications, silver has made a comeback in the form of antimicrobial nanoparticle coatings for textiles, surgical instruments, lab equipment, floors or wall paints (see for instance: “Antibacterial nanotechnology multi-action materials that work day and night”).

The flip side of silver’s desired toxicity towards microbes is that it might have toxic effects for humans as well (“As nanotechnology goes mainstream, ‘toxic socks’ raise concerns”) and this has raised debate about the safety of nanosilver products. Although scientists have worked to reduce the toxicity of antimicrobial nanosilver in products, concerns remain.

Not helping to put these concerns to rest is a new report from a group of researchers in Germany that shows that toxicity of silver nanoparticles increases during storage because of slow dissolution under release of silver ions.

…

According to Epple [Matthias Epple, a professor for inorganic chemistry at the University of Duisburg-Essen], there is a general agreement that dissolved silver ions are responsible for the biological action that is especially pronounced against microorganisms. The lethal silver concentration of silver nanoparticles for human mesenchymal stem cells is about three times higher than that of silver ions (in terms of the absolute concentration of silver in a given solution).

The report has been published by the American Chemical Society in Chemistry of Materials. You can find an abstrect here, the full article is behind a paywall.

I was interested to note that the focus for the report is on the dissolution of nanoscale silver in water. By contrast, the US EPA consultation uses, as its starting point for the case study, nanoscale silver in an antibacterial spray. While laboratory researchers tend to focus on specifics such as the dissolution of  silver nanoparticles and ions, the EPA’s strategy allows for a 360o view. Theoretically, commenters could focus on anything from the production of the air spray, its own packaging, its use in various situations such as hospitals or food packaging, etc., and the various ways it dissipates into the environment, e.g. being washed off and ending up in the water supply.  This can lead to a comprehensive framework for future research activities examining more specific questions which provide answers that fit back into the framework.

Berger’s article reminds me of an October 29, 2009 news item on Science Daily about Swiss researchers, clothes washers, and nanosilver,

Scientists in Switzerland are reporting results of one of the first studies on the release of silver nanoparticles from laundering those anti-odor, anti-bacterial socks now on the market. Their findings may suggest ways that manufacturers and consumers can minimize the release of these particles to the environment, where they could harm fish and other wildlife.

…

They found that most of the released particles were relatively large and that most came out of the fabrics during the first wash. The total released varied from 1.3 to 35 percent of the total nanosilver in the fabric. Bleach generally did not affect the amount released. “These results have important implications for the risk assessment of silver textiles and also for environmental fate studies of nanosilver, because they show that under certain conditions relevant to washing, primarily coarse silver-containing particles are released,” the paper says.

The research report was published by the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology journal. The abstract is available here, the full article is behind a paywall.

European nanotech communication roadmap and Canada’s silence

1 Reply

Michael Berger in one of his articles on the Nanowerk website critiques a 188 page roadmap published March 2010 and  titled Communicating Nanotechnology: Why, to whom, saying what and how? from the European Commission. From Berger’s article,

“You cannot have an appropriate social dialogue on nanotechnology without an open-minded, consistent and even audacious communication roadmap aiming to bring everyone in.” So begins the foreword to a new Communication Roadmap by the European Commission on communicating nanotechnology in Europe. Very true! But coming from an organization that is not exactly known for a coherent and consistent, not to mention timely, approach to communicating across its many members, cultures and languages, it’s going to be interesting to see what they have come up with now.

I’ve not had time to do much more than a skim a few pages of the roadmap but, as Berger later points out, it’s good to see an attempt to list all of the nanotechnology communication activities undertaken by the European Commission to date. The list is specific to European Commission activities, I did not see any UK-based efforts listed, which means there’s communication about nanotechnology, not included on the roadmap, taking place that’s country- and or region-specific.

About the US, Berger had this to say,

… (the situation in the U.S. isn’t much better; on the contrary, they don’t even have this kind of communications roadmap) …

Meanwhile, the best I can say about the Canadian situation is that most of the communication about nanotechnology takes place behind closed doors. If anyone out there knows differently, please do let me know.

If you want to download the roadmap, go here (Berger noted some problems downloading but I didn’t have any when I tried later).

ETA (June 15, 2010): Dexter Johnson at Nanoclast offers some thoughts about this roadmap and other European efforts in their cycle of reports about nanotechnology (from his June 15, 2010 posting),

I have worked for the last six years at a European-based company where much of its work has been in consulting on nanotechnology. As an American in these circumstances I have come into contact with what at times has seemed to be the bewildering sensibilities of the European bureaucrat.

…  [mention of Michael Berger’s article about the European Commission’s latest nanotechnology communications report/roadmap]

This odd habit of always starting from scratch in these road mapping exercises seems to be one practiced in the UK as well.

Dexter goes on to extend the conversation with a discussion of the latest move by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ban the use of nanosilver and long multiwalled carbon nanotubes in products and he includes a reference to Tim Harper’s latest posting about the matter on TNT log.