Nanomaterials - Tiny particles, big risks?
 Canada’s
regulators are struggling to catch up with the explosion of
nanotechnology, the use of tiny molecular structures. New
nanomaterials are already being put in over 600 consumer
products, from car wax, clothing and cosmetics to sunscreens,
paints, and sports equipment. Most nanomaterials ended up in
these products without prior government scrutiny, and they are
rarely disclosed on labels.
Are they safe? One nanometre is a hundred thousand times smaller
than a human hair. Many ordinary substances have astonishing new
properties when they are made this small. Some of these novel
properties have significant health and environmental benefits,
but they could also be the next generation’s DDT or PCBs. An
expert panel appointed by the Council of Canadian Academies
recently concluded that we don’t yet know enough to assess the
human and environmental risks of nanomaterials. How well do our
laws protect us from possible harm from nanomaterials?
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), is
Canada’s main law for managing risks from chemicals. It sets
tougher rules for "new" substances than for "existing" ones.
‘New’ substances get a risk assessment under CEPA’s New
Substances Notification Regulations (NSNR) before they can be
manufactured or used in Canada. CEPA rarely requires evaluation
of ‘existing’ substances, meaning anything listed on the
Domestic Substances List (DSL) by chemical name.
That’s the key: the chemical name. Most nanomaterials have the
same chemical name as their conventional counterparts, even
though they may have different health or environmental
consequences. Another problem is that Canada only tries to
regulate nanomaterials that are used or manufactured here, not
those in products that are imported already made. If your car
wax etc. was made in China, CEPA doesn’t apply.
Environment Canada is aware of the gap. In June 2007, it told
manufacturers and importers that nanomaterials are "new"
substances, even if their chemical name is listed on the DSL, if
the nanomaterial has ‘unique structures or molecular
arrangements’. Unfortunately, it is not clear what this means.
Some scientists fear that many nanosubstances, with new and
significant characteristics, are still ‘getting through’ as
‘existing’ substances, thus bypassing risk assessment.
Nanomaterials can also escape risk assessment in other ways. For
example, they are typically manufactured or imported in small
quantities below those required to trigger notification under
the NSNR. Yet nanomaterials are so potent that even tiny
amounts can have significant impact. As well, the current
regulations relate to chemicals and polymers, and neither
category may be appropriate for nanomaterials.
In September 2007, Environment Canada and Health Canada
published a proposed regulatory framework for nanotechnology,
under CEPA. However, we’re probably years away from this
"framework" leading to actual regulations. The framework will
start with information-gathering through a voluntary reporting
scheme for industries that use nanotechnology; communication
with industries and the public; and considering whether to
amend CEPA or the NSNR. They will also work on what names are
given to nanomaterials; Canada is helping to lead international
work on standard terminology.
Canada’s regulatory system is supposed to be based on the
precautionary principle, namely that that where there is
significant uncertainty, we should be cautious to protect human
health and the environment. Yet nanomaterials have already in
use, before we have even decided how to regulate them.
So, do current regulations protect us from nanotechnology? Don’t
count on it.
For additional resources, go to
www.envirolaw.com.
|
|
