Regulating Nanotechnology In Cleansers

An anonymous reader writes to mention a Washington Post article about new EPA regulations on nanotech in cleaners. Nanoparticles are now used to do everything from waterproofing pants to making faster-burning rocket fuel, but one of the most common new applications is their use in household cleaners. The EPA is handing down new regulations saying that these silver-coated nanoparticles have to be safe for the environment. Their concerns stem from the fact that a large majority of cleansers, eventually, end up in large bodies of water. From the article: "Silver can kill microbes even in bulk form but is more efficient as nanoparticles. Nanosilver also can be easily incorporated into a variety of products, such as food containers and shoe liners. That characteristic has made it the most common type of nanomaterial marketed to consumers, according to a database of about 350 nanoproducts maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Nanosilver has also been added to bandages to speed healing. That use and others in which the particles are applied to the body are regulated not by the EPA but by the Food and Drug Administration, which is currently considering whether it needs new rules for nanoproducts."

Comments

How useful is tihs EPA oversight?

[0jjjjjjjjjj0]

From the article ...

Jones said the final rules will be spelled out in the Federal Register sometime in the next few months. He acknowledged, however, that the EPA oversight will apply only to products advertised as germ-killing -- a detail that at least one major retailer has apparently noted.

The Sharper Image, which until recently advertised as anti-microbial several products containing nanosilver, has dropped all such references from its marketing materials.

So the companies that want to get around this only have to change how they market their products? Sounds like an effective use of government time/money to me.

It should be all or nothing - you're controlling/monitoring all these nanosilver-based products, or none. It's like Australia's GST - it's applicable on all items - well, except healthcare, some foods (eg, orange juice is GST-free if purchased "to go" yet incurs the 10% tax if consumed in-store), international travel, and anything else the government of the day wanted to exclude.

Exclusions like this make for an impractical management model which requires constant updating and refinement. The result? Companies say "I didn't know about that change to the law" and get off lightly.

This stuff needs to be biodegradable

[Animats]

Releasing nanoparticles of an elemental metal into water may not be a good idea. Unless there's some chemical or biological process in the ecosystem that reliably prevents this stuff from building up over time, it's not good.

It's a real problem. Carbon nanotubes are both toxic and non-biodegradable. Yet their Material Safety Data Sheet doesn't recognize this at all.

The form of the tubes matters. Toxicity comes from the loose carbon bonds at the ends. This can't be treated casually; it needs to be better understood.