The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) has launched a report entitled ‘Novel Materials in the Environment: The case of nanotechnology’ (follow this link for the summary of the RCEP report). The Commission explains that the underlying study was originally described to examines issues related ‘novel materials’, but that, the evidence received by the Commission was almost entirely focused on manufactured nanomaterials.

• The validation of in vitro tests against in vivo models.
• Evaluation of methodologies for predicting the likely fate and effects of nanomaterials based on their physical and chemical properties as well as their novel properties, and where possible, the development of exposure scenarios.
• Based on the significant gap in our knowledge, the programme of directed research should ensure a concerted and co-ordinated effort to understand better the principles that determine toxicity of manufactured nanomaterials and how individual properties interact to enhance or diminish toxicity profiles both in vitro and in vivo with a long-term objective of developing predictive toxicology.
• The enhancement of in situ monitoring and surveillance methods to provide early warnings of unexpected effects of nanomaterials and to permit timely remedial action.
• The research programme should pave the way for much greater interdisciplinary co-operation, including co-operation between those engaged in medical toxicology and those in ecotoxicology, […].

• In any revisions to existing regulations, the relevant authorities should focusspecifically on the properties and functionalities of nanomaterials, rather thansize. Since these properties and functionalities will often differ substantially fromthose of the bulk material, strict chemical equivalence does not preclude theneed for a separate risk assessment.
• The UK Government should press the European Commission to proceed withurgency, in consultation with Member States, the European Chemicals Agencyand the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks(SCENIHR), to review REACH and the product- or sector-specific regulations.
• The object of this review should be to amend the regulations to facilitate their effective application to nanomaterials and the provision of adequate testing arrangements.
• Clear priorities for testing, beginning with those nanoparticles with functionality which suggests that they might pose the greatest risk of harm to the environment or human health should be established.
• As REACH is adapted to meet the challenges presented by nanomaterials, particular attention should be given to the issue of weight thresholds. In view of the persistent uncertainties involved, a precautionary approach should be adopted when determining new, lower thresholds for nanomaterials.
• Responsible organisations should set up structured systems to keep a watching brief on the development of novel materials and to enhance the sharing of information and the opportunities to work together to identify and manage emerging problems.
• The idea of a simple checklist as part of an early warning system should be developed and defined further by the Government to investigate the potential for development amongst the wider materials community.
• Experience suggests that checklist reporting will need to be compulsory if it is to be effective. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) should make nanomaterials reporting mandatory.
• The Government should impose an additional legal duty on companies to report at the earliest opportunity to the competent authorities any reasonable suspicion that a material presents a risk to people or the environment. Compliance with this requirement should offer duty holders a degree of immunity from criminal liability, should problems associated with the nanomaterials arise in future.
• Environmental monitoring to detect manufactured nanoparticles should be the responsibility of the Environment Agency in England and Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to ensure that robust processes are used.
• Government should move beyond one-off public engagement ‘projects’ to recognise the importance of continual ‘social intelligence’ gathering and the provision of ongoing opportunities for public and expert reflection and debate.
• We see these functions as crucial if, as a society, we are to proceed to develop new technologies in the face of many unknowns.

During the course of the study, the Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) and its member companies contributed to the evidence gathering process in a number of ways, including a presentation delivered at the launch event, a written response to a questionnaire circulated by the RCEP, initiation of a meeting between the RCEP review panel assigned to the study and industry representatives, as well as invited visits of the RCEP panel representatives to NIA member companies.

Follow these links to find out more about the RCEP’s work on nanomaterials, to download the complete RCEP Report, to download the RCEP Report summary, or to read the full press release.