Sustained pressure by non-profits forces change in FDA nanotech policy
FDA responses to litigation show some progress, continued failings
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today several leading non-profits
working on nanotechnology oversight — Center for Food Safety (CFS),
Friends of the Earth, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
and the International Center for Technology
Assessment — issued a statement responding to recent steps taken by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that represent marginal progress
toward regulation of products made with this new technology.
Last week FDA released new draft guidances on the use of nanotechnology
in food and cosmetics. The agency’s actions followed a lawsuit filed in
December 2011 by the non-profits regarding the agency’s failure to
respond to their longstanding 2006 petition demanding
oversight action. On April 20, FDA responded to the petition and
released the guidances. In its formal response to the groups’ lawsuit,
FDA acknowledged that there are differences between nanomaterials and
their bulk counterparts, and that nanomaterials
have potential new risks and may require new testing. However, the
agency declined to enact mandatory regulations at this time.
“From 2006, when we filed our legal petition, to 2012, FDA has improved
some,” said George Kimbrell, CFS Attorney. “As these new responses
show, the agency is no longer ignoring the scientific consensus that
these nanomaterials have the capacity to be fundamentally
different, and can create new and novel risks, necessitating new
testing. Unfortunately, the agency has thus far only taken a voluntary
rather than mandatory regulatory approach, despite the failure of
voluntary approaches to elicit industry cooperation to
regulate nanomaterials.”
Nanotechnology is a powerful new set of technologies for observing,
taking apart and reconstructing nature at the atomic and molecular
level. Despite already being commercially available, nanomaterials in
sunscreens, cosmetics, foods and food contact substances
are unlabeled and largely untested for their human health effects.
Existing research raises red flags, indicating that nanomaterials have
the ability to enter the bloodstream through contact with the skin,
ingestion and inhalation, as well as move in the
natural environment once discarded. FDA has authority over these
products under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.
One of the leading nanomaterial product sectors is nano-sunscreens. In
responding to this issue in the groups’ legal petition, the agency
re-opened the over-the-counter sunscreen “monograph” (or regulation),
but has yet to decide whether or not the nano-sunscreens
will be regulated as “new.” Sunscreens are classified as drugs and
require more rigorous review than other personal care products.
“FDA essentially punted for now on nano-sunscreens. To protect public
health, FDA must require safety testing and data that addresses the
novel properties and novel risks of nanomaterials. FDA has a
responsibility to ensure that these potentially dangerous
products are not sold in stores without more clarity about their safety
and labeling,” said Ian Illuminato, health and environment campaigner
at Friends of the Earth.
Another potential area of concern is nanomaterials in food and food
contact substances, such as food packaging materials and food conveyor
belts. Although these products are far advanced in research and
development, FDA does not believe them to have been commercialized.
In a guidance released last week, FDA proposed classifying these
substances as food additives, which require premarket testing and
approval. The guidance advised that FDA likely would not accept industry
claims that nano-scale food substances could be assumed
to be safe because their macro-scale counterparts were assumed to be
safe. Steve Suppan, Senior Policy Analyst, Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy declared, “This decision is a big win for consumers and
will mean that nano-food additives will for
the first time require pre-market safety review and approval. It is
crucial that consumer organizations comment on the draft guidance to
support this FDA decision, and urge that it be a basis for mandatory
regulation.”
The commercial use of nanomaterials in cosmetics is currently on the
rise. However FDA stated that it lacked statutory authority to require
premarket review of these products, meaning that without new laws FDA
cannot stop a company from selling cosmetics,
including nano-cosmetics, even while the safety of these products is
uncertain. Congressional leaders have introduced a new bill, the Safe
Cosmetics Act of 2011, to remedy this problem. “Our current cosmetics
legislation is in desperate need of comprehensive
reform, and the novel risks of nanomaterials just highlight that
longstanding failing. The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 would give FDA the
authority it needs to adequately regulate nano-cosmetics,” said
Illuminato.
Since the 2006 petition filing, FDA has taken a number of preliminary
actions, including forming a task force, which issued a report and
recommendations; holding multiple public meetings and workshops;
publishing a number of FDA scoping documents and guidances;
and, reopening the sunscreen drug monograph for the purpose of
considering whether or not nano-sunscreens should be regulated as novel
sunscreens.
“FDA is finally addressing nano technology in most of the areas for
which it has oversight, which is a start,” concluded Kimbrell. “Much
more than voluntary guidance is needed, and we will remain vigilant in
our efforts to drag the agency towards responsible
regulation.”
Read the FDA draft guidance on cosmetics:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2011-D-0489-0001
Read the FDA draft guidance on nanomaterials in food ingredients, food contact substances and color additives:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2011-D-0490-0001
Read the 2006 petition:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2006-Nano-FDA-petition.pdf
Read the 2011 lawsuit:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1-Pls-Complaint.pdf
Read the 2012 response to the lawsuit:
http://www.icta.org/doc/Andrew Kimbrell-FDA-2006-P-0213-Citizen Petition.pdf
Read the IATP blog on FDA nano guidances:
http://www.iatp.org/blog/201205/at-least-four-years-in-the-making-draft-fda-guidelines-on-nanotechnology-in-food-and-cos
George Kimbrell, “Governance of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials:
Principles, Regulation, and Renegotiating the Social Contract.” Journal
of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Winter 2009:
http://www.icta.org/files/2012/05/100993_Nano_and_You_lo.pdf
###
Friends of the Earth fights to defend the environment and create a
more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting
clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky
technologies out of the food we eat and products
we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and
work near them. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) is a non-profit public interest
and environmental advocacy membership organization established in 1997
for the purpose of challenging harmful food production technologies and
promoting sustainable alternatives.
The Institute on Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) works locally
and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair
and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) is a
non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to providing the public
with full assessments and analyses of technological impacts on society.
Its NanoAction project has a network of over 20,000
persons concerned about developments in nanotechnologies.
|