What's in a name? - Defining a 'Nanomaterial' for regulatory purposes in Europe

European Journal of Risk Regulation

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 85-91

  D'Silva, Joel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863563253     PISSN: 1867299X     EISSN: 21908249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1867299X00000659     Document Type: Note

References (36)

1. Diana Bowman, Joel D'Silva and Geert Van Calster, "Defining Nanomaterials for the purpose of Regulation within the European Union", 1(2) European Journal of Risk Regulation (2010), p. 115
2. David Williams, "The Scientific Basis for regulating nanotechnologies", in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2010), pp. 109-111.
3. Geoffrey Hunt, "Nanomaterials: Nomenclature, Novelty and Necessity", 56 Journal of Materials (2004), p. 13.
4. Andrew Maynard and E.D. Kuempel, "Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health", 7 Journal of Nanoparticle Research (2005), pp. 587-614
5. Joel D'Silva and Geert Van Calster, "Taking Temperature - A Review of European Union regulation in Nanomedicine", 16(3) European Journal of Health Law (2009), pp. 249-269.
6. The number of published national standards on nanotechnology is steadily increasing. For example, the Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China has published seven national standards and implemented them in 2005. Russia's National Standards Body-Federal Agency for Technical Standards has also developed various standards.
7. Council Directive of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (76/768/EEC)
8. Regulation (EC) 258/97 concerning Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients
9. For comparison of definitions, see Report of the International Cooperation on Cosmetic Regulation (ICCR) Joint Ad Hoc Working Group On Nanotechnology in Cosmetic Products, Toronto Canada, (2010), pp. 15-17, available on the Internet at (last accessed on 6 January 2011).
10. European Commission, Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2008), p. 3.
11. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, Opinion on the Scientific aspects of the existing and proposed definitions relating to products of nanoscience and nanotechnologies (Brussels: SCENIHR, 2007), p. 18, available on the Internet at (last accessed on 1 January 2011).
12. Article 3(2)(cc) - Proposed text of the Novel Foods Regulation, available on the Internet at (last accessed on 1 January 2011).
13. This definition is also being used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in its Draft Guidance on risk assessment concerning potential risks arising from applications of nanoscience and nanotechnologies to food and feed (endorsed for public consultation in 2011). The document gives practical guidance for carrying out risk assessment on the use of engineered nanomaterials (ENM) in food and feed. Available on the Internet at (last accessed on January 2011).
14. Special or unique properties that are characteristics of the nanoscale are similarly deemed to be important, even where the structures, agglomerates or aggregates are above the 100 nm threshold
15. JRC Reference Report, EUR 24403 EN (2010), available on the Internet at (last accessed on 14 December 2010).
16. SCENIHR Opinion Paper (2010), available on the Internet at (last accessed on 4 January 2011).
17. SCENIHR Opinion Paper (2010), p. 24.
18. Using 500 nm as high upper threshold and 100 nm as the low upper threshold. SCENIHR Consultation opinion, pp. 33-34.
19. Final SCENIHR Opinion, 8 December 2010, p. 36, available on the Internet at (last accessed on 7 January 2011).
20. Final SCENIHR Opinion (2010), p. 35.
21. See for example, European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences (EuCheMS), reply to the public consultation, available on the Internet at .
22. For example, Position of AmCham EU, available on the Internet at .
23. NIA Comments on the SCENIHR opinion, p. 3, available on the Internet at .
24. The Commission justified the short consultation period by stating that this draft proposal builds on the SCENIHR opinion, and the SCENIHR pre-consultation opinion on the Scientific basis for the definition of the term 'nanomaterial' was closed after 8 weeks of consultation on 15 September 2010. It also states that the draft Recommendation is only intended for consultation purposes and does not represent or prejudge the Commission's final position.
25. Draft Commission Recommendation on the definition of the term 'nanomaterial', p. 5, available on the Internet at (last accessed on 16 January 2011).
26. Background note available on the Internet at (last accessed on 16 January 2011).
27. Goran Liden, "The European Commission Tries to Define Nanomaterials", Vol. 55, No. 1, Annals of Occupational Hygiene (2011), p. 3.
28. Draft Commission Recommendation (2010), p. 3.
29. For the definition to be useable, the EC foresees a strong need for standardisation of all aspects of measurement related to the definition. Due to the development of science and technology and potential problems with the application of the definition in the writing of legislation, the EC aims to carry out a new public consultation on the definition in 2012. See Goran Liden, "The European Commission Tries to Define Nanomaterials", Vol. 55, No. 1, Annals of Occupational Hygiene (2011), p. 2.
30. David Dana, "Can the Law track Scientific Risk and Technological Innovation? The Problem of Regulatory definitions and Nanotechnology", in David Dana (ed.), The Nanotechnology Challenge (Cambridge University Press, 2010), p. 1; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 10-83. Available on the Internet at SSRN .
31. For example, in Australia, the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) defines nanomaterials as "industrial materials intentionally produced, manufactured or engineered to have unique properties or specific composition at the nanoscale, that is a size range typically between 1 nm and 100 nm, and is either a nano-object (i.e. that is confined in one, two, or three dimensions at the nanoscale) or is nanostructured (i.e. having an internal or surface structure at the nanoscale)." Further, the Notes to the working definition add that "where size distribution shows % or more of a substance (based on number of particles) is at the nanoscale, NICNAS will consider this substance to be a nanomaterial for risk assessment purposes." The difference between %, as per the European Commission definition, and 10 % in the NICNAS, could mean that many more substances would fall within the definition under EU standards than under Australian standards. See, NICNAS, Chemical Gazette (2011), available on the Internet at .
32. See Franck Violet, "Analysis of Technical Standards in the field of nanotechnology", 7 Nanotechnology Law & Business (2010), p. 301.
33. Lynn Bergeson and Charles Auer, "Nano Disclosures: Too Small to Matter or Too Big to Ignore?", 25(3) Natural Resources & Environment (2011)
34. Pat Rizzuto and Bill Pritchard, "Industry Developing Nanoengineered Goods Frustrated by Regulators' Lack of Definitions", 93 Daily Envt. Rpt. (BNA) B-1 (2010).
35. Morris Jeffet al., "Science Policy Considerations for responsible nanotechnology decisions", Nature Nanotechnology (2010), Commentary:doi:10.1038/nnano.2010.191, p. 3.
36. Rathenau Instituut, Reply to the Consultation on the Proposal for a Commission definition of the term 'nanomaterial' (2010), available on the Internet at .