article: EPA to regulate nanoproducts sold as germ-killing (silver)

[Guest guest]

FYI -- these products listed could be sources of metal contamination

for us and our kids ....

EPA to Regulate Nanoproducts Sold As Germ-Killing

By Rick Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, November 23, 2006; A01

The Environmental Protection Agency has decided to regulate a large

class of consumer items made with microscopic " nanoparticles " of

silver, part of a new but increasingly widespread technology that

may pose unanticipated environmental risks, a government official

said yesterday.

The decision -- which will affect the marketing of high-tech odor-

destroying shoe liners, food-storage containers, air fresheners,

washing machines and a wide range of other products that contain

tiny bacteria-killing particles of silver -- marks a significant

reversal in federal policy. It also creates an unexpected regulatory

hurdle for the burgeoning field of nanotechnology, which involves

the creation of materials just a few ten-thousandths the diameter of

a human hair.

Until now, new products made with tiny germ-fighting particles of

silver did not have to pass muster with regulators. That has

concerned environmentalists and others who think that the growing

amount of nanosilver washed down drains may be killing beneficial

bacteria and aquatic organisms and may also pose risks to human

health.

Most nanomaterials -- which by definition are on the scale of a

billionth of a meter -- will remain outside the purview of the new

EPA decision. But experts said the move is the first federal

restriction to focus largely on nanotechnology, an emerging engine

of technological innovation that promises major advances in

materials science and medicine.

" This is something of a test case, " said Maynard, chief

scientific adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at

the Washington-based Woodrow International Center for

Scholars.

" Nanotechnology can mean so many different things, " Maynard said,

because the technology is used to make a variety of

products. " Specific examples like this will gradually help us make

clear decisions as to whether existing regulatory approaches are

adequate. "

Under the new determination, first reported on Tuesday by the Daily

Environment Report, a Washington publication, and confirmed

yesterday by the EPA, any company wishing to sell a product that it

claims will kill germs by the release of nanotech silver or related

technology will first have to provide scientific evidence that the

product does not pose an environmental risk.

" We will be able to evaluate them and ensure that these products are

not going to do damage to the aquatic environment, " said Jim ,

director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs.

Murdock, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance, a

trade organization for companies that make or use nanomaterials,

said he had not seen details of the plan and could not predict its

effect on the industry.

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.

In such cases, said, the EPA will not act. " Unless you're

making a claim to kill a pest, you're not a pesticide, " he said.

Advocates of tougher regulation oppose that approach.

" Its sounds like a major legal loophole and is probably something

that will have to be dealt with in the courts, " said Mae Wu, a

lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been

pushing the EPA to regulate nanosilver.

Efforts to reach an official at the Sharper Image were unsuccessful.

Conventional materials, such as carbon or gold, exhibit

unconventional properties when manufactured on a nanoscale. That is

largely because the tiny particles have relatively large surface

areas for their small mass, which makes them very chemically

reactive.

Carbon, for example, does not conduct electricity well in its bulk

form but does so very well when spun into fibers a few nanometers in

diameter. And though bulk gold hardly reacts with substances around

it, nanoparticles of gold can burn up bacteria and other living

cells.

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.

One product, a " Silver Wash " clothes washer made by Samsung, had in

the past year drawn particular attention from the EPA because of

claims that it sanitized clothes in cold water by releasing tiny

charged particles of silver into the wash water.

In a statement yesterday, Samsung said that " only very minute,

inactive forms of silver are discharged into the environment " by its

washing machine. " Samsung has and will continue to work with the EPA

and state regulators regarding regulation of the silver washing

machine to maintain full compliance with all applicable laws and

regulations, " the company said.

About a year ago, said, the EPA decided that such products did

not fall under his office's major regulatory tool, the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA. That is

because FIFRA requires that pesticidal chemicals be proved safe

before they are marketed but exempts pesticidal " devices. "

In effect, said, the agency considered the washing machine

more of a mouse trap than a mouse poison, which meant that it was

not subject to regulatory review.

Among those disagreeing with that ruling was Chuck Weir, chairman of

Tri-TAC, a technical advisory group for wastewater treatment plants

in California. Those plants are subject to penalties if the water

that leaves their stations is toxic to aquatic organisms.

In a letter to in January, Weir asked the EPA to rethink its

decision on nanosilver. " Silver is highly toxic to aquatic life at

low concentrations and also bioaccumulates in some aquatic

organisms, such as clams, " Weir wrote.

Under pressure from other groups as well, the EPA decided to

reconsider.

" We took a second look at the release of silver ions, and it was

very clear that this is a pesticide and not a device, "

said. " Our original determination proved not to be a correct one. "