The devil is in the details

To view this article in its original context and see the comments readers have made, click here.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described Bernie Banton as a great Australian hero for his tireless campaigning for justice for asbestos victims. But despite expert scientists and leading risk assessors warning that some products of nanotechnology could pose similar risks to asbestos, state and federal Labour governments have so far been reluctant to close legal loopholes that leave most nano-products effectively unregulated.

The failure to close regulatory gaps and to ensure that nano-products face both safety testing and appropriate labelling is a bad look for an industry trying to promote itself as clean, clever and innovative. It leaves the public, workers and the environment exposed to poorly understood risks, and the industry vulnerable to future compensation claims.

Nanotechnology, the science of the small, is touted for use across many Australian industry sectors. The sector receives generous government funding, and nanotechnology research is identified as a priority area for Australian Research Council grants.

Manufactured nanoparticles are already used in hundreds of Australian products, including sunscreens, cosmetics, paints, clothing, furniture varnishes, food packaging, health supplements, building equipment, sports goods, cleaning products and household appliances. Yet regulatory gaps mean that most of these nanoparticles face neither safety testing nor product labelling before they can be legally used commercially.

Extremely tiny nanoparticles are used for their novel properties. In nano-form, nanoparticles of familiar substances behave in unexpected ways, changing colour, strength, solubility or conductivity. Yet in the rush to take commercial advantage of their novel behaviour, the new risks associated with nanoparticles have been largely overlooked.

In a parallel with asbestos, carbon nanotubes are widely touted as a modern day miracle material. 100 times stronger than steel and 6 times lighter, carbon nanotubes are also incredibly good conductors of electricity. They are used in reinforced plastics, specialty building materials, electronics and sports goods manufactured internationally. They are touted for future use in capacitators, pharmaceuticals, solar cells and defence applications.

The failure to ensure regulation and labelling of high risk nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes has attracted criticism from unions, nanotoxicologists, risk assessors and leading workplace safety lawyers. At least two studies have shown that mice exposed to carbon nanotubes develop mesothelioma - the deadly cancer previously associated only with asbestos.

Global re-insurer Swiss Re put it bluntly: "…some nanotubes are similar in size and form to asbestos fibres. The supposition that the potential for harm could be similar would appear to be obvious."

The ACTU has previously called for a mandatory register and labelling of all commercially used nanomaterials. To its credit, the previous Australian Nano Business Forum backed this call. Yet governments have yet to take any action to ensure that Australian workers are protected from unsafe nano-risks, and that the asbestos tragedy is not repeated.

Risky nanoparticles used in high exposure personal care products such as sunscreens and cosmetics also remain effectively unregulated. Studies showing that Australian nano-sunscreens contain ingredients that act as extreme photocatalysts have undermined public confidence in nano-product safety.

The Cancer Councils Professor Ian Olver recently told a Sydney newspaper that if nano-sunscreen ingredients penetrate skin, they could damage DNA, possibly even increasing the risk of skin cancer. Concern about nano-sunscreens has been made worse by the Therapeutic Goods Administrations refusal to regulate or label them.

My freedom of information request last year to obtain information from this government body about what sunscreens on the market used nanotechnology was met with a $4,000 invoice for information it said was incomplete or out of date.

Beyond being a liability to the industry's public reputation, the failure to regulate nano-products could leave nanotechnology companies exposed to large compensation payouts. A leading Australian occupational health and safety lawyer and partner at the law firm Deacons has warned: "We could be facing another epidemic in our industrial history of people, large groups of people, displaying latent symptoms from current exposures that are taking place at the moment."

Research into nanotechnology's health and environment risks is a growing focus of both international industry conferences and government programs.

At the bi-annual International Conference on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, held this week in Sydney, alongside many presentations about the commercial and scientific promise of nanotechnology, there is also a strong focus on emerging research results into the health and environment risks of nanoparticles.

In the Federal Government's new National Enabling Technology Strategy, launched in Canberra on Monday, and in the NSW Government's response to the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Nanotechnology, the health and environment risks of nanotechnology were also identified as a key area of concern.

Yet research into the safety of nanoparticles, in the absence of mandatory regulatory measures, and after such nanoparticles are already used commercially, will not guarantee safety.

Without decisive government action to regulate toxicity risks and to ensure nano-ingredient labelling for consumer choice and workplace safety, this burgeoning industry faces a loss of credibility and an uncertain future.