The Impact of Toxicity Testing Costs on Nanomaterial Regulation

Abstract

Information about the toxicity of nanoparticles is important in determining how nanoparticles will be regulated. In the U.S., the burden of collecting this information and conducting risk assessment is placed on regulatory agencies without the budgetary means to carry out this mandate. In this paper, we analyze the impact of testing costs on society's ability to gather information about nanoparticle toxicity and whether such costs can reasonably be borne by an emerging industry. We show for the United States that costs for testing existing nanoparticles ranges from $249 million for optimistic assumptions about nanoparticle hazards (i.e., they are primarily safe and mainly require simpler screening assays) to $1.18 billion for a more comprehensive precautionary approach (i.e., all nanomaterials require long-term in vivo testing). At midlevel estimates of total corporate R&D spending, and assuming plausible levels of spending on hazard testing, the time taken to complete testing is likely to be very high (34-53 years) if all existing nanomaterials are to be thoroughly tested. These delays will only increase with time as new nanomaterials are introduced. The delays are considerably less if less-stringent yet risk-averse perspectives are used. Our results support a tiered risk-assessment strategy similar to the EU's REACH legislation for regulating toxic chemicals.

The Challenge of Distributing Regulatory Responsibilities for Unknown Risks: ‘Nano’-Cosmetics and the EU Cosmetics Regulation as a Case Study

“…As Bowman et al [19] note, such concerns are not unique to the cosmetics sector [20][21][22]. However, the direct application of cosmetic and personal care products onto the human body, along with the lack of certainty concerning the potential toxicity, fate and effect of some insoluble and/or non-biodegradable nanomaterials when placed on the skin, and the appropriateness of conventional risk assessment protocols has generated significant debate in the scientific and policy arenas [15,18,23,24,].…”

Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials

“…The lack of standardized approaches to characterize the ecological effects of particles, uncertainty regarding how information regarding exposure and effects can be incorporated into ecological risk assessment, and concerns about the inability to tie adverse effects causally to specific nanomaterial properties will result in the need to test each of the exponentially increasing number of nanomaterials. Even under the most optimistic assumptions, the cost and time to evaluate the risk associated with just nanomaterials currently being used is huge (see discussion in Choi et al [11]). …”

Beyond Regulation: Risk Pricing and Responsible Innovation

“…There is a further need for evidence that highlights where the innovation is covered by existing regulation and where gaps exist. Evidence is key to supporting decision making with regard to the development or amendment of regulation, but its procurement frequently takes considerable time, often on the order of decades or more (4). This is the Achilles heel of evidence-based policy development.…”