Did you see the headlines Thanksgiving Day? "EPA to review safety of products made with silver 'nanoparticles.'" What does it mean? Well, it's going to assure an interesting 2007 for the burgeoning nanotechnology-enabled industry. And if you'll excuse the wordplay, I hope Turkey Day doesn't spawn nanotechnology ostriches who are going to hide their heads in the regulatory sand.

First, let's backtrack and get the facts behind the headline. The trigger for the EPA decision was a Samsung washing machine. The "SilverWash" contains silver nanoparticles and claims that it helps to kill bacteria in clothes by releasing silver ions into the water during the wash.

Various U.S water authorities became concerned that discharged nanosilver might accumulate in the water system, particularly in wastewater treatment plants where beneficial bacteria are used to purify water of its toxins. This opinion means that nanosilver could be viewed as an environmental pesticide, requiring the product to be registered and tested under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In the words of EPA spokesperson Jennifer Wood, "The release of silver ions in the washing machines is a pesticide, because it is a substance released into the laundry for the purpose of killing pests."

So what does this really mean to nano-industry? Specifically, we're not sure yet. It will take several months for the final rules to be detailed in the Federal Register. But some of the early responses have me scratching my head.

One company has removed any reference to nanosilver from their marketing information for antimicrobial devices. Apparently, in the short run, that excludes them from any ruling. As Jim Jones, director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, said, "Unless you're making a claim to kill a pest, you're not a pesticide."

According to a recent article in Small Times, a nanotechnology trade journal, Matthew Nordan of Lux Research was quoted as saying, "I know of at least two personal care companies that have delivered the message from on high explicitly not allowing the words 'nanotechnology,' 'nano-engineered,' 'nano-capsule,' or anything else like them."

We haven't yet heard reports of companies halting research or product development based on the ruling, but I fear it's a topic of discussion in labs and boardrooms across the country.

Seems to me, these decisions represent the ostrich approach, sidestepping the issues, rather than seeing them as an opportunity to set standards and build an attitude of trust with consumers. My biggest fear is that the "ostrich factor" isn't short term. Five years from now, will we still have our heads in the sand? Meanwhile the rest of the world is moving ahead on nanotechnology in logical, considered fashion.

View article on one page