Safe- and sustainable-by-design: The case of Smart Nanomaterials. A perspective based on a European workshop.

The European Commission's Green Deal is a major policy initiative aiming to achieve a climate-neutral, zero-pollution, sustainable, circular and inclusive economy, driving both the New Industrial Strategy for Europe and the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability. Innovative materials can help to reach these policy goals, but they need to be safe and sustainable themselves. Thus, one aim is to shift the development of chemicals to Safe- and Sustainable-by-Design, and define a new systems approach and criteria for sustainability to achieve this. An online workshop was organised in September 2020 by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate-General Research and Innovation of the European Commission, with participants from academia, non-governmental organisations, industry and regulatory bodies. The aims were to introduce the concept of Safe- and Sustainable-by-Design, to identify industrial and regulatory challenges in achieving safer and more sustainable Smart Nanomaterials as an example of innovative materials, and to deliver recommendations for directions and actions necessary to meet these challenges. The following needs were identified: (i) an agreed terminology, (ii) a common understanding of the principles of Safe- and Sustainable-by-Design, iii) criteria, assessment tools and incentives to achieve a transition from Safe-by-Design to Safe- and Sustainable-by-Design, and (iv) preparedness of regulators and legislation for innovative chemicals/nanomaterials. This paper presents the authors' view on the state of the art as well as the needs for future activities, based on discussions at the workshop and further considerations. The case of Smart Nanomaterials is used to illustrate the Safe- and Sustainable-by-Design concept and challenges for its implementation. Most of the considerations can be extended to other advanced materials and to chemicals and products in general.

Regulatory landscape of nanotechnology and nanoplastics from a global perspective.

Nanotechnology and more particularly nanotechnology-based products and materials have provided a huge potential for novel solutions to many of the current challenges society is facing. However, nanotechnology is also an area of product innovation that is sometimes developing faster than regulatory frameworks. This is due to the high complexity of some nanomaterials, the lack of a globally harmonised regulatory definition and the different scopes of regulation at a global level. Research organisations and regulatory bodies have spent many efforts in the last two decades to cope with these challenges. Although there has been a significant advancement related to analytical approaches for labelling purposes as well as to the development of suitable test guidelines for nanomaterials and their safety assessment, there is a still a need for greater global collaboration and consensus in the regulatory field. Furthermore, with growing societal concerns on plastic litter and tiny debris produced by degradation of littered plastic objects, the impact of micro- and nanoplastics on humans and the environment is an emerging issue. Despite increasing research and initial regulatory discussions on micro- and nanoplastics, there are still knowledge gaps and thus an urgent need for action. As nanoplastics can be classified as a specific type of incidental nanomaterials, current and future scientific investigations should take into account the existing profound knowledge on nanotechnology/nanomaterials when discussing issues around nanoplastics. This review was conceived at the 2019 Global Summit on Regulatory Sciences that took place in Stresa, Italy, on 24-26 September 2019 (GSRS 2019) and which was co-organised by the Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR) and the European Commission's (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC). The GCRSR consists of regulatory bodies from various countries around the globe including EU bodies. The 2019 Global Summit provided an excellent platform to exchange the latest information on activities carried out by regulatory bodies with a focus on the application of nanotechnology in the agriculture/food sector, on nanoplastics and on nanomedicines, including taking stock and promoting further collaboration. Recently, the topic of micro- and nanoplastics has become a new focus of the GCRSR. Besides discussing the challenges and needs, some future directions on how new tools and methodologies can improve the regulatory science were elaborated by summarising a significant portion of discussions during the summit. It has been revealed that there are still some uncertainties and knowledge gaps with regard to physicochemical properties, environmental behaviour and toxicological effects, especially as testing described in the dossiers is often done early in the product development process, and the material in the final product may behave differently. The harmonisation of methodologies for quantification and risk assessment of nanomaterials and micro/nanoplastics, the documentation of regulatory science studies and the need for sharing databases were highlighted as important aspects to look at.

One science-driven approach for the regulatory implementation of alternative methods: A multi-sector perspective.

EU regulations call for the use of alternative methods to animal testing. During the last decade, an increasing number of alternative approaches have been formally adopted. In parallel, new 3Rs-relevant technologies and mechanistic approaches have increasingly contributed to hazard identification and risk assessment evolution. In this changing landscape, an EPAA meeting reviewed the challenges that different industry sectors face in the implementation of alternative methods following a science-driven approach. Although clear progress was acknowledged in animal testing reduction and refinement thanks to an integration of scientifically robust approaches, the following challenges were identified: i) further characterization of toxicity pathways; ii) development of assays covering current scientific gaps, iii) better characterization of links between in vitro readouts and outcome in the target species; iv) better definition of alternative method applicability domains, and v) appropriate implementation of the available approaches. For areas having regulatory adopted alternative methods (e.g., vaccine batch testing), harmonised acceptance across geographical regions was considered critical for broader application. Overall, the main constraints to the application of non-animal alternatives are the still existing gaps in scientific knowledge and technological limitations. The science-driven identification of most appropriate methods is key for furthering a multi-sectorial decrease in animal testing.