A nine year study of press coverage in the US and UK has found an overwhelming focus on nanotechnology's potential benefits, while little attention was given to potential health, environmental or social risks.

The FoEA nanotechnology project is looking for volunteers to help with our safe sunscreen work this summer.

The new definition of nanomaterials adopted by the European Commission will leave products that pose nano-risks effectively unregulated and people and the environment at risk.

After many months of consultations the European Commission has released its definition of nanomaterials. The definition reflects intense industry lobbying and rejects scientific advice. It uses a threshold for nano-content - 50% of the number of particles in a sample - that is 333 times greater than that recommended by the Commission's own Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR recommended 0.15%). It also entrenches 100nm as an upper limit for nanomaterials, despite SCENIHR warning that there is no scientific basis for this limit, and early toxicological studies finding nano-specific toxicity in particles larger than this.

7,000 Australians die each year from infections picked up in hospitals. This shocking loss of life is four times the annual road toll. Overuse of antibiotics has contributed to the problem, by promoting the development of more powerful bacteria that are resistant to treatment. Now, in a new Friends of the Earth report, leading microbiologists have warned that the rapid rise in household antibacterial products containing nano-silver could put more lives at risk.

A long-awaited review of New Zealand (Aotearoa)'s nanotechnology regulation has found so many gaps that nano researcher Professor Simon Brown has told the NZ Science Media Centre, "the regulatory system is simply not working". Stephanie Howard, Projects Director with the Sustainability Council, says "what is most striking about the study is the lack of serious response from Government."

Confidential documents obtained under Freedom of Information reveal that the Federal Government does not support labelling of nanomaterials for informed choice.

In what may be a world first, Australia's national sunscreens regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, has ordered a sunscreen company to stop advertising its product as "not nano". The co-regulatory body of the TGA is not alleging that the label is misleading (ie that the product contains nanoparticles) but rather that advertising as "not nano" could cause "fear or distress" to consumers, and is therefore in breach of the advertising code. That is, the TGA is saying that labelling as "not nano" is illegal.

Standards Australia's new proposal to let companies raise SPF ratings from 30+ to 50+ has been greeted with controversy. The Cancer Council has expressed concern that although extra sun protection offered will be minimal (1.3%), the much higher rating could give people a false sense of sun protection. We are also concerned that, as reported in 13 July's 6.30 with George Negus, the new proposals ignore the need to label nano-ingredients.

An interesting article in Food Safety News describes the huge enthusiasm from the food industry for using nano-ingredients in food. Despite this, the reporter found that few companies would admit whether or not they were using it now.

The Victorian branch of the Australian Education Union (AEU) has unanimously passed a resolution supporting calls for regulating nanoparticles and recommending that workplaces use only nano-free sunscreens.