91¿ì»îÁÖ

Rebecca An is a biochemistry and biology double major with a minor in biotechnology and she is a 2025-26 health care ethics intern at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at 91¿ì»îÁÖ. Views are her own.

 

Microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) in the environment have contributed to the increase of total mass concentration of plastics in the brains of deceased humans from by about 50% over eight years. These MNPs are associated with , but MNPs aren’t the only nano-sized pollutants in the environment. Within the past three decades, nanomaterials (NMs)—particles 1-100 nm in size—have demonstrated promising potential for use in fields . 

Researchers have identified areas near industrial facilities as . These areas overlap with low-income communities, which may result in higher levels of NM exposure and therefore residents from these populations can . 

Inadequate regulation of NM waste can compound health inequities for vulnerable populations through environmental injustice, violating both the common good and .

What is the current state of nanomaterial and nanowaste regulation? 

Anthropogenic NMs are created by human activity, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Where NMs end up in the environment—air, soil, and water—determines what NMs people are . Since the accumulation of NMs in the environment and human body is still relatively recent, the broader impacts of nanowaste environmental exposure are not well studied.

Current regulations struggle to address NMs’ complex properties. Typical pollutant disposal protocols rely on the , but NMs are so small that their . For example, they can pass through cell membranes, trigger reactive oxygen species production, and cause hormonal imbalances. As of 2023, the definition of a nanoparticle : the upper size limit ranges from 100 nm to 500 nm, and dimensions differ based on shape.

In the United States, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulation concerns nanoproduct handling, rather than nanotechnology itself. Initiatives do not address NM-producing processes and rely on voluntary application of nano-specific frameworks. The European Union has proposed , but has yet to make adherence mandatory.

What harms have unregulated nanowaste caused so far?

Because trends associated with engineered NM exposure from biotechnology industry waste are yet to appear, a involves MNPs in Pakistan. 

MNPs are considered anthropogenic NMs and are more deeply studied. Pakistan lacks landfills equipped to hold plastic-related toxins. So, unmanaged plastic waste disposal sites have become sources of groundwater contamination and pollution. Developing areas like Pakistan that receive waste from developed countries burn plastics because their waste infrastructure isn’t designed to process certain polymers. This suspended in water and in the air, which leads to negative health outcomes. Pakistan’s MNPs serve as a cautionary tale: nanowaste must be better managed before it leads to unintended population-level consequences.

Another example is relevant to the construction industry; workers can like carbon nanotubes when cutting, grinding, or drilling engineered NM-reinforced concrete. This dust causes lung damage and cancer in model organisms, but the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hasn’t established —only silica-containing dust. Lacking legal protection is problematic because a disproportionate amount of construction workers come from . The nanotubes also carry to areas surrounding the construction site, impacting broader communities as well.

How does underdeveloped nanowaste regulation become an ethical issue?

Underdeveloped nanowaste regulation negatively impacts the common good by causing environmental harm and disproportionately affecting low-income communities. 

The biotechnology industry aims to develop technology to improve sectors like health, environment and agriculture. However, preserving the environment should take precedence: NM accumulation can worsen population health outcomes. Affluent and non-minority populations may benefit most from these technologies while the environment shoulders the negative impact of manufacturing.

Governance and innovation make protecting the environment challenging because novel NMs have . Regarding Pakistan, waste colonialism has contaminated the local environment and unwittingly harmed residents. The NM dispersed from concrete is theoretically “legal” but violates the common good. It is the biotechnology industry’s ethical responsibility to implement policies that promote environmental preservation for the common good. It is not enough to adhere to existing policy. Companies must anticipate future harm to innovate ethically.

Inadequate NM regulation also worsens injustice in vulnerable populations. The justice framework calls for the protection of low-income populations through ethical and equitable health policies. Technological development should not violate these individuals’ rights to a safe and pollutant-free environment, nor force inequalities on disadvantaged populations. Rawls establishes , which states that social and economic inequalities must benefit the least advantaged and be attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity. Thus, Pakistan acting as a waste disposal site is unacceptable according to this principle.

Philosopher John Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance” is a thought experiment suggesting that impartial decision makers would employ principles that protect everyone, especially the most disadvantaged. Under this veil, most individuals would advocate for more careful NM management. Nano-specific frameworks could encourage more while mitigating long-term health effects associated with accumulation through accidental exposure. Individuals wouldn’t be sacrificing life-saving technologies if they chose to be more conservative with NMs. In the NM-containing concrete case, developing safer methods to work with such materials would benefit both workers and neighboring residents. 

The biotechnology industry has the moral duty to act justly not only through the products they develop, but also through their manufacturing methods. The nonstandardized regulation of NMs is unethical and problematic—the common good and justice frameworks demand ethical action.

Who will be affected by environmental build-up of nanowaste?

The nanowaste produced by the biotechnology industry can worsen health disparities, as these pollutants contribute to environmental determinants of health. Without NM policies, vulnerable populations in fenceline communities will likely experience worsened health outcomes. 

Fenceline communities include homes, parks, and schools located next to industrial facilities and many already see (with associated health issues). They typically comprise low-income populations, especially Blacks. The compounded NM-associated deterioration of fenceline community health may become a public health crisis and hamper efforts pursuing health equity. 

The increased prevalence of NMs in will result in gradual accumulation in the broader environment and public, not just in fenceline communities. Underdeveloped NM regulation harms health equity efforts by disproportionately impacting people of color’s health outcomes. It also threatens the health outcomes of the majority. It is crucial to focus on preventative measures instead of waiting to cure resulting health conditions.

How do we address the nanowaste environmental justice issue?

Addressing NM pollution and exposure from industrial activities mainly involves public policy and research. In the short term, policymakers and scientists should work to harmonize existing and assessing hazard levels, especially around waste associated with novel NMs. 

Emission-tracking around fenceline communities and occupational exposure limits may also be beneficial in addressing the existing justice issues. To support health equity efforts, it may also be beneficial to create avenues for fenceline community members to . This may be difficult to determine due to overlap with other social determinants of health.

A long-term solution would involve . By investigating the impacts of NM accumulation in the body and how different types of NM behave in the body, regulatory organizations, such as the FDA and OSHA, can provide more comprehensive risk assessments and policies to protect the environment and human health. This would directly promote the common good and help monitor health trends associated with NM exposure. 

While regulatory policy will act as a general safety net to mitigate additional NM accumulation in the environment, the research will inform more effective and .

Underdeveloped NM manufacturing and waste practices will likely worsen health disparities between lower-income populations and the broader public, as seen in analogous case studies on contaminated groundwater and NM-containing concrete. 

The common good and Rawl’s justice framework require environmental preservation and protection of vulnerable populations like fenceline communities. This might be accomplished through standardization of nano-specific frameworks and mandatory safety guidelines in industry. Additionally, federal funding of environmental health research would complement the initial “general” nano-guidelines by providing more in-depth analyses of NM health impacts. 

Pursuing these solutions may inform more sustainable and thoughtful technologies whose development will truly benefit all without deepening inequalities.