In their short study "The Impact of Toxicity Testing Costs on Nanomaterial Regulation", available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es802388s Jae-Young Choi, Gurumurthy Ramachandran and Mililand Kandikar note that in the United States "the entire burden of data collection and risk assessment is placed on agencies without the budgetary means to carry out this mandate".  EPA and OSHA, the agencies largely involved in data collection, simply don’t have the funds to do the job they’ve been assigned by law. The testimony of John Stephenson before the House Committee on Energy & Commerce’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection hearing "Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976" (Feb. 26, 2009) reinforces this by noting that the EPA is dependent on chemical companies voluntarily supplying data about their products. Mr. Stephenson’s testimony, along with other witnesses prepared testimony, may be found at http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1505&Itemid=95

Both the article and Stephenson’s testimony come to the same general conclusion, that a system such as the EU’s REACH program be adopted, leading to a tiered structure of testing based on the release of  materials into the atmosphere. While this might be less stringent that the testing which is conducted now, "less stringent risk adverse perspectives that nonetheless do take seriously the question of nanomaterial health risks reduce total costs by about 40%".