Researchers propose target values to manage novel entities effectively

A new international proposal challenges the widely cited planetary boundary for “Novel Entities,” arguing that the current “zero release” goal is scientifically unrealistic and politically difficult to enforce. Instead, researchers say the world needs a life-cycle–based framework that can translate risk science into practical environmental targets for specific chemicals, mixtures, microplastics, nanomaterials, and mobilized radioactive materials.

The study starts from the fact that man-made substances now number in the hundreds of thousands globally and inevitably move through the planet’s air, water, soils, and ecosystems. While the original planetary boundaries assessment suggests the carrying capacity for novel entities has already been exceeded, it sets a precautionary target of zero. Lead author Prof. Annika Jahnke of UFZ argues that this fails to account for the real benefits these materials can provide—and it does not reliably improve protection for people or the environment.

A core message is that “zero” is neither legally binding everywhere nor achievable in practice. Regulation gaps in some regions may allow problematic compounds to be incorporated into consumer goods that later reach jurisdictions where such ingredients are restricted or banned. The authors therefore call for a reboot that links global scientific diagnosis to enforceable management strategies.

The proposed approach centers on hazard evaluation rather than blanket prohibition. Experts emphasize that risk must be assessed across the full life cycle, from sourcing and production to use and disposal, followed by attention to environmental fate: whether substances persist, accumulate, or degrade into more harmful products.

To operationalize this, the framework uses a three-stage process. First comes “Production,” focused on how much of each novel entity is manufactured or released and how it enters human exposure pathways. Second is “State,” which requires global monitoring networks capable of mapping where substances build up at high levels—using comparable datasets coordinated by an international body.

Third is “Impacts,” where laboratory evidence, databases, and computer modeling are combined to estimate effects on ecosystems and human health. The more uncertainty is reduced, the more precisely regulators can set science-based target values intended to keep activity within a “safe operating space.”

The authors point to successful precedents, including the UN Stockholm Convention and EU chemicals legislation, as models for coupling monitoring and regulatory action. A follow-up workshop at UFZ in September will explore how such mechanisms could be expanded globally for novel entities—without banning useful technologies outright. The overall aim: enable continued innovation while tightening controls where the biggest risks are proven.