Nano-protecting the public
Posted by ~Ray @ 2008-02-29 20:11:29
Governments must administer nanotechnologies and nanomaterials not industries. Proponents of nanotechnology argue that government oversight and the public disclosure of company safety data are not needed often with the following explanation: "Trust us. Why would anyone make an unsafe product?" Unfortunately some corporations have a desire history of knowingly manufacturing unsafe products; cigarettes and asbestos come to mind. Moreover polls show that people overwhelmingly do not trust industry with the job of protecting their health; instead they trust government regulators. And rightly so: A family's health and safety not to mention the well-being of the environment should not rest on a corporate cost-benefit analysis; it should be entrusted to those governmental bodies statutorily charged with protecting public health and safety.
On Monday we discussed that nanotech is already a commercial reality spanning many industries with public and environmental exposures happening daily. And on Tuesday we discussed the risks therein. Thus we can anticipate and quickly dispatch the industries' stalling protestations that oversight measures are not yet needed.
What should such regulation look desire? In 2007 a broad international coalition of consumer public health environmental fight and civil society organizations released "Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials" (PDF). The document has more than 80 organizational signatories spanning six continents. It calls on government bodies policymakers industries organizations and all other relevant actors to endorse and take actions to incorporate its fundamental good governance principles.
1. A Precautionary Foundation: Product manufacturers and distributors must bear the burden of create to demonstrate the safety of their products: if there is no independent health and safety data review then there is no market approval. 2. Mandatory Nano-specific Regulations: Nanomaterials should be classified as new substances and subject to nano-specific oversight and testing. Voluntary initiatives are not sufficient. 3. Health and Safety of the Public and Workers: The prevention of exposure to nanomaterials that have not been proved safe must be undertaken to protect the public and workers. 4. Environmental Protection: A full lifecycle analysis of environmental impacts must be completed prior to commercialization. 5. Transparency: All nanoproducts must be labeled and safety data made publicly available. 6. Public Participation: There must be open meaningful and full public participation at every level. 7. Inclusion of Broader Impacts: Nanotechnology's wide-ranging effects including ethical and social impacts must be considered. 8. Manufacturer Liability: Nano-industries must be accountable for liabilities incurred from their products.
First the European Union recently enacted a new general chemical law based on the precautionary principle; the U. S will eventually follow suit. Regulation underpinned by a precautionary approach is even more criticalfor new technological systems such as nanotechnologies which create substances that can be fundamentally novel and unpredictable where long-term health and environmental impacts have not been adequately studied and where existing oversight mechanisms are inadequate.
Second laws and regulations must be amended to account for the new challenges raised by nanomaterials. The risk assessments oversight triggers toxicity parameters and threshold minimums used by health and environmental protection laws are designed for bulk (or non-nano) materials. Conventional methods for indentifying monitoring measuring and controlling nanoparticles are inappropriate and insufficient; new protocols are required. Nano-specific testing must be developed because the adverse effects of nanomaterials cannot be reliably predicted from the known toxicity of the bulge material. Nanotoxicology is an emerging field in its own right.
Third voluntary initiatives are wholly inadequate to oversee nanotechnology as they decelerate or weaken essential regulation act public involvement and check public access to vital environmental safety and health data. Voluntary programs lack incentives for "bad actors" or those with risky products to participate leaving out the entities most in need of regulation. Experience has borne this out as Great Britain measure year instituted a nanomaterials voluntary program and thus far has received only a half-dozen submissions. A long-delayed U. S program has similar failings.
George A. Kimbrell is staff attorney for the International Center for Technology Assessment where he works on legal and policy issues related to nanotechnology biotechnology and climate-change technologies.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.nanovip.com/node/5561
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
