Search news

Click here for search tips

Most searched tags

Regulatory approaches to nanotechnology should be flexible and adaptive

Published: Thursday 14 May 2009

In April 2009, the Regulatory Governance Initiative (RGI) at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada published a report entitled ‘International Approaches to the Regulatory Governance of Nanotechnology’.

According to the report’s abstract, it ‘is an initial exploration into the question ‘How have Canada and other jurisdictions reacted to the recent emergence of nanotechnology-based products in the marketplace (and what is the current state of affairs)?’

Undertaken from the perspective of regulatory governance, he report is largely based on a literature review (up to March 2009). The authors note that they focussed on five jurisdictions (US, UK, EU, Australia and Canada), describing how the emergence of nanotechnology triggered activities in three domains: (a) public and stakeholder debate, (b) development of initial policy options, and (c) the management of regulatory development in a situation of scarce data.

On the basis of these descriptions, the authors have selected a set of six regulatory governance principles:

  1. The regulatory response should be coordinated. This should include coordination at the international level, between states, provinces or member states, as well as coordination at the inter-departmental and inter-agency level in individual jurisdictions.
  2. Regulatory approaches to nanotechnology should be flexible and adaptive.
  3. Information gathering initiatives, a key first step in an adaptive regulatory system, should be designed with the endpoints in mind, should offer incentives for participation, and should involve both industry and academic researchers.
  4. Risk management approaches should strive to be comprehensive, by incorporating a lifecycle approach to govern the potential risks of nanotechnology, and should be designed with the importance of scope and timing horizons in mind.
  5. Risk management approaches should strive for balance and proportionality between the costs and benefits of regulating. The regulatory impact of mandatory versus 'indirect‘ approaches versus an absence of regulation should be considered.
  6. An understanding of the profile of the beneficiaries of nanotechnology and the risk bearers in concert with who is accountable would go a long way toward ensuring the appropriate deployment of both technology and regulatory oversight. Stakeholders should be engaged appropriately and regulatory systems should be transparent.

Follow these links to find out more about the RGI report on the Nanowerk website, or to download the full report.

 
 
Related Links:
Switzerland’s Centre for Technology Assessment (TA-Swiss) has published a report on ‘Nanotechnology in the food sector’, recommending specific labelling of nano-materials in ingredients and in packaging, as well as offering the freedom of choice to consumers, whilst rejecting the enaction of a specific ‘nano food law’. (23rd January 2009)
 
According to an article published by the Meridian Institute, The Bureau of National Affairs' (BNA) Daily Environment Report released an article predicting an expected increase in shareholder resolutions urging disclosure of nanomaterials; this outlook was provided by an official with a corporate responsibility advocacy group in conversation with BNA. (15th January 2009)
 
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) published the report ‘Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics’. (18th December 2008)
* Registered NIA Members can download the Meeting Report and participants’ presentations of the IRGC Workshop on 'Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics' from the ‘Members only’-area on the NIA website by following the link to ‘Meeting Reports (from the NIA delegate)’.