: With governments facing difficult decisions about when and how to adjust nanotechnology a coalition led by the British Royal Society released its own guidelines yesterday for ensuring the safe development of nanomaterials.
Modeled on the United Kingdom’s combined code for corporate governance the “Responsible NanoCode” outlines seven principles that aim to help companies “ask the right questions,” said Rachel Crossley of Insight Investment one of four British organizations that developed the code.
The code encourages companies to address environmental and risks that the manufacture or use of nano-products pose to their workers and customers consider social and ethical issues raised by nanotechnology and to adopt “responsible” sales and marketing techniques.
The code suggests several options for complying with the seven principles ranging from supporting government safety research to developing methods to track nanomaterials through a affiliate’s supply arrange but it does not consider any specific requirements said Steffi Friedrichs executive director of the Nanotechnology Industries Association which helped develop the label.
The new guidelines come at a measure of uncertainty for the nanotechnology industry said David Rejeski director of the Woodrow Wilson bear on’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
“I think a lot of companies are feeling essentially a lack of mooring. They don’t experience what standards might be imposed upon them when that might happen who might regulate,” he said. “The challenge becomes — what fills the gap?”
In the United States a handful of cities and states are tackling the question on their own. Berkeley. Calif. officials approved a nanotechnology safety plan in December that requires researchers and manufacturers using nanotechnology to report on the materials they are working with and how they are handling the particles. Cambridge. Mass. is considering similar regulations. And California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control is examining ways to improve the safety of nanotechnology manufacturing as part of a “color” chemistry initiative.
Meanwhile a coalition of U. S.-based industry and environment groups led by DuPont and Environmental Defense has released its own guidelines for determining the safety and environmental risks of nanomaterials.
Released in June the six-step affect is designed for use by small and large companies regulatory agencies universities and other groups interested in commercializing nanomaterials (
Reaction to both the new U. K.-based guidelines released yesterday and the Dupont-Environmental Defense effort have been mixed with much of the concern centered around whether they ordain impede government nanotech regulation.
As it now stands. U. S companies “are coming and asking for regulations,” said Rejeski of the Wilson Center. “I never thought I would see this.”
And in the inspect of the U. K code the organizations that developed it said they tried to avoid creating something that would “supercede or replace future regulations,” Friedrichs said. “It’s designed to fill the gap.”
But speaking yesterday at least one expert said he believed the new U. K guidelines could lessen corporate appetites for government challenge.
“This code won’t supplant a move to adjust but it could actually slow it down,” said Michael Hansen senior scientist with Consumer Union. “It talks about how companies should undergo annual updates for stakeholders and others. That implies that if you’re doing this annually there’s going to be years before there’s going to be a need for regulation.”
Hansen said he believed the U. K code was “a good first step,” but the look it could delay regulation is untenable because nanotechnology is widely available to consumers.
“The horse is already out of the barn,” he said. “There are hundreds of products on the market and there haven’t been safety assessments done for many of them.”
“These are generally good policies that take important steps,” said Sean Murdoch president of the NanoBusiness Alliance. “But at the end of the day these aren’t new principles and they are equally applicable to other chemicals.”
Murdoch said he does not believe there is enough bear witness to declare that nanotechnology products represent “a special risk.”
“We believe companies should be and are responsible for the safety of their nanotechnology-enabled products the same as they should be for their non-nanotechnology-enabled products,” he said.
Acknowledging the criticism. Friedrichs said she believed that while the nanotechnology code draws on existing practices there is still value in putting forth a new code that deals exclusively with the emerging handle.
“One thing we really be is to get nanotech going and to get advance advancement to the area,” she said. “This should be a significant contributor to the international consider.”
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=548
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
