French and european community law on the nanometric forms of chemical substances: Questions about how the law handles uncertain risks

Nanotechnology Law and Business

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 341-352

  Desmoulin, Sonia ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FOOD PROCESSING; INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; NANOPARTICLES; NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS; NANOSTRUCTURES; NANOTECHNOLOGY;

CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES; DIVERSE RANGES; ECONOMIC SECTORS; ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS; EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES; EUROPEAN UNIONS; INDUSTRIAL USES; LEGAL ISSUES; LEGAL SCHOLARS; LEGAL SOLUTIONS; NANO MATERIALS; NANOMETRIC; POTENTIAL HEALTHS; RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS; SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISES;

HEALTH RISKS;

EID: 56449097260     PISSN: 15462080     EISSN: 15462080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. ROYAL SOCIETY & ROYAL ACAD. OF ENG'G, NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGIES, OPPORTUNITIES AND UNCERTAINTIES (2004).
2. SCIENTIFIC COMM. ON EMERGING AND NEWLY IDENTIFIED HEALTH RISKS, OPINION ON THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PRODUCTS OF NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGIES (opinion adopted at the 21st plenary on November 29, 2007).
3. COMMITTEE FOR PREVENTION AND PRECAUTION, MINISTRY OF ECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, NANOTECHNOLOGIES, NANOPARTICLES: QUELS DANGERS? QUELS RISQUES [WHAT HAZARDS? - WHAT RISKS?] (2006) (Fr.).
4. AGENCE FRANÇAISE DE SÉCURITÉ SANITAIRE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU TRAVAIL, LES NANOMATÉRIAUX: EFFETS SUR LA SANTÉ DE L'HOMME ET SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT [NANOMATERIALS: EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT] (2006).
5. INSTITUT NATIONAL DE RECHERCHE ET DU SÉCURITÉ POUR LA PRÉVENTION DES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET DES MALADIES PROFESSIONNELLES, LES NANOMATERIAUX (2007).
6. INSTITUT NATIONAL DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT INDUSTRIAL ET DES RISQUES, NANOTECHNOLOGIES, NANOMATERIALS, NANOPARTICLES: QUELS IMPACTS SUR L'HOMME ET L'ENVIRONNEMENT? (2007).
7. SCIENTIFIC COMM. ON EMERGING AND NEWLY IDENTIFIED HEALTH RISKS, OPINION ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF EXISTING METHODOLOGIES TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ENGINEERED AND ADVENTITIOUS PRODUCTS OF NANOTECHNOLOGIES (Sept. 28-29, 2005); SCIENTIFIC COMM. ON EMERGING AND NEWLY IDENTIFIED HEALTH RISKS, MODIFIED OPINION (AFTER PUBLIC CONSULTATION) ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF EXISTING METHODOLOGIES TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ENGINEERED AND ADVENTITIOUS PRODUCTS OF NANOTECHNOLOGIES (Mar. 10, 2006).
8. th plenary On June 21-22, 2007, after the public consultation).
9. Craig A. Poland Et Al., Carbon Nanotubes Introduced Into the Abdominal Cavity Of Mice Show Asbestos-Like Pathogenicity in a Pilot Study, 3 NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY 423 (2008).
10. John Timmer, Carbon nanofibers may mimic asbestos-And Not in a Good Way, ARS TECHNIA, May 21, 2008, http://arstechnica.com/ news.ars/post/20080521-carbon-nanofibers-may-mimic-asbestosand-not-in-a-good- way.html.
11. Marc Mennessier, Les nanotubes de carbone aussi nocifs que l'amiante?, LE FIGARO, May 22, 2008, http://www.lefigaro. fr/sciences/2008/05/22/01008-20080522ARTFIG00349-les-nanotubes-decarbone-aussi- nocifs-que-1-amiante.php.
12. Case T-74/00, Artedogan GmbH v. Commission, 2002 E.C.R. II-4945.
13. Id.
14. Law No. 95-101 of Feb. 2, 1995, J.O. Feb. 3, 1995, p. 1840 (on strengthening the protection of the environment); CONSTITUTION DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE (as revised October 4, 1958), CHARTE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT DE 2004 (Environmental Charter), art. 5.
15. See CE, Feb. 24, 1999, Société Pro-Nat, req. n̊ 192465; Marie-Angèle Hermitte, Relire l'ordre juridique à la lumière du principe de précaution [Rereading the Legal System In the Light of the Precautionary Principle], 22 RECUEIL DALLOZ 1518 (2007) (interpreting the decision as an application of the precautionary principle).
16. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1 final.
17. SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PRODUCTS, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, OPINION ON THE SAFETY OF NANOMATERIALS IN COSMETIC PRODUCTS (2008).
18. For the French jurisprudence: CE, Oct. 1, 2001, Association Greenpeace France, Rec. Lebon 1998, P. 469; CE, Oct. 25, 2004, Société Francefert, Req. n̊ 251930; CE, Dec. 6, 2004, Association pour la protection des animaux sauvages, no; 260438; CE, July 27, 2005, SCEA Valette, n̊ 262069; CE, Aug. 4, 2006, Comité de Réflexion, d'information et de lutte anti-nucléaire, no 254948. For EC jurisprudence: Case 331/88, The Queen v. Minister of the Agric., Fisheries and Food 1990 E.C.R. I-4023, ¶8 ("[J]udicial review must, having regard to the discretionary power conferred on the Council in the implementation of the common agricultural policy, be limited to examining whether the measure in question is vitiated by a manifest error or misuse of powers, or whether the authority in question has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion.") (Fedesa); Case T-74/00, Artedogan GmbH v. Commission, 2002 E.C.R. II-4945; Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. II-3305.
19. Case T-229/04, Sweden v. Commission, judgment of July 11, 2007, not yet released in E.C.R.
20. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1 final, 16.
21. LES NANOS ET NOUS [THE NANOS AND Us], Jan. 20, 2007 (Espace Projets) (recording of the citizens conference organized by the Council for the Ile-de-France region), http://espaceprojects.iledefrance.fr/jahia/Jahia/NanoCitoyens/site/projet s.
22. Instaurer un environnement respectueux de la santé, http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/grenelle-environnement/spip.php? rubrique11 (last visited Aug. 19, 2008); Le Grenelle Environnement: Summary Report on Round Table Discussions Held at the Hotel de Roquelaure On 24, 25 and 26 October 2007, http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/grenelle- environnement/IMG/pdf/rounded_table.pdf (last visited Aug. 19, 2008).
23. Commission Regulation 1907/2006 on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, art. 95, 2006 O.J. (L396) 100 [hereinafter REACH Act].
24. Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (1976).
25. REACH Act, supra note 23, art. 1.
26. Id., at art. 5.
27. Id., at art. 6 §1, art. 7 §§1-2.
28. Id., at annexes III, VIII, IX, X.
29. Id., at art. 57(f).
30. Id., at annexes I-XVII.
31. SCIENTIFIC COMM. ON EMERGING AND NEWLY IDENTIFIED HEALTH RISKS, OPINION ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING SUBSTANCES FOR ASSESSING THE RISKS OF NANOMATERIALS (Mar. 29, 2007).
32. th plenary on June 21-22, 2007, after public consultation).
33. Dose of product to biological response of the person exposed.
34. Recent work of the University of Louvain, concluding the nominal dose remains the most appropriate metric for in vitro toxicity testing of insoluble Stöber silica nanoparticles dispersed in aqueous medium, perhaps makes these drawbacks less serious. See Dominique Lison et al., Nominal and effective Dosimetry of Silica Nanoparticles in Cytotoxicity Assays, 104 TOXICOLOGICAL SCI. 155 (2008).
35. th plenary on june 21-22, 2007, after public consultation).
36. EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON REACH BY INDUSTRY, §5 (Sept. 2007).
37. EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY, FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON REACH BY INDUSTRY, §2.4 (Dec. 2007).
38. Regulatory Aspects Of Nanomaterials, COM (2008) 366 final.
39. Id., at 4.
40. Rhitu Chatterjee, The Challenge of Regulating Nanomaterials, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: ONLINE, Nov. 17, 2007, http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ esthag-w/2007/nov/policy/rcnanoregs.html.
41. Note the city of Berkeley, California, in the United States, has established a mandatory reporting procedure for companies and non-federal laboratories that use or manufacture nanoparticles. BERKELEY, CAL., BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE §§15.12.040(I), 15.12.050(C)(7) (2006), available at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/bmc/BMC-Part1-T1-22-091807.Pdf.
42. In January 2008, the U.S. EPA established a voluntary reporting program for companies that produce or use nanoparticles and nanomaterials (Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program), specifying that the system could be made mandatory if there was not enough serious participation. Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, 73 Fed. Reg. 4,861 (Jan. 28, 2008), available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-1411.htm.
43. In the UK, DEFRA began a voluntary reporting procedure for manufactured/engineered nanomaterials in September 2006. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS, UK VOLUNTARY REPORTING SCHEME FOR ENGINEERED NANOSCALE MATERIALS (2006), at http://www.defra. gov.uk/environment/nanotech/policy/pdf/vrs-nanoscale.pdf.
44. SIXTH QUARTERLY UPDATE ON THE VOLUNTARY REPORTING SCHEME FOR ENGINEERED NANOSCALE MATERIALS, DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS (2008).
45. French courts affirm the existence of the employer's strict liability for safety, "by virtue of the employment contract" and considers that the onset of any occupational disease reveals an "inexcusable fault" as defined in the Social Security Code, "when the employer was or should have been aware of the hazard to which an employee was exposed and did not take the measures to protect him or her." Cour de Cassation (Cass, soc.) [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], February 28, 2002, soc.: Bull. civ. V. 2002, No. 81, p 74 (Fr.) (jurisprudence has been consistent since these seven decisions).
46. Cour de Cassation (Cass. 2e civ.) [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Nov. 8, 2007 (Fr.) ("[O]bligation to obtain information from the [supplier] company about the nature of the products it manufactured or used, to be certain of their safety, or in the case of hazard, to implement, in cooperation with the officials of this third company, measures to safeguard the health of his employees.").