Regulating nanotechnologies: Risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap

Global Environmental Politics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 30-55

  Falkner, Robert ^a   Jaspers, Nico ^b  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; HEALTH AND SAFETY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH; REGULATORY APPROACH; RISK FACTOR; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84855766662     PISSN: 15263800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00096     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abbott, Kenneth W., Douglas J. Sylvester, and Gary E. Marchant. 2010. Transnational Reg- ulation of Nanotechnology: Reality or Romanticism? In International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, edited by Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard, 525-544. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
2. Abbott, Kenneth W., Gary E. Marchant, and Douglas J. Sylvester. 2006. A Framework Convention for Nanotechnology? Environmental Law Reporter 36: 10931-10942
3. Bernauer, Thomas. 2003. Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conoict in Food Biotech- nology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Breggin, Linda, Robert Falkner, Nico Jaspers, John Pendergrass, and Read Porter. 2009. Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies: Towards Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation. Report. London: Chatham House.
5. Bowman, Diana M. and Graeme A. Hodge. 2007. A Small Matter of Regulation: An International Review of Nanotechnology Regulation. The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 8: 1-36.
6. CDC and NIOSH. 2009. Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: Managing the Health and Safety Concerns Associated with Engineered Nanoparticles. DHHS (Niosh) Publi- cation No. 2009-125.
7. Cientiaca. 2009. Nanotechnology Takes a Deep Breath and Prepares to Save the World! Cientiaca Report. Available online at: http://popnano.ru/le/Nanotechnology%20Takes%20a%20Deep%20Breath.pdf, accessed 19 October 2011.
8. Clapp, Jennifer. 1998. The Privatization of Global Environmental Governance: ISO 14000 and the Developing World. Global Governance 4 (3): 295-316.
9. Dang, Yan et al. 2010. Trends in Worldwide Nanotechnology Patent Applications: 1991 to 2008. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 12 (3): 687-706.
10. Davies, J. Clarence. 2006. Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology. PEN 2. Washington DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
11. Davies, J. Clarence. 2009. Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology. PEN 18. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
12. Denison, Richard A. 2007. Not That Innocent: A Comparative Analysis of Canadian, Eu- ropean Union and United States Policies on Industrial Chemicals. Environmental Defense Report. Available online at: http://www.edf.org/health/reports/not-that-in-nocent, accessed 18 October 2011.
13. EFSA. 2007. Opinion of the Scientiac Panel on Food additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food (AFC) on a Request Related to a 14th List of Substances for Food Contact Materials. EFSA Journal 5 (2): 452-454. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.452.
14. EFSA 2008a. Scientiac Opinion: Inability to Assess the Safety of a Silver Hydrosol Added for Nutritional Purposes as a Source of Silver in Food Supplements and the Bioavailability of Silver from this Source based on the Supporting Dossier. EFSA Journal 6 (12): 884. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2008.884.
15. EFSA 2008b. Scientiac Opinion of the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Fla- vourings and Processing Aids (CEF). EFSA Journal 6 (12): 888-890. doi:10.2903/ j.efsa.2008.888.
16. EPA. 2007a. Nanotechnology White Paper. EPA 100/B-07/001.
17. EPA 2007b. Pesticide Registration; Clariacation for ion-Generating Equipment. Federal Register 72(183).
18. EPA 2008a. Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Status of Carbon Nanotubes. Federal Register 73(212).
19. EPA 2008b. TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances-General Approach. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/nmsp-inventorypaper2008.pdf, accessed 11 January 2011.
20. EPA 2009a. Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Interim Report. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/nmsp-interim-report-nal.pdf, accessed 11 January 2011.
21. EPA 2009b. Enhancing EPA's Chemical Management Program. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/Existing.Chem.Fact.sheet.pdf, accessed 11 January 2011.
22. European Commission. 2004. Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology. Communication from the Commission COM(2004) 338 anal.
23. European Commission 2008a. Commission Recommendation on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research COM(2008) 424 anal.
24. European Commission 2008b. Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, COM(2008) 366 anal.
25. European Commission 2008c. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 987/2008 Ofacial Journal of the European Union L268/14.
26. European Parliament. 2010. Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Draft Recommendation for Second Reading on the Council Position at First Reading for Adopting a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods. 2008/0002(COD).
27. European Parliament and Council. 2009. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetics Products. Ofacial Journal of the European Union L342/59.
28. Falkner, Robert, ed. 2007. The International Politics of Genetically Modiaed Food: Diplomacy, Trade and Law. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Falkner, Robert and Aarti Gupta. 2009. The Limits of Regulatory Convergence: Globaliza- tion and GMO Politics in the South. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 9 (2): 113-133.
30. Falkner, Robert, Linda Breggin, Nico Jaspers, John Pendergrass, and Read Porter. 2009. Consumer Labelling of Nanomaterials in the EU and US: Convergence or Divergence? EERG Brieang Paper 2009/03. London: Chatham House.
31. FDA. 2007. Nanotechnology. A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force.
32. Gaskell, George, and Nick Allum. 2001. Sound Science, Problematic Publics? Contrasting Representations of Risk and Uncertainty. Politeia 17 (63): 13-25.
33. GAO. 2010. FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). GAO-10-246.
34. Graff, Laurence. 2002. The Precautionary Principle. In The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Reconciling Trade in Biotechnology with Environment and Development? Edited by Christoph Bail, Robert Falkner and Helen Marquard, 410-422. London: Earthscan.
35. Hodge, Graeme A., Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard, eds. 2010. International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
36. Hodge, Graeme A., Diana M. Bowman and Karinne Ludlow. 2007. New Global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
37. ICON. 2008. Towards Predicting Nano-Biointeractions ICON Report 4. Available online at: www.cohesion.rice.edu/./ICON/./ICON_RNA_Report_Exec_Summ2.pdf, ac- cessed 18 October 2011.
38. IFCS. 2008. Final Report, Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety. IFCS/FORUM-VI/07w.
39. IISD. 2008. Summary of the Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety: 15-19 September 2008. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 15 (160): 1-12.
40. International Center for Technology Assessment, et al. 2008. Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nano-Silver Products as Pesticides. Available at http://icta.org/nanoaction/doc/CTA_nano-silver%20petition__nal_5_1_08.pdf, ac- cessed 11 January 2011.
41. IRGC. 2007. Nanotechnology Risk Governance: Recommendations for a Global, Coordinated Approach to the Governance of Potential Risks. IRGC Policy Brief. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.
42. Jaspers, Nico. 2010. Nanotechnology: How to Avoid International Trade Conoicts. European Journal of Risk Regulation 2: 167-173.
43. Kelemen, R. Daniel, and David Vogel. 2010. Trading Places: The Role of the United States and the European Union in International Environmental Politics. Comparative Political Studies 43 (4): 427-456.
44. Kulinowski, Kristen. 2008. Environmental Impacts of Nanosilver. An ICON Backgrounder. Available online at http://cohesion.rice.edu/centersandinst/icon/resources.cfm?doc_id12722, accessed 11 January 2011.
45. Kuzma, Jennifer, and Todd Tanji. 2010. Unpackaging Synthetic Biology: Identiacation of Oversight Policy Problems and Options. Regulation & Governance 4 (1): 92-112.
46. Lux Research. 2008. Nanomaterials State of the Market Q3 2008: Stealth Success, Broad Impact. Available online at http://www.luxresearchinc.com/press/RELEASE_Nano-SMR_7_22_08.pdf, accessed 11 January 2011.
47. Marchant, Gary E., and Douglas J. Sylvester. 2006. Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34 (4): 714-725.
48. Maynard, Andrew. 2009. Nanoparticle Exposure and Occupational Lung Disease-Six Expert Perspectives on a New Clinical Study. Safenano Community. 18 August. Available online at http://community.safenano.org/blogs/andrew_maynard/archive/ 2009/08/18/nanoparticle-exposure-and-occupational-lung-disease-six-expertperspectives-on-a-new-clinical-study.aspx, accessed 11 January 2011.
49. Michelson, Evan. S. 2008. Globalization at the Nano Frontier: The Future of Nanotechnology Policy in the United States, China, and India. Technology in Society 30 (3-4): 405-410.
50. Monteiro-Riviere Nancy, et al. 2005. Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube Interactions with Human Epidermal Keratinocytes. Toxicology Letters. 155 (3): 377-384.
51. Najam, Adil, and Nick Robins. 2001. Seizing the Future: The South, Sustainable Development and International Trade. International Affairs 77 (1): 49-68.
52. OECD. 2004. Nanotechnology: Emerging safety issues? ENV/JM (2004)32, quoted in Small Sizes That Matter: Opportunities and Risks of Nanotechnologies. Allianz Report in co-operation with the OECD International Futures Programme. Available online at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/1/44108334.pdf, accessed 11 January 2011.
53. OECD. 2010. Current Developments/Activities on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials. Tour de Table at the 7th Meeting of the Working Party on Manufac- tured Nanomaterials. Paris, France, 7-9 July 2010 (ENV/JM/MONO(2010)42). Paris: OECD.
54. Poland, Craig A. et al. 2008. Carbon Nanotubes Introduced Into the Abdominal Cavity of Mice Show Asbestos-Like Pathogenicity in a Pilot Study. Nature Nanotechnology 3 (7):423-428.
55. Raines, Susan S. 2003. Perceptions of Legitimacy and Efacacy in International Environmental Management Standards: The Impact of the Participation Gap. Global Environmental Politics 3 (3): 47-73.
56. Renn, Ortwin and Mihail C. Roco 2006. Nanotechnology and the Need for Risk Gover- nance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8 (153): 156-163.
57. Roco, Mihail C., and William S. Bainbridge, eds. 2007. Nanotechnology: Societal Implications II. Dordrecht: Springer.
58. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.
59. Sadeleer, Nicolas de, ed. 2007. Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic Countries, the EU and USA. London: Earthscan.
60. Sargent, John F. 2010. Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
61. SCENIHR. 2006. The Appropriateness of Existing Methodologies to Assess the Potential Risks Associated with Engineered and Adventitious Products of Nanotechnologies. SCENIHR/002/05.
62. Schreurs, Miranda A., Henrik Selin, and Stacy D. VanDeveer, eds. 2009. Transatlantic Envi- ronment and Energy Politics: Comparative and International Perspectives. Farnham: Ashgate.
63. Song, Y., et al. 2009. Exposure to Nanoparticles is Related to Pleural Effusion, Pulmonary Fibrosis and Granuloma. European Respiratory Journal 34 (3): 559-567.
64. Stirling, Andrew. 2007. Risk, Precaution and Science: Towards a More Constructive Policy Debate. EMBO Rep 8 (4): 309-315.
65. Takagi, Atsuya et al. 2008. Induction of Mesothelioma in p53 /? Mouse by Intraperitoneal Application of Multi-Wall Carbon Nanotube. Journal of Toxicological Sciences 33 (1): 105-116.
66. Van Asselt, Marjolein B. A., and Ellen Vos. 2006. The Precautionary Principle and the Un- certainty Paradox. Journal of Risk Research 9 (4): 313-336.
67. Vig, Norman J., and Michael G. Faure, eds. 2004. Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68. Vogel, David. 2004. Trade and the Environment in the Global Economy: Contrasting European and American Perspectives. In Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union, edited by Norman J. Vig and Michael G. Faure, 231-252. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69. Vogel, David, and Robert A. Kagan, eds. 2002. Dynamics of Regulatory Change: How Globalization Affects National Regulatory Policies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
70. Walker, Vern R. 2003. The Myth of Science as a "Neutral Arbiter" for Triggering Precau tions. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 26 (2): 197-228.
71. Wiener, Jonathan B. 2007. Precaution. In The Oxford Handbook of International Environ- mental Law, edited by Daniel Bodansky, Jutta Brunnée and Ellen Hey, 597-612. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72. Wiener, Jonathan B., and Michael D. Rogers. 2002. Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research 5 (4): 317-349.
73. Winickoff, David, Sheila Jasanoff, et al. 2005. Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law. Yale Journal of International Law 30 (1): 81-123.
74. Wirth, David A. 1994. The Role of Science in the Uruguay Round and NAFTA Trade Disci- plines. Cornell International Law Journal 27 (3): 817-859.