Considerations for Implementation of Manufactured Nanomaterial Policy and Governance

  • F. K. Satterstrom
  • A. S. A. Arcuri
  • T. A. Davis
  • W. Gulledge
  • S. Foss Hansen
  • M. A. Shafy Haraza
  • L. Kapustka
  • D. Karkan
  • I. Linkov
  • M. Melkonyan
  • J. Monica
  • R. Owen
  • J. M. Palma-Oliveira
  • B. Srdjevic
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


Many policy frameworks for risk assessment of manufactured nanomate-rials have been developed worldwide. These frameworks range from voluntary methods and self-regulation to prescriptive regulation. In our view, the regulatory policies ideally need to include consideration of the risks and benefits of nanotech-nology, as well as risk perception and risk communication efforts. Further, the policies should: (a) take a holistic viewpoint, considering the entire lifecycle of a manufactured nanomaterial, including use, production, transport, and disposal, and (b) consider the ecological and human health effects for all of the reasonably foreseeable exposures. There is a need for adaptive management to allow reaction to new developments (e.g., new toxicology information) and to gain additional information through policy.1–2


Environmental Protection Agency Consumer Product Safety Commission Voluntary Environmental Program Chemical Abstract Service Canadian Environmental Protection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arcuri ASA, Grossi MGL, Martins PR, Pinto VRS, Maia PA, Rinaldi A. 2005. Developing Strategies in Brazil to Manage the Emerging Nanotechnology and Its Associated Risks. Springer, Netherland.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashford NA. 2002. Implementing a precautionary approach in decisions affecting health, safety, and the environment: Risk, technology alternatives, and tradeoff analysis. In: The Role of Precaution in Chemicals Policy (Freytag E, Jakl T, Loibl G, Wittmann M, eds.). Favorita Papers. Diplomatic Academy, Vienna, 128–140.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashford NA, Ayers C, Stone RF. 1985. Using regulation to change the market for innovation. Harvard Environmental Law Review 9:419–466.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashford NA. 1993. Understanding technological responses of industrial firms to environmental problems: Implications for government policy. In: Environmental Strategies for Industry: International Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications (Fisher K, Schot J, eds.). Island Press, Washington, DC. 277–307.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowman D, van Calster G. 2007. Reflecting on REACH: Global implications of the European Union's chemicals regulation. Nanotechnology Law & Business 4:375–383.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    (CAN) Environment Canada and Health Canada. Proposed Regulatory Framework for Nanomaterials Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. 10-9-2007.
  7. 7.
    (CAN) Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999) ca/CEPARegistry/the_act/
  8. 8.
    Chaudhry Q, Blackburn J, Floyod P, George C, Nwaogu T, Boall A, Aitken RJ. 2006. A Scoping Study to Identify Gaps in Environmental Regulation for the Products and Applications of Nanotechnologies. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 24-3-2008. Ref Type: Report London.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Commission of the European Communities. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods and Amending Regulation (EC) No XXX/XXXX [common procedure] (presented by the Commission) [SEC(2008) 12] [SEC(2008) 13]. COM(2007) 872 final 2008/0002 (COD). Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. 14-1-2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Council of the European Communities. 1989. Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Official Journal L 183:0008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Council of the European Communities. 1998. Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). Official Journal L 131:23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Council of the European Communities. 1991. Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (91/689/EEC). Official Journal L 377:P.0020– 0027.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    EDF 2008. EPA Nanotechnology Voluntary Program Risks Becoming a ‘Black Hole’.
  14. 14.
    European Commission. 2008a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament. The Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials [SEC(2008) 2036]. comm_2008_0366_en.pdf
  15. 15.
    European Commission. 2008b. Commission Staff Working Document. Accompanying Document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials. Summary of legislation in relation to health, safety and environment aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory research needs and related measures {COM(2008) 366 final}. 2008_en.pdf
  16. 16.
    European Environmental Agency (EEA). Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. Harremoës, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., and Guedes Vaz, S. 22. 2001. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Environmental Issue Report.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2006. Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of CHemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. 30.12.2006 EN. Official Journal of the European Union L:396-1. Key REACH information is accessible via
  18. 18.
    European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2002. Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of the European Communities L:31-1, L:31/24.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Franco A, Hansen SF, Olsen SI, Butti L. 2007. Limits and prospects of the “incremental approach” and the European legislation on the management of risks related to nanomaterials. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 48:171–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friends of the Earth (FOE). Out of the Laboratory and on to Our Plates Nanotechnology in Food & Agriculture. Friends of the Earth Australia, Europe & U.S.A. 3008. ortGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halliday J. EU Parliament Votes for Tougher Additives Regulation. Food Europe. 12-7-2007.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hansen SF, Tickner J. 2007. The Challenges of Adopting Voluntary Health, Safety and Environment Measures for Manufactured Nanomaterials: Lessons from the Past for More Effective Adoption in the Future. Nanotechnology Law & Business.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kohler AR, Som C, Helland A, Gottschalk F. 2008. Studying the potential release of carbon nanotubes throughout the application life cycle. Journal of Cleaner Production 16:927–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linkov I, Satterstrom K. Review of regulatory frameworks. In: Nanomaterial Risk Assessment and Risk Management. (Linkov I, Ferguson E, Magar VS, eds.). Real-Time and Deliberative Decision Making, 1–1.©2008 Springer, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Porter ME. 1991. America's Green Strategy. Scientific American 264(4):168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Responsible NanoCode (RNC). 2006. Workshop Report: How Can Business Respond to the Technical, Social and Commercial Uncertainties of Nanotechnology?
  27. 27.
    Slovic P. 1982. Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuritics and Biases (Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 463–489.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    (U.K.) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2006. UK Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. 22-3-2007. Available at:
  29. 29.
    (U.K.) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2006. Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials First Quarterly Report Covering the Period 22/09/06–22/12/06. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    (U.K.) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The UK Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: Fifth Quarterly Report. . Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK, 22-12-2007. 2007
  31. 31.
    (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2007. Nanotechnology White Paper. Prepared for the US EPA by members of the Nanotechnology Workgroup, a group of EPA's Science Policy Council, Washington, DC 20460. OSA/pdfs/nanotech/epa-nanotechnology-whitepaper-0207.pdf
  32. 32.
    (U.S.) National Research Council. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weiss R. 2005. Nanotechnology Regulation Needed, Critics Say. Washington Post 14-7-2008. AR2005120400729.html
  34. 34.
    World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe. 2006. Dealing with Uncertainty: Setting the Agenda for the 5th Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health. Report of a WHO Meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, 15–16 December 2005. EUR/06/5067987. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. K. Satterstrom
    • 1
  • A. S. A. Arcuri
    • 2
  • T. A. Davis
    • 3
  • W. Gulledge
    • 4
  • S. Foss Hansen
    • 5
  • M. A. Shafy Haraza
    • 6
  • L. Kapustka
    • 7
  • D. Karkan
    • 8
  • I. Linkov
    • M. Melkonyan
      • 9
    • J. Monica
      • 10
    • R. Owen
      • 11
    • J. M. Palma-Oliveira
      • 12
    • B. Srdjevic
      • 13
    1. 1.Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied SciencesCambridgeUSA
    2. 2.Foundation on Occupational Safety and Health Researches and Studies (FUNDACENTRO)Ministry of Labour and EmploymentSão PaoloBrazil
    3. 3.Department of ChemistryUniversity of MontrealCanada
    4. 4.American Chemistry CouncilArlingtonUSA
    5. 5.Department of Environmental Engineering, Nano DTUTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
    6. 6.Quality Assurance, Quality Control DepartmentNational Center of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Control Atomic Energy AuthorityNasr CityEgypt
    7. 7.LK ConsultancyCalgaryCanada
    8. 8.Nanotechnology Health Products and Food BranchOttawaCanada
    9. 9.Institute of Crystallography of RASMoscowRussia
    10. 10.Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NWUSA
    11. 11.Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)Environment and Human Health Programme, UK EnvironmentBristolUK
    12. 12.Faculty of Psychology and Sciences of Education (FPCE) University of LisbonAlameda da UniversidadeLisboaPortugal
    13. 13.Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

    Personalised recommendations