Abstract
This chapter examines debates concerning the EU’s regulation of nanotechnology. Claims about the potential uses and consequences of nanotechnology are scientifically and politically contested, and have understandably failed to produce consensus over an appropriate regulatory response. Yet legislatures and policymakers have been called upon to review and, as necessary, enact legislation. Here, we find that legislation works symbolically in two senses. In the ‘negative’ sense, legislation is deployed to signal that nanotechnology and the risks to which it gives rise are capable of and subject to control, in spite of prevailing uncertainty. At the same time, the legislation strives to achieve ‘positive’ symbolism in the sense that the legislative process opens up space in which technological futures can be the subject of debate. The chapter concludes by noting that notwithstanding the dangers of the negatively symbolic approach, and while the legislation does not achieve ‘positive’ symbolism in the fullest way possible, nonetheless the venue for debate provided by the introduction of legislation is to be welcomed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In the UK, National Foresight programmes have tried to overcome this problem. See e.g. Government Office for Science (2011).
- 2.
Though to the extent that nanotechnology delivers goods and services which are the subject of free movement principles, the capacity of Member States to take unilateral action in relation to the regulation of such goods and services is necessarily limited.
- 3.
A good example of this is provided by control of chemicals under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency [2007] OJ L136/3.
- 4.
There are limited exceptions to this. For example, the Commission has introduced two implementing acts designed to support the application of existing legislation to nanotechnologies used in the food sector: Regulation (EC) 450/2009 of 29 May 2009 on active and intelligent materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, Preamble 23; and Regulation (EU) of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, Preamble 23, 28, Arts 9 (2), 13 (4)(b).
References
Ayres, I., and J. Braithwaite. 1992. Responsive regulation. Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Black, J. 2001. Decentring regulation. Understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a ‘post-Regulatory’ world. Current Legal Problems 54(1): 103–147.
Blühdorn, I. 2007. Sustaining the unsustainable. Symbolic politics and the politics of simulation. Environmental Politics 16(2): 251–275.
Boyd White, J. 1989. Heracles’ Bow. Essays on the rhetoric and poetics of the law. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 2011. Vocabulary – Nanoparticles, Publicly Available Specification 71. London: BSI.
Cecchini, P. 1988. The European challenge, 1992. The benefits of a single market. Aldershot: Gower.
Conway, P., V. Janod, and G. Nicoletti. 2005. Product market regulation in OECD countries: 1998 to 2003. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety, as amended [2002] OJ L11/4.
Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment [2011] OJ L174/88.
Doubleday R. 2007. Risk, public engagement and reflexivity. Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk and Society 9(2): 211–227.
Dwyer, J.P. 1990. The pathology of symbolic legislation. Ecology Law Quarterly 17(2): 233–316.
Edelman, M. 1967. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Egan, M. 2001. Constructing a European market. Standards, regulation and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
European Commission. 2004. Nanotechnology. Innovation for tomorrow’s world. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research.
European Commission. 2005. Communication on nanosciences and nanotechnologies. An action plan for Europe 2005–2009. COM 243 final.
European Commission. 2008. Communication on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. COM 366 final.
European Commission. 2010. Communication on Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union. COM 546 final.
European Commission. 2012. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medical devices, and amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. COM 542 final.
European Parliament. 2003. Resolution on the commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on ‘consumer policy strategy 2002–2006’. P5_TA(2003) 0100.
European Parliament. 2006. Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Bastiaan Belder on behalf of the Freedom and Democracy Group. European Parliament debate No 4 of 28 September 2006.
European Parliament. 2008. Report on the proposal for the regulation of novel foods. A6-0512/2008.
European Parliament. 2009a. Motion for a European Parliament resolution on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. A6-0255/2009.
European Parliament. 2009b. MEP Åsa Westlund on behalf of the Party of European socialists. European parliament debate No 16 of 24 March 2009.
European Parliament. 2009c. MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (Rapporteur). European Parliament debate No 15 of 23 March 2009.
European Parliament. 2009d. Resolution of 24 April 2009 on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials, P6 TA(2009)0328.
Feldman, S.P. 1990. Stories as cultural creativity. On the relation between symbolism and politics in organizational change. Human Relations 43(9): 809–828.
Feenberg, A. 2002. Transforming technology. A critical theory revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Government Office for Science. 2011. Foresight. Migration and global environmental change. London: Government Office for Science.
Groves, C. 2013. Four scenarios for nanotechnologies in the UK, 2011–2020. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 25(5): 507–526.
Guere, G.P. 2011. Labeling nano-enabled consumer products. Nano Today 6: 117–121.
Gusfield, J.R. 1968. On legislating morals. The symbolic process of designating deviance. California Law Review 56(1): 54–73.
Gusfield, J.R. 1996. Contested meanings. The construction of alcohol problems. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Jasanoff, S. 1995. Procedural choices in regulatory science. Technology in Society 17(3): 279–293.
Kendall, M., and S. Holgate. 2012. Health impact and toxicological effects of nanomaterials in the lung. Respirology 17(5): 743–758.
Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, R.G. 2012. Look at mother nature on the run in the 21st century. Responsibility, research and innovation. Transnational Environmental Law 1(1): 105–117.
Lee, R.G., and S. Vaughan. 2010. REACHing down. Nanomaterials and chemical safety in the European Union. Law Innovation and Technology 2(2): 193–217.
Macnaghten, P. 2010. Researching technoscientific concerns in the making. Narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment and Planning A 42(1): 23–37.
Maynard, A.D. 2008. Nanotechnology. A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Maynard, R.L. 2012. Nano-technology and nano-toxicology. Emerging Health Threats Journal 5: 17508.
Newig, J. 2007. Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. Environmental Politics 16(2): 276–296.
Newig, J. 2008. Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. In The politics of unsustainability. Eco-politics in the post-ecologist era, ed. I. Blühdorn and I. Welsh. London: Routledge.
Patel, S., R. Nanda, and S. Sahoo. 2015. Nanotechnology in healthcare. Applications and challenges. Medicinal Chemistry 5(21): 528–533.
Rappert, B. 1999. Rationalising the future? Foresight in science and technology policy co-ordination. Futures 31(6): 527–545.
RCEP (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution). 2008. Novel materials in the environment. The case of nanotechnology. Twenty-seventh report, Cm 7468. London: RCEP.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European food safety authority and laying down the procedures in matters of food. 2002. OJ L31/1.
Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives. 2008. OJ L354/16.
Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. 2009. OJ L342/59.
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. 2011. OJ L304/18
RS and RAEng (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering). 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Opportunities and uncertainties. London: RS.
Stokes, E. 2011. You are what you eat. Market citizens and the right to know about nano foods. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 2(2): 178–200.
Stokes, E. 2012. Nanotechnology and the products of inherited regulation. Journal of Law and Society 39(1): 93–112.
US Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Nanotechnology. A Report of the US FDA nanotechnology task force. Rockville: FDA..
Van Asselt, M., and O. Renn. 2011. Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research 14(4): 431–449.
Van Klink, B. 2005. An effective-historical view on the symbolic working of law. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. N. Zeegers et al. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Webler, T., H. Kastenholz, and O. Renn. 1995. Public participation in impact assessment. A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15(5): 443–463.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lee, R.G., Stokes, E. (2016). Material Uncertainty: Nanomaterials, Regulation and Symbolic Legislation. In: van Klink, B., van Beers, B., Poort, L. (eds) Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw. Legisprudence Library, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33363-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33365-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)