Skip to main content

Material Uncertainty: Nanomaterials, Regulation and Symbolic Legislation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Legisprudence Library ((LEGIS,volume 4))

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the UK, National Foresight programmes have tried to overcome this problem. See e.g. Government Office for Science (2011).

  2. 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. 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. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blühdorn, I. 2007. Sustaining the unsustainable. Symbolic politics and the politics of simulation. Environmental Politics 16(2): 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd White, J. 1989. Heracles’ Bow. Essays on the rhetoric and poetics of the law. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BSI (British Standards Institution). 2011. Vocabulary – Nanoparticles, Publicly Available Specification 71. London: BSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecchini, P. 1988. The European challenge, 1992. The benefits of a single market. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety, as amended [2002] OJ L11/4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment [2011] OJ L174/88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doubleday R. 2007. Risk, public engagement and reflexivity. Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk and Society 9(2): 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, J.P. 1990. The pathology of symbolic legislation. Ecology Law Quarterly 17(2): 233–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. 1967. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, M. 2001. Constructing a European market. Standards, regulation and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2004. Nanotechnology. Innovation for tomorrow’s world. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2005. Communication on nanosciences and nanotechnologies. An action plan for Europe 2005–2009. COM 243 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2008. Communication on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. COM 366 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2010. Communication on Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union. COM 546 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. 2008. Report on the proposal for the regulation of novel foods. A6-0512/2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. 2009a. Motion for a European Parliament resolution on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. A6-0255/2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. 2009b. MEP Åsa Westlund on behalf of the Party of European socialists. European parliament debate No 16 of 24 March 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. 2009c. MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (Rapporteur). European Parliament debate No 15 of 23 March 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. 2009d. Resolution of 24 April 2009 on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials, P6 TA(2009)0328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S.P. 1990. Stories as cultural creativity. On the relation between symbolism and politics in organizational change. Human Relations 43(9): 809–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenberg, A. 2002. Transforming technology. A critical theory revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Office for Science. 2011. Foresight. Migration and global environmental change. London: Government Office for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, C. 2013. Four scenarios for nanotechnologies in the UK, 2011–2020. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 25(5): 507–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guere, G.P. 2011. Labeling nano-enabled consumer products. Nano Today 6: 117–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gusfield, J.R. 1968. On legislating morals. The symbolic process of designating deviance. California Law Review 56(1): 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gusfield, J.R. 1996. Contested meanings. The construction of alcohol problems. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 1995. Procedural choices in regulatory science. Technology in Society 17(3): 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, M., and S. Holgate. 2012. Health impact and toxicological effects of nanomaterials in the lung. Respirology 17(5): 743–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, P. 2010. Researching technoscientific concerns in the making. Narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment and Planning A 42(1): 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, A.D. 2008. Nanotechnology. A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, R.L. 2012. Nano-technology and nano-toxicology. Emerging Health Threats Journal 5: 17508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newig, J. 2007. Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. Environmental Politics 16(2): 276–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, S., R. Nanda, and S. Sahoo. 2015. Nanotechnology in healthcare. Applications and challenges. Medicinal Chemistry 5(21): 528–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappert, B. 1999. Rationalising the future? Foresight in science and technology policy co-ordination. Futures 31(6): 527–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RCEP (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution). 2008. Novel materials in the environment. The case of nanotechnology. Twenty-seventh report, Cm 7468. London: RCEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives. 2008. OJ L354/16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. 2009. OJ L342/59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. 2011. OJ L304/18

    Google Scholar 

  • RS and RAEng (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering). 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Opportunities and uncertainties. London: RS.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, E. 2012. Nanotechnology and the products of inherited regulation. Journal of Law and Society 39(1): 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Nanotechnology. A Report of the US FDA nanotechnology task force. Rockville: FDA..

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Asselt, M., and O. Renn. 2011. Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research 14(4): 431–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert G. Lee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics