Editorial

• Date: 01 July 2013
• Author: Makane Moïse Mbengue,Harro Asselt
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12034
• Published date: 01 July 2013

Editorial

Nanotechnology, and in particular the idea of manipu-

lating infinitely small matter that can traverse across

space without being spotted by the human eye, has trig-

gered the imagination of many science fiction writers.1

Yet nanotechnology is not a phenomenon of the

future. Scientific progress over the past few decades

now means that the potential applications for

nanotechnologies are wide-ranging, covering sectors

such as manufacturing, energy and medicine, and prod-

ucts such as food, clothing, packaging and electronic

appliances. For each of these areas and products,

nanotechnologies could bring about a host of benefits.

For example, electronic products could be made stron-

ger, lighter or more durable, or in the area of medicine,

nanotechnologies could help improve both the diagno-

sis and treatment of diseases. But as the science fiction

novelists have already pointed out, nanotechnologies

also entail several risks. While the invention of self-

conscious, destructive nanobots is perhaps still con-

fined to the realm of science fiction (or at least one

would hope), some of these risks are very real. Particu-

larly in the last decade, an increasing awareness of the

risks posed by nanotechnologies to the environment

and human health has led to calls for strengthened

nano-regulation. Against this background, this special

issue of RECIEL seeks to examine the state of play in

the area of nanotechnology regulation. The contribu-

tions examine recent developments in several jurisdic-

tions, including the European Union (EU) and the

United States, but also provide insights into the various

international organizations and forums where pro-

cesses have been launched with a view to regulating

nanotechnologies.

The special issue kicks off with an article by Sekai

Ngarize, Karen Makuch and Ricardo Pereira. Their con-

tribution provides an in-depth analysis of nanotechnol-

ogy regulation in several jurisdictions. Given the

uncertainties still surrounding the risks posed by

nanotechnologies, they suggest that adopting a precau-

tionary approach in nanotechnology regulation is

appropriate. They also highlight the need for global

approaches to nanotechnology regulation, first,

because of the potential transboundary impacts on

health and the environment, and second, to address the

possible (trade-related) consequences of diverging

national regulatory approaches. The authors then show

how these national approaches vary, using illustrations

of nanotechnology regulation in the EU, the United

States and Australia. The authors usefully provide an

overview of the menu of regulatory options available to

policy makers, ranging from maintaining the status

quo – which, in most cases, means applying existing

regulation to nanotechnologies and nanomaterials –

to adopting nanospecific regulation. They conclude

that nano-regulation should include at least some

product-based standards, particularly in relation to

monitoring and notification requirements, and that any

such regulation should be based on risk assessment and

precaution.

While acknowledging the importance of precaution and

valuing the efforts made thus far, Sebastian Mielke

offers a more critical perspective on the usefulness of

the precautionary approach in the European regulation

of nanotechnologies. Drawing on case studies on exist-

ing EU regulations in the area of chemicals, foods and

cosmetics and regulation under development in the

area of biocides and medical devices, Mielke shows how

European regulators have so far struggled with adopt-

ing the ‘right’ approach based on the precautionary

principle. Mielke cautions against rash policy making,

arguing that rapidly developing regulations now could

provide the public with a false sense of safety, and

open up nano-regulation to political whims and fads.

Instead, Mielke suggests, efforts should be put into

reducing uncertainties, harmonizing nomenclature and

improving the knowledge base upon which future laws

and regulations can be based.

Estelle Brosset also offers several critical reflections on

the development of nanotechnology regulation in the

EU. She points out that even though nanotechnology

regulation has received much attention in recent years

and EU institutions have shown an awareness of the

risks of nanotechnologies, as well as a willingness to

tackle those risks from an early stage onwards, these

good intentions have not yet led to effective regulation.

Brosset criticizes the (non-)effectiveness of the REACH

(Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restric-

tion of Chemicals) framework as well as several other

regulations. She further suggests that the significant

effort the European Commission put into defining what

is meant with a ‘nanomaterial’ has so far not yielded

many results; recent EU legislation enacted after the

Commission adopted its decision has immediately

departed from this definition.

The final two articles focus on nanotechnology regula-

tion at the global level (or perhaps more accurately: the

lack thereof). Georg Karlaganis and Rachel Liechti first

provide an overview of nanotechnology-related devel-

opments in the context of the United Nation’s Strategic

Approach to International Chemicals Management

1See, e.g., M. Crichton, Prey (Harper Collins, 2003).

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 22 (2) 2013. ISSN 0962-8797

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

129