[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ Nanotech principles to protect environment/health proposed
- Subject: E-M:/ Nanotech principles to protect environment/health proposed
- From: Tracey Easthope <tracey@ecocenter.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:55:47 -0400
- Delivered-to: enviro-mich-archive@glc.org
- Delivered-to: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
- List-name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-to: Tracey Easthope <tracey@ecocenter.org>
Title: Nanotech principles to protect environment/health
prop
As more and more
nanomaterials are included in consumer products, and are released to
the environment including here in Michigan, there are increasing
demands for the testing and regulation of these materials before their
release. Yesterday, an international coalition of groups
announced proposed Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies
and Nanomaterials. See below.
For Immediate
Release
July 31, 2007
Broad International
Coalition Issues Urgent Call For Strong Oversight of
Nanotechnology
Over Forty Groups Release Fundamental Principles for Nanotech
Oversight, Citing Risks to the Public, Workers, and the
Environment
Washington, DC -- With the joint release today of Principles for the
Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials, a broad international
coalition of consumer, public health, environmental, labor, and civil
society organizations spanning six continents called for strong,
comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products.
The manufacture of products using nanotechnology--a powerful platform
for manipulating matter at the level of atoms and molecules in order
to alter properties--has exploded in recent years. Hundreds of
consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market,
including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing,
electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging.
But evidence indicates that current nanomaterials may pose significant
health, safety, and environmental hazards. In addition, the
profound social, economic, and ethical challenges posed by nano-scale
technologies have yet to be addressed.
As Chee Yoke Ling of the Third World Network explained,
"Materials engineered at the nano-scale can exhibit fundamentally
different properties-including toxicity-with unknown effects.
Current research raises red flags that demand precautionary action and
further study." She added, "As there are now hundreds
of products containing nanomaterials in commerce, the public, workers,
and the environment are being exposed to these unlabeled, and in most
cases, untested materials."
George Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment
continued, "Since there is currently no government oversight and
no labeling requirements for nano-products anywhere in the world, no
one knows when they are exposed to potential nanotech risks and no one
is monitoring for potential health or environmental harm. That's
why we believe oversight action based on our principles is
urgent."
This industrial boom is creating a growing nano-workforce which is
predicted to reach two million globally by 2015. "Even
though potential health hazards stemming from exposure have been
clearly identified, there are no mandatory workplace measures that
require exposures to be assessed, workers to be trained, or control
measures to be implemented," explained Bill Kojola of the
AFL-CIO. "This technology should not be rushed to market
until these failings are corrected and workers assured of their
safety."
"Nanomaterials are entering the environment during manufacture,
use, and disposal of hundreds of products, even though we have no way
to track the effects of this potent new form of pollution,"
agreed Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth. "By the time
monitoring catches up to commerce, the damage will already have been
done."
Ron Oswald, General Secretary of international trade union IUF,
highlighted the importance of defending against the massive intrusion
of nano-products into the global food chain, pointing out that
"hundreds of commercially available products--from pesticides to
additives to packaging materials incorporating nanotech--are already
on the market or just a step away. Workers, consumers, and the
environment must be adequately protected against the multiple risks
this development poses to the global food system and the women and men
who produce the food we all depend on."
"The makers of these materials are winning patents based on
novelty and uniqueness, but industry then turns around and says their
nano-products do not need to be regulated differently because they are
the same as bulk materials," pointed out Kathy Jo Wetter of ETC
Group, an international civil society organization based in Ottawa,
Canada. "This contradiction benefits industry, but it
cannot stand. Mandatory, nano-specific regulatory oversight
measures are required."
"Although governments worldwide spent over $6 billion on nanotech
R&D last year, research spending on risks and social effects
comprises only a 'nano' portion of that," noted Rick Worthington
of the Loka Institute an organization that promotes public
participation in all matters related to science and technology.
"We've seen the outcome of unregulated 'miracle technologies'
such as synthetic chemicals before in the toxic pollution of entire
communities. A portion of the nano research on social and
environmental issues should involve active participation by
communities, whose insights can help us avoid the catastrophic
problems experienced in the past."
The coalition's declaration outlines eight fundamental principles
necessary for adequate and effective oversight and assessment of the
emerging field of nanotechnology.
I. A Precautionary Foundation:
Product manufacturers and distributors must bear the burden of proof
to demonstrate the safety of their products: if no independent health
and safety data review, then no market approval.
II. Mandatory Nano-specific
Regulations: Nanomaterials should be classified as new substances and
subject to nano-specific oversight. Voluntary initiatives are
not sufficient.
III. Health and Safety of the
Public and Workers: The prevention of exposure to nanomaterials that
have not been proven safe must be undertaken to protect the public and
workers.
IV. Environmental Protection: A
full lifecycle analysis of environmental impacts must be completed
prior to commercialization.
V. Transparency: All nano-products
must be labeled and safety data made publicly available.
VI. Public Participation: There must be
open, meaningful, and full public participation at every level.
VII. Inclusion of Broader Impacts:
Nanotechnologys wide-ranging effects, including ethical and social
impacts, must be considered.
VIII. Manufacturer Liability:
Nano-industries must be accountable for liabilities incurred from
their products.
"We're calling upon all governmental bodies, policymakers,
industries, organizations, and all other relevant actors to endorse
and take actions to incorporate these principles," said Beth
Burrows of the Edmonds Institute, a public interest organization
dedicated to education about environment, technology, and intellectual
property rights. "As new technologies emerge we need to
ensure new materials and their applications are benign and contribute
to a healthy and socially just world. Given our past mistakes with
'wonder technologies' like pesticides, asbestos, and ozone depleting
chemicals, the rapid commercialization of nanomaterials without full
testing or oversight is shocking. It is no surprise that the
public of the 21st century is demanding more accountability."
The complete document is available at numerous endorsing organizations
websites, including www.icta.org. Organizations can endorse the
principles by emailing gkimbrell@icta.org.
Press Contacts:
George Kimbrell, ICTA (202) 547-9359, gkimbrell@icta.org; Bill Kojola,
AFL-CIO, (202)-637-5003, bkojola@aflcio.org; Peter Rossman, IUF, +41
22 793 2233, peter.rossman@iuf.org; Ian Illuminato, Friends of the
Earth U.S., (202)- 222-0735, IIlluminato@foe.org; Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC
Group, (613) 241-2267 etc@etcgroup.org; Chee Yoke Ling, Third World
Network, +6012 3768858, yokeling@myjaring.net; Rick Worthington, Loka
Institute, (909) 607-3529, RKW14747@pomona.edu
The initial endorsing organizations are:
Accion Ecologica (Ecuador)
African Centre for Biosafety
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
(U.S.)
Bakery, Confectionery,
Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union
Beyond Pesticides (U.S.)
Biological Farmers of Australia
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Center for Biological Diversity (U.S.)
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (U.S.)
Center for Food Safety (U.S.)
Center for Environmental Health (U.S.)
Center for Genetics and Society (U.S.)
Center for the Study of Responsive Law (U.S.)
Clean Production Action (Canada)
Ecological Club
Eremurus (Russia)
EcoNexus (United Kingdom)
Edmonds Institute (U.S.)
Environmental Research Foundation (U.S.)
Essential Action (U.S.)
ETC Group (Canada)
Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security (India)
Friends of the Earth Australia
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth United States
GeneEthics (Australia)
Greenpeace (U.S.)
Health and Environment Alliance (Belgium)
India Institute for Critical Action-Centre in Movement
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (U.S.)
Institute for Sustainable Development (Ethiopia)
International Center for Technology Assessment (U.S.)
International Society of Doctors for the Environment (Austria)
International Trade Union Confederation
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant,
Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations
Loka Institute (U.S.)
National Toxics Network (Australia)
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (U.S.)
Science and Environmental Health Network (U.S.)
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (U.S.)
Tebtebba Foundation - Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for
Policy Research and Education (Philippines)
The Soils Association (United Kingdom)
Third World Network (China)
United Steelworkers (U.S.)
Vivagora (France)