No regulatory void on nanotech, says Commission

However, the European consumer organisation (BEUC) argued that the EU's current approach was "not sufficient" due to a lack of clarity over how general safety requirements are to be applied to nanomaterials. The organisation is also worried that regulatory measures might fail in member states due to the huge volume of work. 

Cornelis Brekelmans, an official in charge of regulatory aspects of nanotechnology at the European Commission retorted that the absence of specific regulation on nanomaterial was "not really important," describing EU rules on product approvals as "technology neutral". If a specific regulation needed to be modified every time there was a new technology, it would mean we had failed, the official pointed out. 

According to Brekelmans, EU regulations are "technology neutral and can cope with new developments". But this does not exclude the possibility of "specific rules on some things" and "we have to keep up-to-date with scientific information," he said, adding that if authorities find new evidence on something, "they might have to go back to what was already agreed upon". 

As for the labelling of nanotech-based products, Brekelmans said current rules stated that if there was a risk, it should be indicated. "Whether we want to introduce a labelling on nano as such is a different issue," he said. 

Brekelmans's view was challenged by Greens/EFA Group political advisor Axel Singhofen. Arguing that "the reality is not quite how you present it," Singhofen asked whether the Commission was ready to accept a shift to pre-market authorisation for nanomaterials. This would mean that their safety would have to be proven before they could enter the market. 

However, Brekelmans said he did not believe that prior authorisation was "the best way forward". 

Laura Degallaix from BEUC gave a societal perspective on the issue, arguing that "applications coming to the market are often developed without much transparency despite limited understanding of the potential effects". 

She outlined a number of points that BEUC hoped the Commission would take into acoount on nanotech regulation:

• Use every opportunity to update existing legislation (cf. reviews of cosmetics directive and novel foods).
• Introduce definitions for nanoparticles, refraining from limiting the size to 100 nm, for example.
• Allow changes to definitions at later stage.
• Seek international agreements for nanotech regulation.
• Apply the precautionary principle approach.
• Urge industry to produce data.
• Introduce strict and effective pre-market assessment and authorisation processes.
• Consider nanoparticles as a "new" substances under EU rules.
• Ensure adequacy and harmonisation of safety evaluation methodologies.
• Introduce post-market monitoring systems to assess efforts in the long term.
• Ensure transparent information and public engagement.

As for engaging the larger public, Degallaix said "communication on vague conceptions of nanotechnology will not be successful. Instead, adequate, understandable information on specific applications is needed".