Update On Berkeley Nanotech Regulations

Posted on December 20, 2008
Filed Under Legal and Law | Leave a Comment

On a December 2006 article, I suggested this interpretation for the new Berkeley Nanotechnology Regulation:

1. The duty is to report, no more, no less

  1. There are no exact standard as to the form of the report
  2. General minimum disclosure standards may apply. Producers shall disclose anything within the boundaries of their present knowledge. Non disclosure may arise civil liability
  3. It only applies to “manufactured” nanoparticles produced in the Jurisdiction of the city of Berkeley. That means, natural nanoparticle or nanoparticle resulting from side-reaction could be exempted from this regulation. This could also mean that nanoparticles being imported to Berkeley is outside the scope of this regulation
  4. The city cannot ban production and sale of nanoparticles by simply basing itself on the regulation. These are EPA’s authority
  5. The regulation does not regulate nanotechnology as a whole! It only regulates nanoparticle. Obviously, nanostructures are exempted from this regulation
  6. There could be problems with regards to the definition of “nanoparticle”

After exploring the issue further and conducted some discussion, I feel that some of the interpretation above is inadequate and/or incorrect. With regards to point #2, I have obtained information that the standard reporting forms are currently being reviewed by industry and other stakeholders. So there might be a standard form of reporting. With regards to point #3, the report might need to be reviewed by an independent third party, a professional toxicologist or CIH, and this constitutes a part of the reporting form. My interpretation is inaccurate with regards to point #4. Importation of nanoparticle to Berkeley will be subjected to the reporting obligation. With regards to point #6, nanostructures may be subjected to reporting obligation if one of their axis is 100 NM or smaller (fit the definition of “nanoparticle”).

I fully agree with Mr. Hadithy that these precautionary approaches are required to protect the society from unknown harm. There is really nothing unusual with respect to the regulation, it is no different than normal chemical legislation which also require disclosure. The only difference is that this one is applied to nanoparticles. As have been discussed in my other posts, there is inconclusive research result on the harmful effect of nanoparticles to human.

According to some media reports, Berkeley’s approach might be followed by other cities. Cambridge is reported to have discussed the issue. Cambridge is also planning to follow Berkeley in regulating Nanotechnology.

Related Posts

Comments

Leave a Reply