Ac version 3 Observation 1: sq 4

EU Model Bad

EU regulation fails – EU lobbies and poor research

Soliman 12

[Adam Soliman is an agricultural economist, law school graduate and researcher focused on legal and economic issues in the Agriculture, Resource & Food sectors. “The Need for Stronger Nanotechnology Regulation” October 16 2012 http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/why-we-should-have-more-regulations-on-nanotechnology/#.UexFMD772oc]

The EU organization Strategy for Nanotechnology asserts that nanotechnology has the potential to enhance quality of life and industrial competitiveness, and therefore lobbies aggressively for minimal legislation on nanotechnology. Current laws state that anyone producing or importing nanomaterials into Europe is required to provide written notification to public authorities; this notification requires the manufacturer to conduct research illustrating the properties and dangers of the product (7). However, this research is not monitored, making the data difficult to validate and allowing manufacturers to exaggerate, forge or omit crucial information.

AT: EU/UK

UK regulation fails

Vaughan 12 [Steven Vaughan, SET Lecturer in Obligations at the Law School, Cardiff University and a former associate with Latham & Watkins and Freshfields, “Laying down the law on nanotechnology”, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/11/law-nanotechnology-regulation]//PP

Regulatory efforts to control the use of nanotechnology at UK and EU levels have been limited. The previous government had a UK Nanotechnologies Strategy which prioritised the commercial development and application of nanotechnology. In the context of risk and regulation, their view was that existing laws would be sufficient. However, as demonstrated by the Cardiff-based BRASS Centre in great detail in 2008, while existing laws can and do regulate nanotechnology, they do so imperfectly. Put simply, there are gaps in existing regulatory frameworks which mean that nanotechnology is not wholly covered. Some of these gaps exist because of a misplaced notion that nanomaterials are equivalent to their bulk counterparts. For example, the Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and Wales) 2010 make it an offence to release hazardous chemicals into groundwater without a permit. Hazardous substances are those which are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate, and other substances which give rise to an equivalent level of concern. This leaves us in a chicken and egg situation. For a substance to be characterised as hazardous, there must be evidence that that substance poses unacceptable risks. However, we still await testing methodologies sufficient to adequately evaluate the potential risks of nanosubstances (as well as internationally accepted standards by which testing may occur). On a practical level, this likely means that most nanosubstances will not be classified as hazardous and so can be discharged into groundwater or disposed of as non-hazardous waste. Other gaps in existing regulatory regimes in the UK exist because legislation is based on thresholds or concentrations. Health and safety regulation is partly premised on occupational exposure levels; environmental permits are granted on the basis of emission levels; chemicals fall within or without rigorous testing requirements based on tonnage production thresholds. Given that nanotechnology is the technology of the very, very tiny, using thresholds in regulation means that much nanotechnology will fall below the relevant tonnage or concentration criteria and so fail to be fully regulated.

EU regulation fails

Vaughan 12 [Steven Vaughan, SET Lecturer in Obligations at the Law School, Cardiff University and a former associate with Latham & Watkins and Freshfields, “Laying down the law on nanotechnology”, The Guardian, 11 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/11/law-nanotechnology-regulation]//PP

The approach of the EU has been little better. The 2008 EU Regulation on Food Additives contains the first targeted legislative provision on nanomaterials. The effect of this provision is that food additives which are produced using "nanotechnology" or which have undergone a "change in particle size" need to undergo a safety evaluation. As a regulatory technique, there is nothing novel about pre-market approvals. However, there is no definition of "nanotechnology" in this Regulation and no guidance on what a "change in particle size" might mean — is this only a change to a particle size under 100nm, or something else entirely? We also come back (once again) to our scientific inability to assess the full suite of inherent nanochemical properties. Given these issues, it questionable whether this provision will have any practical impact whatsoever. As from 2013, the EU Cosmetics Regulation requires that any cosmetic which contains nanomaterials (and here there is a definition) must be labelled. This obligation is limited: a requirement to put "(nano)" next to the relevant ingredient on the ingredients list. There is no need to label the product with "contains nano" or any requirement to put a notice on the relevant packaging. Regulatory theory says that labels allow consumers free choice to choose between alternate products on the market. But, as my colleague Elen Stokes has observed, nano labels have been rejected in other jurisdictions (including the US) for being ineffective. Simply ask yourself this question: when was the last time you ever picked up your body wash in the shower and scrutinised the ingredients list? And, even if you did notice "(nano)" next to an ingredient, what would that mean to you: a warning as to possible side effects? A selling point as to unique properties? Something else?

2AC UK Answers

UK fails -

a) Budget cuts – its been slashed

BBC, 10 – UK news (“UK nanotech centres may be axed, says science minister”, BBC News, 23 July 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10728357)//AE

Britain's 24 nanotechnology centres could be among the casualties of cuts to the UK science budget, science minister David Willetts has said.¶ The previous government spent £50m on the network of research facilities at universities across the UK.¶ But Mr Willetts told MPs there were too many small "sub-critical" research centres and they should be centralised.¶ He said it was "most unlikely" the nanotech centres would still be open in 18 months.¶ Mr Willetts told the science and technology committee on Thursday that he was in negotiations with the Treasury about what would be axed from the science budget in October's comprehensive spending review.¶ In common with other government departments, science is facing cuts of between 25% and 40%. Following consultation with Britain's "learned societies," such as the Royal Society, Mr Willetts said he had written to the Treasury to indicate areas of research where funding could be cut.

b) Poor strategy – lack of regulations and knowledge gaps

Punter, 10 - Public Affairs Officer (John, “GOVERNMENT'S NANO NON- STRATEGY”, 19 March 2010, UK consumer engagement, http://www.which.co.uk/documents/pdf/uk-nanotechnologies-strategy---which---briefing-208381.pdf)//AE

Government’s Nanotechnology strategy fails to deliver for UK consumers¶ The Government has published its Nanotechnology strategy ‘UK Nanotechnologies Strategy – Small Technologies, Great Opportunities’1. The Strategy fails to address some central concerns including research gaps and the inadequate reporting procedure. This is essential to ensure consumers are able to enjoy the benefits of this exciting new technology without being harmed or misled.¶ Urgent Government action is needed to find out where nanomaterials are being used, close regulatory loopholes, improve understanding of the impact of nanomaterials on the body, improve strategic coordination and ensure enforcement happens at local level. The strategy fails to adequately deal with any of these.¶ A new strategic approach is needed from Government¶ A new approach is needed to address the flaws in the current strategy. Which? is calling for the following steps to be taken to ensure new developments in nanotechnology are welcomed by consumers:¶ > REPORTING: A mandatory reporting scheme to understand developments and consumers’ exposure to nanomaterials. The Government has identified that the voluntary reporting scheme does not work but has failed to propose a mandatory scheme to assess which nanomaterials are on the market or in development.¶ > RESEARCH: Further research into health and safety impacts of nano materials. The Strategy identifies important knowledge gaps, but it has not responded with the required urgency to address these.¶ > CO-ORDINATION: A single strategic stakeholder group that represents all sectors to lead the development of nanotechnology. The current proposal for three groups overseeing three areas will not provide a coherent, joined-up framework.¶ > REGULATION: Nanomaterials must be included in all regulations relevant to product safety and clear guidance provided so that obligations including meaningful risk assessment and prior approval are clear.¶ > ENFORCEMENT: Regulations must be effectively enforced with potentially unsafe products removed from the market.¶ > CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT: Effective consumer engagement around potential developments to ensure they are in line with consumer expectations.