Labeling – is there anything more contentious in the safe nanotech debate? Some are fearful that too much knowledge will confuse and worry muddle-headed consumers. Others can only see the marketing opportunities of a “nano-inside” label. Then you have the nano-doomsday merchants, who seemingly would like nothing better than to slap a bright yellow nano-hazard sticker on all things small.
And of course, we cannot forget those “magic” nano products – not the surface treatment that allegedly messed people’s lungs up (which was neither magic, nor nano) – but those items which miraculously change from “nano-enabled” to “nano-no-more” at the wave of a marketing executive’s wand.
Into this fray comes the British standards body, BSI. Published this week as part of the BSI “nano-nine” , the document “Guidance on the labelling of manufactured nanoparticles and products containing manufactured nanoparticles” does just what the title claims.
In a bold attempt to put the issue of nano-labelling on a rational footing, the stated purpose of PAS130 (to use its more succinct title) is:
- to promote a standardized approach to labelling;
- to ensure that users of MNPs [manufactured nanoparticles] and PCMNPs [products containing manufactured nanoparticles] can correctly identify the MNP contents for the purposes of making informed decisions in selection, purchase, distribution, handling, use and disposal;
- to inform regulatory authorities and assist healthcare professionals, technicians, health and safety officers and others to make informed decisions in relation to matters of occupational, consumer, public and environmental health and safety;
- to standardize the use of the term “nano” in labels;
- to provide guidance on the use of other specific terms in these labels.
What a sensible idea! Even more impressive is the list of organizations that have contributed to the document—everyone from the Soil Association (of recent “no-nano in organic produce” fame) to the Nanotechnology Industries Association to the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association – strange bedfellows indeed for such a potentially divisive topic. One might be forgiven for fearing an outbreak of reasonable thinking in old Britannia!
This is actually a very useful guide. It systematically addresses the multiple purposes of labels, and provides sound recommendations on how to go about developing and using them.
In part, the debate over labelling has been polarized because people have been talking at cross purposes. At times discussions have taken on the surreal feel of a movement to ban cats because they bark: misguided and rather badly informed!
Labels can and do serve multiple purposes. The trick is to work out what type of labelling is being discussed, and how it might help users, industry and regulators make informed and effective decisions on different nanotechnologies.
The BSI document does an admirable job of untangling the confusion, and stating clearly and concisely the purposes of labelling; what the limitations are, and how nano-specific labels might be used effectively in different circumstances. I’m sure it will not be the last word on the issue, but at least it sets the scene for making real progress.
It’s not as much fun as the ETC Group’s bright yellow nano-hazard labels, but it’s probably a tad more useful 🙂
___________________________________________
This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in February 2008