Readout of OECD Nanotechnology Roundtable in Vienna

UNCLAS VIENNA 001279

SIPDIS

OES/SAT FOR HODGKINS
PASS USTR
PASS OMB FOR BECK
USDA FOR FAS/OSTA/FROGGETT
USEU FOR GARRAMONE
PARIS FOR OECD / LEWIS
HHS FOR FDA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TSPL TPHY TBIO ETRD EAGR AT EU
SUBJECT: Readout of OECD Nanotechnology Roundtable in Vienna


1. SUMMARY: A key theme at the OECD Roundtable on "Risk Governance
Policy for Nanotechnology" in Vienna September 25 was that public
perception of risk -- even in the absence of good data -- is
becoming a driving force in nanotechnology regulation in some OECD
states. Delegates advised breaking out of the catch-all term
"nanotechnology' since the various forms of nanotechnology present
very different industrial, regulatory, and public outreach
requirements. END SUMMARY.

Moving the Public Debate Upstream
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


2. The OECD Roundtable on the "Risk overnance of Nanotechnology"
September 25 was hoted by the Austrian Government and attended by
4 regulators, risk assessment experts from governmet and academia,
and a smattering of industry reprsentatives rom 15 countries. The
roundtable foused on three issues:
-- From Risk Assessment T Risk Management
-- Stakeholder Participation-- Voluntary Measure For Risk Management

NOTE: he U.S. delegation included Vivian Ota Wang (National
Nanotechnology Initiative),Carlos Pena (HHS/FDA),and Robert Ford
(State/OES).


3. Swiss and British representatives described how those two
governments had used consultation groups to assess public sentiments
on nanotechnology. Sergio Bellocci from the Swiss Center for
Technology Assessment reported how an eight-day public debate
exercise with 30 randomly selected citizens resulted in a 2006
report that later became part of a parliamentary debate on the
future of nanotechnology. Bellocci posited that early
identification of public hopes and fears is fundamental to the
successful governance of a new technology. Swiss representatives
strongly endorsed food and food packaging regulations, to include
full disclosure of nano-ingredients and nano-materials; Bellocci
opined that the Swiss food industry has resisted involvement in the
nano-governance dialogue.


4. By contrast, Joyce Tait from Edinburgh University argued that
"upstream" public engagement could lead to premature policy
decisions. As an example, she described how a series of public
workshops in the UK on the benefits and risks of nanotechnologies
led to cuts in research funding for the field of "Theranostics"
(wherein nano-devices are inserted into patients to read their
chemical levels and provide automatic adjustments). She emphasized
that nanotechnology governance at the basic research level should be
flexible and voluntary, and should avoid constraining future
innovation. French delegate Francoise Roure (CGTI)said public
perception is also affecting the R&D choices being made by private
sector companies.

Defining Nanotechnology for Regulation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


5. The problem of defining "nanotechnology" was a recurring issue at
the OECD Roundtable, and at Austrian Academy of Science's September
24 conference on the "Possible Health Effects of Manufactured
Nanomaterials." Several participants criticized as impractical the
International Risk Governance Council's grouping of nanotechnologies
into "Frame 1" (simpler nanostructures with more known risks) and
"Frame 2" (complex, dynamic nanostructures of unknown, but possibly
greater risk). EC experts Hermann Stamm (JRC) and Mat-Olof Mattsson
(DG SANCO) posited an alternative grouping of nanoparticles by their
size, specific surface areas, and chemical reactivity
characteristics as more sensible from a risk/regulatory perspective
-- but said that more data is available, regulators should take a
case-by-case approach.

Getting Industry into the Game
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


6. Discussions at both events reflected experts' frustration with
both the lack of risk data and the level of participation so far
from industry in the governance process. George Katalagarianakis
(DG Research) speculated that in the area of nano-medicine, this
reluctance stemmed from either an industry belief that company data
would be misused in regulation or an effort to protect intellectual
property rights from competitors. Data access problems
notwithstanding, delegates portrayed the biomedical and textile
industries as more willing to participate in governance than the
food industry.

7. Terry Medley (DuPont/USA) presented DuPont's voluntary risk
framework, arguing that government regulation lacks sufficient
information at this point and is too slow, lagging years behind
technological innovation in industry. For Medley, regulatory lags
argue for a voluntary approach to nanotechnology whereby companies
self-evaluate nano-risks in a formal process and on an ongoing
basis.


8. NOTE: the OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology (of which the
Policy Roundtable is a subgroup) was established in 2007 and meets
twice yearly to discuss emerging policy issues in science,
technology and innovation related to the responsible development and
use of nanotechnology. Post understands that the next meeting will
be held November 30-December 2 in Paris; presentations are typically
available at www.oecd.org/sti/nano.


9. COMMENT: European regulators at the workshop expect some negative
public reactions to nano-foods/cosmetics and possibly nano-packaging
-- but said any notion of informing or reassuring consumers via
labeling may be stymied by industry reticence. As one Austrian
official complained, without industry cooperation (for instance, to
self-identify nanotechnology materials and ingredients),labeling is
difficult to imagine at this point. END COMMENT.


10. This cable was coordinated with FAS Berlin.

EACHO