This article examines our emerging knowledge base about the hazards of nano-sized particles (NSPs), focusing on risks posed by two types of exposure, inhalation of NSPs and topical application of products containing NSPs. It examines why the current regulatory framework is inadequate to respond to these risks and why regulators believe their hands are tied until new legislation is enacted. It then argues that this regulatory inaction leaves a significant role for the private insurance market, but that regulators should support this market in tangible ways, such as requiring federal grant recipients to carry commercial liability policies that would protect the public from potential adverse consequencesI still don't think that current research results on nanotoxicity is conclusive enough to start underwriting. A very limited underwriting agreement can be applied I guess. Swiss Re wrote a good report on the case, downloadable here.
The expectation is that the EU will adopt a cautious approach, following the example of the European Chemicals policy under REACH. In that case, the burden of proof of safety is shifted from the authorities to the manufacturer. Product liability law is less likely to be applied, because this area is not harmonised at EU level. Geert van Calster compares the EU and US legislative framework and trends.
Recent Comments