European Union
International Standa...
NGOs
United Nations
Afghanistan
Aland Islands
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Anguilla
Antarctica
Antigua & Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Botswana
Bouvet Island
Brazil
British Indian Ocean...
British Virgin Islands
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde Islands
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Christmas Island
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Colombia
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo, Democratic Re...
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
Fiji
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
French Southern Terr...
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guernsey
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Hawai
Heard and McDonald I...
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macao
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mayotte
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Montserrat
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Norfolk Island
North Korea
Northern Marianas Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Authority
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Pitcairn Island
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Reunion
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome & Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Georgia
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
St-Barthelemy
St-Martin
St. Helena
St. Kitts & Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Pierre et Miquelon
St. Vincent & the Gr...
Sudan
Suriname
Svalbard & Jan Mayen...
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan (Republic of ...
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tokelau
Tonga
Trinidad & Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks & Caicos Islands
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States (Minor...
United States of America
Uruguay
US Virgin Islands
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City State (...
Venezuela
Vietnam
Wallis & Futuna Islands
Western Sahara
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
|
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC)
| Report Title: |
A Report for IRGC: Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics |
| Report ID: |
162 |
| Date: |
9/1/2008 |
| Author: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Report Type: |
General Report |
| URL: |
[IRGC_Report_FINAL_For_Web.pdf] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Summary: |
In 2005, the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) initiated a project on risk governance in nanotechnology. This report on risk governance of nanotechnology in food and cosmetics is part of a series of reports and white papers stemming from this project. The IRGC investigated applications of nanotechnology in food and cosmetics, reviewed current risk assessments of these applications, identified gaps in global risk governance, and explored a voluntary certification program for nanoparticle-containing materials. A workshop was held in April 2008, and the subsequent workshop briefing paper was developed into this report. Current nanoparticle hazards are uncertain and despite the recommendations of occupational protection measures, there is a lack of trust between stakeholders. The report discusses two approaches to risk assessment: nanoparticle safety and whole product safety. Regulators in the US and Europe have chosen a whole product approach; however, main NGOs criticize this approach as missing the point. This report encourages a proactive initiative by industry to implement voluntary agreements so as to best gain consumer trust in nanoparticle food and cosmetic products. |
| Archived Copy: |
Michael Vincent IRGC (2008), Food and Cosmetics_162_4517.pdf |
 |
|
| Report Title: |
White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach |
| Report ID: |
161 |
| Date: |
7/1/2005 |
| Author: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Report Type: |
White Paper |
| URL: |
[IRGC_WP_No_1_Risk_Governance__reprinted_versi.....] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Summary: |
In 2004, the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) undertook a project, Basic Concepts of Risk Characterisation and Risk Governance. This white paper is the first deliverable of this project, and presents a integrated analytic framework for risk governance. This framework is not specific to nanotechnology, and integrates scientific, economic, social, and cultural aspects. It distinguishes between simple, complex, uncertain, and ambiguous risk problems, and provides differing strategies for each type of risk based upon its categorization. Risk assessment is a three-step process: pre-assessment, appraisal, and management. This framework also addresses risk communication and wider governance issues such as different regulatory styles across countries. |
| Archived Copy: |
Michael Vincent IRGC (2006), White Paper on Risk Governance - Towards_161_8965.pdf |
|
|
| Report Title: |
White Paper on Nanotechnology Risk Governance |
| Report ID: |
160 |
| Date: |
6/1/2006 |
| Author: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Report Type: |
White Paper |
| URL: |
[IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2.pdf] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Summary: |
In 2005, the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) undertook a comprehensive project, Addressing the need for adequate risk governance approaches at the national and international levels in the development of nanotechnology and nanoscale products. Following two workshops, the IRGC authored this white paper, which contains recommendations for risk governance in nanotechnology. It suggests a regulatory framework which anticipates four generations of nanotechnology products (steady function nanostructures, active function nanostructures, systems of nanosystems, and heterogeneous molecular nanosystems). The proposed framework integrates a scientific risk-benefit assessment, addressing environmental, health, legal, ethical, and social issues. It attempts to resolve the educational gap, political and security issues, and human development issues of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology development is divided into two frames of reference, with first generation nanoparticles being in Frame 1 and second through fourth generation nanoparticles (some which do not yet exist), being in Frame 2. The IRGC believes that these frames possess different risk perceptions and will require separate identification of risks and concerns |
| Archived Copy: |
Michael Vincent IRGC (2006), White Paper on Nanotechnology Risk Governance_160_2579.pdf |
|
|
|