Environmental Defense Not "Green" Enough According to New Coalition
As we previously posted here, DuPont and Environmental Defense recently published the first draft of their risk assessment framework for nanotechnology. We commended the effort for its inclusive nature and focus on immediate EHS issues surrounding the use of nanotechnology.
However, a new coalition calling itself the "Civil Society-Labor Coalition" (CSLC) recently published an open letter to the nanotechnology community condemning the DuPont/Environmental Defense effort as mere "public relations." CSLC also "strongly object[ed] to any process in which broad public particpation in government oversight of nanotech policy is usurped by industry and its allies." CSLC further condemned all "voluntary regulatory" approaches to EHS issues in general as "delaying tactics."
Unfortunately, CSLC's open letter contains no substantive criticism or suggestions, making it hard to embrace. CSLC's members missed a chance to advance their position(s) on nanotechnology EHS issues in a credible way. The "labor" portion of CSLC in particular could have used the opportunity to provide constructive guidance on what they believe are the major EHS issues confronting their member workers. We encourage CSLC to join the "meaningful and open discussion" regarding these issues that it advocates in its open letter.
CSLC claims the following members: AFL-CIO; Beyond Pesticides; Brazilian Research Network in Nanotechnology; Society and Environment; Center for Environmental Health; Center for Food Safety; Corporate Watch; Edmonds Institute; ETC Group; Friends of the Earth Australia; Friends of the Earth Europe; Friends of the Earth United States; Greenpeace; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; International Center for Technology Assessment; International Union of Food, Argricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sciencecorps; Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition; Third World Network; and the United Steelworkers of America.
I am surprised at the action of the coalition regarding the ED Dupont framework. While the concerns expressed about a voluntary program deserve consideration, the framework demands a comprehensive scientific evaluation of nanomaterials, moreso than any current regulatory programs require. From a technical perspective, the framework considers impacts across the lifecycle - to workers, the public, and the environment, and requires extensive analysis to get there. While I have doubts about the applicability of the framework beyond Dupont, I am disappointed the signators of the open letter are not supportive of an effort to obtain and use good science for environmental decision making for nanomaterials.
As a member of one of the groups which signed the open letter discussed in this article, I am deeply disappointed at the failure of the author to engage with our key criticism - that any scheme for voluntary management of nanotechnology's risks will be used to delay mandatory regulation and comprehensive risk assessment. Our open letter makes the point that voluntary schemes have historically left the worst offenders unchecked, and have been used to delay or weaken efforts to implement mandatory regulation. This has been seen in countless cases, eg with respect to chemicals regulation, and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For the author to say that our "open letter contains no substantive criticism or suggestions" ignores our key criticism of the Environmental Defense-Du Pont scheme – it is based on voluntary risk management, informed by voluntarily conducted internal safety assessments and reported via voluntary disclosure provisions.
Jo Anne Shatkin comments that she is "disappointed the signators (sic) of the open letter are not supportive of an effort to obtain and use good science for environmental decision making for nanomaterials". However this is disingenuous to say the least. The open letter's signatories have consistently called for rigorous scientific assessment to inform precautionary management of nanotechnology's risks. Where we differ with Environmental Defense and DuPont is that we think that use of "good science" to inform management of nanotechnology's risks should not be optional. Voluntary schemes have too often provided cover for poor science and poor risk management - let's not allow this to be repeated with nanotechnology.
For a discussion of the weaknesses of voluntary schemes see http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/voluntary_approach.pdf
Georgia Miller
Friends of the Earth Australia
I truly appreciate all comments and the discussions that ensue.
Ms. Miller's comment suggests voluntary risk management techniques delay both mandatory regulation and comprehensive risk assessment. My personal belief is that the former cannot be competently considered until the latter is complete. ED/DuPont’s Framework sets out a detailed plan to accomplish the latter at a commendable pace. I also believe comprehensive risk assessment is a necessary first step because it is very difficult and often counterproductive to regulate unknown and possibly non-existing risks. Additionally, the US government takes the position that (i) existing regulatory schemes with perhaps some necessary modification are sufficient to regulate any potential EHS risks associated with nanotechnology, and (ii) manufacturers – not the federal government – are primarily responsible for determining whether their products pose any potential nano-related EHS risks. Given these two immutable positions, I believe Environmental Defense and DuPont have embarked upon a very prudent course of action on the playing field with which the must work. I see nothing in the Framework to suggest they are attempting to delay regulation or risk assessment in any way.