- Environment
- NanoProducts
- NanoFood
- Cosmetics
- Antimicrobials
- Ethics
- Regulations

Take part in public consultations on nanotechnology
Feel free to contact us
![]() |
Have your say!
Take part in public consultations on nanotechnology: |
Current Public Consultations / Debates
![]() |
- Public Participation: Registration of "HeiQ AGS-20" a new nanosilver active ingredient intended for use as a preservative in textile products Comment Period 8/12/2010-9/11/2010 - United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |
![]() |
- Public consultation on Scientific Basis for a Definition of the Term "Nanomaterial" 15 September 2010 - Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) |
Past Public Consultations / Debates
![]() |
- Online public comment on the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2010 Strategic Plan July 13 – August 15 - Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House |
![]() |
- U.S. input requested on Draft CEN/ISO TS Labeling of manufactured nano-objects & products containing manufactured nano-objects 9 July 2010 (webinar) - ANSI-Accredited US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO/TC 229 Nanotechnologies |
![]() |
- EU nanotechnology consultation calls for product inventory and safety information Released 28 May 2010 - Chemical Watch |
![]() |
- Public consultation on the nanotechnologies strategic plan, 2010-2015 17 December 2009 - 19 February, 2010 - European Commission, EU |
![]() |
- National debate on Nanotechnologies 15 October 2009 - 24 February 2010 - Commission Nationale du Débat public, France |
![]() |
- U.S. EPA Proposed Significant New Use Rules for Carbon Nanotubes 7 December, 2009 (comment deadline) - United States Environmental Protection Agency |
![]() |
- Food Standards Australia-New Zealand considering labelling nano-ingredients in foods--Please send comments! 20 November, 2009 (comment deadline) - Food Standards Australia New Zealand |
![]() |
- U.S. EPA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel to consider and review a set of scientific issues related to hazard and exposure to nanosilver products November 2009 (comment deadline) - United States Environmental Protection Agency |
![]() |
- Nanotechnologies: influence and inform the UK strategy 31 October 2009 - Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, UK |
![]() |
- USDA's National Organic Standards Board voting on nanotechnology's use in Organic products 19 October, 2009 (pre-meeting comment deadline), 2 November (comment deadline) - United States Department of Agriculture |
![]() |
- Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide in Water Treatment and Topical Sunscreen September 14, 2009 - EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, USA |
![]() |
- Commission starts public dialogue on nanotechnologies – tapping economic and environmental potential through safe products 2008-9 - European Commission, EU |
![]() |
- Nanotechnology Risk Assessment 19 June 2009 - DG Health and Consumers, European Commission, EU |
![]() |
- Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver Products as Pesticides March 20, 2009 - EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, USA |
![]() |
- Public consultation on the Draft Opinion of the Scientific Committee on the Potential Risks Arising from Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies on Food and Feed safety and the Environment December 1, 2008 - EFSA, European Food Safety Authority, EU |
![]() |
- Nanotechnology Task Force Report on foods, food and color additives, animal drugs and feeds, cosmetics, human drugs and biologics, and medical devices October 24, 2008- FDA, Food & Drug Administration, USA |
|
- Proposal for a European regulation on novel foods 20 June, 2008 - Council on novel foods & European Commission, EU |
![]() |
- Strategic Plan for NIOSH Nanotechnology Research March 4 to June 1, 2008 - NIOSH: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Healthn USA |
![]() |
- 2008 National Citizens’ Technology Forum on Human Enhancement March 2008 - Arizona State University, the University of California-Berkeley, the Colorado School of Mines, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of New Hampshire, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison |
|
- Environmental, Health, Regulatory and Educational Issues Regarding Nanotechnology December 2007 to March 28, 2008 - Legislative Council Standing Committee on State Development, Australia, New South Wales |
![]() |
- Interim Guidance for the Medical Screening of Workers Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles December 2007 to February 15, 2008 - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), USA |
|
- Citizens' Panel on the issue of Nanotechnologies and how these affect consumers November 29 to December 1, 2007 - Which?, UK |
![]() |
- Nanoparticles & Sunscreen Products August 23 to December 26, 2007 - Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USA |
![]() |
- Responsible NanoCode on Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials October 9 to December 7, 2007 - the Royal Society, Insight Investment, the Nanotechnology Industries Association, and the Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer Network, UK |
![]() |
- Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology October 31, 2007 - U.S. House Science Committee, USA |
|
- Consumers Talk Nano October 23-24, 2007 - Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies & Consumer Reports, USA |
|
- Towards a Code of Conduct for responsible nanoresearch July 19 to September 21, 2007 - European Commission, EU |
|
- Environmental, Health & Safety Priorities August 16 to September 17, 2007 - National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), USA |
|
- Nanomaterials Stewardship July 12 to September 10, 2007 - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USA |
|
- NanoCosmetics June to September 6, 2007 - European Commission, EU |
|
- Research needs related to the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanotechnology February 2007 - National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), USA The Citizen's Coalition on Nanotechnology composed a list of comments submitted online to the NNCO. You can read more about this here.
|
|
- NanoDialogue: Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences: a discussion on ethical, legal and social aspects February 2007 - the DG Research European Commission & the NanoDialogue Consortium, EU |
|
- Citizens' conference on nanotechnologies January 2007 - Conseil Regional Ile de France, France The citizen panel wrote a list of opinions and recommendations translated in English. |
|
- Nanodialogue 4: Engaging with corporate innovation December 2006 to January 2007 - Demos, Unilever, UK |
|
- Public Meeting on Nanotechnology Materials November 2006 - Food and Drug Administration (FDA), USA The International Center for Technology Assessment had drafted comments : http://www.icta.org/template/page.cfm?menu_id=54 |
|
- Cycle NanoViv Grenoble September-December 2006 - Vivagora, France |
|
- Publifocus "Nanotechnology" Fall 2006 - TA-SWISS (The Centre for Technology Assessment), Switzerland |
|
- Nanodialogue 3: The Role of New Technologies in Potable Water Provision July 2006 - Demos, Practical Action and the University of Lancaster, Zimbabwe |
|
- Nanodialogue 2: Engaging Research Councils Summer 2006 - Demos, UK |
|
- Consumer Conference on Perception of Nanotechnology June to December 2006 - the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Germany |
|
- Cycle Nanomonde Paris January-June 2006 - Vivagora, France |
|
- Nanodialogue 1: A people’s inquiry on nanotechnology and the environment January-February 2006 - Demos, Defra, the Environment Agency, UK |
|
- Nano Jury April to September 2005 - Greenpeace, BBSRC, Norwich, University of East Anglia, the IRC in NT at the University of Cambridge, the Guardian and the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Center at the University of Newcastle, UK |
|
- The Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology April 2005 - University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA |
|
- Citizen´s attitudes towards nanotechnology June 2004 - the Danish Board of Technology, Denmark |
|
- Nanotechnology : Views of the General Public January 2004 - the Royal Society / Academy of Engineering, UK |
I imagine someday we may be required to have "antivirus" nanomachines protecting us needing to be updated regularly from the provider of our choice. Every inch of the earth might one day be covered with such protector nanomachines to keep rogue nanomachines from running amuck and wrecking havoc. We may come home someday to find a new "nanite virus" has reprogrammed our bushes and shrubs to be blue with pink polka dots. We will adapt and move on. We'll learn to keep backups to restore "our system" to a previously stored state. There will be inconveniences, threats and deaths but we will be free and we will be participating with reality in a meaningful way. We will still be doing things that matter because each of us has nanomachines to aid us and protect us and to keep us reasonably equal to our neighbors.
From this freedom and participation, nanotechnology and humanity will advance at an extreme pace.
Laws will exist, criminals will exist, taxes will exist, wars will exist, peace will exist. Humanity shall move on much as it has and perhaps grow wiser. We will bring life and our dreams beyond this Earth.
I have a strong intuitive fear that agencies are a danger to democratic use and governance of nanotechnology. They are not open. They are not properly accountable to constitutional checks and balances. They are corruptible to the extreme in that one man, the President of the US has great power over the appointments. Judge, jury, executioner and rule maker over who can design, make and use nanotechnology will be a PROFOUND power. Our Constitution was written to divide up power. Agencies were created for convenience with little worry as they had little enough power to be concerned about at the time of their creation. This is no longer the case. As our Founders felt it necessary to divide up power into three different branches with what minimal power man had over man in that century, should not the beyond epic power of nanotechnology be divided up with checks and balances?
Given time, Nanotechnology will allow power well beyond the power of misuse of force and taxation. Nanotechnology will shape life, be all seeing, all knowing, all creating and all controlling. It will be a power beyond historical reckoning. Power over nanotechnology must be divided up into Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches. These Branches must be accountable to the People. The only reason they must answer the People is that the People have Nanotechnology and the power to enforce their will.
To withstand Nanotechnology I believe our Government needs to be reformatted to comply with the Constitution literally. There are provisions for changing the Constitution if that does not suit our current and future needs. Reinterpretations not blatantly obvious by the literal writing of the Constitution need to be phased out and the Constitution modified by Constitutional process if need be.
Re : Code of Conduct
Noble, but unenforceable.
Asking a $150 billion industry to adopt a " voluntary " code of conduct
is like asking a stampeding herd of Buffalo to please keep off the grass.
Such a powerful technology will be utilized to benefit humanity if humanity as a whole is involved.
Nanotechnology will change the way of life of all. The best way that the interests of all can be obtained as this occurs are through enlightened self interest, awareness and cooperation.
Each individual must be given the right and power to ride this wave and do his or her best for humanity as a whole to rise it's highest. For nanotechnology to truly rise individuals must have the power to matter and to take part. Top down management is for corporations and militaries and bygone socialist unions, not free thinking, free flowing democracies.
The knowledge and tools can not be restricted to a few as the technology will become too powerful for a minority to lord over the rest with trust of fairness.
Broad overarching laws must be established for the use of nanotechnology by congress, enforced by the executive branch and justice mediated by the Judicial branch. A level playing field can thus be established where all may contribute and all may matter. The alternative seems to be that the bulk of humanity will be dealt out in this game of cards as they become powerless, incapable and unnecessary.
Citizens need a part in nanotechnology lest nanotechnology eventually need no part of them.
If there isn't some sort of Open Source movement where the populace has access to the tools and technology, the populace is at the mercy of those that do. Security to protect against rogue use can be developed by people as a whole as people as a whole want the future to be good and evil not to dominate. Individual self interest can serve the whole if the self interests of the whole are served.
Nanotechnology through democratic participation and use can grow to meet the coming challenges but people need to be able to take part.