Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw pp 237-252

Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 4) | Cite as

Material Uncertainty: Nanomaterials, Regulation and Symbolic Legislation

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines debates concerning the EU’s regulation of nanotechnology. Claims about the potential uses and consequences of nanotechnology are scientifically and politically contested, and have understandably failed to produce consensus over an appropriate regulatory response. Yet legislatures and policymakers have been called upon to review and, as necessary, enact legislation. Here, we find that legislation works symbolically in two senses. In the ‘negative’ sense, legislation is deployed to signal that nanotechnology and the risks to which it gives rise are capable of and subject to control, in spite of prevailing uncertainty. At the same time, the legislation strives to achieve ‘positive’ symbolism in the sense that the legislative process opens up space in which technological futures can be the subject of debate. The chapter concludes by noting that notwithstanding the dangers of the negatively symbolic approach, and while the legislation does not achieve ‘positive’ symbolism in the fullest way possible, nonetheless the venue for debate provided by the introduction of legislation is to be welcomed.

Keywords

Nanotechnology Nanomaterials Legislation, Regulation Participation 

References

  1. Ayres, I., and J. Braithwaite. 1992. Responsive regulation. Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Black, J. 2001. Decentring regulation. Understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a ‘post-Regulatory’ world. Current Legal Problems 54(1): 103–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blühdorn, I. 2007. Sustaining the unsustainable. Symbolic politics and the politics of simulation. Environmental Politics 16(2): 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd White, J. 1989. Heracles’ Bow. Essays on the rhetoric and poetics of the law. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  5. BSI (British Standards Institution). 2011. Vocabulary – Nanoparticles, Publicly Available Specification 71. London: BSI.Google Scholar
  6. Cecchini, P. 1988. The European challenge, 1992. The benefits of a single market. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  7. Conway, P., V. Janod, and G. Nicoletti. 2005. Product market regulation in OECD countries: 1998 to 2003. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety, as amended [2002] OJ L11/4.Google Scholar
  9. Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment [2011] OJ L174/88.Google Scholar
  10. Doubleday R. 2007. Risk, public engagement and reflexivity. Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk and Society 9(2): 211–227.Google Scholar
  11. Dwyer, J.P. 1990. The pathology of symbolic legislation. Ecology Law Quarterly 17(2): 233–316.Google Scholar
  12. Edelman, M. 1967. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  13. Egan, M. 2001. Constructing a European market. Standards, regulation and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Commission. 2004. Nanotechnology. Innovation for tomorrow’s world. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. 2005. Communication on nanosciences and nanotechnologies. An action plan for Europe 2005–2009. COM 243 final.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. 2008. Communication on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. COM 366 final.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. 2010. Communication on Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union. COM 546 final.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. 2012. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medical devices, and amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. COM 542 final.Google Scholar
  19. European Parliament. 2003. Resolution on the commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on ‘consumer policy strategy 2002–2006’. P5_TA(2003) 0100.Google Scholar
  20. European Parliament. 2006. Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Bastiaan Belder on behalf of the Freedom and Democracy Group. European Parliament debate No 4 of 28 September 2006.Google Scholar
  21. European Parliament. 2008. Report on the proposal for the regulation of novel foods. A6-0512/2008.Google Scholar
  22. European Parliament. 2009a. Motion for a European Parliament resolution on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. A6-0255/2009.Google Scholar
  23. European Parliament. 2009b. MEP Åsa Westlund on behalf of the Party of European socialists. European parliament debate No 16 of 24 March 2009.Google Scholar
  24. European Parliament. 2009c. MEP Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (Rapporteur). European Parliament debate No 15 of 23 March 2009.Google Scholar
  25. European Parliament. 2009d. Resolution of 24 April 2009 on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials, P6 TA(2009)0328.Google Scholar
  26. Feldman, S.P. 1990. Stories as cultural creativity. On the relation between symbolism and politics in organizational change. Human Relations 43(9): 809–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feenberg, A. 2002. Transforming technology. A critical theory revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Government Office for Science. 2011. Foresight. Migration and global environmental change. London: Government Office for Science.Google Scholar
  29. Groves, C. 2013. Four scenarios for nanotechnologies in the UK, 2011–2020. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 25(5): 507–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guere, G.P. 2011. Labeling nano-enabled consumer products. Nano Today 6: 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gusfield, J.R. 1968. On legislating morals. The symbolic process of designating deviance. California Law Review 56(1): 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gusfield, J.R. 1996. Contested meanings. The construction of alcohol problems. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jasanoff, S. 1995. Procedural choices in regulatory science. Technology in Society 17(3): 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kendall, M., and S. Holgate. 2012. Health impact and toxicological effects of nanomaterials in the lung. Respirology 17(5): 743–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, R.G. 2012. Look at mother nature on the run in the 21st century. Responsibility, research and innovation. Transnational Environmental Law 1(1): 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, R.G., and S. Vaughan. 2010. REACHing down. Nanomaterials and chemical safety in the European Union. Law Innovation and Technology 2(2): 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macnaghten, P. 2010. Researching technoscientific concerns in the making. Narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment and Planning A 42(1): 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maynard, A.D. 2008. Nanotechnology. A research strategy for addressing risk. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.Google Scholar
  40. Maynard, R.L. 2012. Nano-technology and nano-toxicology. Emerging Health Threats Journal 5: 17508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Newig, J. 2007. Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. Environmental Politics 16(2): 276–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newig, J. 2008. Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. In The politics of unsustainability. Eco-politics in the post-ecologist era, ed. I. Blühdorn and I. Welsh. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Patel, S., R. Nanda, and S. Sahoo. 2015. Nanotechnology in healthcare. Applications and challenges. Medicinal Chemistry 5(21): 528–533.Google Scholar
  44. Rappert, B. 1999. Rationalising the future? Foresight in science and technology policy co-ordination. Futures 31(6): 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. RCEP (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution). 2008. Novel materials in the environment. The case of nanotechnology. Twenty-seventh report, Cm 7468. London: RCEP.Google Scholar
  46. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European food safety authority and laying down the procedures in matters of food. 2002. OJ L31/1.Google Scholar
  47. Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives. 2008. OJ L354/16.Google Scholar
  48. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. 2009. OJ L342/59.Google Scholar
  49. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. 2011. OJ L304/18Google Scholar
  50. RS and RAEng (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering). 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Opportunities and uncertainties. London: RS.Google Scholar
  51. Stokes, E. 2011. You are what you eat. Market citizens and the right to know about nano foods. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 2(2): 178–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stokes, E. 2012. Nanotechnology and the products of inherited regulation. Journal of Law and Society 39(1): 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. US Food and Drug Administration. 2007. Nanotechnology. A Report of the US FDA nanotechnology task force. Rockville: FDA..Google Scholar
  54. Van Asselt, M., and O. Renn. 2011. Risk governance. Journal of Risk Research 14(4): 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Klink, B. 2005. An effective-historical view on the symbolic working of law. In Social and symbolic effects of legislation under the rule of law, ed. N. Zeegers et al. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
  56. Webler, T., H. Kastenholz, and O. Renn. 1995. Public participation in impact assessment. A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15(5): 443–463.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolBirmingham Law School, University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Law SchoolCardiff Law School, Cardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations