21 Amendments of Thomas ULMER related to 2008/2208(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that nanotechnology and the use of nanomaterials have potential benefits, including in terms of job creation; underlines, however, that products are being made today without knowing whether nanoparticles are released from them and what their potential impthere being any completely reliable data on interact ions with human beings and the environment may be;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Furthermore underlines that nanotechnology and nanomaterials raise major challenges for occupational health and safety as many workers along the production chain are exposed to these materials without knowing whether the safety procedures implemented and the protection measures taken are adequate and efficient; notes that the number and diversity of workers exposed to the effects of nanomaterials are expected to increase in the futureits application will give rise to new challenges for health and safety at work;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises that current knowledge on the toxicity of nanoparticles is limited and that comprehensive information on what risks different nanoparticles may pose on workers is not available yet; but notes that preliminary results in most published studies indicate that the toxicity of insoluble particles of similar composition increases with decreasing particle diameter and increasing particle surface area; furthermore notes that those studies reveal a risk of serious health effects of ultrafine particles, air pollution and fibresspecialist knowledge on the biocompatibility and toxicity of nanoparticles is limited;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the utmost importance of the safe and responsible use of nanomaterials in the short, medium and long term, as well as of the development of responsible nanotechnology which integrates health and safety considerations with production and application approaches; considers it therefore necessary to formulate adequate thresholds which are scientifically justifiable;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Draws attention to the fact that different categories of people might be at risk at different stages of the product lifecycle: in the production and handling, in packaging, transport and maintenance, disposal and demolition, secondary and end-users, and consumers; recalls that risk assessment has to be based on normal use and accidents, as well as the fact that the features are inhalation, dermal and other routes of exposure; stresses that the relevant legislation has to take into account the categories of people at risk as well as the risks related to these categories;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas nanomaterials are likelycontribute to be the next "big thing", especially given that manipulating all matter has been man's ultimate dream for centuriesresolution of global challenges and help the European Union in its aim to become ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ (Lisbon Strategy),
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission and Member States to provide additional incentives to foster compliance with the regulatory framework, including by strengthening labour inspectoration bodies and other enforcement and professional agencies; also calls on Member States to ensure adequate training for health and safety specialists necessary to prevent known as well as potential exposures to nanomaterials;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Draws attention to the need for prevention and risk reduction measures to be undertaken even when the dangers of substances used are still unknown; iInvites the Bilbao Agency Risk Observatory and Member States to step up their efforts in awareness raising and exchange of good practice;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that placing on the market has to take into account the free movement of products which can lead to secondary and end-use being in another country; considers therefore that requirements regarding customer information and the labelling of products have to be clarified, and invites the Member States to ensure the obligation to indicate, in the necessary languages, whether a product is nanobased so that workers are provided with transparent information and that a precautionary approach can be applied;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Furthermore points out that handling by foreign, migrant workers as another cross b, in individual cases, provisions on wordker aspect of the use of nanomaterials has to be taken into full consideration; therefore calls on Member States to ensure that employers have to guarantee translation into the necessary languages of all relevant health and safety information, including the instruction for handling, for the workers involvedprotection and safety concerning nanomaterials should be available in several languages;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas there is no clear information about the actual use of nanomaterials in consumer products, for instance: − while inventories by renowned institutions list more than 800 manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market, trade associations of the same manufacturers question these figures, on the basis that they are overestimations, without providing any concrete figures themselves, − while companies happily use "nano- claims", as the term “nano” seems to have a positive marketing effect, they are strictly opposed to objective labelling requirement varies from one information source to another and whereas REACH will provide a clear picture of such uses,
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas there is a major controversy debate about the possibility of assessing the safety of nanomaterials: while is ongoing, and the scientific committees of the Commission point to major deficiencies not only in key data, but even and the OECD have noted that the available testing methods of obtaining such data, manyare applicable in principle; whereas this view is shared by most representatives of the industry claim that all relevant data are available and that there are no methodological deficiencies, who also observe that the necessary data for assessing the safety of commercial products are available in respect of the vast majority of the nanomaterials currently manufactured,
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the Commission’s overview shows that there are no nano-specific provisions in Community legislation for the time beingare not necessary, since nanomaterials are substances and since substances are sufficiently covered by legislation on chemical substances and by sector-specific legislation,
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers it highly misleading for the Commission to state, in the absence of any nano-specific provisions in Community law, that current legislation covers in principle the relevant risks relating to nanomaterials, when due to the lack of appropriatSupports the Commission’s view that current legislation covers in principle the risks of nanomaterials; agrees that the data and methods to assess the risks arelating to nanomaterials it is effectively blind to its risk applicable in principle, and that the further adaptation of these methods must be tested by the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that as long as current legislation is devoid of any nano-specific provisions, and as long as data and even methods to assess the risks of nanomaterials are missing, betterwhile nanomaterials are adequately covered by current law and the OECD has confirmed the applicability of the testing methods, the instruments for the implementation of the current law alone cannot bring about the necessary level of protectionegislation need to be further developed;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the proposed implementation focus does not provide thenecessary steps are being taken towards the implementation of a "safe and integrated approach" to nanotechnologies as advocated by the Commission, given that numerous nanomaterials are already on the market, particularly in sensitive applications such as personal care products or cleaning products, without adequate safety;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls for potential patent rights to be limited to specific applications or production methods of nanomaterials, and not to be extended to nanomaterials themselves, to avoid stifling innovation and to avoid creating a North-South "nano-divide"granted in accordance with existing patent law in order to ensure an appropriate level of protection for patent holders and not to discourage innovations by strict supervision of the patent criteria;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12