22 Amendments of Amalia SARTORI related to 2008/2208(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission Communication "Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009. First Implementation Report 2005-2007" ("the action plan")1,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)
Citation 5 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission Recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research1,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 b (new)
Citation 5 b (new)
– having regard to the opinion from the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine2,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas nanomaterials are making a huge contribution to advances across a wide range of sectors; whereas these advances will ultimately be to the benefit of citizens and can make an important contribution to the competitiveness of the European Union’s economy; whereas these advances will also allow for improved policy decisions in the fields of public health, employment, occupational safety and health, information society, energy, transport, security and space,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C . whereas nanomaterials are likely to be the next "big thing", especially given that manipulating all matter has been man's ultimate dream for centuriesoffer the potential to support the Lisbon strategy to turn the EU into “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable growth with more and better jobs, and greater social cohesion and respect for the environment” by 2010,
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the current discussion about nanomaterials is characterised by many contradictions or even paradoxes, with disagreement and thus political struggles, starting at as basic a level as the definitions, for instance: - while nanomaterials are generally considered to be materials ofa lack of information and knowledge; whereas a fully developed set of harmonised definitions is not currently available although a number of international standards are either available or in progress, defining “nanoscale” as a “size in the order of 100 nm or less, this isrange from approximately 1 nm to 100 nm”, and often mdisrepresented as a ratinguishinge between 1 and 100 nm, even though the term “order” relates to a dimension rather than to a precise size, - while many people believe that different properties due to size effects should be an independent criterion for the definition of nanomaterials, others suggest using this in a cumulative manner, thus limiting the scope of the definition, - while some people suggest that the definition should be further narrowed to insoluble and persistent nanomaterials, thus already applying potential risk considerations at the level of definitions, others argue against such an a priori limitation: - Nano-objects, defined as “materials with one, two or three external dimensions at the nanoscale”, i.e. as materials constituted by isolated objects with very small dimensions; - Nano-structured materials, defined as materials “having an internal or surface structure at the nanoscale”, e.g. exhibiting cavities of small dimensions. Whereas the European Commission shall promote a harmonized definition for nanomaterial at the level of the United Nations and other competent bodies and shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a revision of all European legislative framework related with this subject,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas in the context of REACH, it has so far not even been possible to agree on guidance on the identificationfurther guidance and advice ofn nanomaterials, leaving important decisions in the context of registration to economic operatorsin particular on substance identification, is needed,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas presentations about the potential benefits of nanotechnologies predict an almost infinite diversity of future applications of nanomaterials; however, the same diversity shrinks to near zero when it comes to a regulatory discussion about nanomaterial that need to be regulated if they are not already covered by present regulations,
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas there is a major controversy about the possibility of assessing the safety of nanomaterials:; whileereas the scientific committees of the Commissand Agencies of the European Union point to major deficiencies not only in key data, but even in methods of obtaining such data, many representatives of industry claim that all relevant data are available and that there are no; whereas the European Union thus needs to continue to invest in R&D in the field of nanomaterials and to develop, in collaboration with its agencies and international partners, methods of evaluation and an appropriate and harmonised methodrological deficienciesy and nomenclature,
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the value of the Commission Communication on "Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials" is seriously undermined by the complete absence of anywould be greater with more information about the specific properties of nanomaterials, their actual uses, and potential risks and benefits,
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Commission presented only a legalistican overview of the relevant Community legislation without considering current or likely future use of nanomaterials and without detailing the specific nature of nanomaterials and the resulting challengesfocusing on nanomaterials currently in production and/or placed on the market,
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas the likely convergence of nanotechnology with biotechnology and information technology raises serious ethical questions, that need to be analysed by a new opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies,
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)
Recital N a (new)
Na. whereas the European Code of Conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research is an essential instrument for safe, integrated and responsible research in nanomaterials; whereas the Code must be adopted and respected by all producers intending to manufacture or place goods on the market,
Amendment 58 #
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, whilst coversing in principle the relevant risks relating to nanomaterials, when due to the lack ofneeds to be completed by appropriate data, test methods and methods to assess the risks relating to nanomaterials it is effectively blind to its risksso as to ensure the necessary level of protection;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the proposed implementation focus does not provide the "safconcept of the "safe, responsible and integrated approach" to nanotechnologies advocated by the Commission, given that numerousEuropean Union, is jeopardized by the lack of information on nanomaterials that are already on the market, particularly in sensitive applications such as personal care products or cleaning products, without adequate safety assessment, and without adequate consumer information about these use. Asks the Commission to report before June 2011 on the presence and safety of nanomaterials on the European market and the extent of the need to create a Special European Fund, within the 7th Framework Programme, to finance research on the safe development and use of nanomaterials;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to propose reviews of all relevant legislation by the end of 200912 to fully implement the principle "no data, no market" for all applications of nanomaterials in consumer products or in products leading to discharges toensure that legislative provisions and implementation tools reflect the particular features of nanomaterials to which workers, consumers and/or the environment may be exposed;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Reiterates its call for labelling of consumer products containing nanomaterialsthe provision of information to consumers. All ingredients present in the form of nanomaterials shall be indicated in the list of ingredients by preceding the name of the ingredient with the word 'nano';
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for the urgent development of adequate testing protocols and metrology standards to assess the hazard of, and exposure to, nanomaterials over their entire life cycle, using a multi- disciplinary approach; and calls for the establishment of a Special European Fund, within the 7th Framework Program, to finance research on this field;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that ethical guidelines need to be developed in due time to ensure full respect for ethical values in possible future use of nanotechnology converging with biomedical applications and asks the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to draw up an opinion on this issue, building on its Opinion No 21 of 17 January 2007 on "Ethical aspects of nanomedicine" and drawing on the ethical opinion issued by EU national ethics bodies as well as the work undertaken by international organisations such as UNESCO;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12