The project is also currently writing 56 reports regarding the various scientific and technological developments covering a wide range of sectors.

At the time of this blog posting the scientific, economic, societal sections already contain some interesting information; however, the regulatory, business and HSE & risk sections are currently under construction. Interim annual reports from each section are expected in April 2009.

As insurers, the HSE & risk section is of particular interest and the following quote—taken from the project’s first newsletter (which can be subscribed to by registering on their website)—describes their work:

“Nanotechnology-based products, as with those from other technologies, have the potential to cause harm to both human health and the environment. A number of activities have been initiated over the last few years to investigate such impacts; however their coverage is still incomplete in terms of materials, exposure routes and doses. This work package will highlight such new research and make extensive links to existing databases, organisations, networks and initiatives. In addition, it will review the ST analysis performed within the project to determine what (if any) EHS impacts they may have that are not already being investigated by other projects/organisations.”

This will be headed up by the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) and includes the CEA, RIVM and Empa. The IOM is based in the UK and also runs the SAFENANO project, an excellent resource for information on nanotechnology hazard and risk.

The health and safety comments echo those made in the Lloyd’s report on nanotechnology, which was published at the end of 2007.

In addition, a questionnaire for stakeholders in nanotechnology will be launched in December 2008 and will cover environmental health and safety as well as economic and societal impacts of nanotechnology.

Insurers may want to consider taking part in this to ensure the industry’s voice is heard in this rapidly developing field.

However, some scientists believe that some nano-materials may cause health or environmental impacts.  The Royal Commission report on novel materials has made an urgent call to bridge the knowledge gap of the potential environmental and health impacts of nanotechnologies in a systematic and strategic way. They say “we strongly recommend a more directed, more coordinated and larger response led by the Research Councils to address the critical research needs…”.

There is also a call to amend regulations, such as REACH, so that they can be effectively applied to nano-materials.  This is very much in line with the report published by Lloyd’s Emerging Risks team on Nanotechnology.

Our report proposed some systemic failure scenarios, a theme also recommended by the Royal Commission who call for  “Evaluation of methodologies for predicting the likely fate and effects of nano-materials based on their physical and chemical properties as well as their novel properties, and where possible, the development of exposure scenarios.”

If the Commission’s governance recommendations are followed there will be considerably more clarity around responsibilities.

For example they call for DEFRA to require mandatory reporting where food contains nano-particles; they also suggest that companies should have a legal duty to report any suspicion that a material presents a risk to the public or the environment.

Such clarity can only be useful to insurers providing liability cover given that companies are operating in an increasingly litigious world, as highlighted by the Lloyd’s 360 report “Directors in the dock“.

It will be fascinating to follow this debate as it progresses.

In a previous blog (”Carbon nanotechnology observed to cause asbestos-like injuries in mice“, July 11) I discussed this issue and commented on the risk frameworks that companies could follow to manage the environmental and health risks that may arise.

The Environment Agency’s advice (pdf, 1pg) is interesting because it targets certain groups: “those involved in synthesis or use of carbon nanotubes or in the management of the wastes produced”, and clarifies their duties to classify and correctly manage any waste produced involving the use of this technology.

Their statement notes that while our knowledge of health effects is incomplete there is enough cause for caution because “nanotubes may display hazardous properties either as irritant …  toxic … or carcinogenic ….”.  Therefore they advise that carbon nanotubes be classified as hazardous waste.  They specifically note that the material “may display physiological properties similar in nature to asbestos”.

Their briefing sheet also gives advice on the concentration of these particles that can be disposed of safely and discusses various waste disposal options concluding that incineration above 850 degrees centigrade is the preferred option but other methods, such as chemical breakdown, may be appropriate.

The insurance industry’s losses relating to asbestos have been considerable, so it is good to see the Environment Agency taking these issues seriously. Underwriters would be well advised to track their exposure to nanotechnologies where concern has been raised, and carbon nanotubes in particular.