MonULR-38(3)-7.pdf (653.81 kB)
Download file

Assessing the Impact of a ‘For Government' Review on the Nanotechnology Regulatory Landscape

Download (653.81 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 29.10.2019, 09:08 authored by Diana M Bowman;Karinne Ludlow
A number of jurisdictions have now completed reviews of the regulatory issues raised by nanotechnologies. Chronologically, these reviews have moved from treating nanotechnologies as a narrow matter of chemical regulation to a broader perspective that considers both the technology’s impact on end-products such as foods and cosmetics as well as the endof-life issues raised by such products. While the exact nature and focus of these reviews have varied, there is increasing specifi city in their analysis and outcomes. Australia was one of the fi rst jurisdictions to initiate a wide-ranging and independent review of its regulatory frameworks to deal with the potential human and environmental health and safety risks posed by nanotechnologies. It has been fi ve years since the report was handed to the Australian Government.1 The aim of this article is to critically assess the impact of the regulatory review on the federal government’s policy on nanotechnologies. In doing so, this article outlines regulatory developments that have occurred since the report’s publication. Particular attention is given to examining the activities that have occurred within the regulatory agencies identifi ed within the report. The broader policy and regulatory landscape for nanotechnologies in Australia is also considered. This article is both timely and relevant due to current efforts by other jurisdictions to complete their own regulatory reviews. It articulates the impact of one regulatory review on policy developments within Australia, and discusses possible reasons for the domestic responses to that review.


Publication Date










AGLC Citation

Diana M Bowman and Karinne Ludlow, 'Assessing the Impact of a "For Government" Review on the Nanotechnology Regulatory Landscape' (2012) 38(3) Monash Unive rsity Law Review 167

Usage metrics