London / Zurich, 10 May 2004 – The use of nanotechnology in industrial and commercial production, although still in its infancy, is growing rapidly. Swiss Re addressed the opportunities and risks of nanotechnology at a media conference in London as part of its contribution to open risk dialogue. The publication “Nanotechnology: Small matter, many unknowns” is now available.
[...]Insufficient research has been done to say with any certainty whether, and if so to what extent, nanoparticles or products containing nanoparticles actually pose a threat.
[...]
Various questions have arisen: How will the changed chemical properties of nanoparticles affect the human body if they are used in concentrated form, as in medicines or sprays? What happens to the accumulated particles that have already been detected in some organs? The answers to these questions have yet to be found.
[...]
Conclusions
- Internal and external risk awareness building is essential
- Reduce uncertainty of potentially negative implications of certain nano-products by supporting research projects and regulatory efforts
- Support risk dialogue among industry, regulators, scientists and society to ensure successful introduction of nanotechnology
- Swiss Re is frontrunner in identifying potential implications for the insurance industry
From the Preface - Swiss Re has dedicated teams of experts which track new or emerging risks, and nanotechnology is one of the topics currently in focus. After all, it is vital for the insurance industry to know what losses a new technology can give rise to and what the extent and frequency of such losses will be. Once these basics have been roughly established, insurers will be in a better position to assess the future loss burden, calculate a premium commensurate with the risk and grant adequate insurance cover.
From the Preface - For human beings, the range of products and applications made possible by nanotechnology is something fundamentally new. Man has never really had to cope with this kind and quantity of industrially manufactured particles. Are we sufficiently prepared for the large-scale introduction of this technology?
From the Introduction - The publication in hand concentrates on the field of nanoparticle manufacture and materials development. This may be a limited field, but it is the one that ought to interest the insurance industry most, as one day it might be relevant for liability insurance. The focus is therefore on products and applications that come into contact with human beings, or that may affect the environment.
From p.12 - Products and applications that are larger than 100nm area thus deliberately excluded. Such materials are often grouped under the term nanotechnology in order to attract attention and acquire research funding. This give rise, however, to slight overlaps with the already familiar microtechnology and materials science, which deals with larger particles almost void of specifically new properties.
From p.25 - Unfortunately, many side effects are only discovered after a lapse of time: several years may pass before fully unexpected risks are revealed, and they may only be understood in retrospect.
From p.29 - Although little definitive knowledge is available on how nanotechnologically manufactured products behave in the environment, such products area already in use today and more will be launched on the market in the near future. So, the approach to the opportunities and risks involved must be worked out now, the sooner and more comprehensively, the better
From p.37 - Up until early 2004, nanotechnologically manufactured products were not subject to any special legislation. There were neither special regulations, recommendations on how such products or their base materials were to be handled, nor any obligation to label such products for what they were.
In view of the variety of products affected, this is not surprising. While the product range extends from drugs through textile fibres to glass and aircraft parts, nanoparticles themselves neither recognised as a separate class within certain product segments nor addressed accordingly. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies nanoparticles in ultraviolet screening substances - not as a new substance in its own right, but as a "variation of the bulk material", hence, a variation of the base substance.
Consequently, titanium dioxide nanopowder is treated in just the same way as the commonly available larger particles of the same substance. Since it is not a new substance, it need not be registered separately. Costly and prolonged testing procedures are thus rendered superfluous. The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers takes a similar view: titanium dioxide is classified as "safe", regardless of the size of the disseminated particles. The fact that the very miniaturisation of materials harmless in themselves may entail risks to health is not taken sufficiently into account.
This is remarkable, given that nanoparticles are distinguished from microparticles by several properties.
From p.37 - the assessment of potential health hazards is based on the properties or the toxicity of the bulk material.
From p.40 - The introduction of nanotechnology means a paradigm shift - both in industrial applications and in the exposure mechanisms. It is likely that in the course of its entire evolution, humankind has never been exposed to such a wide variety of substances that can penetrate the human body apparently unhindered
From p.40 - The insurance industry is concerned, not as much because experience shows that new technological developments tend to give rise to new loss scenarios, as because the extent of these potential claims can either be difficult or impossible to assess correctly
From p.41 - While the science of nanotechnology is still in its early stages, the insurance industry hopes that its impact will be overwhelmingly positive. We must remain vigilant, nevertheless, and pay attention to the lessons learnt from the past. One example of a product which did not develop positively was asbestos. How do we ensure that nanotechnology follows a more promising path ? Years ago, asbestos enjoyed great popularity and was widely used as one of the most fire-resistant and durable substances available. Much like certain nanotechnologically manufactured products today, products containing asbestos were used in innovative ways and in many beneficial applications. What is more, asbestos fibres were not in any real sense toxic or chemically suspect. Yet their fibres could, merely on account of their form and size, cause grave harm to lung tissue - a property whose consequences were only discovered years later.
This late discovery saw regulations and protective measures being introduced only after patients all over the world had fallen incurably ill. While isolated studies had already indicated potential risks earlier, the true extent of the damage could not be foreseen even approximately in the absence of long term experience.
From p.42 - Despite early warnings about the effects of asbestos on health, it took some 100 years to introduce internationally accepted asbestos standards; it would be advisable to find a consensus faster this time. Inasmuch as the risk environment has changed markedly between then and now, this might well be expected.
From p.45 - Often unclear to the layperson is what nanotechnology actually is, what special qualities nanoproducts may have, and what the possible risks are. For the approach is not just a question of an extremely multifaceted technology; the manufacturing processes and operating mechanisms of nanotechnological products remain largely inscrutable to observers, users and consumers. This may lead to uncertainty and scepticism in society at large, especially if the various risk aspects become the subject of public discussion.
In contrast to the debates on nuclear power and genetic engineering, the public does not yet view nanotechnology as a noteworthy threat. Many, in fact, are still quite unaware of its introduction. The increase in media interest since the beginning of 2003 could change this situation, however, and lead to more lively debate on nanotechnology's benefits and risks. Whether the public accepts the new technology and sees in it advantages for itself - or rejects it - will largely depend on how well informed it is and to what degree it is able to make objective judgments.
No question, however: nanotechnology will sooner or later emerge as a public issue. Ever since genetic engineering entered the public consciousness, it has become obvious that the protest of society can brake the further development of a new technology. Consequently, it must be in the interest of industry to take the misgivings and needs of society seriously and make allowance for them in subsequent stages of development. The consumer is exposed to the influence of reams of information, some of it contradictory. He not only hears the good news about product innovation, but also the warnings and consumer misgivings. Talking openly and responsibly about risks is the task of all those who possess the necessary knowledge and, above all, of those in the manufacturing industry. Dialogue is needed among science, industry, the authorities and the public. As the risk carrier, the insurer carries the responsibility for leading the risk dialogue, including with lawmakers.
From p.48 - The dilemma surrounding the precautionary principle is at present the subject of a number of public discussions - especially the one dealing with mobile communication or genetically modified foodstuffs. To date, despite all efforts at the international level, no precautionary principle has been agreed upon to satisfy all the parties involved, because the details of the situation on which a decision had to be taken differed so radically.