step project - archive.industry.gov.au · web viewbecause indium is a rare/expensive element,...

Nanotechnology and Informed Choice Citizen Deliberation

AppendicesAppendix A – Background and information documents............................................................................2

Invitation.......................................................................................................................................2

Consent and Survey Forms............................................................................................................6

Nanotechnology information sheet and panel one-pagers...........................................................12

Appendix B – Notes from the preparation session and deliberative workshop........................................24

Preparation session.....................................................................................................................24

Deliberative Workshop................................................................................................................25

1

Appendix A – Background and information documents

Invitation emailed in response to expressions of interest.

Invitation to attend a citizen deliberation about informed choice and nanotechnologyDear x,

Following your recent expression of interest to Jetty Research, we would like to invite you to participate in a citizen deliberation on nanotechnology, being organised by the Federal Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. This deliberation will assist us in understanding what informed choice means to ordinary people, particularly in relation to nanotechnology products.

You have been selected at random to participate in this deliberation. The good news is that you do not require prior knowledge about nanotechnology or about consumer choice to participate (and we won’t require you to remember the full name of our department!). To support you in contributing, we will hold a preparation session, in which we will provide necessary information and guidance. At the deliberation, a panel of key informants will be available to answer questions and provide information. Both sessions will be facilitated by expert, independent facilitators. Sessions will also be fully catered, and you will be paid $200 at the conclusion of the workshop to reimburse you for your time and travel expenses.

The details of the event are:

Wed 1 May Preparation session SMC function centre, 66 Goulburn Street, Sydney 5.30 pm for 6 pm til 9 pm

2

Sat 11 May Deliberative workshop SMC function centre, 66 Goulburn Street, Sydney 9 for 9.30 am til 5 pm

If you remain keen to attend, you can contact us by reply email and we will reserve a place for you. In any case, Jetty Research will call you to confirm your interest.If you have any special dietary requirements, please let us or Jetty know.

This deliberation is being organised by the Department of Industry and Innovation as part of its STEP (Science & Technology Engagement Pathways) community engagement program. For more information about this program, see http://www.innovation.gov.au/step.

Kind regards,

Wendy Russell

Enabling Technologies - Public Awareness & Community EngagementDepartment of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education

Agenda and information for the preparation session

Informed Choice and Nanotechnology

Agenda – information night, Wednesday 1 May 2013

Time Item Presenter

6pm Welcome Lucy Cole-Edelstein Facilitator

6.05 Introductions All

6.45 Introduction to STEP Wendy RussellDIICCSRTE

6.50 What are deliberative processes? All

8.30 Introduction to nanotechnology Di Bowman

9 pm Thank you and close

Tea, coffee and refreshments will be available throughout

3

http://www.innovation.gov.au/step

INFORMED CHOICE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY ENGAGEMENT

SMC Conference and Function Centre, Sydney

1 and 11 May 2013This deliberative engagement seeks to inform the government’s understanding of informed consumer choice as it relates to products made using nanotechnology. The engagement brings together a group of randomly selected citizens. This citizen group will be supported by independent facilitators and by a panel of key informants, who will provide information and diverse perspectives on the topic. Participants are not required to have any prior knowledge, as we are interested in how much ordinary people know, and how they comprehend about new technologies.

The objectives of this workshop are: to deliberate on the question of informed choice in relation to nanotechnology, exploring the

challenges and requirements to hear the concerns of citizens, stakeholders and NGOs in relation to the topic to provide advice on parameters and options for informed choice about nanotechnology to

assist decision makers (including policy makers, regulators and industry)

What we want from you: your views about nanotechnology and informed consumer choice advice about the nature of informed choice – what it means to people, why people want it, and

what they want it for advice about options for providing information to consumers and citizens about new

technologies like nanotechnology

Our commitment to you: we will listen openly and facilitate a broad, inclusive conversation we will write up the results, seeking feedback from you on the report we will make the report publically available and disseminate it to relevant policy and decision

makers

The attached survey seeks feedback on your views, knowledge and experiences of the workshop. We will be asking you to fill in surveys before and after the sessions, to find out about your views on the topics and the process. This information is really valuable for us in improving how we do things.

This workshop is a community engagement event under the STEP (Science & Technology Engagement Pathways) community engagement framework within DIICCSRTE. STEP aims to provide channels for input into decision making about enabling technologies. More information about STEP can be found at: http://www.innovation.gov.au/step .

Organiser: National Enabling Technologies Strategy – Public Awareness and Community Engagement Program (NETS-PACE) – Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE)

Contact: Dr Wendy Russell Ph: 02 6276 1803 E: [email protected]

Thank you for your participation.

4

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.innovation.gov.au/step

Consent Form

INFORMED CHOICE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY ENGAGEMENT

Organiser: National Enabling Technologies Strategy – Public Awareness and Community Engagement Program (NETS-PACE) – Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education

Contact: Dr Wendy Russell

Ph: 02 6276 1803

E: [email protected]

Declaration of Consent

I hereby agree to be involved in the above engagement as a participant. I have read the information about this project and understand the nature of the project and my role in it.

I understand that my input during the discussion, my responses to survey questions and other data collected will be used in reporting the workshop outcomes. I understand that responses will be de-identified (made anonymous) before publication.

A photographer will capture images from the event. These will be used in reporting the event and in promoting STEP. If you do not want to be photographed, please indicate below.

I agree to participate in the engagement.

Yes No

I agree to be photographed during the engagement.

Yes No

Name of participant: __________________________

Signature: ________________________ Date: _______________________

5

PRE-EVENT SURVEYPlease fill in BEFORE the preparation session.

INFORMED CHOICE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP

To help us to analyse your responses without identifying you, we ask that you create a unique identifying code by following the instructions below:

In the space below, list the first two letters of your mother’s or guardian’s first name (e.g. Mary becomes MA) followed by the date and month of your birthday (e.g. 2nd April becomes 0204). So this example ID Code becomes MA0204.

PLEASE WRITE YOUR ID CODE HERE: ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Please provide the following information about yourself.

What is your age? ______________ Gender? MALE FEMALE

What type of household do you live in:

Single person Couple House share Family

What age are your children (circle one or more):

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 >20

Is English your first language? YES NO

Do you have a disability? YES NO

What is your postcode? ______________

What is your occupation? _________________________________

Low High

How would you rate your current knowledge of nanotechnology?

1 2 3 4 5

How would you rate your awareness of informed consumer choice?

1 2 3 4 5

How would you rate your interest in finding out more about nanotechnology?

1 2 3 4 5

What are your views about nanotechnology?

6

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements. If unsure, leave blank.

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it.

1 2 3 4 5

New technologies excite me more than they concern me.

1 2 3 4 5

People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.

1 2 3 4 5

I believe nanotechnology will improve the future quality of life in Australia

1 2 3 4 5

I am concerned about the health and safety risks of nanotechnology

1 2 3 4 5

I am concerned about the environmental risks of nanotechnology

1 2 3 4 5

I believe consumers should know whether products are made with nanotechnology or contain nanomaterials

1 2 3 4 5

Only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labeled

1 2 3 4 5

I do/will seek information about nanotechnology when I buy products

1 2 3 4 5

What are your views on consumer choice in relation to products made with nanotechnology?

What do you expect to get out of participating in this citizen deliberation?

Do you think that today’s workshop will affect your views? Do you think it will affect your future actions, decisions and choices?

7

POST-EVENT SURVEY 1Please fill in AFTER the PREPARATION SESSION.


Once again, please write your ID code below following these instructions: List the first two letters of your mother’s or guardian’s first name (e.g. Mary becomes MA) followed by the date and month of your birthday (e.g. 2nd April becomes 0204).


Low High

How would you rate your knowledge of nanotechnology now?

1 2 3 4 5

How would you rate your awareness of informed consumer choice now?

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

Following this session, what are your views on consumer choice and nanotechnology?

Please answer these questions about the preparation session.

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Has this preparation session made you feel ready for the deliberative workshop?

1 2 3 4 5

Do you agree that you were made to feel included? 1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel that there was encouragement of a diversity of views?

1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel confident about working with this group? 1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel that the information provided was biased? 1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel that the session was well facilitated? 1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel that the session was well organised? 1 2 3 4 5

Is there anything we can do to improve your experience of this engagement?

How are you feeling about the upcoming workshop?

Thank you for your feedback.

8

POST-EVENT SURVEY 2Please fill in AFTER the WORKSHOP.


Once again, please write your ID code below following these instructions: List the first two letters of your mother’s or guardian’s first name (e.g. Mary becomes MA) followed by the date and month of your birthday (e.g. 2nd April becomes 0204).


Please answer the following questions.

Low High

How would you rate your current knowledge of nanotechnology now?

1 2 3 4 5

How would you rate your awareness of informed consumer choice now?

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

Following the workshop, what are your views about nanotechnology?

What are your views on consumer choice in relation to products made with nanotechnology now?

In what ways has today’s discussion changed your views? In what ways might it affect your decisions and actions?

Please indicate your agreement with the following statements. If unsure, leave blank.

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it.

1 2 3 4 5

New technologies excite me more than they concern me.

1 2 3 4 5

9

People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.

1 2 3 4 5

I believe nanotechnology will improve the future quality of life in Australia

1 2 3 4 5

I am concerned about the health and safety risks of nanotechnology

1 2 3 4 5

I am concerned about the environmental risks of nanotechnology

1 2 3 4 5

I believe consumers should know whether products are made with nanotechnology or contain nanomaterials

1 2 3 4 5

Only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled

1 2 3 4 5

I do/will seek information about nanotechnology when I buy products

1 2 3 4 5

Please answer these questions about the workshop.

What was your overall impression of the workshop today? What did you appreciate most about it?

Strongly

Disagree

Strongly

Agree

Do you agree that you were made to feel included? 1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel that there was encouragement of a diversity of views?

1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel that the information provided was biased? 1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel that the event was well facilitated? 1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel that the event was well organised? 1 2 3 4 5

Do you feel satisfied with the input you, the citizen panel, provided today?

1 2 3 4 5

How confident are you that your input will make a difference?

1 2 3 4 5

Do you have any suggestions for improvement?

Thank you for your feedback.

10

Information provided to participants at the preparation sessionNanotechnology information sheet

Nanomaterials are substances that are structured at a tiny scale i.e. have at least one dimension (length/width/height) in the range of 1 to several hundred nanometres (1 nm = 0.000000001 m); nanoparticles have all three dimensions in this range

To get an idea of this scale, a nanometre is to a metre as a marble is to the planet Earth

At this scale, substances often display unique properties, different to when the substance is in ‘bulk’ form. Changed properties may include different capacity to conduct heat and electricity, different reactivity or different physical properties such as strength, flexibility or colour

An example is carbon, which in bulk form is graphite (inert, weak, flaky), but structured at the nanoscale can form structures that conduct heat and electricity, are extremely flexible and as strong as steel

The changed properties of nanomaterials are the basis of innovations and new products, such as medicines, medical implants, manufacturing materials, cosmetics, electronics, food, food packaging and sports equipment

Some examples of products using nanomaterials are cochlear ear implants, nano-patches for drug delivery, self-cleaning windows, transparent sunscreens, small electronic devices like mobile phones, food packaging with sensors to detect spoilage, food with different nutritional properties, socks that don’t smell, high performance golf balls and tennis rackets

There are concerns that some nanomaterials may be toxic to humans and/or other life forms, because their size may affect how readily they pass into bodies and organs, and because their different structure (e.g greater surface area) and new properties (e.g. greater reactivity) may mean that they interact with biological systems in new ways.

Some nanomaterials (e.g. certain carbon nanotubes (CNTs)), have been shown to be toxic (some CNTs can cause respiratory problems and may cause cancer.. Carbon nanotubes are now classified as hazardous substances).

There are currently no internationally agreed definition or measurement standards for nanomaterials but work towards this is continuing through the International Standards Organisation.

Definitions and measurement are made complex by the fact that changed properties are not strictly linked to size and some nano-structured substances have no changed properties at the nanoscale, while others exhibit changed properties near the limit of the nanoscale. Also, nanomaterials often contain particles with a range of sizes.

Nanoparticles can occur naturally; for example in seaspray, in some types of smoke, and in some food materials (e.g. milk and ice cream contains nanoscale emulsions and micelles that are much like nanoparticles). The workshop will address engineered or manufactured nanomaterials/products and not those that are naturally occurring.

11

Key Informant One-pagersKey informant: Elaine Attwood AM

What expertise and experience do you bring to this topic?

I have been a consumer advocate for well over 25 years during which time I have worked on health, consumer affairs, food, gene technology, women’s issues and environmental matters. During my period as the first board member representing consumers on Food Standards Australia New Zealand, I became aware of nanotechnology and the role it would likely play in many aspects of our lives. Therefore when an opening became available for a consumer representative on Standard Australia’s Nanotechnology Committee (NT-001), representing the Consumers’ Federation of Australia, I saw this as an opportunity to explore this new area of technology from a consumer viewpoint. I still serve on NT-001, and on two Task Groups of the International Standards Organisation, – (Consumer and Societal Dimensions, and Sustainability), as well as some work in two of the 4 Working Groups. In the latter my involvement relates to nanomedicine, a plain language guide on nanotechnology, and labeling of manufactured or engineered nanoproducts. I was also a member of the National Enabling Technologies Strategy’s Stakeholder Advisory Council for its duration.

What are the most important four things the participants should know about nanotechnology?

1. Nanotechnology has the potential to change all aspects of living as we presently know it. Some will bring great benefits and advances (particularly in the medical field) but others may pose a threat.2. As we still do not know all there is to know about what the effects of such changes will be, we should proceed cautiously. Uncertainty about risks, and the fact that not all hazards are yet known, should be acknowledged.3. You can’t hold back progress, but at this point, the science is ahead of adequate regulation in some areas.4. There is still not complete agreement between countries on many terms and definitions for nanotechnology which hampers both regulation and uptake of the technology. The ISO is attempting to address this.

What is your opinion on informed consumer choice about nanotechnology products?

In my view it is essential. Consumers should be able to access enough information about ANY product, including a nanotechnology product, to be able to make an informed choice no matter what their reason for buying, or not buying the product. While safety is of course paramount, there are many other reasons why consumers make the choices they do and this should be respected.

12

Key informant: Ms Lorraine Belanger


I am currently acting as General Manager Food Standards at Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) but my permanent role is Manager of Communication and Stakeholder Engagement. I come from a communication background. I started my professional life as a journalist and later moved into the public sector. As a communicator I see my role as bridging the gap between sometimes complex, difficult information and the person on the street. I have 2.5 years experience working for FSANZ and have a broad understanding of Australia’s food regulatory system.


FSANZ is the independent statutory authority responsible for developing food standards, including those relating to new food technologies such as nanotechnology.

All food supplied in Australia must comply with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and be safe for human consumption. Food and water are naturally made up of nanometre-scale particles.

Any new food substances manufactured using nanotechnologies that may present safety concerns will have to undergo a comprehensive scientific safety assessment before they can be legally supplied in Australia and New Zealand.

In December 2008, our Application Handbook was amended to take account of potential applications of nanotechnologies. Information about particle characteristics must be provided in applications and this will trigger specific consideration in the FSANZ risk assessment process of any potential hazards posed by novel nanoscale materials.


From my professional perspective I believe that uncertainty and fear can be the result of a lack of information. In terms of nanotech products it will be important for consumers to have information about the processes that ensure the products they choose are safe.

FSANZ has yet to receive an application to approve new or novel nanoscale particles for food use. As a regulator how we deal with applications is set out in legislation. Policy is determined by the ministers in Australia who are responsible for food regulation.

13

Key informant: Dr. Michael J. Biercuk

What expertise and experience do you bring to this topic? I am an academic researcher with extensive experience in nanotechnology research. My PhD research, conducted at Harvard University, focused on the development of novel nano-enabled electronic devices. Following receipt of the PhD, I served as a technical advisor to the US Government on its research investments in nanotechnology for advanced electronics and computer hardware.

I currently hold a faculty appointment in the Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, School of Physics, The University of Sydney, where I run a research group focused on developing new technologies by exploiting quantum mechanical effects in nanoscale systems. As part of my role as a scientist and educator I routinely participate in public outreach efforts. Relating to nanoscience and nanotechnology I recently gave the 2012 Einstein Lecture as part of the Ultimo Science Festival, and served as a panelist in ABC Science’s Café Scientific series.

Four facts about nanotechnology:1) Nanotechnology is an extraordinarily diverse field constituting research in electronics, optics,

materials science, biology, and medicine. There is no single framework to describe either nanotechnology’s benefits or its risks. Accordingly, it is not possible to employ a blanket regulatory framework.

2) Nanotechnology – in particular the use of nanostructured materials – can pose risks to health on human exposure, much like other chemicals or industrial materials. Risk assessment must account appropriately for differences in materials behavior at the nanoscale, but in light of #1 above, must be conducted in context.

3) Despite legitimate health concerns, nanotechnology does not pose unique or unprecedented risks to health and safety. Many forms of nanotechnology in fact carry no intrinsic exposure risks, again a reflection of the diversity of the field. Further, many materials currently referred to as nanomaterials predate the field and do not carry new risks with a change in nomenclature – milk is an example!

4) The dominant form of human exposure to known dangerous nanomaterials comes from exposure to air pollution. Exhaust from internal combustion and diesel engines produces nanoparticles in quantities much larger than any other man-made source. Any consideration of risk associated with nanotechnology must be evaluated in the context of background exposure to carcinogenic nanoparticles from these and other sources.


I believe that the key to informed consumer choice about nanotechnology is the availability of sound evidence from unbiased sources. It is vital that opinions from unqualified sources are not given equal weight to expert analysis. Scare campaigns based on conjecture must not be tolerated as they come at the expense of thoughtful discussion of issues that are frequently complex. And parties with commercial interests must be transparent in their presentation of potential conflicts of interest.

14

Key informant: Craig Brock

Experience/expertise:

I have a Bachelor of Science (BSc) in chemistry, a graduate diploma in environmental studies and a Masters in Public Affairs. I have over 20 years’ experience in regulatory affairs & safety, policy development & communications in corporations, government & associations. I have expertise in technical & environmental policy development, communications & government relations. My current position is Policy & Public Affairs Director, Accord (the hygiene, cosmetic and specialty products industry association).

Four things I think are most important about nanotechnology:1. There is a lot of hype & misunderstanding about ‘nanotechnology’, positive and negative, considering

that the scientific underpinnings of this branch of technologies are:a) for the most part extensions of chemistry, physics and/or materials science and;b) not inherently novel in the same way that genetic biotechnology (e.g. GMO food) was.

2. Our world has always been made up of materials ranging in size from the atomic, to the molecular, to the nano-sized (1-100 nm), to the micro-sized, right up to the things we can see & touch. There have always been everyday products – e.g. detergent micelles, photocopier toner – in the nano-size range. As Food Safety Australia New Zealand states: “Humans are also exposed to ultrafine and nano-scale particles such as smoke, dust, ash, and fine clays through the air, food and water. Scientists estimate that in urban air we may inhale millions of nanoscale particles in every breath.”

3. The science of toxicology offers a solid foundation to adequately assess the hazards and risks of nanotechnologies to both people and the environment. Australia’s existing regulatory systems for controlling the risks of chemicals, consumer products and medicines are based on toxicology principles and are being adapted to assess emerging nanomaterials and nano-based products. Just as chemicals can range from highly toxic to virtually benign, or some mushrooms may nourish while others may kill, nanotechnologies will cover the full spectrum of hazard and risk, from benign to hazardous.

4. Nanotechnology policy should be guided by the weight of expert scientific evidence; not politics. Politics on science/technology issues can often misdirect society. Climate change denial, usually a trait of the right of the political spectrum, disregards the accumulated weight of scientific evidence. Similarly, it has been argued that those opposed outright to GMO crops, usually on the political left, also disregard the weight of scientific evidence. Cherry-picking single studies does nothing for informed debate.

Informed consumer choice:

• In a democracy, people should be treated as citizens – with rights and responsibilities – and generally, where meaningful, given the opportunity to make informed choices.

• The primary issue here is meaningful choice. The conductive layer on the touchscreen of your smart phone is a nano-sized layer of Indium Tin Oxide. Should this be labelled? If not, why not? Because indium is a rare/expensive element, future smartphones may instead use carbon nano-tubes or nano-silver wires. Again, should these be labelled?

• Engineered nanomaterials are not widely used in the products my current employer represents. However, nano-sized metal oxides have been used as effective sunscreens in primary sunscreens and cosmetics for many years. Following new EU rules for disclosure of engineered nanoparticles in cosmetics, in 2010 the Australian industry proposed to the federal government the development of a similar policy for cosmetics (including sunscreens). The government argues that, as these products have been assessed as safe, such disclosure is not necessary. While true, this represents a somewhat antiquated view of citizen choice, but may be guided by the complexities of the many applications of nanotechnologies.

15

Key informant: Dr Chris Feigl

Expertise & experience: I am a research fellow at the Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC), in the University for Technology, Sydney. CenSoC is a pioneering research centre in the field of ‘choice modelling’, producing innovative research relating to our decision making processes and ‘choices’. Through my research at CenSoC, I am concerned with public perceptions of new and emerging technologies, how research groups and governments should generate public awareness, and how to facilitate public participation in forming public science research policies. Prior to joining CenSoC, I worked at CSIRO in the Virtual Nanoscience Laboratory, where I modelled nanomaterials. My theoretical research concerned a new nanomaterial, which has experimental applications in a range of fields, including biotechnology (e.g. advanced cancer diagnosis); optoelectronics and photovoltaics (e.g. solar panels for windows) and catalysis (e.g. cheap, inexpensive hydrogen fuel production). My work there was motivated by the need to ensure that the nanomaterial in question is safe, stable and effective before it is released in the form of new technologies. With my background in nanomaterial physics and my position at CenSoC, my aims are to facilitate and expedite the delivery of important as well as popular nanotechnologies.

The 4 most important things participants should know about nanotechnology:

1. ‘Nano’ is a standard prefix for one billionth. A nanometre is a billionth of a metre. A material with nanometre dimensions is a nanomaterial. Nanomaterials possess many unique and useful properties which do not occur at larger sizes. Nanotechnology can be defined as the utilisation of nanomaterials and their novel, unique properties.

2. Nano‘materials’ are not recent man-made ‘inventions’. They are ubiquitous in nature and innumerable in form. They are all around us. Some we breathe, some we eat, we require some for our survival and we defend ourselves against others. In terms of nano‘technology’, nature currently provides us with many nano‘tools’.

3. Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionise many fields of science, society and the way we live our lives. We have seen commercial gains made through the application of new nanotechnologies. Many more applications are expected for public sector interests such as health, energy, water, food and agriculture, communication, information technology, fuels and transport.

4. Nanomaterials can be hazardous to our health and our environment. Assessing these hazards, the risks they pose and reducing our exposure to them is a complicated process. Often this involves a trade-off between useful and undesirable properties, such as efficiency and toxicity.


In my opinion, informed consumer choice about nanotechnology products offers a number of benefits, but also poses a distinct risk. Firstly, information regarding the nature of nanotechnology and nanomaterials should serve to bolster a general awareness and understanding of the science and the field, which will hopefully reduce possible misconceptions. Secondly, an informed consumer base allows industry stakeholders and research groups to make better judgements and decisions for their organisations based on what people want from the market, thus facilitating progress in the field. I do see a risk involved if information is not generated and delivered reasonably and responsibly. Generating unnecessary or excessive alarm over the use of nanomaterials in consumer products could generate a general consumer backlash against nanotechnology as a whole. This would potentially set back the delivery of critical scientific and technological developments within the field, and prevent them from being delivered with appropriate levels of concern over needs, as well as precaution and deliberation.

17

Key informant: Howard Morris


I have been Safe Work Australia’s Nanotechnology Work Health and Safety Program Manager since the program started in 2007 and represent the agency in a number of national and international nanotechnology forums. I have a broad understanding of nanotechnology work health and safety issues, including the hazards associated with nanomaterials and how to eliminate or minimise risks in the workplace. I have significant experience in manufacturing industry, having worked in the Newcastle and Whyalla Steelworks from 1989 to 2003. This was primarily in steelmaking technology and development and steelmaking process management, including work health and safety management.


Nanotechnology involves the production and use of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotechnology has a broad range of beneficial applications, for example in improved materials, energy, health and the environment, however concerns have been raised about the potential hazards associated with engineered nanomaterials.

1. People have always been exposed to nanomaterials. In most rooms there are over a thousand nanoparticles in every cubic centimeter of air which we breathe in all the time. What is new is the manufacture and use of engineered nanomaterials and our potential exposure to them.

2. There are many different forms of engineered nanomaterials. Some are unlikely to be hazardous in most situations, but others are hazardous. For many nanomaterials, we have limited (but growing) understanding of their hazards. However in general, nanomaterials are more toxic than larger particles of the same substance.

3. The main health concern with engineered nanomaterials in the workplace is exposure by inhalation (although skin exposure and ingestion could also lead to adverse health consequences). Conventional workplace controls such as process enclosure and extraction ventilation, if designed and maintained appropriately, can effectively minimize exposure to airborne nanomaterials.

4. All general duties under work health and safety laws need to be met for nanomaterials and nanotechnologies. Manufacturers and importers are required to determine the hazardous properties of nanomaterials and based on this classification, to provide correct safety data sheets and labels to enable risk management in the workplace. To account for situations where there is insufficient information on hazards to enable classification, the model Codes of Practice for safety data sheets and workplace labelling recommend that safety data sheets and labels should be provided for engineered and manufactured nanomaterials unless there is evidence they are not hazardous. This includes situations where larger particles of the substance are not hazardous.


Looking at informed choice from a workplace perspective, an employer has a duty of care and must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers while at work. To do this, the employer and workers must have access to information about hazards associated with nanomaterials in products they use and if there are hazards, information on safe handling of the products. For hazardous nanomaterials, this information is provided in safety data sheets and labels. Based on this information, businesses may choose to use alternative materials.

If there is uncertainty about whether nanomaterials in a product are hazardous or not, safety data sheets and labels should be provided so that employers and workers will know if the product contains nanomaterials and can take a precautionary approach, i.e. assume the product is hazardous and choose appropriate workplace controls.

18

Key Informant: Renata Musolino

Informant background I am currently the OHS Information and Website Officer with the Victorian Trades Hall Council i. I have been the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTUii) nominated representative on the

Community Engagement Forum of the national chemical regulator, NICNASiii since October 2004, and member of NICNAS Nanotechnology Advisory Group, established in 2008 to consider issues arising from the increasing manufacture/ import/use of nanomaterials.

I am also the ACTU representative on the Safe Work Australiaiv Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group.

I was a member of the National Enabling Technologies Strategy’s Stakeholder Advisory Council established by Minister Carr in January 2011. It and the NETS Expert Forum commissioned a number of projects and reports and contributed to programs such as the STEP program, under which this engagement activity is being run. These advisory groups were not continued beyond the initial two year term.

The four most important things participants should know about nanotechnology:

1. The potential uses of nanotechnology are incredibly diverse and far-reaching. Some will be of great benefit, while others are already questionable. There is great concern that there is an overstatement of the projected benefits and an understatement of potential risks.

2. There has been and will continue to be a lot of money and brain power being invested in the area: estimates are that by the end of 2008, nearly USD $40 billion had been invested by governments in nanoscience, with a further USD $9.75 billion invested in 2009.

3. We do not know what the long term effects and implications of nanomaterials are – potential effects in the human body, on our reproductive system, on the environment or on flora and fauna. Further, there has been little consideration of ethical considerations – who will reap the benefits? Who will bear the costs?

4. There is very little specific regulation for nanomaterials – this is despite a number of important and serious gaps having been identified in a 2007 report commissioned by the federal government: “A Review of the Possible Impacts of Nanotechnology on Australia’s Regulatory Framework”.

Informed consumer choice about nanotechnology products

In the nanotechnology section of its OHS policy, the ACTU calls for, amongst other things: A mandatory requirement that all commercial products containing nanomaterials be labeled That a federal registry be established of all companies and organizations manufacturing, importing

and supplying products containing nanomaterials Adoption of the “Precautionary Principle” when dealing with nanomaterials

A fundamental principle is the Right to Know – the community in general and workers in particular (our ‘constituency’) must have information in order to make an informed choice on what they use or purchase. They should not have decisions about their access to information made on their behalf, based on assumptions about what they need or want to know. This is particularly the case when there is uncertainty, e.g. about risks.

19

Key informant: David Oakenfull

Expertise and experienceI’ve been enthusiastic about science since high school. I have a PhD in chemistry and for about 30 years worked for the (then) CSIRO Division of Food Science and Technology. I was a member of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology and served on the National Council of the Nutrition Society of Australia. I then enjoyed a second career as a science journalist and consumer advocate, writing food and health articles for CHOICE1 magazine and the CHOICE website. I currently represent consumer interests on the NICNAS2 Community Engagement Forum.

The four most important things to know about nanotechnology

1. Nanoscience and nanotechnology are exciting areas of research with the potential to have huge practical benefits.

2. Nano means more than just exceedingly small; it means materials that have the capacity to be fundamentally different. The high surface area to volume ratio can make nanoparticles very reactive or catalytic and nanoparticles often have unexpected properties because they are small enough to produce quantum effects.

3. We’re constantly exposed to natural nanoparticles in dust, smoke, ash and fine clays – even the fat droplets in milk. We’ve evolved to live with these. But engineered nanoparticles are a different category. They’re either not present in nature at all, or they’ve been artificially introduced at much greater concentrations than in nature.

4. There’s now a scientific consensus that engineered nanomaterials require specific testing to account for their novel capacities and potential risks. But Australia’s regulatory framework is failing consumers and the environment. It’s overly complex with too many regulators, too many different terms of reference, competing stakeholders and overlapping jurisdictions.

Essentials for informed consumer choice

Full, honest and open disclosure of risks. In my experience it would be naïve to expect this of industry, but our regulators could be more proactive. Instead of waiting for overwhelming scientific evidence that a product is hazardous, the precautionary principle should prevail. The responsibility should be on manufacturers and importers to prove safety, before market access is granted. Honest labelling. There is currently no obligation on manufacturers to inform consumers that a given product contains engineered nanomaterials. Regulators in Europe have responded to public concern by requiring the labelling and safety testing of nano ingredients in sunscreens and cosmetics from July this year. Australians deserve the same level of safety and choice. Clear consumer benefit. Some of the most common current applications of nanotechnology verge on the frivolous. Do we really need “odour-free” socks containing nanosilver? What’s wrong with old fashioned laundry detergent? Even bushwalking socks can be washed easily enough. Nanosilver from clothing is causing environmental damage and may be a risk to public health.

1 Australian Consumers’ Association, 57 Carrington Road, Marrickville NSW 2204.2 National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme.

20

Key informant: Professor Brian Priestly

Expertise & experience: While I have formally retired from full-time work, I retain the position of Director, Australian Centre for Human Health Risk Assessment (ACHHRA) at Monash University, on a part-time basis. Prior to leading ACHHRA, I held senior executive positions with the Australian Government Department of Health & Ageing, managing chemicals risk assessment programs. I currently act as advisor to Australian government agencies involved in regulating nanomaterials in food, agriculture and industrial chemicals.

Key issues in the safety & regulation of nanomaterials

1. Much is known of the adverse health effects of ultrafine air pollutants, including lung and cardiovascular illnesses. It is reasonable to expect that inhaled nanoparticles will produce a similar range of health effects if inhaled in sufficient quantities, particularly if they do not readily dissolve or are persistent in the respiratory tract because of incomplete clearance.

2. It is known that asbestos fibres of a particular size and aspect ratio (length & diameter) will cause respiratory cancers (especially mesothelioma) if inhaled. This is because they are difficult to clear and set up persistent inflammatory responses. It is reasonable to expect that nanofibres (e.g. carbon nanotubes) will produce the same health effects when they have similar size characteristics and are not tangled. There is mounting evidence from animal studies to support this, at least for some types of nanofibres. In order to protect worker safety, exposure standards similar to those for asbestos fibres are being proposed for carbon nanotubes.

3. While concerns have been raised about the safety of nanoparticles applied to the skin, because of their potential to initiate the formation of reactive oxygen radicals, most studies suggest that such nanoparticles do not penetrate deeply enough into the skin to interact with live cells. However, the jury is probably still out on this issue because skin penetration of nanoparticles may be enhanced by formulation ingredients, existing skin pathology (including open sores) or excessive skin flexing.

4. Australian chemicals regulatory agencies are alert to the potential risks of nanomaterials, and they are working actively together to ensure a consistent approach to nanomaterials regulation, as well as being involved in, and keeping in touch with, international developments. The regulatory process is simpler for therapeutic goods and AgVet products, since these are systems in which any product containing a nanomaterial can be assessed prior to marketing. For substance-based food and industrial chemicals regulatory systems (which consider substances that may be used to manufacture, or be ingredients of food, materials or products), new nanoscale chemicals are also assessed prior to use. However, nanoforms of existing (i.e already regulated) chemicals require special regulations, which are being developed.. An appropriate and agreed definition of what constitutes a nanoscale material is critical to all forms of regulation.

Informed consumer choice: This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, information that allows a consumer to make an informed choice about whether or not to purchase or use a product is a fundamental right. On the other hand, if the information about potential risks is not carefully presented, it can cloud the judgement of potential risks associated with nanomaterials in a product, which may be negligible or non-existent. There is a much clearer need to inform manufacturing workers handling bulk nanomaterials, because this is where the potential exposures and health risks may be highest if appropriate containment measures are not used.

21

Key Informant: Louise Sales

Informant background

Louise Sales is Friends of the Earth (FoE)’s Nanotechnology Project Coordinator. A former genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace, she has a Degree in Biology, Masters in Biodiversity and Conservation and has worked on technology issues for over 10 years.

The 4 most important things participants should know about nanotechnology:

Nanotechnology is a powerful new technology for manipulating matter at the atomic level

Nanotechnology is being promoted as the basis of the next industrial revolution and will be used to transform and construct a wide range of new materials, devices, technological systems and even living organisms. The properties of matter change at the nano-scale, as the laws of classical physics give way to quantum effects. The properties of nanomaterials can therefore be quite different from those of larger particles of the same substance. Nanomaterials also have a much greater surface area relative to volume. This makes them much more chemically reactive than larger particles of the same material.

Nanotechnology introduces new risks

There is growing evidence that nanomaterials present serious new risks to human and environmental health. Leading scientific organisations, including the United Kingdom’s Royal Society, have warned that the risks of nanotoxicity are serious. In 2004 the Royal Society recommended that nanomaterials should be treated as new chemicals and be subject to new safety assessments prior to their inclusion in consumer products. Nearly 10 years later this has still not occurred and nanoparticles are present in thousands of consumer products.

Nanotechnology applications are likely to have profound ethical and social consequences

A number of nanotechnology applications raise serious ethical concerns. These include its biotechnology, synthetic biology, military, surveillance and human enhancement applications. Nanotechnology also has the potential to have a devastating impact on developing countries dependent on trade in raw resources (e.g. rubber, cotton, copper) that may be displaced by nanomaterials. Workers in developing countries with inadequate occupational health and safety regulations are also likely to be most exposed to the risks associated with the production of goods containing nanomaterials. Given the significant implications of nanotechnology for the wider community, FoE believe there should be a requirement for public involvement in decision-making regarding its introduction.

Nanotechnology has not delivered on its promises

It has been claimed that nanotechnology will deliver efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sound technologies. However, these promises have yet to be realised and many nanomaterials are highly energy intensive. Researchers have referred to single walled carbon nanotubes as “one of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind”.

Friends of the Earth believe informed consumer choice is important The UK’s Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering recommended that, given the emerging

evidence of serious toxicity risks, nanomaterials should be subject to new safety assessments and face mandatory product labeling.

Government polling released this year shows that the majority of Australians want nano products labelled and safety tested.

Friends of the Earth believe that the labelling of all products produced using nanotechnology is important for public health, safety and consumer choice.

22

Key informant: Associate Professor Paul Wright


One of Australia’s foremost experts in nanosafety, as the: - Founding co-ordinator of “Nanosafe Australia” and “Asia Nano Safe” research networks.- Head of the Nanosafety Research Group at RMIT University, and active researcher of nanosafety, nanotoxicology and nanosunscreens since 2006. - Appointed nanosafety expert for the Australian Nanotechnology Network, Standards Australia’s Technical Committee “NT-001 Nanotechnologies”, Safe Work Australia’s Nanotechnology OHS Measurement Reference Group, and the recent National Health & Medical Research Council’s Advisory Committee on Health and Nanotechnology.- Senior member of the Australian Consortium of researchers for the OECD Working Party on Engineered Nanomaterials (WPMN) “Sponsorship Programme for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials”.


1. There are many types of engineered nanomaterials – not all are alike and not all are a potential hazard.

2. We need to watch for nanoparticles with potential for higher toxicity than the larger particles in bulk material – such as those nanoparticles that are insoluble, penetrate and persist in the body, or are long and fibre-like.

3. We can control and reduce workplace exposure to nanoparticles, and we should do a whole of life-cycle analysis of potential “hotspots” for exposure, for nanomaterials that shed particles.

4. Smart development of nanotechnology uses a ‘safety-by-design’ approach from the start, and provides a marketing edge for nanoproducts that have a reduced potential impact on health and the environment.


I support informed consumer choice when the information is clear, will be understood by the public, and will not cause misunderstandings that prevent some people from choosing the most effective product, such as with sunscreens.

In the present climate, a mandatory market-wide generic label (for example “This product contains engineered nanoparticles”) would be automatically misinterpreted by consumers as meaning that it contains a hazard. Labelling products like sunscreens is a complex issue, as the importance of providing consumers with appropriate labelling information to guide their purchasing decisions is being subverted by the current potential for misinformation and misuse of any type of nano-labelling.

24

Appendix B – Notes from the preparation session and deliberative workshop

Preparation session

Expectations To learn more about Nanotechnology and be far more informed and able to make my own

decisions Understand what Nanotechnology is and what are the points of view for and against? To find out about Nanotechnology Practise team work skills Learn about Nanotechnology so can have a firm opinion Learning Become informed on when and where Nanotechnology affects my life Information More knowledge of Nanotechnology Understand Nanotechnology Hear a balanced divergent set of opinions about the topic Learn more about Nanotechnology Hear others’ ideas I want to know more about Nanotechnology A clear understanding of positive and negative points of the technology Learn Knowledge enlightens Topic is too broad to crystallise expectations Information on attitudes towards Nanotechnology To be more tolerant and see how the other half live Why did I come? Curiosity and desire to see how well this process works Am hoping to find out about medical research on subject A chance to contribute to public debate Like to contribute Make a difference to community choice and education More information Understand “Nanotechnology” Expectations-excited to be part of the process , curious about Nanotechnology How will process accommodate response when I (introvert) do my best thinking the day

after we are finished? To be informed by those who have studied the subject To be informed about Nanotechnology Opportunity to make informed opinion on Nanotechnology A balanced set of information on Nanotechnology and its role in improved Australian

manufacturing potential For information on subject Learn all about Nanotechnology Expectations to know exactly what is Nanotechnology?

25

Learn more about Nanotechnology Greater understanding of Nanotechnology To understand what Nanotechnology means, how it is used and the effect of it in our lives Nothing apart from $200. I would like to think the benefits or otherwise Nano particles will

be explained Could be interesting subject and speak to other people Are we to discover something new that will contribute to a better way of life? Better informed-hoped to be convinced this is a valid consultation. Looking forward to the

expert debate I expect to become informed, a little wiser, but I don’t understand or believe our group will

represent “Australians” opinion, therefore, is this all a waste of time – I expect so Expectations-with fun. It’s like jury duty. Once I am selected I’ll do what I should do to

represent citizen’s will. That’s what I’m doing to do.

Deliberative Workshop

Session: What is informed choice?

Informed choiceInformation

Accuracy

Trusted source

Available broadly

Choice—indiv. and group

Reg. labelling

Info on + and –

Info for range of audiences

Info on alternatives

Objective

Independent

Measurement

Balancing risks on personal level

Opposite of advertising

Choice vs regulation

Benefits

Informed choiceWhat is the definition of the ‘product’ and label capabilities

Provision of reliable and balanced information in understandable language to facilitate a considered decision

Information in plain language

26

Have definitions regulated/legislated (manufactured nano)

Facts

Full disclosure + and –

Regulations

Risks, alternatives, benefits

Accessibility and understandable

Manufacturing and distribution, process impacts as well not just product

Reliable and balanced info

Plain language

Don’t dumb it down, degrees of information for audiences

Accountability

Risks—know them (smoking, asbestos)

Alternatives

Length time to be informed—an issue

Risk analysis process to be public

Confidence needed

Access to info not to be provided by vested interests

Regulators pref non government

Conflicts in info

Risk and assessment—differing levels

What is consumers responsibility

Regulations—rely on it, they should do it for us, (more regulation not less, who protects us)

Assured of ‘truth’

Cost/benefit (all levels) = choice

Impact of $ in decision making

Significance of costs and benefits

Independent, well-informed body

World opinion

Aust in good position (isolated)

Cannot measure risks yet (cited Chernobyl, Agent Orange)

Avoid bias

Wheat from chaff

27

Trade offs (cited vitamin D/sunscreen)

Priorities

Inform

Quality of information

Informed choiceAccess to information based on motive of research

Deceptive labelling

Regulation for drugs

Regulation for nanotechnology

We expect to be protect by regulatory framework in our country

Non-government, independent regulatory body. refer to specialised.

eg fracking and government involvement/lack of

Research should be peer reviewed, independent, unbiased and not influenced by manufacturers profit motive

Research institutes should be able to have no money input from those with other interests such as manufacturer

On-going reporting of problems and review of safety

Labelling—cover risks of item eg avoid skin contact vs toxic on skin, paint—avoid room for 3 days vs ventilate well

Risk and benefit individually assessed

Genetic modification

Alarmist

Contact points with humans or environment—during manufacture, use or disposal

Precautionary principle

Alternatives—correct, unambiguous, accurate, even-handed

1. Information, accuracy

2. Avoiding bias

3. Wheat from the chaff

4. Knowing both sides of argument

5. Trade offs, priorities eg vitamin D

6. Simple explanation

7. Informed choice

8. Quality of information

Facts

Full disclosure—for, against

Define regulations

Risks/alternatives/benefits

28

1. Information—accuracy/qualify and verify, trust in information (source), availability to everyone

2. Choice—as an individual, as a society

3. Regulation of labelling

Fully informed:

1. On benefits and dangers

a. for the individual consumer

b. for others eg production workers and society members

c. effect on natural resources

2. On alternatives and having different costs and benefits

3. Information must be objective, independently gathered, capable of measurement and comparison

Choice which is made between alternatives based on information which is unambiguous, correct, accurate, even handed, current from trusted sources

29

Questions for expert informants

Food imported are covered with more pesticide and preservative for long er transport. When checked at imported stage do you check that NANO chemical spray?

Ms Belanger: explain ‘process’ how effective/objectives, ‘safe’ — what about ‘unsafe’? If unsafe, is any choice involved?

Why does/did the government reject nano-labelling?

Question for Michael: what protective clothing do you wear in your lab?

How are the scientist/lab assistants protected in the research when so much is unknown?

Dr Biercuk: while I am pro any new technology, I wonder how any definitive answers re. safety etc can be guaranteed while dealing with theories that are not as yet even maximal, relying on observation of reactions as in quantum mechanics

How would you exactly define the nano — how would you be able to see it? What is it exactly?

Is it really needed? eg food, body use

More information about the application of nanotechnology eg how it’s used, benefits, outcomes

What does technological determinism mean?

Dr Biercuk: basis of statement ‘many forms...’

How does nanosilver increase antibiotic resistance?

Is there or what is a difference between nano part’s that remain at the nano level or combined into solid products?

What use is the military making of nanotechnology?

Nanoparticles present a risk to us humans, when do those risks become dangerous? How does one define dangerous

Dr Michael Biercuk: Are you working/researching in the bottom up or top-down nanotechnologies. Do you see any differences in risks in either technology approach?

What is surface activity?

How does labelling a product as having nanoparticles warn consumers of the potential hazards if they don’t know what nanoparticles are?

What about all the stuff and preservatives and colouring in food etc 202 etc etc. No [terminology?] given in Aust what the codes mean so this could also be related to nanotechnology in [terminology?]

Why hasn’t FSANZ received any applications to approve nanoscale particles for food use? Given it is in products.

Is FSANZ looking at products that are already in the marketplace?

Standards for classification of nanomaterials?

Does the government have existing or planned resources to do routine tests on toxicity, penetration and chemical reactivity of molecules in the register.

30

With any new innovation comes risks vs rewards. Not all risks are known and usually buried in fine lines. Take the case of asbestos. How do we know what’s good today will not posed problems in the future.

Are there any international agreements/treaties regarding nanotech?

If there is not much specific regulation of nanomaterials what hope do you have that that will improve after this forum?

Do regulators have equivalent standards ie as applied by NATA — how are these standards calibrated

What is the International Standards Organisation and will it have enforceable powers?

In what broad categories do nanotechnologies currently exist? potentially exist? ie by product use, by source

Will we be hearing 10 years down the track of major problems caused by nanotechnologies? Are there enough safeguards.

Could we plse have brief history of nano discovery. When first found in useful products

Is a nanoparticle really the same as: ‘the size of a marble compared to the size of the Earth’? If so how can you see it?

GMO is coming in from US under US regulation. NANO could come in from US with US labelling? It could be looser?

Is anyone looking at better definitions of nanotech? ISO

After thalidomide, tobacco, asbestos, etc., how will the profit-makers from nano products be required to compensate, fully and effectively, the victims in future generations?

How ‘secure’ is the application of nanotechnology — meaning the possibility of this being obtained and applied by terrorist organisations that would undoubtedly cause havoc to the world

Government regulation on testing: multi-year projected delay on medical ‘breakthroughs’ when they’re a matter of life and death for patients (eg cancer) with a ‘death sentence’ Use live patients instead of mice?

Chris: ‘building methods to address risks’ — implies this is not complete!! How well developed/accessible to industry are these currently?

Is there a central place that adverse events are recorded (as similar to medications) caused by nanoparticles?

How are we monitoring potential dangers that are not yet obvious?

Is there a database of molecular structures and their known dangers eg structure of asbestos molecules

Cosmetics don’t even show all ingredients because it’s not internal use. What regulation can make them clear to label them include NANO?

Is the government interested and capable of creating and maintaining a register of molecular structures eg any nano product is required to register the molecule

What happens in the environment when we wash products off our skin

What are the products currently in Australia that are a potential health risk eg sunscreen. Please explain the risk with sunscreen and other products.

31

Question for Paul: do you wear sunscreen with nano products?

Are tests available or being developed to reliably perform tests on toxicity, chemical reactivity and penetration ability

How can you make sure it doesn’t cause allergy. People test only cancer causing with poor mice, but we are people.

5 years research on sunscreen use of nanotechnology — what kind of guarantee do we have that there will be similar research on other nanotechnology as it comes out?

Renata Musolino: Who has this great concern? labelled as in ??

Are there Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for nanoparticle substances?

With all these different approaches and assessments, why is there not ONE STATUTORY AUTHORITY given the task/duty to regulate, advise and communicate

Re inhalation: do we know yet (with any certainty) when the size and shape of nanoparticles can harm the lungs?

Have any foods containing nanomaterials been submitted for assessment by FSANZ?

If we KNOW diesel smoke causes cancer, why do we still sell it (and cars and trucks that use it)?

What level of current information is actually given to tradesmen etc on new and current risk information

Protection for workers in manufacturers premises eg Aust, overseas eg Bangladesh (worker health and safety

How can we, the public, get products labelled?

How can we be sure that the info given has been totally verified — both pros and cons

What is the difference between engineered and naturally occurring nanoparticles?

Do we have any idea of how the nanotechnology, at the end of its life, will effect the environment?

Are there any negative environmental impacts associated with the manufacture of nanoparticles or nano-related materials?

What is comparative energy use in the production and disposal of nanoparticles?

What risks are we talking about examples

Do you think engineered nanotechnology is safe?

Louise F of E question: where is the tradeoff with your campaign — is ‘precautionary’ position a fallback position — if you could have your way what would it be?

For Louise Sales: Exactly what evidence would meet your criterion of safe? I think taking such an adversarial turn at everything damages your credibility. Every scientific breakthrough in history has been greeted by ‘naysayers’, what differentiates your organisation from being just another ‘naysayer’? Do you think the whole technology should be abandoned?

What material are currently used in NANO form? mineral? chemical?

In case of overexposed into body, does NANO get in deeper?

32

Renata/Brian: What happens to companies/individuals who do not comply with the standards? Has anyone been charged?

33

Session: What does informed choice mean for nanotechnology?

Lack of agreement from key players

Lack of proactive information for community/public

Information general and area very broad

Lack of coordination between examining/testing bodies

Some organisations are looking for no risk

What are the risks and what level of risk is acceptable

(2)

Information available at ‘point of sale’

Regulation before manufacture

Independent certification of products

Statement of level of risk (brief)

Label ‘risky’ products where ‘particles are shed’

Compliance with regulations—regularity of inspections

(2b)

Safe disposal

Long term effects on environment

Communication/education strategy

Labels—on nano content

Label items—colour code of % nano product

Label ‘man made’ nano particles

(2c)

Public want to be kept up to date

Marketing symbol that indicates nano particles—direction to national database/further info about nano products

(2c)

Education from primary school age

Education about wide range of opinions

Sources of information—independent peer review

Fee to have recycling—nano product

Make recycling easier to ensure particles end up appropriately

Coded label system with supporting internet information—consumer affairs

34

Information about future applications/direction

Informative, specific labels based on research

No blanket labels—no point

Code of ethics for scientist/technology/production

Safety in workplace—how is process checked for products other than food/medicines

Is there an Australian standard for testing all products before they come into market

Environmental impact

Balanced viewpoint—negs + positives

Correct labelling—identified against a standard, regulated and calibrated

Accountability—honesty re risk/benefit (eg asbestos)

Access to all information—pitched at

Communication considers all levels of community—basic + in depth

Dangers of dumbing down

No information withheld

Risks + benefits to people + environment

Informed production—is risk analysis done prior to production

Clear communication of alternate choices + relative merits of alternates

Time to consider alternates

Consumers want this, we’ll produce and not worry about consequences

Choice, danger to production workers, disposal, trust in info, avoiding bias and prejudice, [...] to prove it’s safe

QuestionsIs there any research about impacts of nano? It’s been around since ‘70s.

Can’t allow companies to regulate themselves!

We want regulation, rely on regulation, to deliver what? Looked at by scientists, more regulation not less

Strict, stringent testing, safe for our use

Rely on integrity of regulators (can’t be bought)

Workers working in manufacturing the products

How can we force manufacturers to declare product has nano?

What nano does?

What is consumer responsibility?

Nano is medicine

All the facts and figures in front of you—on package, in advertising

Potential risks/benefits—environmental (cradle to cradle, impact, energy, cost?), health (production, personal)

Is it for the betterment of the human race?

35

We don’t want factory next door (insurance, compensation)

Precautionary legislation—independent, informed body

Query significance—now, smelling socks? (trade off) health benefit + medical treatment?

Allergies

Cost/price vs benefit—ability of population to pay for their preferred choice (organic, free range, certified)

The truth?

GMO product coming from USA, nano is coming in?

Composition of products

Types of material

Manufacturer/safety processes

Labelling

Context

Supply chain, risks, manufacture

Standardisation/consistency information presented

Honest

Endorsements

Real benefits

Conditions of manufacture

Longituity studies

Origins

Source

Facts

Relevance

Accurate

Understandable

Unbiased evidence

Accessibility

Degrees of risk

Manufacture vs consume

Knowledge, education levels

Availability of information

Rely on Choice magazine

The opposite of advertising

Understanding this in the wider context—wider education campaign in the media to raise awareness of both benefits and risks and ethical consideration

Relationship between ‘informed’ choice and how legislation is developed to regulate use beyond consumer products

36

Consider the +ve and –ve of both the outcome and the process used to make it

Labelling on products—easy to understand, ‘ingredients’ = level of risk in that product and how it’s communicated

Question 1: Reflecting on all you have heard and learnt so far, what is top of mind?

Deep distrust of nano in food—not mitigated by proposition of food labelling. Want labelling of substances—food and medicine and cosmetics and household stuff

Concern about safety for workers in industry

Resignation that it is here to stay, have to deal with it

Use in global context for good—haven’t heard about this

Q2. From what you have learnt, what info do you think cons. need in relation to nanotech in products?

Risk management: real risk—does it exist? Regulators

or blanket labelling of substance as nano particle

Education (plain English, at school level) about regulation (who is the regulator?) nanotechnology (from a trusted source, product end of life options [responsibility for recycling])

Expect govt. responsibility to generate public awareness of nanotech issues (warning), products as well as individual product information

We want to be overinformed—using all available channels for information

Environmental impact—cost of production, potential for reuse

More scientists

How to assess real or actual risk with nanotechnology?

How to check the integrity of any regulatory body

Even among our panel of ‘key informants’ there is little common ground

How to convey any risks or benefits to the general public, in particular in relation to any future labelling

Information we needCampaign/advertise—government funding, how to keep ethical

Product info—colour coded like allergy warning. Allergy increase every year!! Colour bond peels off when touched by sunscreen—who knows what happens later

Risks/safety—nano particle breaks, come back together (Terminator 2, metalman)

Users comment—PhD = small risk in person (says so) (do people believe highly educated people too much), baby, allergic person

Knowing level of risk, possible of benefit, balance

Communication/consumer education—in house, how to use, what not to do; media (unmotive, factual, not Today Tonight), strategy, school (environmental study), school holiday camp (free)

Label—where it comes from, name of maker (corporation), geographically, coding (nano structure)

Second use—open package, who uses them (later)

Good food, good topic, fun activity, YouTube, educative (just like today)

Inform (positive/negative)

37

Safe? No regulations (not enough), not confident

Research and test/monitor—independent body: hierarchy, responsibility ultimately with ministers advising the bodies: who forms the ‘independent’ body

Always risk—slow effect in 3 generations? nuclear plant in Fukushima?

Tested/regulated—no clear answer as a scientist, 100% certainty not possible

Recycle/garbage collection issue: Tennis racket broken—recycle? Landfill. Even TV set—ocean. Remember insulation scum. Australian tradesmen cheat!

Environment—sewerage came out from North Bondi, Australian water, food chain

Test on animals, fish, every living thing?

Toxicity depends on dose

Labels, strictly

Q1. Uncertainty—accuracy of information and effective regulation, universally accepted definition, independent research of current usage, future directions of the technology, including costs and benefits.

Whole of life eg from research through production to consumption and disposal.

Ethical component is essential.

Definition is currently based on funding.

Q2. Mass education program of the technologies nature, risks and benefits on micro and macro levels, and uses

Labelling to include nano particles present in product, contact details

Knowledge of carbon tubes being in a product

Location of additional expert information, subjected to independent peer review

Knowledge that risks are unknown, extent and nature of nano particles in the product

Government engineered nano particles register of every product to enable consumer research

Effective legal redress and compensation for misinformation, personal injury, negligence, including for succeeding generations

Designing with lifecycle—manufacture, use disposal (food chain, environment)

Need for information to make choice—too broad across nano

Long term effects

Specific and credible consumer information

Contact information

Traditional forms of labelling not a priority but building awareness is, through increased public discussion and media coverage

Use new mechanisms to provide info to consumers

QR codes

scanners

info sheets (like medicines)

Risks associated with nanotech have been ‘overhyped’

38

There are greater risks to workers in the manufacture process than to end users

There still appears a lack of agreement amongst experts in the field

Q2

Consumers advised of positives and negatives—presented in an easily understandable forms

Development of numbered label system so those who want to know can further research the ingredients of the product

Information about the range of research being undertaken and its outcomes, being undertaken worldwide

The range of products and contexts in which they are being used

Q2

Effective labelling to enable us to assess the risk

Information about:

health and safety risks (children, pregnant women etc)

risks associated with product in unintended form (broken etc)

safe disposal

[Education about] How the use of nanotech has improved the product [and] what are the alternatives to this tech

Q2

Labelling system to drive consumer to info on:

health risk

environmental risk

risks within the production chain

Supported by regulation

Wikipedia type info source

1st question

Conflict

Lack of trust/conflict between sources

Uncertainty and caution

Labelling required for thos products containing known risky nano particles

Advantages in medicine

2nd question

Risks and benefits

Accurate test results

Environmental factor

39

Reason for including in the product

Labelling ingredients in words not numbers

Spray packs, cans—risks in the use? (Are nanos released?)

Poison label

Educational program, TV, radio, leaflets so consumers are more fully informed eg ROHS program

Universal standards for labelling

2

Communication strategy, product life cycle (manufacture, use, disposal, misuse)

Information (segmented by product, concise, directions, quality)

Informed of benefits and disadvantages

Information of disposal of products or damage risk—how to know if products maintain integrity

Govt funded educational campaign

Known risk associated with a product with nano—who did assessment?

Coding labels on products for lookup nano ingredients—structure of nano

Provision of feedback mechanism—compliance process

Question 1—What stands out?

1. Labelling standards required

2. Look at the ‘big’ picture—rely on information provided to give a certain amount of power to the government/group ie the information received from the speakers at this focus group

3. Concern re the accuracy of info

4. Are we thinking of the future? eg we understand the effect of pollution and waste but what is the risk of nanotechnology

5. Lack of discussion on ethics

6. Consumer education required

Question 2—What info do you think consumers need?

1. Scientific info without the spin!

2. A booklet issued (similar to the food labelling system) with a related number to the type of nanotech

3. Confirmation that adequate research has been independently completed

4. Consumer to be made aware of nanotech in mechanical engines etc

5. An engineered nano ‘tick’ on products similar to Heart Foundation tick

6. Do not label a product simply because it contains nanotechnology (alternative view)

7. Info available at point of sale

Q1—What is top of mind for you?Australia’s lack of appropriate labelling

So complex, can’t see solution for adequate info dissemination

How to regulate something so inevitable and overwhelming

40

Science/technology has implemented nano before risks fully known

More info needed to be informed, incl nano ethics

This science has not established itself with a set of standards—still formative but surrounded by old scientific views

Food—do not want to eat genetically modified (nano) foo—not enough labelling

What is the purpose of nano in food, unclear

Labelled for health and safety, not consumer informed choice

Questions on trade off re risk/benefit—where to draw the line

Panel support regulation

Media tend to push negative

How do we make regulatory bodies accountable for their decision

No certainty in info provided—very divergent views

Q2—What info do you think consumers need re nanotech products?Media campaign to deliver info to public, some considered these useless

Media being government and industry based

Public need to know it’s ‘new’ science and many risks still unknown

Public need to know benefit—environmentally—overall

Public need to know ‘less effective’ alternatives

What areas of nano are potentially dangerous

Focal point (website eg, app) to get info on particular products and ask questions—QR codes

Symbol on product to denote ‘contains nano’

Booklet to public in general explaining (like food ad. no.) what particular nanos are (consumables)

Booklet (in pharmacies eg)—point of sale

Labelling

Certification (approved) by regulatory body

How to effectively dispose of products that break down and release particles

Safety of imported products

The word ‘nano’ being used as a selling point, becoming commonplace and accepted, without any understanding of what it is

Reflecting on all heard, what stands out?Unsure how to protect safety of workers in other countries

Enforce regulatory framework ie make that accurate safety sheet exist and that they are enforced

Reassured that there are already has some regulatory bodies that this will fit in their jurisdiction

Unsure that all imported nano products are being checked for nano particle

Complexity of situation

Labelling should include some reference to nanotechnology

What is safe disposal

Regulations should protect people—workers, consumers and environment

Want that non-industry funded research continues and is reported widely

41

Media has obligation to present non-sensationalist info

From what you have learned - what info consumers?Australian Standard

In pregnancy, there is a medication category system identifying what is safe and how much evidence we have to support safety or do we not know. A system like this would help to standardise and would allow for benefit of increased knowledge with time.

Any known risk of any ingredients not just nano should be reported

All information is helpful

Effective labelling that is coded with an Australian Standard and refers to particle size

Need to know if safety of product has been compromised by damage

In our group people lacked trust of sources provided

Workers are protected with information on how to stay safe, up to date safety sheets and enforced

Multiple regulatory bodies to look over these things and something is being done so consumers need to know this and where to get information if they need it. There are existing protections

Clean nontechnical information, relevant, precise

Education—nano does not mean bad or good. A campaign is needed

Pregnancy caution label if required if not safe (not just pregnancy)

Themes

Certification

Develop a profitable, self-sustaining nanotechnology testing industry like the CE/FCC that certifies safety of products to government standards before being marketed.

Symbol for product identification/number/symbol labels

We request all products have a symbol and number grading content label including the level of nano particles

Role/responsibility of government

• ensuring the safety in the manufacture of nano products so the consumer can make an informed decision

• Q scan codes attached to products so people can gain access to product knowledge on their phone immediately if desired

• government education and information on nanotechnology is absolutely essential

Regulatory body (umbrella)

• Feedback loop

• Independent govt legislated

• Role:

– set standards re engineered nanoparticles– approve products– labelling standards

42

• Umbrella organisation whose role is to set standards for product approval and labelling of engineered nano products, whether produced domestically or offshore

Labelling

• Grading system

• Universal stds

• How much info?

• All products? all nanomaterials?

• QR codes

Environment

• Where?

– recycle– landfill (gas)– water– air– sea

• Breakdown: powder, particles, emulsion, fibre

• Effect—chemical reaction

• Acid rain, allergy

• Regulate, register

• Buyback, recycle bin, Nano Watch organisation, danger good collection bin, chemical waste

Sanctions

• National compensation scheme for harm to consumers, funded by marketers and manufacturers, for any misinformation, regulatory breaches, faulty products

• More funding for the bodies who monitor and enforce safety and risk assessment and continuing surveillance of offenders

Nano ethics

• Ethics applicable beyond national borders

• Need to consider the impacts now and on future generations, ‘transgenerational’

• Establish a committee to consider the ethical dimensions of nanotech in Australia, its ethical implications globally and across future generations

• Develop a framework for considering ethical dimensions of nanotech informed by [...]

Safety

Action needs to be taken on the 3 main safety concerns:• Workplace

– personal safety equipment– exhaust fans– waste products handling

• Consumer

– correct product use– health protection and knowledge

43

– advice line for dealing with accidents/reactions/misuse• End of life

– environmentally friendly disposal– recycling

Alternatives

• Alternatives to the new technology which are still viable should be made readily available and informed about

• Public awareness to alternatives and options—where nano isn’t

• Nanotechnology exist

• Caution not to replace current practices of production with only nano options

• We want the public to be made aware of options and alternatives to nanotechnology

Imports

• Personal imports buying through internet (concern less rigour)

• Industry imports

• Country of origin

• Equitable quality standards framework—labelling quality

• Standards of production of country of origin

• Import standards (receiver)

• Government regulation

• International standards—already establish standards would they face Australian rigour

• generic branding

1 We request the Australian Government to investigate the regulation of nanotechnology products that are imported (currently or planned for) into Australia

2 We request that the Australian Government develop and implement a policy for a quality assurance process to be applied to all aspects of nano related technology

Product life cycle impacts

• EPR

• Research

• Design

• Manufacture: risk—environment, work conditions, byproducts. Impact of nanotechnology (or its byproducts) on environment and people

• Sale

• Use

• Disposal

• Impact assessment

• Assessments—nanotechnology byproducts

• Who—consumer, workers, environment (appropriate [...])

44

Education

• Online

• Research

• Product range

• Wiki—peer review, integrity, transparency, status of info

• We need the nano facts

• The government must accept responsibility for the full education in all aspects of nanotechnology and products, via all available media

• This information should be taught at school

• Education should include advantages and disadvantages of the technology and its applications

• This should include an information website of which the government should ensure the integrity

Warnings (issues for particular groups)

• We believe that warnings will have the best deterrent effect—it will stop ‘customers’ buying—manufacturers will be constrained from going to market.

• Economics will therefore determine the market (= zero sales)

• Warning on product that is likely to contain nanoparticles that could cause symptoms such as ... (dependent on product)

• Not to be swallowed, injected etc

• Who to refer to for advice—www, poisons centre, doctor

• Hazardous material—cannot be recycled etc

Risk

• Level of risk if known

• Health worker, health consumers, environment

• Clear, concrete, active, <20 words

• Health to consumer—recommend a coding system similar to the pharmaceutical risk of drugs in pregnancy classification to allow an informed choice

• Health of workers risk—Every nanoparticle has a Material Safety Data Sheet which is enforced

• Environment—An environmental assessment done on the risk to the environment through from manufacture to disposal, including a system of accountability

45

Dotmocracy sheets

We want an effective strategy for safe disposal of products which contain engineered nanoparticles ending up in recycle, landfill, water, air

Strong agreement

Agreement Neutral Disagreement Strong disagreement

Confusion

32 20 1 0 0 0

Strengths and opportunities:

Concerns and weaknesses:

Do we want them ending up in air/water/landfill? As above Must be done 100% disposal What happening the landfill then?? India, China

Environmental risk: An environmental assessment needs to be done on the risk to the environment through from manufacture to disposal and include a system of accountability

Strong agreement


Confusion

31 19 3 0 0 0



Disposal must be efficient and work to keep future gens protected Should apply to all prod/tech not only for nanotech

Assessment of risks and benefits of nanotechnology should occur at all stages of the life cycle of products: research, design, manufacture, sale, use and disposal

Strong agreement


Confusion

28 22 2 0 0 0



Accurate and accessible educational information to be provided by governmentStrong

agreementAgreement Neutral Disagreement Strong

disagreementConfusion

26 23 3 0 0 0


Special who doesn’t want to listen to teachers... Covering areas of health and safety, environmental impacts and risks for workers in

manufacture How can u disagree!


Government may not always be best source

46

By government how accurate? Government may not always be best source, regulating body may be better Industry too! Government maybe not best source Info to be provided not necessarily by govt Need more definition

Organisations are required to undertake a risk/benefit assessment to the people and environment at each stage of the product’s life cycle of nanotechnology and its by products. Product life cycle includes research, design, manufacture, sale, use and disposal

Strong agreement


Confusion

25 24 5 1 0 0


Process made public Makes companies think about what they are doing


Unsure organisations should be responsible for all these stages Quite impossible to do in long term

We request the Australian Government investigate the regulation of nanotechnology products that are currently imported or are planned for importation into the Australian market

Strong agreement


Confusion

26 22 5 0 1 0



This should be prevented if found true before reaching Australia Can’t rely on government only And domestically produced products

Universal standardised labelling systemStrong

agreementAgreement Neutral Disagreement Strong

disagreementConfusion

26 21 5 3 0 0



Never get agreement Who decides on the standards and how is it enforced? Too much risk of [?homogeneity] Do we have to label all products—unrealistic

47

All government decisions should be based on accredited scientific research and independent of any lobby groups or private interests

Strong agreement


Confusion

29 14 4 1 1 0


I wish this was how it was!


What is accredited scientific research? Great if it can be achieved away from private interest Need both sides of any argument Weight of current evidence Lobby groups will interfere always

We request that the Australian Government develop and implement policies for a quality assurance process to be applied to imported nanotechnology products and components

Strong agreement


Confusion

23 25 7 1 1 0



Complex due to large numbers of nano products/applications Should be covered by existing systems with proper/adequate support Could be difficult Should be done offshore Only imported? Use international standards Also domestically produced products

Develop a framework for considering the ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. This framework should be developed collaboratively by scientists, industry and the community

Strong agreement


Confusion

24 21 9 0 1 0



Don’t know what framework you mean Managed by a government body? What about the technology part? Possibility for catastrophe

48

Safety: Action is needed in these key areas for the use and safety of nano products: 1) Workplace—personal safety equipment, exhaust fans, waste products; 2) Consumer—correct product use, health protection and knowledge, advice line for accidents, misuse, reactions; 3) End of life—disposal and recycling

Strong agreement


Confusion

23 27 0 0 0 4


Let’s start from fluorescent light bulbs collections


Bit long Too long: should be more concise with action? Agree with this concern To be upgraded on a set time frame when decided upon What action?

Labelling using QR codes eg number, colour and reference codes. Reference codes at point of sale and internet

Strong agreement


Confusion

22 22 7 3 1 0


Easy to read—needs to be simple Added to clear labelling


Too complicated Not sure best system Too weak Will lead to confusion Need to refine the statement Not open labelling Loads of education needs to begin before coding would work Or use apps

Education: The government must accept responsibility for the full education in all aspects of nanotechnology and products

Strong agreement


Confusion

22 16 7 5 0 0


‘Full’ education? Ditto Industry/manufacturing responsible as well Full? And individual organisation

49


Education is important but level of detail may not be relevant to everyone Develop a strategy to ensure education This could include funding from manufacturer Education not only govt responsibility—maybe better sources ALL responsibility?

Regulatory body: Independent body whose role is to set standards for product approval and labelling of engineered nano products (imported or home grown)

Strong agreement


Confusion

21 16 4 2 1 0


Can utilise bodies already set up like TGA and equiv food bodies—[...] Could receive and give out feedback info for ongoing currency


Doesn’t say much Govt standard required Unsure what ‘standards’ would do in this context ‘Australian Standard Code’ Use existing regulator Government standard also required Safety? Surely we have these already! ? Standards Australia Variety of nano products—need more than one indep. body?

Risk in the workplace: Every nanoparticle has a Material Safety Data Sheet which is enforced

Strong agreement


Confusion

16 24 5 3 1 1



Concern over imports Include SWMS Untenable If necessary Any penlty for enforcing? Would have to be enforced (penalties) Only for NP/NMs that are demonstrably hazardous! Not all nanoparticles are dangerous The cost of everything will go up be passed onto consumer

50

Establish a committee to consider the ethical dimensions of nanotechnology in Australia, its implications globally and across future generations

Strong agreement


Confusion

15 22 14 2 2 0


Academic and industry Future generations is the point


Body corporate? No... What committee, where, when, how? What teeth would this committee have to enforce any findings? Will need action to follow

More guaranteed funding of the bodies who monitor and enforce safety and risk assessment regulations. Continuing surveillance of offenders

Strong agreement


Confusion

12 23 8 3 0 0


Key element in developing trust


Who does the surveillance? Not self-surveillance, can’t trust manufacturers Cost? Who will pay—industry/govt? This would come under WHS requirements

Develop a profitable self-sustaining nanotechnology testing industry like CE/FCC that certifies safety of product to government standards before being marketed

Strong agreement


Confusion

12 23 6 5 0 0



Does it need to be profitable Agree Agree Should be covered by existing cert body Profitable? Trust? Don’t trust manufacturers to self-regulate Self-funding

51

Risk to consumer: Recommend a coding system similar to the risk of pharmaceutical drugs in pregnancy classification to allow each person to make an informed choice

Strong agreement


Confusion

14 20 9 0 0 4



And children at risk too by leukaemia etc Not just pregnant women—everyone And ‘Do not use product (spray) in public area’

We request all products have a symbol and number grading content label to include the level of nanoparticles

Strong agreement


Confusion

8 29 11 4 0 1



Not specific about risk Not granular enough Not specific enough Statement could be more concise Not sure what you mean Linking it to a database Good when we understand what it all means Too vague Too untenable Not useful Meaningless unless consumers know what nanoparticles are and the risks they might pose Are all products to be labelled Need to be able to interpret symbol number

We want the public to be made aware of the options and alternatives to nanotechnology and time taken considering options before current practices of production are replaced

Strong agreement


Confusion

12 17 9 10 3 0


Aspect of community education


Improved awareness/education is enough Define current practices of production as nano is already in production Nanotechnology is useful as an advancement but not to replace the same

52

National compensation scheme for harm to consumers, funded by marketers and manufacturers, for any misinformation, regulatory breaches or faulty products

Strong agreement


Confusion

6 16 10 10 0 5



Not viable Manufacturers will NOT agree What if it’s overdue food or cosmetic, hard to prove

Warnings will have a strong deterrent (customers and manufacturers) warning on product that could cause symptoms of illness

Strong agreement


Confusion

8 12 11 11 2 7



Should be a warning that there is insufficient data in pregnancy Some products are so small warnings re hazards are not possible Rather confused expression They won’t put it on if it stops sales Not a clear request

53

i VTHC: Victorian Trades Hall Council, the peak union council in Victoriaii ACTU is the peak union council in Australia. iii NICNAS: the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessmentiv Safe Work Australia is independent statutory body; its primary function is to progress the model work health and safety laws in partnership with state and territory governments, employer associations and unions.

step project - archive.industry.gov.au · web viewbecause indium is a rare/expensive element,...

Documents