NanoImpactNet - building a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4-year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard-setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: • the potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; • the fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; • the associated risks of nanoparticle exposure; • greater participation in: the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; • the development of best practice guidelines; • voluntary schemes on responsibility; • databases of materials, research topics and themes, but also of expertise. These findings suggested that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Subsequently a workshop was organised by NIN focused on building a sustainable multi-stakeholder dialogue. Specific questions were asked to different stakeholder groups to encourage discussions and open communication. 1. What information do stakeholders need from researchers and why? The discussions about this question confirmed the needs identified in the targeted phone calls. 2. How to communicate information? While it was agreed that reporting should be enhanced, commercial confidentiality and economic competition were identified as major obstacles. It was recognised that expertise was needed in the areas of commercial law and economics for a wellinformed treatment of this communication issue. 3. Can engineered nanomaterials be used safely? The idea that nanomaterials are probably safe because some of them have been produced 'for a long time', was questioned, since many materials in common use have been proved to be unsafe. The question of safety is also about whether the public has confidence. New legislation like REACH could help with this issue. Hazards do not materialise if exposure can be avoided or at least significantly reduced. Thus, there is a need for information on what can be regarded as acceptable levels of exposure. Finally, it was noted that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe material but only boundaries. At this moment we do not know where these boundaries lie. The matter of labelling of products containing nanomaterials was raised, as in the public mind safety and labelling are connected. This may need to be addressed since the issue of nanomaterials in food, drink and food packaging may be the first safety issue to attract public and media attention, and this may have an impact on 'nanotechnology as a whole. 4. Do we need more or other regulation? Any decision making process should accommodate the changing level of uncertainty. To address the uncertainties, adaptations of frameworks such as REACH may be indicated for nanomaterials. Regulation is often needed even if voluntary measures are welcome because it mitigates the effects of competition between industries. Data cannot be collected on voluntary bases for example. NIN will continue with an active stakeholder dialogue to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.

NanoImpactNet - Stakeholders' knowledge needs for research on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4−year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard−setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; risks associated to nanoparticle exposure; participation in the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; development of best practice guidelines; voluntary schemes on responsibility; databases of materials, research topics and themes. Findings show that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Consequently NIN will encourage stakeholders to be active members. These survey findings will be used to improve NIN's communication tools to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.

Public Health and Health Care Task Force Report, August 2008

The Rebuild Iowa Public Health and Health Care Task Force respectfully submits its report to the Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission (RIAC) for its consideration of the impacts of the tornadoes, storms, and flooding on Iowans. As the RIAC fulfills its obligations to guide the recovery and reconstruction in Iowa, the impact on the health and well-being of Iowans should be of primary concern. With many areas of the state experiencing devastating damage to their communities, public health and health care are but one of the major challenges. There are critical immediate needs to address the health, safety, and well-being of affected Iowans. This report provides background information on the damages incurred in Iowa from the disasters and additional context for policy and rebuilding discussions. It also offers recommendations to the RIAC for steps that might be taken to address these significant and important challenges.

Supplemental Information to the August 2008 Public Health and Health Care Task Force Report, August 2008

The Rebuild Iowa Public Health and Health Care Task Force respectfully submits its report to the Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission (RIAC) for its consideration of the impacts of the tornadoes, storms, and flooding on Iowans. As the RIAC fulfills its obligations to guide the recovery and reconstruction in Iowa, the impact on the health and well-being of Iowans should be of primary concern. With many areas of the state experiencing devastating damage to their communities, public health and health care are but one of the major challenges. There are critical immediate needs to address the health, safety, and well-being of affected Iowans. This report provides background information on the damages incurred in Iowa from the disasters and additional context for policy and rebuilding discussions. It also offers recommendations to the RIAC for steps that might be taken to address these significant and important challenges.

Self reported physical activity, public health, and perceived environment: results from a comparative European study

The focus of physical activity promotion is moving from methods for increasing health enhancing physical activity on the individual level to higher level strategies including environmental and policy approaches. Scientific inquiry, traditionally related to individual-based strategies, requires adaptation and refinement when environmental and policy changes become more relevant. The objective of this study is to investigate the significance for behaviour and health of community-based environments that encourage physical activity. DESIGN AND SETTING The article presents data and results from a cross sectional comparative survey of the general population in six European countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany (East and West), Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland). Specifically, the relation between perceived community-based opportunities for physical activity, self reported physical activity, and self rated health status is investigated. PARTICIPANTS Representative samples of general populations (adults 18 years or older). Overall response rate: 53.5%. Sample sizes realised: Belgium: n=389; Finland: n=400; Germany (East): n = 913; Germany (West): n=489; Netherlands: n=366; Spain: n=380; Switzerland: n=406. MAIN RESULTS Analyses show that best opportunities are reported by people who are lightly to moderately physically active. People's self rated health is moderately, but significantly associated with both perceived opportunities, and physical activity itself. These predictors interact in that especially for women, the health impact of physical activity is more pronounced in case of good opportunities. CONCLUSIONS The paper shows the potential of opportunities within residential and community environments with regard to physical activity, both for behaviour and health. Opportunities may enable the population, especially women, to develop an active lifestyle, and thus improve their health. Future studies with objective indicators for physical activity related environments should test the findings that are based on perceptions.