| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立清華大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 97 === Abstract
The application of nanotechnology brings “nano opportunities”, however, a few of scientists pointed out that such gold dream is no different with a mirage. Because in many scientific experiments, it is found out that nano materials could do damage to the human health and the environment. A nano product would experience two different life cycles through manufacturing phase and consumption phase. In light of the difference of the protected subject as well as the protection principles of the two phases, it is necessary to draw a clear line between them.
As a result of the humans’ dependence on the provided information to enhance their sense of control in facing the technological risks, one would require the present regulations to respond whether the information regarding risks should be provided or to which degree should such information be provided. Namely, the access to provide information is labeling. Therefore, this article focuses on the different labeling purposes of the two phases in order to build up the models of labeling system of them, and gives advice on the analysis whether the present labeling system is suitable for regulating nanotechnology risks according to the consequences of the nano material/ product applied under the present regulations.
And this article comes up to two conclusions, one is that in manufacturing phase the Administration should identify nano material as a hazard substance because the labeling purpose of the manufacturing phase is to prevent the risk, and because of the vulnerability of labors; the other is in consumption phase, the public is generally short of knowledge of nanotechnology, so in case the merchandiser chooses to give some information but to remain silent about other information, the silence part could mislead the consumers and the labeling as a whole still constitutes false labeling even if the labeled part is not misleading. So it is important to strengthen control of the regulations of nano false labeling. And in consideration of taking the compulsory nano labeling policy, specific attention must be paid to three dimensions: 1st. the credibility of the scientific evidence under precautionary principle, 2nd. the impact on the freedom of speech of a merchandiser, and 3rd. whether there exists other substitute for risk regulations in the consumption phase. Finally, it is the best strategy to seek common consensus through public consultation, in doing this, the negative consequences including nano industry to be on the decline and public fear the compulsory labeling system brings could be avoided.
|
|---|
