Database

The report includes data that could be used to assess the scale of employment practices liabilities resulting from the Age discrimination regulations. [Employment (Age) Regulations 2006.] Evidence from: DWP Press Release March 2006. “Publication of DWP research report 325: survey of employers’ policies, practices and preferences relating to age” Current practices are not always aligned with the new regime. the report estimates how often there is misalignment at present. Further detail: 6#3-4 22

If more people with disabilities are joining the workforce there may need to be revisions in systems of work. The data suggest the overal potential scale of issues arising. Evidence from: DWP Press Release Feb 2006. “Updated estimate of the numbers of disabled people including people with limiting long-standing illnesses, and their associated spending power” These numbers will be useful in estimating the effect of changes to Equal Rights legislation. If there are no changes to legislation or case law then experience rating should be an adequate guide to pricing. Further detail: 6#3-4 21

Standard N95 face mask dust filters were found not to perform well enough against particles < 100 nm effective diameter. Evidence from: A Balazy et al. Ann. Occup. Hyg. (2006)Vol. 50(3) p. 259–269 “Manikin-Based Performance Evaluation of N95 Filtering-Facepiece Respirators Challenged with Nanoparticles” N95 filters were tested for their ability to exclude nano particles (sodium chloride). Standard procedures require that penetration in excess of 5% be regarded as failure. Particle diameters ranged from10 to 300 nm diameters with a mode at 30 nm. At flow rates of 85 l/min there was significant penetration of nanoparticles. Penetration was reduced for the so-called high fit masks. There were no failures at 30 l/min. Penetration peaked at 40 to 50 nm. 30 l /min represents light work load, 85l/min represents heavy work load. Filters must pass the 85l/min condition. Comment The N95 filters tested here were, by current standards, not adequate. The question that is not answered

Certainty on the potential harm from nanotechnology is still some years away. There are no immediate plans to define new statutory duties but there are plans to produce good practice guidance; which could be influential in civil cases. The government is hoping that information provided by industry will help define regulatory and guidance needs. Information is to be provided on a voluntary basis. Evidence from: DEFRA March 2006 and August 2006. “Consultation on a proposed ‘Voluntary Reporting Scheme’ for engineered nanoscale materials” Clearly, if DEFRA are short of information, regulatory activity will be delayed. This give nano-research development and deployment work a period of grace in which to operate within existing rules. Our view is that these rules are not adequate. Further detail: 6#3-4 19

For information: There are several potential uses for nanotechnology in the food industry. Current regulation could be effective in controlling intentional usage. Evidence from: Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes ACNFP/76/3 Discussion Paper. March 2006. “Nanotechnology and Food” The only example of control of food additives relates to the specification for microcrystalline cellulose, where the presence of small particles (<5 microns) is limited because of uncertainties over their safety. New additives would be assessed by the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA). Further detail: 6#3-4 18

Inaccuracies in desktop risk assessment of Genetic Modifications could lead to excessive protection. Evidence from: A Silvanovich et al. Toxicological Science (2006) Vol.90(1) p 252 – 258 “The Value of Short Amino Acid Sequence Matches for Prediction of Protein Allergenicity” Further detail: 6#3-4 17