Nano-sunscreens - a double-edged sword in protecting consumers from harm: viewing Australian regulatory policies through the lenses of the European Union.

Nanotechnology has the potential to bring about revolutionary changes in manufacturing products, including sunscreens. However, a knowledge gap between benefits and detriments of engineered nano-materials used in sunscreens exists, which gives rise to safety concerns. This article is concerned with the protection of consumers without impairing the embellishment of this promising technology. It is widely argued that the harm associated with nano-sunscreens may only occur under certain conditions related mainly to users skin vulnerability, which can be avoided by informed and careful use of such a product. We thus recognize the need for fostering the growth of nanotech simultaneously with preventing potential harm. We revisit the Australian sunscreens regulatory policies, which embrace a "wait and see" approach, through the lens of regulatory policies in the European Union (EU) that are influenced by a "precautionary principle." We highlight the importance of informing consumers about the sunscreen they are using and recommend that product labels should disclose the presence of nano-ingredients in line with the EU disclosure requirements. This will allow users to carefully apply the product in order to avoid any potential harm and to protect manufacturers from possible costly litigation in future. This can be achieved through a combined collaborative effort of regulators, supply chain entities, and end users.

The Most Serious Offenses and Penalties Concerning Unsafe Foods under the Food Safety Laws in Bangladesh, India, and Australia: A Critical Analysis.

The right to food is an internationally recognized human rignt, which inherently denotes the right to safe food simply because unsafe foods cause different diseases resulting in consumer's disability, organ failure, or even early demise. Food safety currently may not be an issue of public concern in Australia, but it has been a "silent killer" for decades in both Bangladesh and India contributing to deaths of thousands and injuries of millions of others. Unscrupulous businesses have been making money at the cost of immense human casualties with almost complete impunity in Bangladesh. The situation in Bangladesh is so intractable that the government has been making laws one after another; but food traders remain undeterred, and consequently consumers continue to die from adulterated foods. This paper examines the loopholes in the definitions of the most serious offenses under three major pieces of legislation in Bangladesh, India, and Australia. It finds that all three statutes seem flawed to some extent, though they all may mutually benefit from one another in defining and clarifying the most serious food safety offenses and penalties with a view to strengthening their effectiveness.

Food Safety Offenses in New South Wales, Australia: A Critical Appreciation of Their Complexities.

Food is essentially a primary need of all life to remain alive. Faults or carelessness of human beings renders foods unsafe, which may cause disease and death. This article examines selected food safety offenses of New South Wales aimed at assessing their definitional clarity and penal rationality looking through the lens of an offender's culpability. It carries out a critical analysis based on archival materials and concludes that the present offense provisions hold significant merits to regulate food safety; however, further clarity of their inherent complexities could enhance their efficacy.

Civil Liabilities for Unsafe Foods in Bangladesh and Australia: A Comparative Perspective on Consumer Protection.

The statutory laws concerning food safety, which allow the consumers affected by unsafe foods to claim compensation for their loss or damage in Bangladesh, are flawed in several respects. These flaws are argued to have harmful impacts on consumer protection. The ineffective legislation in the absence of application of the common law principles of negligence has left the consumers virtually helpless in securing remedies for their injuries. This article endeavors to critically examine the ambiguities and shortcomings in the Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009 (Bangladesh) looking through the prisms of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 and relevant case law from major common law jurisdictions. It discovers a number of weaknesses in the legislation of Bangladesh and provides specific suggestions for strengthening the civil liability provisions from the perspective of consumer protection by preventing their contraventions and providing adequate compensation.