The July 25, 2012 news article by Rachel Carbonell for ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) discusses the current situation in Australia,

The ABC’s revelations that some sunscreen brands are inaccurately promoting themselves as nanotechnology-free have prompted calls for better regulation of nano-materials.

But the push for a mandatory register has suffered a blow, with a Federal Government report labelling it questionable.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is among those calling for a register, saying the potential risks posed by nano-particles are still unknown.

…

The Federal Government recently released a study it commissioned to look at the feasibility of a mandatory nanotechnology product register.

The study concluded: “It is clear that some nano-materials behave differently to bulk-form materials and there are associated health, safety and environmental risks.”

“However the challenge presented by nanotechnology can be met through existing regulatory frameworks.

“It is therefore difficult to see a nano-products register delivering a net benefit to the community. The feasibility of a nano-product registry is questionable.”

But groups pushing for a register disagree.

…

The feasibility report points to the challenge of ensuring safety without stifling innovation, saying nanotechnology is potentially worth $50 billion a year to the Australian economy.

…

“But the fact that France is already implementing their mandatory register of nano-materials and the Netherlands is following closely, surely demonstrates that it must be possible.” [said Gregory Crocetti from Friends of the Earth]

The discussion presented in Carbonell’s piece is more involved than what I’ve excerpted for this posting so you may want to read her full article.

I  don’t believe I’ve come across that information about nanomaterial registries in France and Holland (Netherlands) before. I’ll see if I can find more about them to confirm their existence and exactly what is being documented.