Avoiding the Next Asbestos; California's Emerging Regulation for Carbon Nanotubes

In the fascinating world of nanotechnology, scientists and lawmakers debate the benefits and risks of regulating nanotechnology due to environmental, health, and safety concerns. A premature moratorium of all nanotechnology could destroy this new industry’s potential for economic prosperity. However, an unregulated industry could severely threaten workers, consumers, and the environment.  In January 2009, the state of California sent a mandatory safety information request to carbon nanotube (CNT) manufacturers in anticipation of setting state-wide regulatory guidelines. My research uses historical analysis of recent scientific studies, government documentation, and public discourse to outline how California initiated this proactive stance and to answer why California selected CNTs instead of other nanoparticles in its first nano-specific data call-in.

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) cites two scientific studies in its rationale for choosing CNTs in its first nano-specific call-in. One study describes how the byproducts of manufacturing CNTs could be toxic, while the other states how the fate of CNTs may threaten California’s drinking water.  However, most toxicological studies of CNTs emphasize its strong affinities to asbestos, which CalEPA avoided citing.  Because public perceptions could drastically derail future research and economic development of nanotechnology in California, I argue that fears of potential public backlash likely led CalEPA to omit CNT’s relationship to asbestos.  Currently, no nation or state has regulatory systems in place to properly handle the unique properties of nanotechnology. My research provides potentially valuable knowledge to policy makers and scientists on the rationales behind California’s pioneering nanoregulation efforts.