California’s History of Environmental, Health, and Safety Policies for Nanotechnology

In the historical development of the nano-enterprise, scientists and lawmakers have considered the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Enthusiasm for nanotechnology has been tempered by environmental, health, and safety concerns. Finding the right balance is crucial. A premature and outright 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 manufacturer information request. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) cited two scientific studies in its rationale for choosing CNTs in its first nano-specific information call-in. One study described how the byproducts of manufacturing CNTs could be toxic, while the other stated 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 ignore CNT’s relationship to asbestos. Currently, no nation or state has regulatory systems in place to properly handle the unique properties of nanotechnology.