Maybe. This bit of news was first reported (near as I can tell) on the Canadian Press news wire and on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) website on January 28 and, after much hunting, I determined that the Canadian Press article was written by John Cotter. Earlier (Jan.12.09), I posted about a story of his here where I analyzed what seemed to be a flurry of interest in a failure by the Canadian government to respond to a nanotechnology report. This latest story would seem to be related.
Here’s the story lede from this article which is the only one I could find which included Cotter’s byline,
Canada is poised to become the first government in the world to require companies to provide information about their use of potentially harmful nanomaterials in their products.
The other articles open with similar ledes. here (Google News) and here (CBC News). The lede differs somewhat here (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies [PEN]); the writer is more nuanced in their approach.
Other than John Cotter’s authorship of the ‘source’ article this time and last, there are another couple of interesting points. The announcement is being made by PEN (located in Washington, DC) and not by any Canadian government agency. Although Environment Canada officials did not comment directly on the PEN announcement, they did say that there is a plan to send out a notice requiring companies and institutions that used more than 1 kilogram of nanomaterial in 2008 to provide information that may include: how the nanomaterials are managed, data on chemical and physical properties, and any other information that could be helpful.
It sounds a little vague and there’s no indication that this is anything more than a once only request. Plus, I’m wondering how the officials are going to define the terms. Is one company’s quantum dot another company’s nanoparticle?
That earlier article by John Cotter citing a nanotechnology report for the Canadian government? One of its authors, Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor for PEN and Dr. Pekka Sinervo, another of the authors, are the only two experts listed in this latest article.
The whole thing smacks of a campaign (public relations, communications, or whatever else you want to call it). In principle, I think it’s useful to have a registry of products using nanomaterials (unfortunately this whole project seems a bit tenuous). I also find it interesting to note how various agencies and special interest groups get their points across in the media. One final thing, the announcement on PEN’s website points to reports about how the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Administration should be applying oversight to nanotechnology use in the US.
Hi, more information on the Canada nanotech story can be found at the links below:
http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2009/01/canadas-nano-climate-getting-colder.html
http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2009/02/canadas-nano-climate-getting-colder.html
http://smalltimes.com/blogs/stm/displayBlog.cfm?blogTitle=New%20nano%20rules%20may%20leave%20Canada%20out%20in%20the%20cold
Pingback: FrogHeart » Blog Archive » More about Canada’s nano information-gathering exercise
Pingback: Nanocosmetics, interactive maps, Norway’s nanomaterials reporting initiative, and a little dash of poetry « FrogHeart
Pingback: Science communication in Canada (part 4b); NanoArt 2009; future nanoelectronics « FrogHeart
Pingback: Peter Julian’s interview about proposing Canada’s first nanotechnology legislation (part 2 of 3); more on the UK Nanotechnologies Strategy; Dylan Thomas, neuroscience and an open reading « FrogHeart