Tag Archives: legislation

Canada’s Bill C-494, Nanotechnology Safety in Canada: an update

Leave a reply

Peter Julian, MP Burnaby-New Westminster, has kindly sent an update about Bill C-494’s progress (the bill on nanotechnology safety that he introduced in Canada’s House of Commons in March 2010).

One comment, I’m not entirely certain how some of conclusions in this update were reached  but my concerns are nits rather than picks and more about those after you read Peter Julian’s update,

Progress continues on Bill C-494, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (nanotechnology), with growing support towards nanotechnology’s safe introduction in Canada, including from the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). Exciting developments in Europe towards consumer product labeling and increased precaution for nanomaterials, such as the Swiss recommendation for a precautionary 1-500nm approach to risk assessment, coupled with improved workplace safety measures in the United States, are key drivers for change.

Over 1,000 nano-enabled products have now been released into the global marketplace, from toothpaste to socks, computers to cars, aeronautics to cement, and health care.

Although most nanotechnology applications are believed to be safe, the number of nano-enabled products or nanomaterials in use in Canada is not known, as there still is no public inventory to either monitor nanotechnology or assure its safety for Canadians. Testimonies and evidence presented to the House of Commons Health Committee raise additional concern and alarm towards the government’s slow response to emerging risk science and precautionary regulatory actions now implemented in other countries.

The Government of Canada now acknowledges regulatory “limitations” towards nanomaterials safety, and promises “possible amendments” to government policies that may be placing nanotechnology and Canadians at increased risk. Canada’s expected economic and societal benefit from this “platform” technology, across the 21st century, includes the automotive, construction, defence, energy, foods, health, and textile sectors. The federal government also acknowledged the importance of having a public inventory as advocated in bill C-494.

Canada must keep pace with international measures towards nanotechnology safety.

I will continue to work towards safe nanotechnology in Canada, through Bill C-494 and by encouraging the Harper government to fix both policy and regulatory “limitations”.

As for the nits, that “Over 1,000 nano-enabled products … ” comment is a stab in the dark. No one really knows how many nano-enabled products are out there and this number sounds like it’s based on a database maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). The PEN database (the best known and most respected) is voluntary and not vetted, in other words, anybody can claim and register a nano-enabled product.

ETA Feb.2.11: I received an email from Peter’s office citing the source of the statistic. From the email,

“In collaboration with Environment Canada, in February 2009 Industry Canada collected data on the number of consumer products on the Canadian market that incorporated nanotechnology-based components or technologies. These were estimated at over 1600 products, with 68% being imported into Canada from more than 11 different countries.”

Thank you, I’d forgotten about this source. This data is from an OECD report than I commented on in an April 12, 2010 posting. Here are the comments I made at the time,

Over 1600 ‘nano’ products are being imported into Canada? They know this because, from the report, p. 31,

In collaboration with Environment Canada, in February 2009 Industry Canada collected data on the number of consumer products on the Canadian market that incorporated nanotechnology-based components or technologies.

This data collection seems a bit odd given that Environment Canada’s definition of nanomaterials that need to be reported specifically excludes nano titanium dioxide which is a very popular nano material. (I have more about definitions in section following in this post.) Plus, I wonder where else this information about the number of products with nanomaterials is available and how many Canadians know about it?

I think my comments about the data still stand and this business about where we get data and how we get and whether or not it’s valid points to the difficulties anybody, no matter how hard they try,  has discussing nanotechnology-enabled products in Canada and elsewhere.

The June 2010 hearing of the House of Commons Health Committee (mentioned in the paragraph after the ‘1000 products’) which ” … raise[d] additional concern and alarm towards the government’s slow response to emerging risk science and precautionary regulatory actions now implemented in other countries,” I’d like to know more about that concern and the hearing. I did send some email interview questions last summer to the hearing’s chair, Joyce Murray, MP Vancouver Quadra and, later, to one of the members, Cathy McLeod, MP Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, and have yet to hear back. After reading the June 10, 2010 evidence from the hearing, I did post my impressions and thoughts  on June 23, 2010.

I’m glad to hear that Peter Julian is persisting in his efforts and hope that this bill might open up a larger discussion (I know I’m being idealistic) on emerging technologies and sciences and how Canadians will be grappling with the implications as a society. In short,  I’d like to see some imagination, discussion, and engagement rather than a single-minded rush to legislation and hope that Julian’s bill will act as a catalyst to that end.

Thinking about Canada’s copyright act, property rights, and slowing innovation

Leave a reply

A new copyright bill is supposed to be introduced to Canada’s Parliament sometime this week according to both Michael Geist and the National Post. From Geist’s blog(May 19, 2010),

The National Post’s Don Martin reports that the copyright bill could be introduced next week with confirmation of the broad outlines of the bill I reported on earlier this month. Martin, who, describes the forthcoming bill as heavy-handed, reports:

All signals suggest Heritage Minister James Moore has triumphed over the objections of Industry Minister Tony Clement, setting up Canada to march in excessively protected lockstep with a United States that boasts the toughest laws against pirated music or movies on the planet.

In Geist’s latest post (May 25, 2010) on this issue,

The foundational principle behind C-61 was the primacy of digital locks. When a digital lock (often referred to as digital rights management or technological protection measure) is used – to control copying, access or stifle competition – the lock supersedes virtually all other rights. The fight over the issue has pitted the tech-savvy Industry Minister Tony Clement, who has reportedly argued for a flexible implementation, against Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, who has adopted what many view as an out-of-touch approach that would bring back the digital lock provisions virtually unchanged.

Moore has declined to comment on his position, but his approach raises some difficult questions …

I have posted elsewhere about the impact that intellectual property law (which includes copyright, patents, and trademarks) can have on the practice of science/innovation, i.e. crippling it, and on how the number of patents received are used as a measure of scientific progress. It’s interesting that a measure for progress can also function as an impediment to it.

In contrast to the usual discussion about copyright, Mike Masnick (Techdirt) has written an article (May 24, 2010) that highlights the notion of fairness-based legal liability. From the article,

His [Marshall van Alstyne] most recent paper, co-authored with Gavin Clarkson, explores both how strict intellectual property rights lead to socially inefficient outcomes, and how “fairness” principles could be much more efficient. The paper uses a combination of real world examples, previous research and game theory to make a rather compelling case.

Basically, it explains all the reasons why intellectual property leads to hoarding of information that slows innovation:

Property rights provide incentives to create information but they also provide incentives to hoard it prior to the award of protection. All-or-nothing rights, in particular, limit prior sharing. An unintended consequence is to slow, not has- ten, forward progress when innovation hinges on combining disparately owned private ideas.

Apply this thinking (“… they [property rights] also provide incentives to hoard it prior to the award of protection”) to nanotechnology and the other emerging technologies all of which are highly dependent on interdisciplinary cooperation and you can see what starts happening. Then add some of the current copyright craziness (a YouTube clip of This hour has 22 minutes),

As the video makes clear, once ownership has been awarded, i.e. you have a copyright, there are the issues of control for the purposes of your business model.

It would seem that if the ‘new’ bill resembles the old bill, Canadians will be faced with the possibility of less innovation via this new law despite the feedback the government received during last summer’s public consultations and at a time when it’s been recognized that there is too little innovation in Canada.

New US nanotechnology legislation for health and safety proposed; SAFENANO reviews 2009

Leave a reply

After finding this announcement on Azonano (or you can find it on Senator Pryor’s site here),

U.S. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) today introduced legislation to address potential health and safety risks about products that contain nanotechnology materials.

…

The Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 would establish a program within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the health and safety implications of nanotechnology in everyday products and develop best practices for companies who employ nanotechnology. The legislation authorizes $25 million each year from 2011 through 2015.

I went looking for a comment or news release about it on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website and was surprised to find nothing. In fact, I couldn’t find any commentary anwyhere in my very brief search this morning.

Meanwhile, SAFENANO (an initiative of the UK’s Institute of Occupational Medicine) has produced a review of  nanotechnology environment, health, and safety developments for 2009. They cover both developments in Europe and elsewhere. From the review,

In January, the International Standards Organisation ISO published a technical report ISO/TR 12885:2008 ” Health and safety practices in occupational settings relevant to nanotechnologies “. The report provides a general background the nanoparticle risk issues and describes in some detail current practices for risk assessment, exposure measurement and control which are appropriate for use with engineered nanoparticles. This report takes an encyclopaedic view but stops short of recommending which practices are appropriate for which materials under which circumstances, leading to disappointment for some users. This report is commercially available from ISO.
This was closely followed by a report from Canada published by Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), in collaboration with CSST and  NanoQuébec The document ” Best Practices Guide to Synthetic Nanoparticle Risk Management, Report R599 “, covered much of the same ground as the ISO document but in less detail. This document also introduced the idea of using a “control banding” approach based on that described by Paik and recommends that this approach is used where there is insufficient information for a quantitative risk assessment.

It is a very interesting and useful review which you can read here.